Posted on Mar 22, 2014
Should a minimum ASVAB score be required to be an NCO?
13.8K
84
71
9
8
1
I think it is very necessary.
As a young 19 year old PFC, I had a real tough time listening to an NCO who could not spell simple words, do simple math, or understand simple logic. I always had to second guess myself following this NCO's orders, wondering if this leader even thought the scenario through he/she was sending us to? Would we be reprimanded by another NCO? Just be wasting our time? End up looking stupid ourselves? Taking this NCO's training seriously was even tougher, because in the various minds of the lower enlisted soldiers, this NCO was an idiot. In addition to just losing confidence in our NCO, we also lost our confidence in the promotion system.
Now I am not saying we need to be geniuses, or anything ... but I think being proficient at high school level English and math would be beneficial. Keep current ASVAB scores for MOS's as they are, but make a pre-req for a certain score before going to a promotion board (Which will be the same across all MOS's, but naturally in certain MOS's, the fact you qualified for the MOS in general would mean you already meet that pre-req). Those who do not meet the score, take FAST class until they make it, or they never get to lead soldiers.
What do you think?
Posted in these groups: 
NCOs
NCOs
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 35
8
8
0
I hear what you are saying and I feel like it goes triple for Officers. I have sat through briefs where my only thought is: I cannot believe some college, somewhere signed off on a four-year degree. Or where their English skills are so weak, I assume they must be a math whiz to have pulled off a 110 GT score.
But rather than testing, my feelings are covered in this thread about bringing back the SPC 5, 6, 7 ranks rather than promoting everyone to SGT. There are people who are really good at their jobs, like their jobs, and would be a train wreck leading troops (or, here's a novel idea: what if we just don't promote unqualified people?) https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/bring-back-the-specialist-rank
On the officer side, we just have to do a better job of weeding people out in their accession points and OBCs. I think as manning requirements tighten, the rigor will return.
When I joined the Army we Specialist 4-6 (SP7 had just been discontinued). It provided those Soldiers who had technical expertise and experience the opportunity to progress and earn mo...
(8)
(0)
SGT James Elphick
I have been thinking that we needed to bring back the SPC 5,6,7 ranks since I was in. It just makes sense because being proficient at a a job at a high level does not automatically make one a good leader
(0)
(0)
SSG Ralph Watkins
I agree. Some people are extremely good at their jobs but are not leadership material in the normal sense. They are experts in their MOS & a good mentor for those in the technical fields. Don't expect them to lead troops in combat. Why should the Army get rid of top notch MOS experts all because it wants combat minded people in charge in non-combat jobs. There is usually a compromise there. Absolutely don't do this combat arms. Combat leaders need to be the best & not a meek geek of sorts.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
The issue is one of professional development. Courses should not only be "how to lead", but how to write, how to present, how to analyze, etc. Skills like those can be learned and developed. But we must put emphasis development of those skills. AND we must discrminate when those skills are not being met.
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
I disagree with this completely, because frankly, there are plenty of soldiers with college degrees, high GT scores, etc. in higher positions that are absolute bags of crap that really just learned to manipulate the system better than the others. Being smarter than your peers does not necessarily equate to being someone that has a higher potential for good, morally-sound leadership.
(7)
(0)
SGT William B.
SGT Dave,
Ha, my friend, I'm afraid if you're going to judge everyone you meet based solely on their handwriting, you're going to be sorely disappointed in life.
All joking aside, it's actually pretty easy for me to take someone like the NCO you gave as an example seriously, mostly because I don't base my full assessment of someone's capability for leadership on my own biased perception of their intelligence and education, but rather the true depth and weight of their character. The ASVAB can't test for two things:
1. Can they take care of their soldiers?
2. Can they complete the mission?
What I want to ask is was the leader that wrote that counseling statement a bag of crap, or was he/she an otherwise decent soldier that occasionally stumbled through missions but otherwise took good care of their soldiers?
As an aside, there was a SPC that I work with that approached me and made small talk one day a few months ago. He's an alright guy, but he's also got a reputation for being a know-it-all and kind of a jerk. He asserted that he can be a shmuck to other people because of his ASVAB score, a 92, which means that he automatically knows that he's smarter than at least 92% of the Army. For as smart as he is, he's probably the very last person I would want to see being promoted into a position of responsibility where you can affect the livelihoods of those subordinate to you, if only because of his sheer arrogance. I think that's probably what bothers me most about this line of thinking, the entire "I'm entitled to treat people like crap regardless of their rank or position and assume I'm superior to you because I'm smarter" trap that so many people (myself included) fall into and can't come out of. It's toxic.
Ha, my friend, I'm afraid if you're going to judge everyone you meet based solely on their handwriting, you're going to be sorely disappointed in life.
All joking aside, it's actually pretty easy for me to take someone like the NCO you gave as an example seriously, mostly because I don't base my full assessment of someone's capability for leadership on my own biased perception of their intelligence and education, but rather the true depth and weight of their character. The ASVAB can't test for two things:
1. Can they take care of their soldiers?
2. Can they complete the mission?
What I want to ask is was the leader that wrote that counseling statement a bag of crap, or was he/she an otherwise decent soldier that occasionally stumbled through missions but otherwise took good care of their soldiers?
As an aside, there was a SPC that I work with that approached me and made small talk one day a few months ago. He's an alright guy, but he's also got a reputation for being a know-it-all and kind of a jerk. He asserted that he can be a shmuck to other people because of his ASVAB score, a 92, which means that he automatically knows that he's smarter than at least 92% of the Army. For as smart as he is, he's probably the very last person I would want to see being promoted into a position of responsibility where you can affect the livelihoods of those subordinate to you, if only because of his sheer arrogance. I think that's probably what bothers me most about this line of thinking, the entire "I'm entitled to treat people like crap regardless of their rank or position and assume I'm superior to you because I'm smarter" trap that so many people (myself included) fall into and can't come out of. It's toxic.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
As a 98% I will snarkily point out that this does not mean that I am smarter than all but 2% of the Army. I will make 2 points on this subject. First the ASVAB does not give you a true percentile score it just gives you a percentile versus the sample group used when the test was updated. Second the ASVAB does not test for intelligence, it tests for knowledge and comprehension. If we look at this that just means those who scored lower have a great potential to learn and grow, which could happpens after several years in the Army.
(1)
(0)
SGT William B.
Something else I was thinking about: this is pretty much the same argument that I heard (and sometimes made myself) when I was junior enlisted. Basically, it boils down to the following statement:
"To become X, you should have to score/serve/achieve at least Y on (STANDARD)."
Plugging in the variables, it looks like this:
"To become a leader, you should have to score at least 70 on your ASVAB."
Sound familiar? It should.
"To become a leader, you should have to score at least 270 on your APFT."
"To become a leader, you should have to score at least Sharpshooter on your rifle qualification."
"To commission, you should have to serve as an enlisted soldier for X number of years."
I've heard this argument restated at least twenty different ways.
"To become X, you should have to score/serve/achieve at least Y on (STANDARD)."
Plugging in the variables, it looks like this:
"To become a leader, you should have to score at least 70 on your ASVAB."
Sound familiar? It should.
"To become a leader, you should have to score at least 270 on your APFT."
"To become a leader, you should have to score at least Sharpshooter on your rifle qualification."
"To commission, you should have to serve as an enlisted soldier for X number of years."
I've heard this argument restated at least twenty different ways.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
I do think the promotion to NCO should be more rigorous but I don't think the ASVAB is necessarily the way to go. I think a written exam of some sort as part of the promotion process would be beneficial. It should probably be MOS specific but also cover general knowledge and broad army topics. However, I don't think a test should be the end all for promotion because as we stated throughout this post we have all seen good leaders with far from perfect intelligence and bad leaders who could be Ph.D's. Testing is a good idea but it is only part of the equation
(6)
(0)
SGT William B.
I like this. Other services have proficiency tests to move up in grade; why not the Army?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google