Rankism. Is there such a thing in the military?

I think the Army has noticed that. But it does work both ways. It goes hand and hand with a sense of elitism in the officer ranks.

I'm not understanding you in what you said "it goes hand and hand with a sense of elitism in the officer ranks"?

TSgt Pearson, I do have to call you on the comment that 2LTs are just like Privates other than college education. I can't speak for the Air Force, or even every other Army Branch, but as an Infantry 2LT, I was far better trained and experienced in my craft than any Private and many multi-year Specialists in my Platoon.

Commissioning sources provide military instruction over 2-4 years of college (and I'll admit that your mileage may vary by institution) before you graduate from college. There are opportunities to compete for summer programs of military instruction (if that is your thing) as well (I was Air Assault and Airborne qualified and had multiple Infantry-based field training leadership opportunities as a Cadet before I ever showed up to the Basic Course).

Once I graduated and arrived at Fort Benning, I spent a very intense six month course of instruction to prepare me not only tactically but technically to be a Platoon Leader and plan and lead an Infantry Platoon. I then attended the Bradley Leader Course to learn how to operate in and around Bradley Fighting Vehicles (since I was going to a Mechanized unit). I got an opportunity to go to Ranger School while I was there as well. Some of my peers went to the Mortar Course and other courses that were at Benning. All in all, I spent 10 months in training before I showed up at my Platoon, after I finished a 4 year program of instruction in college.

The average Private in my Platoon graduated High School, went to 15 weeks of Basic Training, and a 2-3 extra weeks of the 11M (Bradley) course. Their field experience consisted of a one week FTX with little to know advanced skill training or practice.

A brand new 2LT is like a brand new Private in actual experience in the job only. From a training and education standpoint (which is quite valuable) there is a huge difference.

Mileage may vary in the Air Force, but I recently worked with Air Force personnel and there was a clear difference between the 2LTs and the Airmen that showed up new at the unit. Some of that might be a few more years of education, but I think there is just a difference in the way we train, educate, and develop officers based on what the services expect them to do.

@1LT Rosa - The difference would be who has the position of power. From what little I understand of sociology (from long chats that provide no legitimacy to this conversation with a friend who is a sociology major), power is the determining factor when it comes to discrimination. But even outside of sociology and looking at the military specifically, you have the power and authority on day 1 that SSGs with 10 years of experience don't have. Sure, you have 4 years of college so it's not like you haven't worked for it - but there is a significant difference in experience. Would you say that the day you arrived on station that you were prepared to address the needs and concerns of the Pvts - Sgts that were under you? Or would, say, a SSG who has lived those perspectives be better suited?

LTC Luck - I have no doubt you're right about the difference between the Air Force and Army. I've spent the last 5 years in a joint environment so it all kind of blurs together for me. My counter argument for you would be, then, to ask if the leadership and infantry courses you took were a replacement for the years of actual leadership and war fighting a SSG had already experienced. I don't doubt the schools treat you well, I only question if education beats experience. My experience with 2LTs hasn't been entirely bad but the more positive experiences involved prior-enlisted. There is a level of arrogance that I've faced by 2LTs that seems to disappear either through age and maturity or through getting roughed up by SNCOs that by the time a new officer puts on 1LT, and at the latest Capt, seems to have completely disappeared. I don't harbor any resentment.

If there is rankism, I would say it is in the level of patience that we have for new Pvts (or Amn) whereas we expect responsibility and professionalism from a 2LT on day one.

It's not that I don't value education, it's simply that I don't feel it's a replacement for experience no matter how real the simulations and exercises may be.

Experience is a great teacher. I have more time in service than 90% of my formation. As LTC (Join to see) stated, Army Lieutenants receive a considerable amount of training before even coming to the force. There is far more to it than simply going to college. As a Company Commander I have over 13 months of resident PME excluding my commissioning source. I continue to value and draw upon that experience and education every day. However, in that time I've served with terribly incompetent 20+ year senior NCOs and outstanding PSGs who were promoted at the minimum 9 year mark. Likewise I have served with outstanding mustang Officers and I have served with terrible mustangs. Experience alone does not create competence.

Here's what I find most problematic with your argument. You complain that your LT is inexperienced but when he asks for an explanation you're equally upset. Chances are he wanted to learn from you, which is why he asked for the explanation. How is he going to gain that valuable experience if you're unwilling to share your knowledge? Outside of warrants, Officers are not trained to be subject matter experts on a single subject. They're trained to lead and manage our SMEs (NCOs) to accomplish their mission. We learn the technical aspects of our jobs largely from you. With each new LT you get in your shop you have an opportunity to help develop an Airman's future commander. I highly recommend you take advantage of it.

You also mention that experience as an enlisted man allows you to better address the needs of enlisted troops and on that point I agree. However, I would posit that is precisely why we have Platoon Sergeants, First Sergeants, and Command Sergeants Major. They're a senior enlisted advisor to their commander and ultimately an advocate for the enlisted men within the organization. Whether the Commander listens is a whole separate discussion. Those that do not are typically not successful.

1LT Mitch Goenner - Perhaps. And perhaps I did miss an opportunity to teach. I love to teach, it's my favorite thing to do outside of learning and reading. However, I'm a firm believer that crunch time is not classroom time. Crunch time is the point where you evaluate the resources available to you and implement a contingency. Now, during downtime when things are quiet, if LT wants to come over to my desk space and ask questions about what I do, I could lose myself in hours and hours of teaching. I'll talk his ears off, I love it so much. The particular LT I was mostly channeling for most of my original comment was too busy flirting with the A1Cs, though.

I have no doubt that great LTs exist. I have no doubt that some people come out of training serious about what they do and ready to excel. I haven't seen them. I've known Captains that I can imagine would've been great LTs. But I've worked with dozens and dozens of LTs awaiting pilot training. I remember 3 2LTs being 'assigned' to work with me at a 4-star's conference - we were to provide comm support for the command post and cyber cafe as well as webmail/PDA support for the O-6's and above - and the three of them disappeared on day 1 and showed up again on the final day. I was an E-4 at the time. If I recall correctly, I wasn't even 21. And at that time, I had shown more responsibility and integrity than all three of them.

I had a case of another 2LT who was a Colonel's exec. She was the A6 for a MAJCOM. Her computer was broken, I had fixed it while he looked over my shoulder. The issue? A error while the user profile service loaded caused the profile to load as a TEMP profile. The fix was to rename the profile key in the registry to remove the ".bak". A few weeks later, the same error occured and the LT decided to try to fix it himself. He ended up deleting too much of who knows what that we had to back up the files and reload the OS because the registry was gone. A case of arrogance. And who got blamed for that one? "Oh, I did EXACTLY what SrA Pearson did"...how do you tell an arrogant 2LT that there is no way he did exactly what I did or else the computer would be working? For the record, the shoulder surfing didn't stop there. I'm happy to teach, but not in the Colonel's office. I just want to get in and get out.

LT, I'm not saying your experience is wrong. I'm just saying it doesn't line up with mine. I'm sorry you've served with some incompetent NCOs. I have too. I've had MSgt's take software I developed and present it as their own (I've had PhD's do this too as well). I've had SNCOs throw me under to bus to save their own hide. I believe in the Peter Principal where people get promoted to their level of incompetence. Experience isn't the end all either. I've once worked with a GS-12 who has a masters in computer science and didn't understand the concept of "remote" and "local". It happens.

But the original topic posits that rankism exists and identified 2LTs as victims of it. My experience says that, at least in my field, experience trumps education. LTC Luck makes a good argument that when it comes to leadership that education trumps experience and I see that you build on that argument. I can respect that. I can see how education provides you with centuries of leadership trial and error to learn from. But in a technical field, that no longer applies.

I agree with what you are saying but sometimes it steps across the line. One instance I refer to is the PSG telling the PL that he is only there for the ride and that he needs to sit down and shut up. To me that crosses the line and that PSG really has an issue with new officers. It would be the same thing if you just treat all PVTs like they are stupid. That would also lack professionalism. I wouldn't question treating any new soldier as a new soldier. That is exactly what they are. But if you treat their lack of experience and knowledge as a mistake on their part then that person is wrong.

I think it also works on the other side of experience. We often think of the CSM as a relic or some grumpy guy at times. Some really don't want him around for the fear that he will yell at soldiers. The is not the case. The CSM may be there to evaluate the quality of training or to speak to soldiers. It even goes for that Battalion Commander that some think he is so disconnected with what is going on on the ground they blame him for failures or bad decisions. It is easy to blame someone like that but then they are making assumptions.

I have seen the PSG to PL thing (not directed towards me, but towards other fellow PLs) and it can be very disruptive or it can be a great way for a LT to learn the careful dance that Officers and their Senior NCO must execute to be really successful. My PSG started down the path of treating me like I was a new child, another Platoon Leader to train sort of thing, and I took him out to lunch that day. While we were at lunch I told him that right or wrong, good or bad, the Army had followed a model that put young, right out of college/training 2LTs in charge of platoons that had a 15+ year PSG in them. I reminded him that both he and I knew about this before I showed up and while he either couldn't or didn't want to get into the commissioning line, I made that choice and we both knew that the situation we were in had happened, was happening, and would happen again, so we better just figure out how to get along. I told him in no uncertain terms that I was in charge because that was my job and that he was my right hand man, subject matter expert, and my mentor that had been there and done that for years. I then very specifically pointed out a few things that in my assessment over a couple of weeks that there were some things that I felt he was amazing at and some other things that he wasn't great at doing. We spent a couple hours after that little talk figuring out how we were going to share our responsibilities and went on to have a great relationship. That situation helped me prepare for working with six First Sergeants as a Company Grade Officer and I felt that I had a great working relationship with all of them.

On the other side of things, if the 2LT can't figure out the dance with his PSG, he will likely be marginalized and will probably not be the Company Commander that he could be because he doesn't learn the dance well and First Sergeants can sometimes be less willing to dance with a Captain that acts like a 2LT.

You're only a LT, what do you know. (warning: this post contains sarcasm)

I have seen it in both areas really. Officers do tend to be worse off.

There is but there are extreme cases. Like a SGT that things a PFC can't know more than him. That is the issue.