Posted on Jul 31, 2015
"New Study Suggests Marine COs May Not Be Up to Grade"
15.5K
31
16
2
2
0
From: The Fiscal Times
When the United States ended the draft in 1973 and gradually shifted to an all-volunteer military, the great imponderable was whether this dramatic turnabout in the selection process would have a positive or negative impact on the overall quality of the military.
Although some observers predicted a steady slide in the aptitude and ability of the new generation of military service men and women, there was no way to gauge what it would mean when the military no longer could automatically draw from a large pool of young people with a broad range of education and socio-economic status.
Now we are getting some answers.
A new study published late last week by the Brookings Institution of military testing going back to the late 1970s found that – after a brief dip -- the quality of the military force as a whole increased over time – and rather significantly.
In 1977, just 27.1 percent of new enlisted recruits met the military’s standard for being “high quality,” or possessed of a high school diploma and above-average intelligence relative to the U.S. population as a whole. Decades later, at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan warfare, 60 percent of new enlisted recruits met the high quality standards.
Troubling, however, is that the same can’t be said about military officers – or at least those in the Marine Corps who were targeted for the research. An analysis of the test scores of 46,000 officers who took the Marine Corps’ required General Classification Test (GCT) found a “steady and significant” decline over the past 34 years.
The GCT dates back to World War II, when it was developed to help classify incoming servicemen. Designed to have a mean score of 100, with a standard deviation of 20, the Marines used 120 as the bar for entry into Marine Officer Candidate School (OCS).
According to the new findings, 85 percent of those taking the test in 1980 exceeded a score of 120, which was the cut-off score for officers in World War II. However, in 2014, only 59 percent exceeded that score, according to the Brookings study. In short, over 34 years, the average score decreased by 6.6 percent, from 130.9 to 122.1.
The provocative research was conducted by Michael Klein, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Boston, and Matthew Cancian, a graduate student at Fletcher and a former Marine who served in Afghanistan.
It is always dangerous to put too much stock in aptitude and intelligence tests in assessing the quality of military officers. The Marines, of course, have a long, proud history of military service, and many of their officers have displayed enormous courage and resourcefulness in leading their troops into battle.
Moreover, President Obama recently tapped Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford to become the next chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in government. Still, Klein and Cancian say their new findings are significant, and raise the concern about whether “today’s less qualified officer candidates will be tomorrow’s senior military leaders.”
“What has been the impact of this drop in quality on the effectiveness of the military?” they wrote. “Answering this question is beyond the scope of this paper. Given the myriad studies associating performance with intellect, however, it is hard to imagine anything other than a seriously deleterious impact on the quality of officers and, by extension, on the quality and efficacy of the military.”
So what explains the disparity in the test score trends between rank-and-file military recruits and the supposed cream of the crop who are being recruited and groomed to become commissioned officers?
According to Klein and Cancian, the answer may be counter-intuitive: Only college graduates are considered by the Marines to become commissioned officers. But with so many more people going to college these days and getting four-year degrees, the overall quality of the college graduates may be in decline, they say.
The authors note that the decrease of GCT scores over time correlates to an increase in the college participation rate during that same period. “College participation rate has increased and there’s the requirement you have to have a college degree to become an officer,” Klein said in an interview Monday. “So the pool has been expanded in a way where sort of less qualified people are in the pool.”
“We looked at other things too,” Klein explained. “Some people thought it might be because of the expansion of affirmative action. We actually find that years in which there are more incoming women or African-American officers, the average in those years, everything else being constant, is higher. And as for Hispanic officers, whatever contribution that makes to the lowering of scores is really minimal.”
“It really seems to be the college participation rate effect,” he concluded. “What happens is the pool of potential officer candidates is now larger but less strong.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/28/New-Study-Suggests-Marine-COs-May-Not-Be-Grade
When the United States ended the draft in 1973 and gradually shifted to an all-volunteer military, the great imponderable was whether this dramatic turnabout in the selection process would have a positive or negative impact on the overall quality of the military.
Although some observers predicted a steady slide in the aptitude and ability of the new generation of military service men and women, there was no way to gauge what it would mean when the military no longer could automatically draw from a large pool of young people with a broad range of education and socio-economic status.
Now we are getting some answers.
A new study published late last week by the Brookings Institution of military testing going back to the late 1970s found that – after a brief dip -- the quality of the military force as a whole increased over time – and rather significantly.
In 1977, just 27.1 percent of new enlisted recruits met the military’s standard for being “high quality,” or possessed of a high school diploma and above-average intelligence relative to the U.S. population as a whole. Decades later, at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan warfare, 60 percent of new enlisted recruits met the high quality standards.
Troubling, however, is that the same can’t be said about military officers – or at least those in the Marine Corps who were targeted for the research. An analysis of the test scores of 46,000 officers who took the Marine Corps’ required General Classification Test (GCT) found a “steady and significant” decline over the past 34 years.
The GCT dates back to World War II, when it was developed to help classify incoming servicemen. Designed to have a mean score of 100, with a standard deviation of 20, the Marines used 120 as the bar for entry into Marine Officer Candidate School (OCS).
According to the new findings, 85 percent of those taking the test in 1980 exceeded a score of 120, which was the cut-off score for officers in World War II. However, in 2014, only 59 percent exceeded that score, according to the Brookings study. In short, over 34 years, the average score decreased by 6.6 percent, from 130.9 to 122.1.
The provocative research was conducted by Michael Klein, a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Boston, and Matthew Cancian, a graduate student at Fletcher and a former Marine who served in Afghanistan.
It is always dangerous to put too much stock in aptitude and intelligence tests in assessing the quality of military officers. The Marines, of course, have a long, proud history of military service, and many of their officers have displayed enormous courage and resourcefulness in leading their troops into battle.
Moreover, President Obama recently tapped Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford to become the next chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in government. Still, Klein and Cancian say their new findings are significant, and raise the concern about whether “today’s less qualified officer candidates will be tomorrow’s senior military leaders.”
“What has been the impact of this drop in quality on the effectiveness of the military?” they wrote. “Answering this question is beyond the scope of this paper. Given the myriad studies associating performance with intellect, however, it is hard to imagine anything other than a seriously deleterious impact on the quality of officers and, by extension, on the quality and efficacy of the military.”
So what explains the disparity in the test score trends between rank-and-file military recruits and the supposed cream of the crop who are being recruited and groomed to become commissioned officers?
According to Klein and Cancian, the answer may be counter-intuitive: Only college graduates are considered by the Marines to become commissioned officers. But with so many more people going to college these days and getting four-year degrees, the overall quality of the college graduates may be in decline, they say.
The authors note that the decrease of GCT scores over time correlates to an increase in the college participation rate during that same period. “College participation rate has increased and there’s the requirement you have to have a college degree to become an officer,” Klein said in an interview Monday. “So the pool has been expanded in a way where sort of less qualified people are in the pool.”
“We looked at other things too,” Klein explained. “Some people thought it might be because of the expansion of affirmative action. We actually find that years in which there are more incoming women or African-American officers, the average in those years, everything else being constant, is higher. And as for Hispanic officers, whatever contribution that makes to the lowering of scores is really minimal.”
“It really seems to be the college participation rate effect,” he concluded. “What happens is the pool of potential officer candidates is now larger but less strong.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/28/New-Study-Suggests-Marine-COs-May-Not-Be-Grade
Posted in these groups: 
Marine Corps
Standards
Marine Corps Standards
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
6
6
0
"It is always dangerous to put too much stock in aptitude and intelligence tests in assessing the quality of military officers" .....But our entire headline and conclusion violates this common sense statement.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
I am more concerned with the "quality spread" that we lose out on by not having at least a partial draft. If the Marine Corps and other branches of the service mostly get people of certain background or mindset, we are losing out on other qualities that have mattered during wartime, such as diverse opinion and a different way of problem solving or looking at the world. For instance the UK Bletchley Park Code breakers who cracked Enigma ,the German Code Machine, could not have come from a more diverse background and were not the yes sir, no sir type. We are having trouble recruiting cyber warfare computer types both for the US Military and the FBI, in large part I think because they view the US Peacetime Military (as well as the FBI) as antithetical to their world views and hostile to a liberal mind set that most of the hacking community comes from. If the US Military is chiefly composed of people who have a conservative viewpoint (which I mostly do) and is hostile in its acceptance of persons who do not share such a world view, we are missing out in attracting a broad spectrum of American Society, maybe even the most creative types who are often the best innovators, such as the Steve Jobs in the American Workforce. There have been some serious attempts to quantify this loss or failure by the US military to attract officers and enlisted from a broad spectrum of American Society. It is disheartening to me the son of two liberal parents, that my parents (mother and step-father) took such a dim view of decision to volunteer for the Marine Corps at 18. I think this is widespread phenomena with other Liberals and Liberal Parents that the idea of volunteering for the US Military is not seen as a Noble or Honorable way to serve the community or the Nation, but as some kind of misguided mistake that might cost you your health or life in an unjustifiable war like Iraq (that almost all of the politicians who voted for the Iraq use of force resolution, now concede was a mistake to give the President the authority to take the country to war in 2004).). Just my two cents.
(5)
(0)
Sgt Nick Marshall
I couldn't agree more, as the son of Liberal immigrants, from the UK, I was in the minority and my view of the world was (and still is) often seen as un-American.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
RallyPoint Shared Content, This is a worthwhile professional topic. Good Choice. Openings for professional discussion of modern military aptitude, performance and effectiveness measures and assessment tools.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Officers in general are too political theses days. The sad part is the system expects it. I'm fed up with the PC nonsense
(2)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
This is why I have mentioned on prior posts....that within the divide between Officers and Enlisted, there sometimes exists a little tension, where IF the "Boot LT" is somehow acting in some manner of fashion where he/she is expecting the red carpet to be rolled out for him/her, that (during certain year ranges) the E3-E4s are going to feel like Hey don't snub us, we didn't hide in college from war while you went and grabbed your degree (which depending on the institution likely also fed you a mouthful of their own politics/rhetoric/BS).
Certainly I'm not saying this is ALL Brass, or even most, but there are always those few.
Certainly I'm not saying this is ALL Brass, or even most, but there are always those few.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Interesting. But it doesn't address "weeding out." If you only take the GCT at point of entrance, and not after the initial obligated service, you don't know how the scores even out over time. Aptitude changes with time.
As an example, were I to take the SAT now, it wouldn't be the same as when I took it at 16 (It wasn't the same at 22). When you account for those who just left service, you will likely see increased average scores as those with lower aptitude just depart.
As an example, were I to take the SAT now, it wouldn't be the same as when I took it at 16 (It wasn't the same at 22). When you account for those who just left service, you will likely see increased average scores as those with lower aptitude just depart.
(2)
(0)
CDR Terry Boles
Excellent points Sgt Kennedy. Ones aptitude changes in life as a general rule and for the positive as time passes.
Our officers today are highly intelligent, more savvy and become great leaders. Many examples in our modern military.
A more interesting study would involve those career officers field grade and above, comparing their results when they entered military service.
I can honestly say when I was a Navy recruiter, the Marines had the highest enlistment standards at the time. We all know one can slant a study to depict the outcomes of choice, any researcher worth their salt know this and try to make their studies non prejudicial for peer review.
Our officers today are highly intelligent, more savvy and become great leaders. Many examples in our modern military.
A more interesting study would involve those career officers field grade and above, comparing their results when they entered military service.
I can honestly say when I was a Navy recruiter, the Marines had the highest enlistment standards at the time. We all know one can slant a study to depict the outcomes of choice, any researcher worth their salt know this and try to make their studies non prejudicial for peer review.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Zero defect mentality and political correctness have driven our best and brightest away from positions of leadership in the military.
Case in point: General Ham took initiative to put together a response that COULD have arrived in time to save our Ambassador in Benghazi. His reward for disobeying orders to stand down and giving orders to launch a rescue team: He was removed from command. Who gave the order to stand down? Has anyone owned up to it yet? An Ambassador and former Navy SEAL contractors are dead because of the incompetence of our State Department. And nobody in the State Department has been held accountable. Years later, they are still sanitizing emails and tampering with evidence.
It grieves me that today's military has been turned into a social experiment that is forced to operate under constraints put on them by the inept leaders we the people of America elected to oversee them.
Case in point: General Ham took initiative to put together a response that COULD have arrived in time to save our Ambassador in Benghazi. His reward for disobeying orders to stand down and giving orders to launch a rescue team: He was removed from command. Who gave the order to stand down? Has anyone owned up to it yet? An Ambassador and former Navy SEAL contractors are dead because of the incompetence of our State Department. And nobody in the State Department has been held accountable. Years later, they are still sanitizing emails and tampering with evidence.
It grieves me that today's military has been turned into a social experiment that is forced to operate under constraints put on them by the inept leaders we the people of America elected to oversee them.
(1)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
But Jeff, I think I might disagree with you in that I think a partial solution to the zero defect mentality might be a partial draft that gives the US Military access to people who would never have served in Uniform under the All volunteer model. When the US Military is "all volunteer" the politicians can largely get away with doing whatever they want with the US Military in the way of deployments as well as social experimentation because, heck Son, nobody twisted your arm or forced you to join the US Military. You do so at your own risk.
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
I don't know what the all volunteer model has to do with Zero Defect Mentality. I don't get your connection at all with social experimentation and what politicians can get away with because we have an all volunteer force. You lost me.
As I see it, ZDM stems from fear of getting your career ruined by other people, so instead of leaders trusting subordinates to do their jobs, they micromanage and/or attempt to do everything their self instead of delegating tasks to subordinates and holding them accountable (which is what good leaders do). ZDM paralyzes leaders from making command decisions: What if a leader makes the wrong decision? Will it end their career?
ZDM was getting pretty bad before I got out, and I don't miss the micromanagers one bit or the worry that one mistake could be a career ender.
I served quite a bit with Navy officers and I'll never forget one of them deciding to not decide what to do about a nagging problem he had, and that was his command decision!!! Rather than confront the issue at hand, he left it for the next guy and this way he didn't make waves... When I questioned why he didn't decide to deal with it, he told me, "I made a decision. I decided to not decide. THAT is my decision!" I kid you not, those were his exact words!!! @@
I once worked for an XO who kept rewriting an MTF message he asked me to put out. He kept making it shorter and shorter abbreviating words and then changing his mind and thinking I abbreviated something, he would unabbreviate it. I think the record was like 10 days for me to get a message out that he asked me to do because he kept changing happy to glad and back again. That was insane! How much trouble is it to send a message that contains 80 more characters from a ship?!! We weren't that starved for bandwidth. I mean seriously... Woops! I mn srsly!
As I see it, ZDM stems from fear of getting your career ruined by other people, so instead of leaders trusting subordinates to do their jobs, they micromanage and/or attempt to do everything their self instead of delegating tasks to subordinates and holding them accountable (which is what good leaders do). ZDM paralyzes leaders from making command decisions: What if a leader makes the wrong decision? Will it end their career?
ZDM was getting pretty bad before I got out, and I don't miss the micromanagers one bit or the worry that one mistake could be a career ender.
I served quite a bit with Navy officers and I'll never forget one of them deciding to not decide what to do about a nagging problem he had, and that was his command decision!!! Rather than confront the issue at hand, he left it for the next guy and this way he didn't make waves... When I questioned why he didn't decide to deal with it, he told me, "I made a decision. I decided to not decide. THAT is my decision!" I kid you not, those were his exact words!!! @@
I once worked for an XO who kept rewriting an MTF message he asked me to put out. He kept making it shorter and shorter abbreviating words and then changing his mind and thinking I abbreviated something, he would unabbreviate it. I think the record was like 10 days for me to get a message out that he asked me to do because he kept changing happy to glad and back again. That was insane! How much trouble is it to send a message that contains 80 more characters from a ship?!! We weren't that starved for bandwidth. I mean seriously... Woops! I mn srsly!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Most officers are good leaders but a lot of others are incompetent fools with rank who hide behind their rank. Like anything else when it comes to bosses, got to take the good with the bad.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
All these so called "studies" done by people who never served but just know or worked with someones whose half sister/cousin twice removed was in the military...in my short experience theres alot of shitbag officers aswell as shitbag enlisted junior and nco alike....but theres also decent and excellent officers/enlisted aswell. Life is how you make it no matter where you go civilian or mil there will always be "that guy (s)......
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sgt David G Duchesneau
Yes, but who are they? What makes them experts? Remember, an X is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google