Just because you are a vet or serving currently

[MA2]

Dude enough!

lol. If anyone has a reply to my argument I would be glad to hear it.

[videguy]

What I shared was a personal opinion. People share their opinions on here, and everyone is fine with that. But I share my opinion based on my experiences and thoughts, and suddenly I'm "immature." In jobs I had before the Navy, (most) civilians were always late, didn't iron their clothes/uniforms, were lazy, and so on. In the Navy (most) Sailors are on time, clean looking, etc etc. If your opinions are different from mine then that is fine, but attack my point made, not me for "immaturity."

Nice double standard on here just because my opinion is different from the majority.

Well for starters I did not call you immature, I called your opinion narrow minded and biased. Which I still believe to be the case. Looking at your comparisons you are comparing apples to oranges. The military vs the general public is not a realistic comparison. They are two different groups and of much different sizes. You are basing your statements on experiences and then taking them and generalizing for the whole civilian population. That is not likely to hold true.
What kind of jobs did you hold before you went in the military? I am think ing based on your comments they were low level unskilled jobs. In those situations you are not going to see a fair segment of society. There are many people out there not in the military who are professionals who work hard, do well and look presentable.
If you would like to present some real facts with reliable information to back them up. Then please let us know, if you want to take vague information and your own observations. Please label them such and don't try to generalize them to cover all civilians, they will fall flat every time.

[MA2]

Well for starters I did not call you immature, I called your opinion narrow minded and biased. Which I still believe to be the case. Looking at your comparisons you are comparing apples to oranges. The military vs the general public is not a realistic comparison. They are two different groups and of much different sizes. You are basing your statements on experiences and then taking them and generalizing for the whole civilian population. That is not likely to hold true.
What kind of jobs did you hold before you went in the military? I am think ing based on your comments they were low level unskilled jobs. In those situations you are not going to see a fair segment of society. There are many people out there not in the military who are professionals who work hard, do well and look presentable.
If you would like to present some real facts with reliable information to back them up. Then please let us know, if you want to take vague information and your own observations. Please label them such and don't try to generalize them to cover all civilians, they will fall flat every time.

I had a good paying management job with around 100 people working for me at one time, but that's irrelevant. I work with plenty of civilians while in the military too.

Much different sizes? Yes. But we're talking about the average here, and I think the 1.2 million + active duty members is more than enough of a sample size. After all, you only need about 30 points of data to get a standard deviation curve.

And by "real facts" did you mean the percents I listed of those with degrees by group?

And yes I am a little biased... but wouldn't a civilian with no real interaction with large amounts of military members be a little biased too?

[videguy]

According to wikipedia 86.68% of Americans in 2009 graduated high school. Except in a few very unusual circumstances, (pretty much) all military members have a high school diploma.

So assuming more than 86% of military have high school diplomas, this would mean the average intelligence level of military is higher than that of civilians.

This is obviously a very brief and vague argument, which assumes that higher education means higher intelligence, and so on.

Also, according to Educational Attainment in the United States: 2009 - Detailed Tables - U.S. Census Bureau

17% of civilians had a bachelors degree.

Accorfing to wikipedia, about 20% of the military are officers. Assuming all officers have 4 year degrees or higher, (which not all do, but most do, even a lot of LDO's now have 4 year degrees) plus all of the enlisted that have a 4 year degree, this would yet again mean the average intelligence of military is higher than civilian. Although it is true a degree does not measure intelligence, I think it can be assumed that the more education a person has, the smarter they become.

Everyone on here refuting my claim that the AVERAGE military member is more intelligent than the AVERAGE civilian is forgetting that most of the people they work with are probably above average in IQ. Don't forget all the high school dropouts and the "lower IQ jobs" that are a vast majority of Americas service industry and all those not on here seeking degrees and so on in your assesment of the "average" civilian.

I could go on and on but I think I made my point for now.

Consider this: why does the military have an IQ type test required score in order to enlist? The bottom 30% are weeded out. This increases the average score by raising the curve... although it is true that not everyone of military age takes the exam.

You are making assumptions and we all know what happens when you do that. You are also using information from Wikipedia as though it was fact. Wikipedia in general is a good place to get information that should then be checked elsewhere to verify it's accuracy. It should be always taken as fact.
You are talking about 20% of a much smaller pool of people, so again your comparison is not valid.
You also need to look at the number you quoted from Wikipedia. It sounds like you are saying that 86.8% of people eligible to graduate in 2009, actually graduated. That is for one year and does not necessarily reflect the civilian population as a whole, just that group. It does not count people who may have gotten a GED, or gone back later to finish.
It's been fun arguing with you, but you really need to get your facts straight, if you want people to take your opinions seriously. Making broad sweeping statements based on questionable facts and personal observations does not bode well for your arguments.

[MA2]

You are making assumptions and we all know what happens when you do that. You are also using information from Wikipedia as though it was fact. Wikipedia in general is a good place to get information that should then be checked elsewhere to verify it's accuracy. It should be always taken as fact.
You are talking about 20% of a much smaller pool of people, so again your comparison is not valid.
You also need to look at the number you quoted from Wikipedia. It sounds like you are saying that 86.8% of people eligible to graduate in 2009, actually graduated. That is for one year and does not necessarily reflect the civilian population as a whole, just that group. It does not count people who may have gotten a GED, or gone back later to finish.
It's been fun arguing with you, but you really need to get your facts straight, if you want people to take your opinions seriously. Making broad sweeping statements based on questionable facts and personal observations does not bode well for your arguments.

Can you make a valid point besides just trying to constantly refute mine? The information I provided from Wikipedia isn't exactly top secret. Congress only budgets so many people of each paygrade to be in the military, so that easy to double check on, and Wikipedia is accurate.

Here's a CNN article about dropout rates. Is that official enough for you?

'High school dropout crisis' continues in U.S., study says - CNN

"Nearly 6.2 million students in the United States between the ages of 16 and 24 in 2007 dropped out of high school, fueling what a report released Tuesday called "a persistent high school dropout crisis."

The total represents 16 percent of all people in the United States in that age range in 2007. Most of the dropouts were Latino or black, according to a report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Alternative Schools Network in Chicago, Illinois."

[videguy]

The CNN article states that 16% dropped out, that does not mean they did not finish at all. They could have come back at a later date or received a GED. So that does not meant that 16% did not graduate at all.
Here is an article with more information about drop out rates. It is based on non-incarcerated 16-24 year olds. It shows an 8% rate of them not having a high school diploma or GED. That is a more accurate reflection of the amount of adults with at least a high school diploma or equivalency.
As far as your facts, when you present some valid facts, we will be happy to view them. Thus far you have provided your interpretation of information you got from Wikipedia and CNN.
You have basically stated your opinion which is fine and tried to back it up by taking information and trying to generalize it to the population as a whole. This never works as is the case here.

Here is the article from the Department of Education.
Indicator 19 (2010) Status Dropout Rates

[MA2]

The CNN article states that 16% dropped out, that does not mean they did not finish at all. They could have come back at a later date or received a GED. So that does not meant that 16% did not graduate at all.
Here is an article with more information about drop out rates. It is based on non-incarcerated 16-24 year olds. It shows an 8% rate of them not having a high school diploma or GED. That is a more accurate reflection of the amount of adults with at least a high school diploma or equivalency.
As far as your facts, when you present some valid facts, we will be happy to view them. Thus far you have provided your interpretation of information you got from Wikipedia and CNN.
You have basically stated your opinion which is fine and tried to back it up by taking information and trying to generalize it to the population as a whole. This never works as is the case here.

Here is the article from the Department of Education.
Indicator 19 (2010) Status Dropout Rates

Here is a more official article from the US Census Bureau. If you add up all the numbers of people with less than a high school education and divide by the total number of people, you get 14%, which is somewhat in the middle of the two data. This is also where I got the number of people with bachelor degrees.

US Army Info Site: Joining the Army

Enlisting with a GED
The Army is not accepting people with a GED in most areas of the country, however, the Army reserves the right to waive certain disqualifications and allow enlistment if deemed in the best interest of the individual and the service. If you will only need a waiver for the GED, it is highly likely that you will be accepted. Please note that when the Army did accept a GED, they were required to score at least 50 on the ASVAB.

So the Army for the most part isn't even taking people with GED's anymore, once again raising the average IQ level by keeping people out of "low intelligence" (not that everyone with a GED is stupid) ..and that's only the ENLISTED side of it, keep in mind 20% are officers.

Look at the ASVAB. The Army, which has the "lowest" standards, at least on the ASVAB, requires a score of 31 to enlist.
The ASVAB score is just a percentile which means the bottom 31% of applicants are disqualified right off the bat.

Edit: let's say for argument's sake it is in fact 8% of civilians that are HS dropouts with no GED. I couldn't find anything real official but about.com says the DOD average for enlistees in 2008 with a HS diploma was 92%... (your data of 8% was HS diploma and GED's, whereas this figure is just HS diplomas) + the amount that had a GED (5% ???) means roughly 3% now don't have a HS diploma. I would think even that number is too high since the recruiters are having to turn away perfectly qualified people because there are too many applicants.

And what about people with 4 year degrees? The military has a greater number of degree holders by percent. Yes it is true that our schooling is paid for and that is definitely a part of it, but the argument is "who is more intelligent on average" not "who had more opportunities and used them to go to school."

[videguy]

Here is a more official article from the US Census Bureau. If you add up all the numbers of people with less than a high school education and divide by the total number of people, you get 14%, which is somewhat in the middle of the two data. This is also where I got the number of people with bachelor degrees.

US Army Info Site: Joining the Army



So the Army for the most part isn't even taking people with GED's anymore, once again raising the average IQ level by keeping people out of "low intelligence" (not that everyone with a GED is stupid) ..and that's only the ENLISTED side of it, keep in mind 20% are officers.

Look at the ASVAB. The Army, which has the "lowest" standards, at least on the ASVAB, requires a score of 31 to enlist.
The ASVAB score is just a percentile which means the bottom 31% of applicants are disqualified right off the bat.

Edit: let's say for argument's sake it is in fact 8% of civilians that are HS dropouts with no GED. I couldn't find anything real official but about.com says the DOD average for enlistees in 2008 with a HS diploma was 92%... (your data of 8% was HS diploma and GED's, whereas this figure is just HS diplomas) + the amount that had a GED (5% ???) means roughly 3% now don't have a HS diploma. I would think even that number is too high since the recruiters are having to turn away perfectly qualified people because there are too many applicants.

And what about people with 4 year degrees? The military has a greater number of degree holders by percent. Yes it is true that our schooling is paid for and that is definitely a part of it, but the argument is "who is more intelligent on average" not "who had more opportunities and used them to go to school."

So the census bureau is more official than the Department of Education, or is it that you can take the information and try to use it to attempt to backup your points. The link you provided is for a site called us-army-info.com. The site is owned by an online marketing company called Quinstreet, not sure how they are tied to the Census(I looked at the site and did not see any links to the Census Bureau). I even looked at their links and they were all to internal pages.
You couldn't find anything real official. I guess you did not see the link to the Department of Education study. You instead quote About.com, you really need to check your sources of information. You quoted an article that said that most areas were not accepting enlistees with a GED, but want to say that 5% have a GED in the next section. So they issued a lot of waivers? Or did you just pull that 5% out of a hat?
Again your argument concerning the percentage in the Army with a degree vs the general public does not hold water. You are talking about 2 very different groups and the comparison is not valid. How about if we compare the military to the population of the US who holds at least a high school diploma? I am not aware of a comparison like this being done, but it would seem a more accurate comparison than the one you are making. How about we compare the military to the population of a college town? I would be willing to bet the college town would have a much higher percentage of college graduates.
So as I have said you arguments hold no water and you have provided no proof that people in the military are smarter than the civilian population. I will be happy to continue to prove your "facts" incorrect if you like, but I am sure you will tired of it eventually.

[MA2]

So the census bureau is more official than the Department of Education, or is it that you can take the information and try to use it to attempt to backup your points. The link you provided is for a site called us-army-info.com. The site is owned by an online marketing company called Quinstreet, not sure how they are tied to the Census(I looked at the site and did not see any links to the Census Bureau). I even looked at their links and they were all to internal pages.
You couldn't find anything real official. I guess you did not see the link to the Department of Education study. You instead quote About.com, you really need to check your sources of information. You quoted an article that said that most areas were not accepting enlistees with a GED, but want to say that 5% have a GED in the next section. So they issued a lot of waivers? Or did you just pull that 5% out of a hat?
Again your argument concerning the percentage in the Army with a degree vs the general public does not hold water. You are talking about 2 very different groups and the comparison is not valid. How about if we compare the military to the population of the US who holds at least a high school diploma? I am not aware of a comparison like this being done, but it would seem a more accurate comparison than the one you are making. How about we compare the military to the population of a college town? I would be willing to bet the college town would have a much higher percentage of college graduates.
So as I have said you arguments hold no water and you have provided no proof that people in the military are smarter than the civilian population. I will be happy to continue to prove your "facts" incorrect if you like, but I am sure you will tired of it eventually.

Isn't that the idea? To take information to try and prove your points? Derrrrrrrr
I must have accidentally deleted the link to the US Census Bureau in an edit, I would search again to find it, but it's obvious that you wouldn't acknowledge it so I won't waste my time.

So let me get this straight... it's not a fair comparison to compare military to civilian because it's "apples to oranges" when I'm trying to make a point, but when you attempt to refute me it seems to be a fair comparison. Riiiight.

Comparing military to civilian is not "apples to oranges" considering one group is a "slice" of the other. Your logic of "let's go to a college town and compare education" is as idiotic as I've ever heard.... "let's go to Hollywood and see if there is a greater percentage of actors!!!!" Well DUH. I'm not talking about a small piece of society that you mention, I'm talking about society as a whole in comparison to a large group such as the military. (1.2 million active, + reservists)

The simple fact that you want to exclude the bottom of the IQ barrel of society (non HS grads) means that you know I'm right. Plus, what about those institutionalized? How many idiots are you excluding there?

Also, the (5% ???) of GED holders has three question marks after it obviously because I don't know, and couldn't find anything. Walk in to any recruiter and say you want to join but you don't have a HS diploma and he'll show you the door if you don't believe me.

You're assuming all military jobs are "combat" related "idiot" jobs. Only a small percentage now are combat jobs. You know how intelligent one must be to work the weapons system on a destroyer? Or the nuclear engine on a submarine? Or pilot a jet engine.... etc etc. It's true that not every job is as advanced as this but they have an IQ test for a reason... to keep idiots out. 30 or 40 years ago I would imagine that most enlistees weren't too bright. But times change.

Also, what branch were you in? Wouldn't want you to be "biased" now....

In any event, you are correct, I'm tired of arguing. I have my opinions and don't need to prove to you why I have them. Earlier someone mentioned "God" and no one attacked him saying "there's no proof of God blah blah blah...." he/she has his/her opinion and doesn't need to justify why to anyone.... But numbers don't lie. More military (by %) have HS diplomas or equivalent than civilians, and more military (by %) have 4 year degrees than civilians. End.

[skyfall123]

Taken from a study on the demographics that make up the current military:

Any discussion of troop quality must take place in context. A soldier's demographic characteristics are of little importance in the military, which values honor, leadership, self-sacrifice, courage, and integrity-qualities that cannot be quantified. Nonetheless, any assessment of the quality of recruits can take place only on the basis of objective criteria. Demographic characteristics are a poor proxy for the quality of those who serve in the armed forces, but they can help to explain which Americans volunteer for military service and why.

Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers | The Heritage Foundation

30 or 40 years ago I would imagine that most enlistees weren't too bright

Ouch