Poopyhead
Posts: 612
Joined: 3/17/2004 Status: offline
|
Since this is becoming a lesson in reasonable thinking, a picture without a context has no meaning. An experience at the police academy is really, totally irrelevant. The link about the females at Ranger School is hearsay evidence presented so that we should write Congress to do an actual investigation. How about a link to an actual investigation with actual evidence? Lots of soldiers get pulled from normal duties for many reasons. I was in a unit that sent a team to the Njeimegen march. Another group was sent to a Brigade training event. All of them got time off to prepare. It's a waste of training dollars if you send a soldier somewhere only to have a failure. It's also normal for a soldier who No Goes to retrain and have an opportunity to retest, even more than once. Ranger School is not Infantry school. It's tough training where you are totally at the mercy of the instructors. I had a friend whose father had been a Ranger Instructor (RI). He flew through Ranger training and actually gained weight while he was there. One of my Sergeants almost got peered out. He had done two tours in Vietnam and told the RI's they were doing things wrong and could go get bent before they got someone killed. After graduation, he hit an RI "rhymes with brick". Then all of them hit him and he hit the dirt. It seems that Ranger candidates do well if the RI's want them to do well. Let's take a simple hypothetical case to examine how statistics can be intentionally used to cloud the truth. We have ten recruits, five men and five women, training to fill five slots for the Infantry. The recruits qualify with their weapons, do an Army Physical Fitness Test and are evaluated on basic infantry skills. The results are formalized and the scores posted for a male group and a female group. Male group: (100, 95, 90, 85, 80) Average male score: 90 Female group: (85, 75, 75, 70 65) Average female score: 74 We only want the best candidates, because Infantry are the best. The average female scores are lower than the average male scores. Having women in an infantry unit would "lower the standard". Now lets just have one group of infantry candidates with all the scores posted with gender: One group: (100-M, 95-M, 90-M, 85-M, 85-F, 80-M, 75-F, 75-F, 70-F, 65-F) "We only want the best candidates, because Infantry are the best." So: Chosen Infantry group (100-M, 95-M, 90-M, 85-M, 85-F) Average infantry group score: 91 As you can see, the female with the best score was better than one of the males. She wasn't better than "the average male score", but she was better than an actual real life male. By doing so, she also improved the average score of 90 that the infantry unit would have achieved if only the male recruits had been chosen to the higher standard of 91. That's what equality means. The best person for the job, gets the job. It's not a liberal ideal or a conservative ideal. It's an American ideal. The reason we have an army is to protect all of our nation's ideals.
_____________________________
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born. Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
|