http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23346693
I don’t quite understand why the beeb think the Army is to blame for this - surely it is a failing of the schooling system than the Army.
Can’t really see any blame for the army in that article. I actually see some praise.
The question that remains is, why are those skills not improved further?
The bigger question is, why would the BBC care about putting our forces down like that during wartime?? I mean… GREAT MORAL GUYS!! KEEP UP THE GOOD JOB!
It gets people thinking “Oh. Great. Being defended by a bunch of retards with guns, yey.” Even though they are more capable minded that most average civs. I mean, you find a person on civ street with no military training and tell them to go into battle, and see the difference in stress controlling and reacting to people shouting at you over radio and just generally shouting next to you whilst fire is pouring on your position.
Eh, it’s not the nicest PR the army could use right now to be honest. We don’t need to know if they can write or not, we need to know if they can defend us.
I haven’t read the article, but when I was in training my buddy was completely illiterate, previously worked as a cook. He got proper stressed, literally flipped his shit, when we did our reading/writing tests to see our levels. Threw his phone at my locker, started a fight with me in my Section barrack, screamed at people. All because he thought he would be backtracked/kicked out for his wank education.
We spoke to our Seargent and he put him into the “6th Form” of Catterick, where Officers and JNCO’s go to do academic shit. He smashed training, has fought in Afghan and can now read and write really well, unless he texts me then its like a chav speaking 5 year old. The Army taught him everything and he worked bloody hard for it. Schools aren’t only to blame as this subject isn’t black and white but the forces will support the fuck out of you with the right people being talked too.
Entered the army with 9 GCSE’s left with a Doctorate in Medicine.
To be fair it’s not a job which requires a high standard of education, which is exactly why the Army target towns of high youth uemployment and social issues for recruitment. The Army are pretty bloody good these days at taking someone from civvie street, breaking them down, and building them back up again bit by bit into a soldier. Grades and education don’t really play a big part in that.
To be fair though it’s a skewed figure anyway, what’s the percentage break down of recruits joining up as ordinary soldiers vs officers? What do the numbers look like for academic qualifications and abilities for both groups? Now do the math. I’d imagine most recruits who have a decent background and education don’t join up as basic infantry.
n.b. none of this is intended to take away from the job these lads do. I don’t claim for one second I could do it.
[quote]The bigger question is, why would the BBC care about putting our forces down like that during wartime?? I mean… GREAT MORAL GUYS!! KEEP UP THE GOOD JOB!It gets people thinking “Oh. Great. Being defended by a bunch of retards with guns, yey.” Even though they are more capable minded that most average civs. I mean, you find a person on civ street with no military training and tell them to go into battle, and see the difference in stress controlling and reacting to people shouting at you over radio and just generally shouting next to you whilst fire is pouring on your position.
Eh, it’s not the nicest PR the army could use right now to be honest. We don’t need to know if they can write or not, we need to know if they can defend us.
[/quote]
Really? REALLY?
You’re going to blame the BBC for reporting on an official Defence Select Committee report? Nice one.
I think that looking at things like “what are the job prospects of people after their service? What are the reasons some ex-soldiers struggle to find employment?” is a very good thing to do. The report says that the entire BAF does a fairly good job at improving the education level of enlistees, but there’s (obviously) always room for improvement. Knowing numbers like these is absolutely crucial as it offers incentives to improve upon things like literacy and math skills to the point where all service members have a basic middle-school education, no matter what their educational background. Sticking your thumbs up your butt and screaming “ZOMG THE MORALE” while letting anything that “may” be seen in a bad light slide is a perfect recipe for desaster and FAR more morale damaging “reports”.
As for your last line, I’ll play devil’s advocate as say “We don’t need to know the suicide and PTSD rate with ex-soldiers, we need to know if they can defend us.”.
If you think that this report trashes service members in any way then you’re wrong.
I just think that it speaks volumes about the Army’s equal opportunities employment policy. If you volunteer and, are fit enough the army will give you everything you need. In fact even if you arent fit enough, the army will help you with that too.
Brian :w:
I’m reminded of that picture where the caption reads “And I told the teaching lady; the only letters I need to know are U, S and A.” /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width=“20” height=“20” />
You are a fine man, you.
'Murica!
Suspect the implication in the article is that the army is nosing around at the bottom of the barrel for recruits, which is the sort of message the Army would dearly love to put out there, but can’t.
Look at it like this, the Army does all these recruitment ads and whatnot, showing people with skills, saying things like ‘Be The Best’ or whatever it is they say these days. That’s great, but that is also putting off the scrunty little NEETs who wouldn’t know self esteem if it bit them in the face. They don’t think they can put on a uniform, learn a skill and look all manly and whatnot, so they just stay home, waiting for the next batch of riots.
So on the one hand the Army has to present itself as this aspirational, life changing, professional organisation, but at the same time it wants to appeal to the sort of spotty teenager who has more kids than GCSEs and career options limited to Workfare or crack dealing.
How can it present itself as being a professional fighting force, but also let the world know that it is absolutely desperate for warm bodies willing to put on the team colours and play out the last few months of that tricky Afghan away fixture? Enter the media, doing its patriotic duty to remind people that, while the Army is great, it will also recruit just about anybody.
To be fair to the military, at least they’ve moved on from rounding drunks up in pubs or getting hatchet faced suffragettes to guilt trip people.
‘I don’t know what they do to the enemy, but by God they frighten me’
The Duke of Wellington during the peninsular campaign
This is old news, the army is renowned for taking the scum of the country and making useful humans and fine troops out of them.
Old news for most is a perfect sensationalist headline for most Daily Mail readers shrugs
That’s weird; I always thought are army was comprised solely of post-graduates and doctors.
I have to say that the people who join the army are NOT the scum of the country, because they are the ones who step up and volunteer. Fuck everyone who says different.
Brian.
[quote]I have to say that the people who join the army are NOT the scum of the country, because they are the ones who step up and volunteer. Fuck everyone who says different.
Brian.
[/quote]
I would agree with that.
[quote]I have to say that the people who join the army are NOT the scum of the country, because they are the ones who step up and volunteer. Fuck everyone who says different.
Brian.
[/quote]
Scum of the country join the Met.
Wut?