Army Combat Fitness Test Fiasco! Slides Reveal 84% of Women Failing ACFT

  
Via:  1stwarrior  •  2 weeks ago  •  46 comments

Army Combat Fitness Test Fiasco! Slides Reveal 84% of Women Failing ACFT

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


In   previous articles   for ClearanceJobs, I’ve   thrown rocks   at the Army’s catastrophically ill-considered Army Combat Fitness Test—the planned successor to the proven and successful Army Physical Fitness Test. I will admit, however, that my arguments against it emerged strictly from experience and logic. I am a fan of the original APFT because I watched soldiers in my platoon take the challenge to raise their scores, and watched pounds melt away and recruiting poster paratroopers emerge. As for logic, the APFT essentially costs a unit ten bucks and two hours to run through an entire company of soldiers, whereas the ACFT costs… more.   Tens of millions of dollars more .

But, dear reader, I was willing to admit that I might be wrong! I lost many a night of sleep wondering: is the ACFT the salvation of American freedom? The greatest thing to happen to the Army since   the black beret   the blue service dress uniform   the retro   World War II-era pinks and greens ! What if the ACFT produced one million hooah-shouting, Ironman-winning, CrossFit-teaching soldiers with the physiques of Greek gods and goddesses? What if we went to war with China and the enemy just dropped their weapons and ran the opposite direction, so intimidating were the American men and women on the front lines? What if, so musclebound and terrifying were our soldiers, that the Army stopped issuing rifles just to make it a fair fight when we went to war?

I really put myself out there by coming out so strongly against the ACFT, and, because no Army leader has ever been wrong, from General George Washington himself through to General James C. McConville, the present Army chief of staff—well, it was inevitable that I would have to eat my words.

But then last week, someone leaked the analytics slides presenting the pass/fail rate for the eleven battalions taking the ACFT. The short version: oh man was I right. The slightly longer version: the Army Combat Fitness Test is an unbridled, unparalleled, unimaginable disaster. The bottom line: the raw numbers reveal a test absurdly biased against women in uniform, but frankly, no one wearing a green uniform really comes out ahead in this thing.

WOMEN ARE BEING SET UP TO FAIL


The only thing that fails harder than the ACFT are the soldiers forced to take it.

According to the numbers, a jaw-dropping 36% of soldiers overall failed the test, with 64% passing. When you break it down by gender, 70% of men passed. But here is a number should kill and bury the ACFT evermore: 84% of women failed the test. Those numbers are so absurdly biased against women that I was afraid this was some sort of elaborate joke by Duffelblog. But I spoke with one soldier in a leadership position at an ACFT test battalion, and the soldier confirmed that the leaked numbers lined up almost exactly with those of the soldier’s battalion.

ACFT-failure-rates.jpg



Here is why those fail numbers are so bad, male or female: you fail your physical training test, you get flagged. You aren’t going to military schools like Basic Leader Course or Airborne School. And if somehow you get there anyway, when you’re tested again you’ll be turned around and sent home. You cannot be promoted. You cannot be reclassified into another MOS. In the Guard and reserve, you cannot be transferred. You lose your tuition assistance. You can’t even reenlist!

Here is where it gets really ugly. If 84% of women are failing this test—keep in mind, 84% of women who are in battalions   specifically preparing for the ACFT —you have essentially eliminated women from the United States Army. It gets uglier yet. When a woman gives birth, she gets a six-month profile excusing her from the ACFT. The thing is: the real killer for women is the “leg tuck” portion of the ACFT, in which you assume a pull-up position and bring your hips and knees up to your elbows and back down as many times as possible in two minutes. That’s asking an awful lot for a woman who has given birth in the last few months; and allows, basically, for no time to actually train up for the event once her profile expires. Already, women are failing the leg tuck test by 72%.

It is no   secret   that sexism is a problem in the military. What this test makes clear is that said sexism knows no bounds, and with the capricious stroke of a pen, those men have found a way to wash an entire gender from the ranks. If 84% of women are failing the test, the problem is not with women soldiers; it’s the test.

ALL BAD, NO GOOD


The ACFT consists of six events:

  •     Strength Dead-Lift (120-420 pounds)

  •     Standing Power Throw (10-pound medicine ball)

  •     Hand-Release Push-Ups

  •     Sprint-Drag-Carry (sprint, drag a sled, and then lateral shuffle then carry two kettle-bells)

  •     Leg Tuck (hanging from a pull-up bar, bring your knees or thighs to your elbows)

  •     2-Mile Run (20 minute max)

The Army has yet to address the myriad problems the   ACFT presents for the Guard and reserve components , which make up the majority of the military branch. The gear necessary to take the test is locked up in cages by supply personnel who do not have time to sign out a literal LMTV’s worth of equipment on an already busy drill weekend. If your unit doesn’t have access to the Super Dome, your nearby testing grounds are not likely to meet the ACFT standard. (Dry grass, no rocks, no snow, no morning dew.) And because Guard and reserve soldiers do not have daily access to the gear and testing grounds (as their active duty counterparts do), they will be forced to purchase on their own dime a gym membership—and not the cheap gym, either. Planet Fitness doesn’t carry sleds. Can’t afford a good gym? Well maybe you’re not rich enough for the modern Army. I’ve heard reports of soldiers buying cans of paint to simulate the kettlebell lateral shuffle. (Kettlebells are not cheap.) It’s undignified and insulting. The reserve components are already missing their recruitment goals. This isn’t going to help.

But you know who it will help? The U.S. Air Force. I have been told that Air Force recruiters were warned by higher ups not to poach soldiers as this Army fiasco rolls out. But, hey, recruitment is an ugly business and recruiters have quotas. All they have to do is state the facts: Hello prospective female recruit: 84% of women are failing the Army’s so-called fitness standards. The problem is the test—not the woman. So do you want to enlist and be a private forever, or do you want to join the Air Force and reach your potential?

I know what I would choose.

The ACFT rolls out to the entire Army in less than a year. At present, it’s looking like the ultimate implementation of the ridiculed Army slogan “An Army of One.” But at least that was a slogan. If this test goes Army-wide, there might, in the end, only be one soldier left to wear the pinks and greens.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    2 weeks ago

Here is why those fail numbers are so bad, male or female: you fail your physical training test, you get flagged. You aren’t going to military schools like Basic Leader Course or Airborne School. And if somehow you get there anyway, when you’re tested again you’ll be turned around and sent home. You cannot be promoted. You cannot be reclassified into another MOS. In the Guard and reserve, you cannot be transferred. You lose your tuition assistance. You can’t even reenlist!

Seriously wonder just how the millennials are going/do handle getting ready to join military branches when all of the branches have to prep for the continuous wars/battles that our Presidents/Congress place us in?

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1  It Is ME  replied to  1stwarrior @1    2 weeks ago
Seriously wonder just how the millennials are going/do handle getting ready to join military branches when all of the branches have to prep for the continuous wars/battles that our Presidents/Congress place us in?

320

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1    2 weeks ago

I'm not sure how to feel about this. This test determines fitness. The function of the military is to defend the nation and fight our nation's wars. So how high a priority should making the military open to the fairer sex be? That seems to be the question.

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.2.1  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    2 weeks ago

Didn't read the article did you ?

The bottom line: the raw numbers reveal a test absurdly biased against women in uniform, but frankly, no one wearing a green uniform really comes out ahead in this thing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

By who's standards?  If women want the job they have to pass the test. We know women are physically different. Thus, military combat may not be for them. Progressives should have thought about that when they decided to USE the military as a social experiment!

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1    2 weeks ago

I thought the article was stating that it isn't the people it's the test. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Kavika @1.3    2 weeks ago
I thought the article was stating that it isn't the people it's the test.

That's certainly the author's opinion.

It's important to remember, however, that the quality of a test is not determined by the pass rate.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.2  Kavika   replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.1    2 weeks ago
It's important to remember, however, that the quality of a test is not determined by the pass rate.

It does seem that the failure rate is quite high, 30% for men as well. There are specific branches/units that they failure rate is quite high, ie; Rangers, Seals, etc. My understanding is this is a general PT test for all units. So the overall failure rate does seem out of proportion. The question is why, is it the test, is it the person or a combination of both. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Kavika @1.3.2    2 weeks ago
The question is why, is it the test, is it the person or a combination of both. 

I think it's a valid question.

However the author of the article seems (IMO) to believe that the test is designed to discriminate against women intentionally...simply because they're failing it in large numbers. 

Well, women do astonishingly poorly at the NFL Combine testing.  That doesn't mean the test is part of some sinister plan to keep women on the sidelines in short skirts.  

The important question would seem to be whether or not the testing reflects the physical demands of combat.  If it does, then a high failure rate would be indicative of a need to improve the physical capabilities of America soldiers.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.4  Kavika   replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.3    2 weeks ago

I don't know what the author's intentions are but it would seem that in addition to feeling that the PT test is discriminating against women he did state that 30% of the men were failing the test as well.

It's been quite some time since I was in the military but I'm going to have a conversation with my sister in law (who lives a couple of blocks from us). She retired as a E7 after 21 years and most of her assignments were with engineering companies. She was a heavy equipment operator and did some combat tours. 

At 130 lbs tops, she isn't someone that will take a back seat to anyone, male or female. 

Her husband retired as an E8 Master Sargent and spent 24 years in Infantry units. 

It will be an interesting conversation. 

 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.3    2 weeks ago

the Army’s catastrophically ill-considered Army Combat Fitness Test—the planned successor to the proven and successful Army Physical Fitness Test.

Gonna guess, this is a test program for a new Fitness program.  After receiving these results, I gotta feeling the new "program" will be toned down somewhat.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.6  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.5    2 weeks ago

It's going to be interesting to see what comes of this. 

 
 
 
Freefaller
2  Freefaller    2 weeks ago

Sounds like a leadership failure to me

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Freefaller @2    2 weeks ago

Actually, no - it's a societal failure.

 
 
 
Freefaller
2.1.1  Freefaller  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1    2 weeks ago

Agreed in part, prior to joining it is a societal failure, once in the military it is a leadership failure.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3  Just Jim NC TttH    2 weeks ago

This brings to mind an answer given by Trey Gowdy............

Quote:

Question: How can President Trump claim to represent all U.S citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, when he banned transgenders from joining the military? Isn't that discrimination?

 

Trey Gowdy's Response:

"Nobody has a right to serve in the Military. Nobody! What makes you people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? It is very far from it - and for good reasons - let me cite a few.

 

The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers."

 

He went on to explain: "By the way, poor eyesight will disqualify you, as well as bad teeth. Malnourished? Drug addiction? Bad back? Criminal history? Low IQ? Anxiety? Phobias? Hearing damage? Six arms? Hear voices in your head? Self-identification as a Unicorn? Need a special access ramp for your wheelchair? Can't run the required course in the required time? Can't do the required number of push-ups? Not really a morning person? and refuse to get out of bed before noon? All can be legitimate reasons for denial.

 

The Military has one job: Winning War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream, that isn't fair? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful. YOU must change yourself to meet Military standards and not the other way around.

 

I say again: You don't change the Military - you must change yourself. The Military is not about being fair, it is about taking advantage of others and about winning. The Military doesn't need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars and keep our Country safe - PERIOD! If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness, Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors.

Any other questions?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    2 weeks ago

So truly spoken - as only Trey can do.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1.1  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @3.1    2 weeks ago

Was Trey ever in the military?

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.2  Ender  replied to  Kavika @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Gowdy spent almost his entire time in office investigating Hillary.

Bless his pointy head.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kavika @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

No. Relevance? 

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
No. Relevance? 

Since he spoke with so much authority on the military I thought that he probably served. Guess not. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kavika @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

He has/had been in law and elected to congress and should know the charge that the military is tasked with and the restrictions therein.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.6  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

The same could have been said of Obama. Maybe even more so.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

checked out his bio. It seems that he was a TV news personality, attorney, fed prosecutor and politician. 

Since he has left Congress and joined a law firm and is a talking head on Fox News. 

With all that law experience he would have been great in JAG.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

Except that if you remember, Mr. Obama wanted to include everyone no matter what. So he didn't know the parameters.

" The biggest impact of Obama’s tenure may be felt by those serving in the ranks, and how dramatically that population has changed in recent years. Since 2009, White House-led changes have allowed gay troops to serve openly for the first time, women to serve in combat posts, same-sex couples to receive military benefits, and transgender service members to announce their presence in the ranks.

"Inertia is the most powerful force in the Defense Department," said Phil Carter, the analyst, who served as an Army adviser in Iraq in 2005-2006. "Some of these changes may have happened without [Obama], but he gets credit for forcing them quicker than they wanted."

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2017/01/08/the-obama-era-is-over-here-s-how-the-military-rates-his-legacy/

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.9  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.8    2 weeks ago
White House-led changes have allowed gay troops to serve openly for the first time, women to serve in combat posts, same-sex couples to receive military benefits, and transgender service members to announce their presence in the ranks

I don't see where someone being gay would harm anything, woman in combat, if they want to fight for their country, who is to stop them? Benefits for couple is a no brainer as people can get married now.

The only point of contention I can see is people wanting a sex change while on duty. The rest have really no bearing on performance.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.10  MUVA  replied to  Ender @3.1.9    2 weeks ago

I served with a woman E6 Wilson  in Iraq she was the best truck  and forklift operator  by far and also a badass. I think if you are transgender you should have the change before you enlist.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @3.1.9    2 weeks ago
I don't see where someone being gay would harm anything, woman in combat, if they want to fight for their country, who is to stop them? Benefits for couple is a no brainer as people can get married now. The only point of contention I can see is people wanting a sex change while on duty. The rest have really no bearing on performance.

I have not been in combat, so I will certainly defer to those who have.

It seems as though the people I know who have been in combat describe it as a physically demanding experience.  So while I do not see where sexual preference would matter, I can see where physical capability might. 

So the idea that "if women want to fight for their country, who is to stop them" seems a little like "if women want to play football at Texas A&M, who is to stop them".  Well....nobody....provided they possess the physical capability to actually win.  Which they may.  Or may not.  I'll defer to people who've actually been shot at for more expert opinion.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.12  Ender  replied to  MUVA @3.1.10    2 weeks ago

Years ago I ran a bunch of storage units. Odd job to say the least. One couple had a unit. He was military and his wife was from the Philippines. One day she came in and said she will no longer be paying the bill and was moving back to the Philippines. She told me the reason why was her husband, the military man, like to use the unit to dress up in full woman's clothing, wigs and high heels and admire himself in a full length mirror.

Full disclosure...It didn't hurt his on the job performance.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.13  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.11    2 weeks ago

I have never been in the military. Was a military brat and always lived by bases. Even where I am now we have an Air force base and a Navy base.

A friend of my Nephew wanted to join the military real bad. A really skinny kid, he could never make the weight requirements. After trying to work out and make some gains he finally did. Took him a while yet it was what he wanted to do.

 
 
 
pat wilson
3.1.14  pat wilson  replied to  Kavika @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

I think he was on Forensic Files.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.15  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ender @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

Let's kinda stick to the topic and not get into the politicians, OK?

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2  WallyW  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    2 weeks ago

They don't have time to deal with trannies or someone wanting a government paid for sex change.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  WallyW @3.2    2 weeks ago
They don't have time to deal with trannies or someone wanting a government paid for sex change.

People already bitch about the DoD budget.  Performing sex change surgeries will not only add to the budget it also takes away from that unit's manning and combat strength.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

'Specially with a cost of over $300K per person plus the recurring costs of the rehab and stabilization drugs.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

And we can't forget the suicide rate. 

 
 
 
Ender
3.3  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    2 weeks ago
Any other questions?

Yes. Are those restrictions in effect during times of draft? Somehow I doubt they cared if they sent someone to Vietnam while missing a tooth.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @3.3    2 weeks ago

Not sure. Seems I remember some stories at the time of dentists doing some kind of work on new recruits but not sure as to the extent. And you are more than likely correct. Missing a tooth is not a dental catastrophe while gingivitis to the extreme could have been enough. Unless treated, it only gets worse and infection and sickness could detract from one's ability to concentrate on the tasks at hand.

JMHO

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.3.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ender @3.3    2 weeks ago

Personal opinion, but during the last years of 'Nam, while the draft was still in full force, I "believe" their primary goal was to get bodies "trained" and sent over there to fill the gaps that were rapidly being made by the battle intent of the VC.  Now that we no longer have the draft and folks are volunteering for military service, the military has gone into selective training for the battlefield positions.  They can afford to as the new members are volunteering for the slots.

So, if you're "volunteering", I would believe you had damn well better be able to fit the qualifications.  I mean, hell, you don't throw someone into a computer analyst job if they don't have the basic requirements for the position - the ability to analyze.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    2 weeks ago

Spot on target 1st.

What is "fair" is that you know that the person next to you is qualified in all respects (training, mentally, and physically) to get the job done when the shit is going down. To put someone in uniform that isn't qualified isn't fair to those around them, or to that individual.  It's like sending someone off into combat who was never trained on how to hit a target.  You compromise everyone.

Hope you're well. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.4.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.4    2 weeks ago

Good points Fly.

While going through USMC bootcamp, in our Fit Test, we had a 242 lb "injury" named Rick who had been a guard on the USC football team.  Rick was 6'3" and had to lie down at the starting line.  Out "test" was to Fireman Carry Rick 100 yards.  6'3", 242 lbs, 50 lb rucksack, deadman lift and run, trot, fast walk with him over your shoulder after you had picked him up in the standard manner - feet on feet, lift with rucksack straps, place on shoulders and off you go.

Well, I "thought" I was in damn good shape, but only made it 72 yards before collapsing.  No one in our Platoon made the full carry.  Imagine being in the desert/jungle/open fields attempting to carry your Bud out of harms way.

 
 
 
Freefaller
3.4.2  Freefaller  replied to  1stwarrior @3.4.1    2 weeks ago
Imagine being in the desert/jungle/open fields attempting to carry your Bud out of harms way.

The Fireman carry is old school trg these days the drag technique is being taught.  God I hated the Fireman carry (uncomfortable for both the carryer and the carryee)

 
 
 
Kavika
4  Kavika     2 weeks ago

My great-nephew just joined and had no problem with the PT requirements.  

He had to enlist for six (6) years to get into Air Traffic Control school and plans on joining the Combat Air Controller SF.

My great grandson is currently serving with the Australian Special Air Services, (the Australian Special Forces) 

Special Air Service Regiment

20181019ran8562953_014.jpg
The Special Air Service Regiment is a Special Operations Command unit providing the Australian Government with unique capabilities in support of the national interest.

The Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) is one of three Special Operations Command combat units.

SASR special forces conduct protracted, difficult and challenging small-team operations involving high-level precise military skills, often in remote areas and with little tactical-level support. 

All SASR personnel are specially selected, however, its special forces undergo the most rigorous selection and training cycle before they finally earn the right to wear the famous SAS sandy-coloured beret.

History

SASR can trace its beginnings back to the Australian Z Special Unit and Independent Commando Companies that fought during World War II. On 25 July 1957, the 1st Special Air Service Company, Royal Australian Infantry, was raised at Campbell Barracks in Western Australia. In 1964, 1st Special Air Service Company was expanded to become the Special Air Service Regiment.

Force elements from SASR have served in various major conflicts (including Borneo, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq) and provide support to peace enforcements and peacekeeping operations (including Rwanda, Somalia, Cambodia and Timor-Leste (East Timor)). In addition to international operations, SASR remains prepared to meet domestic and offshore counter-terrorism tasks.

The SASR motto is 'Who Dares Wins'.

Learn more about SASR history from the   SAS Historical Foundation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the requirements to become a Combat Air Traffic Controler.

Special Operations: Air Force Combat Controllers

afcombatcontrollers.jpg?itok=toYxakNS
Military.com

The United States Air Force is the largest air force in the world, and when a combat zone is thick with air traffic, someone has to coordinate it all. Air force combat controllers operate in hostile territory as air traffic controllers, and that means they need to insert unnoticed, coordinate local aerial forces, and be ready for potential contact with enemy combatants.

According to the Air Force Special Operations Command website, "Combat Controllers are   trained special operations forces and certified FAA air traffic controllers. Their mission is to deploy, undetected, into combat and hostile environments to establish assault zones or airfields, while simultaneously conducting air traffic control, fire support, command and control, direct action, counter-terrorism, foreign internal defense, humanitarian assistance, and special reconnaissance."

Training

Some Special Forces units might get all the media glory, but don't be fooled – combat controllers rank among the most highly trained special operations forces in the United States. On top of maintaining their abilities as air traffic controllers, they must be trained in infiltration and joint terminal attack control.

===========================================================================
They are a couple of millennials
They are following in the steps of their great great father, great grand father,  grandfather, father, and numerous uncles and cousins and yes, a couple of aunties that served 20 plus years in the Army.
It's a family affair.
 
 
 
MUVA
4.1  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @4    2 weeks ago

I work with all branches and activities and most kids I see are squared away. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @4    2 weeks ago

Semper Fi and fair winds to all your relatives Kav.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

If the test is a reasonable predictor of performance in battle, then it's a good test, no matter what the failure rate is. 

A test designed with the goal of making sure the same number of men and women can pass the thing is a terrible test.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

dave-2693993
Heartland American
loki12
Paula Bartholomew
Dignitatem Societatis


101 visitors