I'm surprised, didn't think I'd see the day. Only 96 of 400 candidates passed, 2 out of the 19 female candidates.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-women-make-history-passing-armys-elite-ranger-school-n411506
I bet Caitlin Jenner could pass it.
I saw the thread title and immediately thought "Only Tim could have started that".
Amazing what people can do if you give them a chance.
QuoteBut historic barriers remain.
Unlike the 94 men who will graduate Friday, the two women won't be allowed to apply to join the join the 75th Ranger Regiment, the elite Special Operations force.
It remains closed to women.
Back in the kitchen then, ladies.
Oh for...two steps forward one step back. :x
Ten bucks says they really lowered standards despite what they claim. I know DoD was pressuring the Marines to lower their infantry officer course standards because no women were getting through. Diversity above all else.
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2015, 08:28:02 AM
Ten bucks says they really lowered standards despite what they claim. I know DoD was pressuring the Marines to lower their infantry officer course standards because no women were getting through. Diversity above all else.
Standards were apparently still high enough to weed out most of the men. As long as the standards were the same for men and women, this is a pretty cool accomplishment.
QuoteTo earn the Ranger tab, applicants must be able to complete 49 push-ups, 59 sit-ups, a five-mile run in 40 minutes, six chin-ups, a swimming test, a land navigation test, a 12-mile foot march in three hours, several obstacle courses, four days of military mountaineering, three parachute jumps, four air assaults on helicopters, multiple rubber boat movements and 27 days of mock combat patrols.
It annoys my OCD side that they didn't round up the push-ups and sit-ups to 50 and 60.
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2015, 08:28:02 AM
Ten bucks says they really lowered standards despite what they claim. I know DoD was pressuring the Marines to lower their infantry officer course standards because no women were getting through. Diversity above all else.
QuoteRetired Ranger Roger Carstens, a senior fellow in national security at the nonprofit Foreign Policy Research Institute, told NBC News that when he went through the course he thought women couldn't do it. Now, he said, he believes women can be integrated into all parts of the Army without compromising combat readiness.
"The key is maintaining the standards," Carstens said. "To lower those standards to fit a quota is a disservice to comrades and country and could result in mission failure."
24% of males and 10% of females passed.
I saw what the retired dude said. I'm just saying ten bucks says we find out the standards were indeed reduced, given that is something the DoD is now pushing elsewhere.
Quote from: Kleves on August 18, 2015, 09:25:57 AM
As long as the standards were the same for men and women, this is a pretty cool accomplishment.
I'll be impressed if it can reasonably be proven that previous standards were not lowered.
If somebody saying they were not lowered is not reasonable what would count? :hmm:
derspeiss' masculinity is threatened by the femirangers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2015, 10:07:16 AM
derspeiss' masculinity is threatened by the femirangers.
Nah, I think it's cute. I'm just suspicious of this DoD.
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2015, 10:05:03 AM
If somebody saying they were not lowered is not reasonable what would count? :hmm:
If the women who passed were really cross-dressing men, that would be proof. ;)
Find the percentage passes for previous years. If they're significantly higher this year, that would be a basic indicator.
According to this: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf
48.99% graduated from 2000-2012.
But I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing since that is twice as high.
Quote from: Brazen on August 18, 2015, 10:14:50 AM
Find the percentage passes for previous years. If they're significantly higher this year, that would be a basic indicator.
It could be. Or they could just disclose what the standards are and whether they have changed.
edit: this (along with the Marine thing I mentioned earlier) is what makes me question whether standards have been lowered: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0529/All-8-women-fail-Ranger-School-Some-Rangers-say-standards-should-change-video
I'd be curious to see what leadership roles they received and were graded on during their 2nd and 3rd phases as this is what really can make it a hand out or exceptionally difficult.
Quote from: Brazen on August 18, 2015, 09:52:16 AM
QuoteTo earn the Ranger tab, applicants must be able to complete 49 push-ups, 59 sit-ups, a five-mile run in 40 minutes, six chin-ups, a swimming test, a land navigation test, a 12-mile foot march in three hours, several obstacle courses, four days of military mountaineering, three parachute jumps, four air assaults on helicopters, multiple rubber boat movements and 27 days of mock combat patrols.
It annoys my OCD side that they didn't round up the push-ups and sit-ups to 50 and 60.
None of the quantifiable ones are very difficult (who knows what the land navigation test entails). My understanding is they put out those standards, but you aren't getting a ranger tab if you can do a max 55 push ups, 7 chin ups, and run 5 miles in 39 minutes. I've read speculation that the standards appear relatively easy so they can keep the massive washout rates (people sign up that think they can make the cut because they can meet the minimums, but really are woefully underprepared).
Quote from: alfred russel on August 18, 2015, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on August 18, 2015, 09:52:16 AM
QuoteTo earn the Ranger tab, applicants must be able to complete 49 push-ups, 59 sit-ups, a five-mile run in 40 minutes, six chin-ups, a swimming test, a land navigation test, a 12-mile foot march in three hours, several obstacle courses, four days of military mountaineering, three parachute jumps, four air assaults on helicopters, multiple rubber boat movements and 27 days of mock combat patrols.
It annoys my OCD side that they didn't round up the push-ups and sit-ups to 50 and 60.
None of the quantifiable ones are very difficult (who knows what the land navigation test entails). My understanding is they put out those standards, but you aren't getting a ranger tab if you can do a max 55 push ups, 7 chin ups, and run 5 miles in 39 minutes. I've read speculation that the standards appear relatively easy so they can keep the massive washout rates (people sign up that think they can make the cut because they can meet the minimums, but really are woefully underprepared).
Individually they aren't very difficult. But combined is where the hardship comes in, it's constant physical and mental stress without much rest or food for the x amount of weeks it takes to get through it.
Quote from: Brazen on August 18, 2015, 09:52:16 AM
QuoteTo earn the Ranger tab, applicants must be able to complete 49 push-ups, 59 sit-ups, a five-mile run in 40 minutes, six chin-ups, a swimming test, a land navigation test, a 12-mile foot march in three hours, several obstacle courses, four days of military mountaineering, three parachute jumps, four air assaults on helicopters, multiple rubber boat movements and 27 days of mock combat patrols.
It annoys my OCD side that they didn't round up the push-ups and sit-ups to 50 and 60.
Really. And why 27 days of mock combat patrols and not 30! ;)
Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2015, 10:18:40 AM
According to this: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/PDF/Ranger%20School%20web11.pdf
48.99% graduated from 2000-2012.
But I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing since that is twice as high.
The ~49% includes a lot of retreads (people taking the course against after failing it the first time). The ~24% was, as far as I can tell, just for this cycle. The two women who passed were on their third try. I'm sure a fair number of the men were, as well.
QuoteTwo women pass ranger school
Is that the joke?
Speesh, I would take that bet if it were testable. AFAIK everything is done in front of the whole class. Too many witnesses with different agendas for a conspiracy.
Though I do agree it is in the military's interests for at least a few women to pass.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2015, 01:54:23 PM
Speesh, I would take that bet if it were testable.
Shock.
QuoteAFAIK everything is done in front of the whole class. Too many witnesses with different agendas for a conspiracy.
Which is why we'll probably eventually hear some anecdotes if my suspicions are correct.
QuoteThough I do agree it is in the military's interests for at least a few women to pass.
It's something they really want, yes. Whether it's in their best interests is debatable.
Ah. I thought you were razzing me.
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2015, 10:09:50 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2015, 10:07:16 AM
derspeiss' masculinity is threatened by the femirangers.
Nah, I think it's cute. I'm just suspicious of this DoD.
Of course. It is a bureaucracy. I have no more faith in DoD than I have in Microsoft.
Britain's Tri-Service Review has a recent study out on women in ground close combat. Fascinating reading.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf)
Mixed-gender combat units have lower survivability, a reduced lethality rate and a reduced deployability rate. And women are more than twice likelier to sustain injuries, etc, etc, etc. :hmm:
Mother Nature: Confirmed non-progressive shitlord.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2015, 05:29:05 PM
Britain's Tri-Service Review has a recent study out on women in ground close combat. Fascinating reading.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf)
Mixed-gender combat units have lower survivability, a reduced lethality rate and a reduced deployability rate. And women are more than twice likelier to sustain injuries, etc, etc, etc. :hmm:
Mother Nature: Confirmed non-progressive shitlord.
Excellent job of selective reading!
Reading without a prior bias, I, of course, get different conclusions (like those stated in the study). But don't stop being a bigot; it's your most endearing trait here.
Quote from: Brazen on August 18, 2015, 09:53:38 AM
24% of males and 10% of females passed.
That doesn't prove anything.
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2015, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2015, 10:09:50 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 18, 2015, 10:07:16 AM
derspeiss' masculinity is threatened by the femirangers.
Nah, I think it's cute. I'm just suspicious of this DoD.
Of course. It is a bureaucracy. I have no more faith in DoD than I have in Microsoft.
I wouldn't have much faith in any organization that employed you either.
Quote from: derspiess on August 18, 2015, 02:18:36 PM
Which is why we'll probably eventually hear some anecdotes if my suspicions are correct.
I don't know if it's still like this, but back when I was at Pcola SAR, they used to let female Aircrew and SAR students roll (repeat the course) essentially as many time as it took them to pass (or until they gave up), while the males would get one, MAYBE two shots, before being sent to the fleet or an A school as just a "regular" rating.
Now aircrew has one specific rating, AW, and AFAIK they don't allow any other ratings, so if you wash out of the program, you might be headed to the fleet as an undesignated sailor, which seems like it would suck pretty hard. I was an AW back then, but we had several other ratings in with us, as well as the Marines in my aircrew class.
Marginal female students would have their scores/times/etc rounded up if they we kinda close and had already rolled a couple of times. Males would get bitched out for only meeting the minimums. Forget any assistance making the program if your scores didn't add up. That, along with the fact that they would allow people who didn't previously know how to swim (!) into the program still makes me question how effective they are. They're mixed together so they kinda get covered, but still.
It was a little alarming being able to easily overpower (during pool training, I could have drowned several of them with no problem at all. Not kidding.) these students, and this wasn't limited to females, when they would train with us when they had been doing pretty much nothing but PT and swimming all day while we had been sitting around in an office or hangar watching TV and doing NATOPS "training." I don't want to make it sound like all female students were shit or anything. There were several very good female SAR swimmers in the classes that I saw, as well as some pitifully unqualified dudes, just an example of bending the rules and lowering the standards a little.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 17, 2015, 11:26:01 PM
I'm surprised, didn't think I'd see the day. Only 96 of 400 candidates passed, 2 out of the 19 female candidates.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-women-make-history-passing-armys-elite-ranger-school-n411506
Good for them.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2015, 05:29:05 PM
Britain's Tri-Service Review has a recent study out on women in ground close combat. Fascinating reading.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf)
Mixed-gender combat units have lower survivability, a reduced lethality rate and a reduced deployability rate. And women are more than twice likelier to sustain injuries, etc, etc, etc. :hmm:
Mother Nature: Confirmed non-progressive shitlord.
You missed the positive and neutral factors which were also identified. Also this report does not address the impact on CE of women who able to pass something as demanding as Ranger training. If they bring positive influences and they meet the standard where is the downside?
QuoteIn general, women have smaller hearts
True. :(
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 19, 2015, 06:39:38 PM
I don't know if it's still like this, but back when I was at Pcola SAR, they used to let female Aircrew and SAR students roll (repeat the course) essentially as many time as it took them to pass (or until they gave up), while the males would get one, MAYBE two shots, before being sent to the fleet or an A school as just a "regular" rating.
I am as sure as I can be without actual evidence that females got disproportionately greater chances to complete Ranger training than men this cycle, just as I am as sure as I can be without actual evidence that black, Hispanics, etc got disproportionately greater chances to complete Ranger training than men in their first cycle.
That's the way bureaucracy works, and, frankly, given that I saw women introduced to the fleet for the first time firsthand, I think its only fair. I'd bet that there were more instructors looking to fail them than there were instructors looking to fail any equivalent group of guys.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2015, 07:50:28 PM
QuoteIn general, women have smaller hearts
True. :(
:lol:
A Brain-worthy quip.
Two women pass ranger school, and we still can't get Jon Bon Jovi in a helicopter.
Some old soldiers and sailors complaining about slipping standards, it's an institution dating back to .. Marathon perhaps?
IIRC there were some pretty silly extreme endurance marches in the Victorian British army, man I bet those guys, given the chance would bitch about modern SAS selection tasks.
Mongers! :w00t:
Looks like women will get their chance to serve as Rangers soon
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/military-brass-weighs-opening-combat-jobs-women-n412781
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2015, 07:45:09 PMYou missed the positive and neutral factors which were also identified. Also this report does not address the impact on CE of women who able to pass something as demanding as Ranger training. If they bring positive influences and they meet the standard where is the downside?
The study is interestingly rather bipolar, the study observations are level 3 shitlord hatefacts but the commentary which ties it together is all frolicking unicorns shitting rainbows in terms of ease of implementation. Seems like 2 factions worked on it, one did the observations (presumably the infantry guys), the other did the editing.
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2015, 05:29:05 PM
Mixed-gender combat units have lower survivability, a reduced lethality rate and a reduced deployability rate.
Answer: all-women units :P
Quote from: Legbiter on August 20, 2015, 07:01:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2015, 07:45:09 PMYou missed the positive and neutral factors which were also identified. Also this report does not address the impact on CE of women who able to pass something as demanding as Ranger training. If they bring positive influences and they meet the standard where is the downside?
The study is interestingly rather bipolar, the study observations are level 3 shitlord hatefacts but the commentary which ties it together is all frolicking unicorns shitting rainbows in terms of ease of implementation. Seems like 2 factions worked on it, one did the observations (presumably the infantry guys), the other did the editing.
Well for one thing it's pretty obvious that a unit is going to be less deployable if it includes personnel who could get pregnant. Don't think you even need a study for that. Hell, in support units (where, granted, it would probably be more likely to happen than in line units) you have women who just happen to get pregnant right around the time their unit is scheduled to ship out.
Quote from: Brazen on August 20, 2015, 07:32:03 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2015, 05:29:05 PM
Mixed-gender combat units have lower survivability, a reduced lethality rate and a reduced deployability rate.
Answer: all-women units :P
yeah, but then they would never attack anyone.
"what enemy do you want to shoot at?"
"I don't know, who do you want to shoot at?"
"I don't know, it doesn't matter, just pick one"
:P
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2015, 07:47:45 AM
Quote from: Brazen on August 20, 2015, 07:32:03 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on August 19, 2015, 05:29:05 PM
Mixed-gender combat units have lower survivability, a reduced lethality rate and a reduced deployability rate.
Answer: all-women units :P
yeah, but then they would never attack anyone.
"what enemy do you want to shoot at?"
"I don't know, who do you want to shoot at?"
"I don't know, it doesn't matter, just pick one"
:P
Except for a few days each month where they're shooting at everyone.