Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Low stats on various negative indicators can just be luck of the draw, but I've also seen officers who've been able to impact those numbers positively, usually through common sense. For example, my PT program for the Group staff consisted of informing everyone that I considered them professionals who would make weight and meet the standard, and that as long as everybody did so, then there would not be group PT, but if one person failed either, then we would all do PT as a group until everbody passed, and I guaranteed the highest suck factor that I could impose in that case. The first APFT that followed had a 100% pass rate among the staff for PT and height/weight. Nobody wanted to be the one guy who caused the rest of the HHC to have to fall out for PT.
    PT success is something I don't think is stupid at all, since it's actually relevant to combat readiness. On the other hand, how many MP/Local-cop domestic calls your Soldiers had (For instance) may be due to sterling leadership for a low number, but it usually has a whole lot more to do with just how many dickheads you might chance to have assigned, and what variety of crazy person they chose to marry or live with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    PT success is something I don't think is stupid at all, since it's actually relevant to combat readiness. On the other hand, how many MP/Local-cop domestic calls your Soldiers had (For instance) may be due to sterling leadership for a low number, but it usually has a whole lot more to do with just how many dickheads you might chance to have assigned, and what variety of crazy person they chose to marry or live with.
    That's one of the reasons why I was proud of the PT success, because I considered it important to combat effectiveness, but it also was a personal accomplishment as a leader. The FM defines military leadership as the ability to make Soldiers want to accomplish the mission. Where other officers had their people out at ungodly hours in abject misery, I found a way to make my guys work harder and police each other without having to ride herd on them every minute.

    I agree with you about the luck of the draw as far as to the troops that you get, and the chain of command definitely looks at the wrong things when it comes to those kinds of issues, especially since everyone above the rank of PFC lives off post, and you have very little control over what they do in their downtime. A lot of the problems that we have are based on the radically changing demographics of the force. A much larger percentage of troops were single, and used to live in barracks, where the chain of command could exercise more control over their activities. We still expect commanders to maintain good order and discipline when the troops are off duty, but how is that supposed to happen when the troops are scattered to the winds at the end of the duty day? We've made all kinds of changes to the army, without looking at the consequences. For example, we have a zero-tolerance attitude towards DUI, as well as drinking on government property, but when our squadron had its own O Club and NCO club, we didn't have to worry about DUIs because I could make sure that my troops had designated drivers. Eliminating those clubs eliminated a lot of control that officers had over their Soldiers. Raising the drinking age on post simply meant that younger troops would find places to drink where they couldn't be seen, and where I couldn't keep them out of trouble. It was a change that looked good on paper, but had real world implications that the chair warming pogues didn't grasp.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkgirl View Post
    Ivy League grads have doors opened to them that others don't.

    I have a secret dream of getting my daughter into one. She has the brains. I've googled "how to get into Harvard" articles. Nowadays, unless your parent/grandparent graduated from one, or you get a $40K annual adviser, you're not getting in. Being a valedictorian doesn't get you in. Something about you has to appeal to an admissions counselor. But, I'm not a tiger mom so it probably won't happen.
    There's always the "Seven Sisters" schools like Vassar. The Simpsons had a good joke about that, when they try to bribe Lisa into throwing the spelling bee so that a cuter kid will win.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    There's always the "Seven Sisters" schools like Vassar. The Simpsons had a good joke about that, when they try to bribe Lisa into throwing the spelling bee so that a cuter kid will win.
    Vassar? Seriously?

    Talk about PC lemmings. Vassar has become an intellectual sinkhole of leftist indoctrination. Here's part of guest column about it from the campus newspaper:

    http://newspaperarchives.vassar.edu/...LETTER%2c-----
    The recurring theme here is diversity, diversity and more diversity. But, is Vassar’s culture truly this open-minded? Is Vassar College actually some sort of utopian society in which tolerance is exhibited toward all of its residents?

    To answer these questions, let’s consider an average Political Science course in Rockefeller Hall which discusses certain aspects of domestic policy in the United States and the nature of political differences between Democrats and Republicans, particularly contemporary politicians at the federal level (say, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney). Oftentimes, a class on Monday will kick off with a recap of political events and news from the weekend, which can include a statement released by the Romney campaign or a policy proposal by the Obama administration. It’s up to the professor and students to collectively analyze these happenings. As the professor opens up the floor, students exhibit their eagerness to weigh in on the day-to-day back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans, quickly pointing out a gaffe by Mitt Romney’s campaign team or divulging a snideremark about something that Paul Ryan said three weeks ago to an insignificant news station. The classroom, or at least the resounding liberal majority, then erupts in laughter. In response to the students’ jabs at the Republican Party, the professor follows up with a sarcastic comment of his or her own, revealing a deep urge to lash out at “misguided” conservatives nationwide.

    Laughing and snickering is soon compounded by more and more laughing and snickering.

    With the perfect storm of criticism by the participation-happy students and all-too-eager professor, the classroom transforms into a house of jibes and taunts at the expense of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, their families, Ronald Reagan’s policies from 1980, and some random Republican candidate from 1916. In extreme cases, the students begin to resemble a pack of wolves, lunging at the first sight of Republican weakness. When a conservative falters, they are always there to pounce with their words.

    If you knew nothing about the United States’ political history since the 18th century and attended the start of one of these Political Science classes, you would be led to believe that almost everyone in the U.S. is a registered Democrat.

    If the average Political Science course at Vassar served as a model of the nation’s electoral landscape as a whole, you would assume that almost every American leans to the left when it comes to social issues and economic policy. According to Vassar’s model, an overwhelming majority of Americans support gay marriage, abortion, and expansionary fiscal policies. Using the typical professor and batch of students in a Rocky classroom as the adequate sample size, American society becomes one in which conservatives are ridiculed and shunned. Anything right of center is construed as fundamentally wrong and inexplicable.

    So, does this fit the definition of diversity?

    Diversity, diversity, and more diversity should be Vassar’s motto by now, but this perception of Vassar College as some sort of utopian society is just that. It is merely perception, falling far short of reality.

    If you take into consideration the fact that the average Political Science course described above may contain a conservative or three (that’s probably a reach), any notions of open-mindedness, tolerance, and diversity seem downright absurd. If a registered Republican is confronted with a classroom full of liberal college students, potentially ranging from left-leaning centrists to passionate Marxists, all of whom impatiently wait in line to criticize the “other,” then Vassar College seems to failin its promotion of diversity. A student like this looks more like a bullied non-athlete being hounded by a rowdy group of high school football players than an enthusiastic learner in an accepting, tolerant academic setting.

    In truth, the Political Science department may very well be home to some of the most blatant acts of closed-mindedness on Vassar College’s historic campus. Conservatives are often alienated and made to feel like unintelligent nobodies, with the attacks being led by professors and students in unison. If you are in any way leaning to the right,socially or fiscally, and would consider voting for a candidate like Mitt Romney, then you will find yourself on the fringes of the bubble.

    For the Vassar conservative, the phrases “being included” or “being a part of” often seem foreign and unfamiliar.

    What will other students even think of me after reading this piece? It’s funny that I have to ponder this question at an academic institution that prides itself on the diversity of its student body and the open-mindedness at the core of its social makeup. Where’s the diversity in Rockefeller Hall? Forgive me, but I can’t seem to find it.

    Would you send a kid into that kind of environment? The only differences between what's described there and the Vietnamese reeducation camps are the tuition and the barbed wire.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    SEAduced SuperMod Hawkgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    4,020
    I would be equally happy if she graduated MIT with an engineering or computer science degree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Vassar? Seriously?

    Talk about PC lemmings. Vassar has become an intellectual sinkhole of leftist indoctrination. Here's part of guest column about it from the campus newspaper:



    To answer these questions, let’s consider an average Political Science course in Rockefeller Hall which discusses certain aspects of domestic policy in the United States and the nature of political differences between Democrats and Republicans, particularly contemporary politicians at the federal level (say, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney). Oftentimes, a class on Monday will kick off with a recap of political events and news from the weekend, which can include a statement released by the Romney campaign or a policy proposal by the Obama administration. It’s up to the professor and students to collectively analyze these happenings. As the professor opens up the floor, students exhibit their eagerness to weigh in on the day-to-day back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans, quickly pointing out a gaffe by Mitt Romney’s campaign team or divulging a snideremark about something that Paul Ryan said three weeks ago to an insignificant news station. The classroom, or at least the resounding liberal majority, then erupts in laughter. In response to the students’ jabs at the Republican Party, the professor follows up with a sarcastic comment of his or her own, revealing a deep urge to lash out at “misguided” conservatives nationwide.

    Laughing and snickering is soon compounded by more and more laughing and snickering.
    Just goes to prove that the social "sciences" (like Political "Science") are just hyped up propaganda mills with occasional cooked statistics brought in to prop up the prevailing opinion.

    Real sciences don't count derisive laughter as participation: they have labs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Just goes to prove that the social "sciences" (like Political "Science") are just hyped up propaganda mills with occasional cooked statistics brought in to prop up the prevailing opinion.

    Real sciences don't count derisive laughter as participation: they have labs.
    Political Science could be an effective discipline if it were a combination of history and public administration, but unfortunately, it's just a catchall for kids who got the political bug when they ran for student council and want to work as a staffer on Capitol Hill. I had a conversation with an NYU grad with a BS in Poli-Sci several years ago, and he'd never heard of Winston Churchill. That's like being an art history major and not knowing who Michelangelo was, but this kid had made it through four years of expensive academic immersion in the science of politics without having learned about one of the most effective and important political leaders of the Twentieth Century. How does that even happen?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Political Science could be an effective discipline if it were a combination of history and public administration, but unfortunately, it's just a catchall for kids who got the political bug when they ran for student council and want to work as a staffer on Capitol Hill. I had a conversation with an NYU grad with a BS in Poli-Sci several years ago, and he'd never heard of Winston Churchill. That's like being an art history major and not knowing who Michelangelo was, but this kid had made it through four years of expensive academic immersion in the science of politics without having learned about one of the most effective and important political leaders of the Twentieth Century. How does that even happen?
    True, in fact the entire alleged "Discipline" makes Art History look like a BSME from Purdue or Georgia Tech by comparison.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    I had a conversation with an NYU grad with a BS in Poli-Sci several years ago, and he'd never heard of Winston Churchill.
    You are freaking kidding me.

    We're doomed!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    True, in fact the entire alleged "Discipline" makes Art History look like a BSME from Purdue or Georgia Tech by comparison.
    It's all just PC drivel. The only history that you can take seriously nowadays is military history, because that discipline hasn't been infected, although a lot of Vietnam histories have to be taken with a salt lick. Social sciences as a rule are just ridiculous, and don't get me started on liberal arts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    You are freaking kidding me.

    We're doomed!
    I wish that I was. I'd had a similar conversation with a high school graduate who also didn't know Churchill, and whose knowledge of WWII was limited to the Holocaust, who didn't know who Jefferson Davis or William T. Sherman were, but correctly identified Harriet Tubman, and who thought that the Pilgrims had come from Spain. Other conversations with recent graduates are similarly disturbing. My older daughter is in third grade, and even her teacher hates the new math curriculum, which seems to obscure knowledge more than it imparts it. Somehow, she's been inculcated with a revulsion to tobacco (my admission that I used to smoke the occasional cigar shocked her) while we weren't looking, which means that we have to really hit home with the civics lessons. Lord only knows what else they're teaching her.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •