Marines toughen physical standards for combat arms jobs
Hondo sends us a link from McClatchy that reports the Marine Corps new standards for physical fitness for all Marines cause most women to be eliminated from the program to include them in combat arms jobs;
In the last five months, 6 out of 7 female recruits — and 40 out of about 1,500 male recruits — failed to pass the new regimen of pull-ups, ammunition-can lifts, a 3-mile run and combat maneuvers required to move on in training for combat jobs, according to the data.
[…]
The high failure rate for women, however, raises questions about how well integration can work, including in Marine infantry units where troops routinely slog for miles carrying packs weighed down with artillery shells and ammunition, and at any moment must be able to scale walls, dig in and fight in close combat.
Well, that’s the way it should be – if men can’t pass the test, that proves that it’s an effective measure.
Before the standards test existed, those 40 men would have moved on to combat jobs, where they would likely have been unproductive members of their units, a Marine Corps analysis said. So [Marine Commandant Gen. Robert] Neller said that as time goes on, the overall quality of the force will be better.
But it won’t make the social justice warriors happy.
If two women qualify, they will be placed in a combat unit together. But, if only one qualifies, she’ll be put in a unit with men she trained alongside in school. Those men, the Marine Corps said, will have seen her go through the training and know that she had done as well, or better, than they did.
The Marines will also put a female officer and a female senior enlisted leader in the combat units. Early on, those will likely be women doing a non-combat job — such as an intelligence or logistics officer. And they will be required to pass a physical fitness test to qualify to serve in that combat unit.
The Marine Corps seems to be doing the best they can do with what they’re given. I don’t expect it to continue, though, through no fault of the Marines’ leadership.
Category: Marine Corps
This tactic was bound to happen. While it is may be intended to prevent women from succeeding in jointing combat arms positions in the Marine Corps as a “social justice warrior” I could care less how hard they make the standards. As long as people who can meet them can serve regardless of gender.
If the higher standards allows them to meet their current troop strength and readiness needs than it is a good thing because it means the Marines are more fit and more capable than they would be under the previous lower standards.
It is about getting the most qualified people for the job. Regardless of gender.
Silly me. I always thought it was about fielding the most effective military force possible within the limitations imposed by resource constraints.
I am not sure what you said is inconsistent with what I said.
…and that subtle difference is critical. There’s a lot more to fielding an effective fighting force than having the most qualified individuals (key word, there) serving.
The first part of your first paragraph was iffy. The rest was spot on, as far as I can see.
Actually, it often is. Spend too much time/effort/resources finding and developing talent, and you may not have enough resources left to actually do anything worthwhile. Patton expressed a version of this (limited to the resource time) in his maxim, “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.” Relatively long answer follows. Operating and maintaining screening programs/remedial training/duplicate facilities take resources. Those resources are not available for other uses. And they are finite; once used, they’re gone. Trying to pipeline males and females through the same training requires dual facilities. In some cases, it also requires additional screening and additional training programs. When designing training or equipment for a large number of individuals selected from a given population, one is a fool to ignore population norms. And that is the crux of the problem. When it comes to physical tasks, we don’t have just one population; we have two. That’s why we have separate male and female athletic competitions in virtually every sport. Collectively, as groups males and females have different physical ceilings. That’s not changeable; it’s due to basic biology. As a group men are simply larger, are stronger, and have greater cardiovascular endurance than do women. Short of heavy (and illegal/unethical) chemical use, you’re not going to change that. The physical differences in strength, endurance, and size between men and women as groups are also not negligible – the woman’s mean on physical size seems to be between 1 and 2 standard deviations lower than that of men. Strength and endurance means vary similarly. There are also other issues – for example, women are more prone to knee injuries due to different leg/hip geometry than men. For specialties where physical demands are such that either gender can do the job equally (or nearly equally) well, the effect is IMO negligible. There are few if any additional screening or training programs required; and suitable training standards can be developed that are reasonably attainable by both populations (male and female) without substantial remedial training or unusual screening. The result is a net increase in effectiveness… Read more »
only graduating a fraction – the two ladies who graduated Ranger school do tend to come to mind, don’t they.
The only reason they graduated is because a two star general graded them on their patrols in the mountain phase. And this was on their third or second recycle just for the mountain phase. You can graduate/tab anyone at Ranger school if there is enough command influence. In my class, we had a Malaysian 2LT who could not speak understandable English who was awarded the ranger tab. He was useless in the field, so we used him as a human pack mule. We were told he got the tab because a prior Malaysian LT was executed for disgracing their Army for not graduating with a tab. (Probably not true, but that was the story.)I should also note that the two Navy seals completed w/ no recycles in that same class, but did not get their tabs because they did not pass enough of their leadership positions. But of course there were no O-7 or O-8 rating their performance, which I might note was superb except when they were made platoon or squad leader in Florida.
Where did you hear that Miller graded them on their patrols? I’ve heard a lot of BS about the women in Ranger school but that is the first time I’ve heard that a general graded them personally. It seems like an odd thing to do if he wanted to avoid the appearance of cheating on their behalf.
He did in fact walk patrols with their class, like he does every class.
I won’t say that MG Miller and I are friends, but I have met him and listened to him talk about this. It seems odd to me that a career infantry officer who commanded battalions, brigades and the 10th Mountain Division, spent time in the Regiment and Delta, and earned two CIBs, two Purple Hearts, and a BSM for Valor would suddenly sell out to political correctness, sell out his NCOs and everything he professes to hold dear in order to get promoted.
What is really sad here is that no one has any confidence in the ARTB leadership, from the commander down to every RI that graded them.
If what you are alleging is true, they all either lied or allowed the lie to continue to protect their careers. Pretty sad statement about the NCO corps.
As far as the Malaysian LT story, I have heard it or a variant of it about just about every school that allows international students. A Saudi prince was beheaded, a Nigerian wasn’t allowed to come home, etc, etc, etc. I actually taught in two different service schools, and we failed internationals all the time. None of them were executed.
As it happens, I work right next to the Army Staff guys that arrange for internationals to go to Army schools. Every single day they deal with international students that either quit, fail, or cheat. Their biggest problem is Afghans going AWOL. I simply don’t believe any of that.
I heard those same tales of beheaded Saudis years ago.
I also believe that foriegn students got a “Certificate of Attendence” vice a graduation cert.
“The physical differences in strength, endurance, and size between men and women as groups are also not negligible – the woman’s mean on physical size seems to be between 1 and 2 standard deviations lower than that of men. Strength and endurance means vary similarly.”
15% of women meeting the entry standard is about what you would expect to see given the 1 to 2 standard deviation difference noted above.
As you note, this story will continue. I wouldn’t be surprised if the question of why its assessed as 45 days, as opposed to the end of training?
Maybe, maybe not. A sample size that small (7) can be seriously skewed by highly improbable events that happen to occur in the sample. Here, a single unusually athletic female may have accounted for the pass and the numbers may not be representative – or the six fails may represent sad cases worse than most. Without more data, it’s hard to say.
On the other hand, the male sample (1500) is big enough for sample stats to be considered reasonably representative of the underlying population. From the observed results, it appears that the “fail cut” was at around 2 standard deviations below the mean for males (2 std deviations below the population mean is equal to saying that about 2.5% of the population is below that point).
My guess is that the 45 day point was a compromise chosen because (1) it’s long enough to get people decently trained (6+ weeks), but also (2) early enough to save significant training $$$ in the event someone simply can’t “get it”. But that’s only a guess.
45 days is reasonable compromise, but I don’t know if that will keep the wolves at bay.
I would have to assume that all recruits are more physically fit at 45 days than at day O, and more fit on day 82 than day 45.
I’m sure its a line of questioning that will be pursued by the SJWs if “not enough” women move forward.
I’m afraid you’re correct. This situation certainly looks like one where considerations other than military utility will drive the train.
This.
It seems like the USMC did improve screening, and it seems that it is working. There are 40 males that would have passed in years past.
It also seems that they are maintaining (if not raising) standards, also a good thing.
“Spend too much time/effort/resources finding and developing talent, and you may not have enough resources left to actually do anything worthwhile.”
Surely you are not stating that finding and developing talent are not worthwhile activities.
First, this flies in the basic premise of Marine recruiting, especially in comparison to the Army (the Few, the Proud). You have to start with quality individuals to make a high quality team. Secondly, ‘worthwhile’ activities like tough, realistic training do develop talent.
I agree that there is only so much you can do with screening tools; your SAT only gets you into college, you still have to learn calculus to be an engineer. Just because a recruit passes a strength test at the Recruiting Station doesn’t mean they won’t quit in week 2 because they miss their mom.
However, the tests do screen out those who have no hope of making it through training. You will get some false positives, but if you maintain standards in training this is not an issue, especially considering the very small numbers of women that have tried.
FInally, I think you are missing Patton’s point. He was confident that his highly trained, high quality force could execute a hastily developed plan and win.
Surely you are not stating that finding and developing talent are not worthwhile activities. Not saying anything of the sort. Finding and developing talent is indeed important. But it’s not the most important thing a military does. Fielding an effective fighting force is more important. Initial selection and training is only a small part of that. The DoD budget is a zero-sum game. DoD’s resource “pie” (time/facilities/personnel/funding) is of fixed size; what’s spent for one purpose (selection and initial training) isn’t available for other uses. Spend too much time and resources in recruiting and initial training, and you hamstring the rest of the force. In a perfect world, we’d have the luxury of putting everyone who joins the military into the slot where they were the “best fit” and most happy. We’d also give them training to the expert level in their skill before they arrived at their first unit. Doing either is a pipe dream. Both take far too many resources (including time). And there’s no guarantee that doing so will fit the service’s most pressing needs at the time. In short: the most effective solution overall does not always make optimal use of each individual. Rather, it fields the force that is the most effective overall in defending the nation. There is an optimal level of resources to devote to initial training. That level can and does can vary among units and specialties (elite unit selection and training is by design far more involved and resource-intensive than initial selection and training for other units). Spend too little in selection and training, and you may well pay a severe price when you begin real-world operations. Spend too much on selection and initial training and you don’t have enough resources left to train/equip/maintain/sustain adequately the fielded force – and will pay a severe price when it comes time for real-world operations. Finding that “sweet spot” between the two is the goal. That spending too little on initial selection and training is a bad idea is obvious. But overspending there is similarly a bad idea in a resource-limited environment. Anyone who… Read more »
We are talking about a simple physical test to screen applicants for service. The Army test involves 4 events and takes about 20 minutes, and the Marine test is similar. In fact the Marines have used the IST for years.
This isn’t going to bankrupt the system, especially when you consider that it costs the Army roughly $70K to get a Soldier through the Basic and AIT/OSUT.
I can only imagine that it costs the Marines much more, since Boot is 12 weeks followed by SOI for every troop- that’s before MOS training.
Screening applicants earlier in the process will save money in the long run, and it will deliver more high quality troops to the operational force. Any leader will tell you that they spend 85% of their time with 10% of their troops; this will screen that 10% out.
These new standards (called MSPA) were already in the works before the TFI even began. Unfortunately, we did not have time to implement them though. Once TFI was completed, the Marine Corps pulled the trigger on the new standards. Regardless though, many will just see this as a way to prevent jobs from opening up.
In all honesty though, the MSPA is not that difficult, and if someone cannot pass the requirements, they definitely do not deserve to be in combat arms, regardless of gender. I also want to point out that everybody has a total of 3 attempts to pass, those who fail will be placed in a remedial PT program to help them pass on their 2nd or 3rd attempts.
Okay, just a question, Rerun369. What if you’re a lousy runner like me, but you can hack everything else easily?
The listed events in the article are not actually the MSPA. The article is simply listing the CFT and PFT events which has been around for years. The big difference is that for combat arms, all personnel must meet the minimum male standards, regardless of gender.
The MSPA is broken down between MOS, and requirements will differ depending. There is no long distance running involved in MSPA, but instead timed events requiring primarily overall strength. All events are done in full combat gear with personal weapon, and include a dummy drag (230 lbs dummy), wall climb, Mk-19 overhead lift, and various other combat arms related events.
To answer your question though, if you do not pass one of the events, you are considered a failure, regardless if you pass the other events, and will be recycled to the next training company. Upon recycling you will be assigned to a remedial fitness program focusing on your deficiency (running, endurance, strength). You will receive three attempts, spread out between three training cycles to accomplish the required events. If you fail on all three attempts, a review board at the various schools will decide whether to initiate a MOS reclass or administrative separation.
Thanks for the explanation. I asked that question because Audie Murphy was rejected by the Marine Corps for being too short, and went to the Army instead, where he was accepted.
I think that there are times when being a few seconds short of the time allowed for something such as running could reasonably be offset by other equally important qualities such as endurance.
For instance, I’m a lousy swimmer. I have no speed at all, but I can spend literally hours in the deep end of a pool treading water, or even in a lake with wave action. That’s the kind of thing I was inquiring about.
It all depends on the requirement- what do you have to do for the job.
If simply staying afloat is what the job takes, then you would do fine. If you have to out swim sharks, then you shouldn’t get the job.
All that’s happening here is the services have to select people for their ability or potential to meet job requirements, and hold them to those requirements in training.
Example: Every Soldier (and I assume Marine) has to be able to throw a hand grenade- it’s a Warrior Task, considered to be a basic and required task (a critical and recurring task).
A hand grenade weighs roughly 1 pound, and the qualification standard is to engage a target at 35 meters, meaning you have to throw it 30 meters (kill radius is 5 meters).
In other words, every Soldier (and I assume Marine) has to be able to throw a 1 pound object 30 meters, or they can’t meet the basic requirements to be a Soldier. 29 meters won’t cut it.
The same holds true for all common Soldier tasks, then you start adding MOS tasks. Cannoneers have to be able to lift artillery projectiles, tank gunners have to lift tank rounds, Engineers have to lift demo. Can’t do it, can’t use you.
EX-PH2.
Audie Murhy was NOT rejected by the Marines for being too short.
He was rejected by the Marines and Navy for being underage at the time.
Thanks Old Dog, that is a recurring folk tale that is hard to dispel.
They’re pretty…but can they fight!
Ohn they can fight General.
Dirty Dozen….what a great flick!
Holy crap! Standards work when they’re applied!
Ahmmma open a training camp for aspiring BAMs….oh yeah….boots higher….more reps…whooozyer daddy?!?
Good job, USMC!
Now maybe Ranger School will do the same thing….
Ranger school Has done this for years. The first week is an assessment (RAP Week) with go/no go tests for entry into the course.
The Marines are far behind in this process and trying to play catchup.
I see nothing wrong with tightening the standards. They benefit anyone who qualifies.
Ray Maybe steps in to turn that off in 3, 2, 1….
This sounds great till we need numbers
For the CMCs sake I hope they can show that the Corps planned on doing this before the exclusion on women was lifted.
That’s the first thing that came to my cynical mind.
Sounds good to me. But The SJWs will complain, only because it’s not their asses being shot at.
First of all, these are just minimum standards and in no way reflect the rigors of a line unit, it would be interesting to see how these women fare over the long haul. I was a comparative PT stud when I reported to 2/6 as a 1stLt after a gentlemanly tour with MAG-32 at Cherry Point and the pace with weekly humps, field training and a MCCRES was a real test of physical ability and stamina.
Time will demonstrate the true cost of this endeavor. Attrition rates, injury rates, and promotion rates for those females who do not score high on male standard PFTs/combat readiness evaluations like the MCCRES will be interesting to watch.
Agreed.
In my time in anyone that scored below a 1st Class PFT was a pretty dismal creature in ANY MOS, not just Infantry.
A seabag with lips can pass a PFT.
Yeah you can’t just take somebody who can’t hack the infantry and go make them do intelligence work. I mean they can be a useless body in the S-2 but they won’t be formally trained intelligence Marines. That would be like taking a prospective intelligence Marine who fails the training and just making him a platoon rifleman. “0300, congratulations son, you made it.” lol
This Washington Com-Post article breaks the tests down pretty good, including the specific ones for artillery and combat engineer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/06/22/how-the-marines-new-physical-standards-for-combat-jobs-weed-out-men-and-women/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
[…] Vs. Reality The Political Hat: Being Raped Is Now Jewish Privilege This Ain’t Hell: Marines Toughen Physical Standards For Combat Jobs Weasel Zippers: Clinton IT Specialist Pleads The Fifth 125 Times In 90-Minute Deposition On E-Mail […]