Compulsory Military Service: Yes? No? Maybe So?

[KillarneyRose]

What do you all think of the concept of implementing compulsory military service in the United States?

On one hand, people shouldn't be told they have to give up a few years of their lives to do something potentially dangerous.

On the other hand, the military exists to protect our country and its interests and by requiring people to serve it lets us all share equally in that responsibility.

I'm out of hands and I'd love to hear what everyone has to say about it...

[AGDee]

I'm not sure that all people are cut out for military service, personally. What I support is a two year community service OR military service requirement. Individuals could choose which one works for them. Also, people with medical issues could still do some sort of community service even if they didn't qualify for the military.

Knowing what I was like at 18, I think something like boot camp would have torn me down beyond repair. At that point in my life I had no self esteem and I think a drill sergeant would have sent me into a suicidal depression. I also have a deep seated ..not sure what to call it, I guess it's a fear.. of guns. If I had to hold and shoot a gun, I think I would lose it. I really don't think you'd want someone as thin-skinned as I am serving in the military! I don't think my comrades would feel I would have their back.

However, I would have done great in something like the Peace Corps or building Habitat for Humanity homes, doing City Year, volunteering for the Red Cross, etc.

I think most 18 year olds (of course there are exceptions, myself included) who really don't know what they want to do with their lives and spend the first couple years of college meandering from major to major trying to find their niche. This would both serve our country (in a variety of ways) and give them some time to figure things out before they get to a college atmosphere.

[Tom Earp]

Used to be Selective Service and all Males, not including Females had to register for it.

I think We are one of the few Countrys who do not require this anymore.

I would agree with it once again with certain restrictions.

[Rudey]

I would support a draft. I'd also enroll in a PhD program in another country coincidentally at the same time that there was a draft.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
Used to be Selective Service and all Males, not including Females had to register for it.
There's no draft, but 18 year old young men have to register with Selective Service.

Being a person who could easily have been drafted (thank you ROTC in my case), I would rather not see it reinstated -- at least as it was, which is to say pretty unfair in terms of who was most affected.

I might be able to support mandatory government service of some king -- depending on how it would work and how it was administered.

[honeychile]

I've always been an admirer of Israel's military system. Both men and women serve 2-3 years compulsory service to the country in some manner. At first, everyone needed to know basic military training, and I'm sure that went a long way towards their country being so strong now. There's more about it here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel)

I agree with AGDee that the military isn't for everyone, but there are so many other options available to provide service to your country.

[PiKA2001]

It would be a pain in the ass to have to work with people who don't want to do their job.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by PiKA2001
It would be a pain in the ass to have to work with people who don't want to do their job.
Which, of course, is exactly what working in almost any company or job is like. There's always someone who doesn't want to be there.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by honeychile
I've always been an admirer of Israel's military system. Both men and women serve 2-3 years compulsory service to the country in some manner. At first, everyone needed to know basic military training, and I'm sure that went a long way towards their country being so strong now. There's more about it here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel)

I agree with AGDee that the military isn't for everyone, but there are so many other options available to provide service to your country.

Their country being strong has nothing to do with the billions of dollars worth of foriegn aid sent in by the U.S., does it?

I know the Israeli military can kick some ass, but give some credit to the American taxpayer!

[Optimist Prime]

I think that conscription might not work out so well. Wouldn't there be isues with desertment, fragging, etc?

[33girl]

No. I don't agree with making high school students do community service to graduate either, not that anyone asked.

[TheEpitome1920]

Originally posted by KillarneyRose
What do you all think of the concept of implementing compulsory military service in the United States?

On one hand, people shouldn't be told they have to give up a few years of their lives to do something potentially dangerous.

On the other hand, the military exists to protect our country and its interests and by requiring people to serve it lets us all share equally in that responsibility.

I'm out of hands and I'd love to hear what everyone has to say about it...

I don't think its a good idea. Primarily because I would never do it. Those who want to serve should.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Which, of course, is exactly what working in almost any company or job is like. There's always someone who doesn't want to be there.

There's a bit of difference between someone not wanting to turn in a report, and someone not covering your back when you're being shot at by the enemy. I'm not sure the two situations are comparable.

My dad was drafted and served, my grandfathers both served, so on one hand, I don't see why I should be spared from serving. On the other hand, I think a committed force is much better than one that has been drafted, and may not even want to serve.

Of course it may be a moot point for me, as I'm not sure if I could serve with my heart condition.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Their country being strong has nothing to do with the billions of dollars worth of foriegn aid sent in by the U.S., does it?

I know the Israeli military can kick some ass, but give some credit to the American taxpayer!
I wouldn't dream of it. But if everyone in a country is prepared to defend it in some way (in the military, childcare, eldercare, food banks, etc), it only strengthens the nation.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by honeychile
I wouldn't dream of it. But if everyone in a country is prepared to defend it in some way (in the military, childcare, eldercare, food banks, etc), it only strengthens the nation.

This didn't address the question at all.

-RC
--Food banks?? WTF?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by KSig RC
This didn't address the question at all.

-RC
--Food banks?? WTF?

Her cousin is Jewish but Christian so you shutup.

-Rudey

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by 33girl
No. I don't agree with making high school students do community service to graduate either, not that anyone asked.

Agreed. Also, it's easy to say that mandatory military/community/whatever service is a good idea when you're well past the age of having to do it.

I'd rather see the U.S. be more selective of where it sends troops instead of instituting some form of compulsory service.

[squirrely girl]

Originally posted by AGDee
I'm not sure that all people are cut out for military service, personally. What I support is a two year community service OR military service requirement. Individuals could choose which one works for them.


totally agree - this is a plan i could support

- marissa

[dekeguy]

On the one hand, it's a lot easier to lead volunteers than to motivate and lead draftees. On the other, it occurs to me that the price of citizenship is to put something back into the country. A national service program sounds good, but needs and requirements must come first. All national service personnel can't be in the Peace Corps. So, within the limits of availability and balanced against the needs of whatever service is required I would go along with a national service program with the clear understanding that while your preferences should be honored if possible the ultimate decision of what you are assigned to do must be based on the needs of the nation, not the preferences of the one doing national service. A self centered agenda must be subordinate to the bigger picture if the situation demands this.
In an ideal world we would all have our first choice of assignment and those who elect the military option would not be required to serve in a combat role but would be the garrison troops holding the fort back home while the Regular (volunteer) forces did the hard jobs. A national service person could volunteer for combat duty but would not be required to do so unless we were engaged in a war of national survival like WWII. Wishful thinking and plenty of areas for discussion and disagreement but its a start point. When I did my deployment I had all volunteers to work with. When my Dad was in Viet Nam he had a mix of draftees and Regulars so his leadership tasks were a bit more challenging than mine. At least we both got all our guys back home alive and mostly intact.
My personal belief is that we all owe our country a debt of service that every citizen must address. There are surely many ways to accomplish this, my way was to serve in the Army and to actively pursue 'pro bono' work now.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Agreed. Also, it's easy to say that mandatory military/community/whatever service is a good idea when you're well past the age of having to do it.

I'd rather see the U.S. be more selective of where it sends troops instead of instituting some form of compulsory service.

FWIW, I have been in favor of the system of military/community service since I was a sophmore in high school - when I first heard of it.

dekeguy - you make excellent points.

[Dionysus]

Even as an active member of APO, I've always found the required 50 or so hours of community service for HS students, dumb as hell...if not somewhat counterproductive.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by honeychile
FWIW, I have been in favor of the system of military/community service since I was a sophmore in high school - when I first heard of it.

Well, so do it. Quit your job and do community service for two years (unless you already have done it).

[33girl]

Originally posted by Dionysus
Even as an active member of APO, I've always found the required 50 or so hours of community service for HS students, dumb as hell...if not somewhat counterproductive.

Exactly. I doubt very much that students who are forced into community service develop a love of it. Plus, I'm guessing that there are some students who play the system and get away with doing things like putting down cheerleading as community service.

[Tom Earp]

Originally posted by 33girl
Exactly. I doubt very much that students who are forced into community service develop a love of it. Plus, I'm guessing that there are some students who play the system and get away with doing things like putting down cheerleading as community service.

Just how do You know that Students who are forced into Community Servise do not learn something?

Yes, maybe they will find out being primadonas will and learn other things.

If they dont then where do they end up?

Damn sure not in College will they?:rolleyes:

Oh Hell, Being a Cheer Leader is Community Servitued?

Maybe You have no idea what these People do!

It isnt a bed of Roses! Ask any Cheer Leader Here how damn hard it is!

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSigkid
There's a bit of difference between someone not wanting to turn in a report, and someone not covering your back when you're being shot at by the enemy. I'm not sure the two situations are comparable.
The consequences may be different, but to the leader -- manager or officer -- and the others in a unit, the dynamics are the same, I think. The person who doesn't want to be there makes it difficult for that leader, and everyone else. It's something we all have to deal with, one way or the other, for life.

[Tom Earp]

DeltAlum, I am trying to read Your answer and form a response.

Yes, there is a Structure for Any Business and this also includes the Military.

So, While I do not actually want to conscript any one for Military Service, then, if they are going to Recruit Men/Women for That service then be truthful and pay them as such with the Major benefits.

But, the problem is We Leave many times them out but with lip service!

[USCTKE]

what is this mandatory community service to graduate high school? I have never heard of it

I think that you should either have to serve in the military or get some type of college education

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by USCTKE
what is this mandatory community service to graduate high school? I have never heard of it

I think that you should either have to serve in the military or get some type of college education

Some school systems throughout the country have instituted that requirement for high school students to graduate. This can be fulfilled either by tutoring younger students, for example.

As for universal military service, unless we get in a situation where the safety and stability of our nation is directly threatened (i.e. outright invasion or a nuke attack), it's just not going to fly. I can see it being done in Israel, where they're almost completely surrounded by their enemies.

[PhoenixAzul]

In the words of an Irish pub tune, NO, NAY, NEVER, NO MORE!

I just think it is counter productive to the spirit of service to FORCE someone to do community work. And I don't think it would help chairities at all, because people aren't doing the work because they *want* to, theyre just there taking up space because they don't feel like shooting/being shot at.

Honestly, if there's ever a draft or forced conscription, that's the last straw for me. Eff it. I'd up and move back here to the UK/ Eire. I'd rather denounce my citizenship than FORCE people into life courses they don't want to do. That's part of that whole "persuit of happiness" thing. Personally, my persuit of happiness is in university, not shooting people, and not being FORCED to serve my community. I serve my community because I WANT to, not because the government is giving me a choice between Meals on Wheels and a machine gun.

Service, true community service, should be a DESIRE, something you WANT to do because you have compassion and care for your neighbor, anything else I think is antithetical to that.

And what about young people with children? Ship them off to some godforsaken piece of land? Or make them do voluntary service and not have a job, making them rely on the gov't for more handouts, not to mention taking them away from their children?

[AGDee]

Originally posted by PhoenixAzul



And what about young people with children? Ship them off to some godforsaken piece of land? Or make them do voluntary service and not have a job, making them rely on the gov't for more handouts, not to mention taking them away from their children?

Umm, the service would be your job for two years. You would get paid, just as you do in the military. Therefore, it would decrease government handouts. Some of the people could even do their service at day care centers for the kids. It would give them real life work experiences. I think, in general, our society has moved from Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" back to always asking what our country can do for us. My hope would be that it would reverse that trend.

[PhoenixAzul]

Originally posted by AGDee
Umm, the service would be your job for two years. You would get paid, just as you do in the military. Therefore, it would decrease government handouts. Some of the people could even do their service at day care centers for the kids. It would give them real life work experiences. I think, in general, our society has moved from Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" back to always asking what our country can do for us. My hope would be that it would reverse that trend.

But it wouldn't be asking what you can do, it would be telling you what you can do. And what if you could make a better wage doing something else? Would you have to settle for the 7 or 8 dollars an hour at the childcare centre because you'd be serving your country? Or could you take that 12 or 15 dollar an hour job doing whatever and support your family? Why not just let people go out and get a job?

What happens to our universities if we keep putting kids into the military or into forced service? Ok, some might go on to university, but there's a 2 year gap in classroom learning/application. How many will go back into academia for that? And I don't think the Greek system would survive, from a totally shallow point of view.

Basically, I don't want ANYONE telling me what to do, nor do I want anyone to take my brother, boyfriend and friends away against their will. Patriotic speaches are just that, speaches. The guys who make them will rarely have their kids on the firing line.

"Don't wave your rights with your flags."

[kddani]

I think it comes down to be WAY too big of a culture change to be feasible. Also, where would the money come from?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by PhoenixAzul
What happens to our universities if we keep putting kids into the military or into forced service? Ok, some might go on to university, but there's a 2 year gap in classroom learning/application. How many will go back into academia for that?Basically, I don't want ANYONE telling me what to do, nor do

I want anyone to take my brother, boyfriend and friends away against their will. Patriotic speaches are just that, speaches. The guys who make them will rarely have their kids on the firing line.

"Don't wave your rights with your flags."
A comment on your last one first. Your government tells you what to do all the time. Pay your taxes, wear your seatbelts, get a drivers license, obey traffic signals. It's called the law. There is ample precedent for forced service, too -- just look at the draft. The mechanism for that is still in place, by the way. I hope it is never reinstated because I saw personally how badly it was handled in the past. As I said somewhere before, thank goodness for ROTC in my case.

Your first point quoted above brings back the thoughts of one of my favorite professors (A fairly young, newly minted PhD in English Lit). His feeling was that it would be much better to send people off for a couple of years of military or community service before college. His reasoning was that people coming out of high school, for the most part, have no real skills at living on their own, don't understand time management, and in many cases have no idea what they want to do in the future. He felt that the added skills and maturity forced by two years of service before college would not only make for better students, but also serve as a way to weed out in advance those who may not really belong in higher education. The flunk out and drop out rates were fairly high. Most "big" schools had "flunk out" courses in the freshman year that they used to clear out the not ready for college students.

Clearly, his thoughts were not shared by a lot of us who were faced with the draft in the middle of the Vietnam war, but in looking back after not only years of volunteering in Delt chapters but also serving as an adjunct faculty member -- I can see his point in many cases. I'd love to get Carnation's perspective on this as a college professor.

The large number of WWII and Vietnam veterans who went directly to college (generally on the GI Bill) immediately upon their discharge would seem to allay your fears about a huge impact on schools and even the Greek System. There was a pretty fair number of post military fraternity men when I was in school. In many cases, it was their maturity and leadership that helped build strong chapters.

Finally, regarding mandatory community service in high school, it was the case in our school system. I think I'm for it. Mrs. DA used to run a very poor not-for-profit organization which relied heavily on volunteer help. The high school students who did their service with her were great kids, and did learn something -- if nothing else, some people skills. The few hours they put in were certainly life-savers for a very small and highly stretched professional staff. So, to me, it's a win-win -- providing the student has any kind of motivation at all.

Rambling thoughts for a Thursday morning.

[PhoenixAzul]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
A comment on your last one first. Your government tells you what to do all the time. Pay your taxes, wear your seatbelts, get a drivers license, obey traffic signals. It's called the law. There is ample precedent for forced service, too -- just look at the draft. The mechanism for that is still in place, by the way. I hope it is never reinstated because I saw personally how badly it was handled in the past. As I said somewhere before, thank goodness for ROTC in my case.

Your first point quoted above brings back the thoughts of one of my favorite professors (A fairly young, newly minted PhD in English Lit). His feeling was that it would be much better to send people off for a couple of years of military or community service before college. His reasoning was that people coming out of high school, for the most part, have no real skills at living on their own, don't understand time management, and in many cases have no idea what they want to do in the future. He felt that the added skills and maturity forced by two years of service before college would not only make for better students, but also serve as a way to weed out in advance those who may not really belong in higher education. The flunk out and drop out rates were fairly high. Most "big" schools had "flunk out" courses in the freshman year that they used to clear out the not ready for college students.



IT could also be argued that the military may not teach them time management...as a general member, you follow a schedule laid out by a superior, would you not? Its not like every private gets to sit there with a planner and say ,"right, 0630, breakfast, 0700 PT, 0800 range practice, well, no, ok, i could do range practice at 1100." When they leave the military, how will they respond to a university without the structure provided in their military training? Is that any easier than jumping from HS to university?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by PhoenixAzul
IT could also be argued that the military may not teach them time management...as a general member, you follow a schedule laid out by a superior, would you not? Its not like every private gets to sit there with a planner and say ,"right, 0630, breakfast, 0700 PT, 0800 range practice, well, no, ok, i could do range practice at 1100." When they leave the military, how will they respond to a university without the structure provided in their military training? Is that any easier than jumping from HS to university?

I agree with that. It always struck me as well that the military claimed to teach leadership skills. I don't see those leadership skills translating very well to the real world though. Consider in the real world, you have to lead people with free will. In the military, if you're a 'leader,' people do what you say, or they go to prison.

Translating military skills to real-world skills I think is pretty darned difficult.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by PhoenixAzul
IT could also be argued that the military may not teach them time management...as a general member, you follow a schedule laid out by a superior, would you not? Its not like every private gets to sit there with a planner and say ,"right, 0630, breakfast, 0700 PT, 0800 range practice, well, no, ok, i could do range practice at 1100." When they leave the military, how will they respond to a university without the structure provided in their military training? Is that any easier than jumping from HS to university?
I would argue that, in many cases, the military runs much like any other "job." There are managers (officers), Mid-level supervisors (non-commissioned officers) and workers (grunts).

Everyone is given a job, and a time frame for completing it. In some cases, that may be to be ready to follow the NCO from point A to point B starting at a given time. In some cases, it's working in an office -- or fixing a truck. A relatively small percentage go out and shoot at people.

Actually, I think you've made one of my points by talking about the unstructured schedule in the university setting. I believe that once you've learned those time management skills, you keep them as necessary. Someone who is used to the structure of business or the military is more likely to be able to plan classes, study and free time.

[squirrely girl]

just popping in to totally agree with the above - besides a great weight managment program (hah hah) i definetely feel that time management was an invaluable skill set that i gained from my time in the army. and yes, this has transfered to my civilian life effortlessly.

- marissa

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Your first point quoted above brings back the thoughts of one of my favorite professors (A fairly young, newly minted PhD in English Lit). His feeling was that it would be much better to send people off for a couple of years of military or community service before college. His reasoning was that people coming out of high school, for the most part, have no real skills at living on their own, don't understand time management, and in many cases have no idea what they want to do in the future. He felt that the added skills and maturity forced by two years of service before college would not only make for better students, but also serve as a way to weed out in advance those who may not really belong in higher education. The flunk out and drop out rates were fairly high. Most "big" schools had "flunk out" courses in the freshman year that they used to clear out the not ready for college students.

This reminds me of discussions of alcohol use and abuse by college students, which often focused on the fact that many college freshman don't have it together when they go away to school and, as a result, get there and act a fool with alcohol, sometimes with terrible consequences.

Just like I don't think it's the responsibility of universities or student organizations or anyone else to teach people how to be responsible with alcohol, I also don't think it's the responsibility of the military or any other form of mandatory service to teach these kids how to be adults or develop the skills needed to live on their own. That's the job of parents.

[Tom Earp]

Good luck on some of todays Parents.

While they may want to, it is now Law that a Parent cannot correct a child by laying a hand on them.

If they do, The Child can call 911 and report them for Child abuse and they are taken to jail, no questions asked.

The same thing goes for Teachers who try to correct unruly Children. They can lose their jobs PDQ!

So, today there is a bunch of ignorant unlearning want to be gang bangers!:confused:

If they want to fight, put them in the Military, and learn dicsapline (SIC) and time magagement, some thing has to rub off!

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Just like I don't think it's the responsibility of universities or student organizations or anyone else to teach people how to be responsible with alcohol, I also don't think it's the responsibility of the military or any other form of mandatory service to teach these kids how to be adults or develop the skills needed to live on their own.
I'm not saying it is the military or other service organizations responsibility to teach time management. I'm saying that I think being away from a sheltered environment like home or school naturally imparts those skills -- at least to some.

[kstar]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
The large number of WWII and Vietnam veterans who went directly to college (generally on the GI Bill) immediately upon their discharge would seem to allay your fears about a huge impact on schools and even the Greek System. There was a pretty fair number of post military fraternity men when I was in school. In many cases, it was their maturity and leadership that helped build strong chapters.

Actually it would strongly hurt Greek life. My father came back from Korea (not a draftee), and went to school. There were several fraternities after him, and they told him that they would help him be a man.

After a couple years of living overseas, working and being on his own, he didn't need help in that regard. Many other men seemed to have the same idea. The 60s and 70s were the dark era in Greek life, remember?

Though there was also a social awakening that deemed Greek life as part of the establishment, and thus bad. These men that I'm talking about however, some were the type that liked establishment.

[33girl]

Originally posted by kstar
Actually it would strongly hurt Greek life. My father came back from Korea (not a draftee), and went to school. There were several fraternities after him, and they told him that they would help him be a man.

After a couple years of living overseas, working and being on his own, he didn't need help in that regard. Many other men seemed to have the same idea. The 60s and 70s were the dark era in Greek life, remember?

Though there was also a social awakening that deemed Greek life as part of the establishment, and thus bad. These men that I'm talking about however, some were the type that liked establishment.

The 60's and 70's were the dark era because people didn't want to be part of something that they thought was "establishment", not because men came back from the service and didn't want to join. If you came back from the service and went onto a college campus in that time period, whether you were in Vietnam or elsewhere, I'm sure you had enough issues and questions thrown at you by your fellow students without joining a fraternity on top of it.

[kstar]

Originally posted by 33girl
The 60's and 70's were the dark era because people didn't want to be part of something that they thought was "establishment", not because men came back from the service and didn't want to join. If you came back from the service and went onto a college campus in that time period, whether you were in Vietnam or elsewhere, I'm sure you had enough issues and questions thrown at you by your fellow students without joining a fraternity on top of it.

Did you not read the last paragraph of my post?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by kstar
Actually it would strongly hurt Greek life. My father came back from Korea (not a draftee), and went to school. There were several fraternities after him, and they told him that they would help him be a man.
I'll stand by my comments. I was there in the mid to late 60's. I suppose your dad and I had different experiences.

[AKA_Monet]

The right way, the wrong way and the military way...

I could not get the "gist" of the comments, but I do think that military skills do translate to 'everyday skills" if focused appropriately, that is the benefit for going back to civilian life after the military... The only exception to this rule are those in combat... How does one explain defusing an IED to folks?

Anyhow, most of the officers I knew that retired got some extremely cushy CEO jobs running the show... Like Rear Admirals to Generals... They like, can run the entire corporation... And corporations--namely those like Halliburton, or other defense department corporate contractors, love these officers...

And if you are a military healthcare professional... Whoa...

And if you are a pilot and have been in combat, the commercial airlines will hook you up on general principle...

So, from my perspective, I've seen some translation... But those are for officers... Not for enlisted...

As far as compulsory service in the military or community service, my state has manditory community service in order to graduate from high school. ~50 hours. Kids do all kinds of stuff to graduate. I think it's great and the programs could be a tad more focused, but overall, young people need to know that not everyone grew up in single-family dwellings in the suburbs or that some people just fail and living life and need help, sometimes... Gives folks a reality check every now and then...

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
They like, can run the entire corporation...
I think that many (maybe most) who have not served in the armed forces get their impressions of the military from movies and TV.

The officers (managers, as I said above somewhere) run into the same problems and need and develop the same skill sets as managers in any level of business. With pun only slightly intended, running a company is like running a company. There is paperwork, there are budgets, personnel (HR) issues, the necessity of internal and external communications, planning, reports, meetings, and many other of the same things involved. Then, of course, there is the necessity of leadership. The bigger the military organization, the more experience and the bigger the company or corporation you may have the opportunity to run.

Have you ever noticed that politicians (there are exceptions, obviously), from dog catcher to President list their military service at the top of their political resumes?

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
While they may want to, it is now Law that a Parent cannot correct a child by laying a hand on them.

If they do, The Child can call 911 and report them for Child abuse and they are taken to jail, no questions asked.


Where is this true? Have you been smoking the wacky tobaccy?

[docetboy]

Absolutely not.

Being in the military currently, I see and live the value of a 100% all-volunteer force. You get better men and women, they are smarter, they train better, they work better, they function better.

[AGDee]

What do we do if not enough of them volunteer though? What if we get into a situation where we need 200,000 more soldiers?

As far as Greek Life taking a hit, in my scenario, everybody would do something else before starting college, so everybody would be starting at age 20. Colleges, Universities and Greek Life would all take a hit for two years while it was being implemented, until the whole freshman class was at least 20. I think we'd be ok if we knew it was short term!

I do think the logistics of it would be so very complicated to implement and I don't really see it ever happening. But, I still think it's a good concept.

Someone earlier said that the people supporting it were all old enough to not have to do it. Some of us though, have kids who would have to do it. I'd be ok with my child living a little real life between college and high school. I would rather have them do that, figure out who they are, what they want out of life than to have them rattle around at a college for 5 or 6 years because they couldn't decide on a major. Being in college was like being in some alternate world reality with very little responsibility compared to what comes later. I just think getting a glimpse of the real world is a good idea, before you decide what you want to do in it.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by docetboy
Being in the military currently, I see and live the value of a 100% all-volunteer force. You get better men and women, they are smarter, they train better, they work better, they function better.
That has long been the argument for an all volunteer military. The question is whether the size force we need can be recruited -- particularly in times of war.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by AGDee
What do we do if not enough of them volunteer though? What if we get into a situation where we need 200,000 more soldiers?

If not enough people volunteer, it's time to reevaluate how the troops we do have are being used. I'd hope that would happen long before we need 200,000 more. If it looks like we're going to be short, try to "budget" what we do have.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by valkyrie
If not enough people volunteer, it's time to reevaluate how the troops we do have are being used. I'd hope that would happen long before we need 200,000 more. If it looks like we're going to be short, try to "budget" what we do have.
While this sounds good, I don't think it's possible. It's an unfriendly world out there, and people who don't like us aren't likely to go along with our plans of how to budget and schedule our military assets.

[33girl]

Originally posted by kstar
Did you not read the last paragraph of my post?

Yes. However, you apparently didn't read mine...I said that even if these men had been in the "establishment" army, they came back to a vastly different America in general and campus in particular. Whether you were drafted or enlisted.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I'd love to get Carnation's perspective on this as a college professor.



LOLLERSKATES!

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
LOLLERSKATES!
?

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by AGDee
Being in college was like being in some alternate world reality with very little responsibility compared to what comes later. I just think getting a glimpse of the real world is a good idea, before you decide what you want to do in it.

I'm sorry you got that experience, but for some of us, college included working to pay tuition (including some nights and weekends), and living in the "real world." I think we need to be a little careful in our generalizations.

I don't see a draft being reinstated, but if it were, I would certainly go if drafted (even after hearing my dad's sometimes graphic stories from his experience in Vietnam). By that point I'll hopefully be an attorney, so they'd probably have some sort of position in mind for me.

[PiKA2001]

Originally posted by KSigkid
By that point I'll hopefully be an attorney, so they'd probably have some sort of position in mind for me.

Yeah, infantry. The way I always understood the draft, is that most people get the boots on the ground, rifle in hand jobs.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by PiKA2001
Yeah, infantry. The way I always understood the draft, is that most people get the boots on the ground, rifle in hand jobs.

Good point, I've heard that quite a bit.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
While this sounds good, I don't think it's possible. It's an unfriendly world out there, and people who don't like us aren't likely to go along with our plans of how to budget and schedule our military assets.

I'm not terribly worried about this country starting to worry about what others think of its military plans.

[PhoenixAzul]

I have always been living in the "real world". I've been a working and contributing member of society since I was 13. I don't know what world the rest of you grew up in, but mine was pretty damn real. No one in my family has had a sheltered life. We've all worked extremely hard to get to where we are. I really hate the generalization that people who go from HS straight into uni aren't living life, or are sheltered, or aren't part of the "real world". Real world includes study, it includes the university experience, which is often combined with a healthy dose of work and sacrifice on the individual's part. Not every kid at university is a trust fund baby.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
While this sounds good, I don't think it's possible. It's an unfriendly world out there, and people who don't like us aren't likely to go along with our plans of how to budget and schedule our military assets.

This is pretty much nonsense, Delt - no matter what occurs, there is still a 'budgeting' process that can make the most efficient use of resources . . . and no matter how 'unfriendly' the world may be, a constant updating of this budgeting will still produce the most efficient method.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSig RC
This is pretty much nonsense, Delt - no matter what occurs, there is still a 'budgeting' process that can make the most efficient use of resources . . . and no matter how 'unfriendly' the world may be, a constant updating of this budgeting will still produce the most efficient method.
OK, fine. What happens if the North Koreans decide to cross the DMZ? Do we ask them to wait until we increase our "budget?" When that happens, efficiency and budget go out the window.

We can't staff the present conflict(s) we're in without putting a huge strain on the Reserves and National Guard. From a purely money "budget," the administration doesn't even include it in the Federal fiscal budget, but has spent tens of billions of dollars in special funding.

It took months to build up forces for Desert Storm.

I'm not a Hawk by any means, but there are some situations that won't wait.

We used to staff our military with the idea of being able to react to two separate major conflicts in different parts of the glove. With the cutbacks we've put in place, we're hard pressed to handle one -- assuming we can agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much the same place.

Sorry if you think that nonsense. It seems more like reality to me.

Clearly, we can't "budget" for every contingency but must try to be as efficient as possible, on the other hand, we have to be able to react quickly with some amount of force without depleting other missions.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
We can't staff the present conflict(s) we're in without putting a huge strain on the Reserves and National Guard. From a purely money "budget," the administration doesn't even include it in the Federal fiscal budget, but has spent tens of billions of dollars in special funding.

That's the problem. What in the hell are we doing? I am by no means an expert on anything military, but isn't it pretty much common sense that we shouldn't be stretched as thin as we are right now? Doesn't the current state of the world suggest that we shouldn't be all over the place like we are -- so when something DOES happen, we'll be more likely to have the resources to deal with it?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by valkyrie
What in the hell are we doing?
That's the operative question.

I'm not an expert on anything -- except maybe TV Production -- but I think there has to be some kind of ballance between being the world's policeman and isolationism. I don't know how either of those can work for a "Superpower." I also have no clue as to how to find that mid-point.

There must be a middle ground, but in that area there has to be flexibility to meet an unexpected crisis -- which is why I don't think there is really a way to totally "budget" our assets.

As a former boss used to say, "You can't build a church for Easter Sunday." On the other hand, you can't be completely without some kind of cushion.

[AGDee]

Originally posted by KSigkid
I'm sorry you got that experience, but for some of us, college included working to pay tuition (including some nights and weekends), and living in the "real world." I think we need to be a little careful in our generalizations.



I didn't say that I didn't work.I started working when I was 13 years old. I worked two jobs through most of my college years and held an academic scholarship which required at least a 3.50 to keep.

My rent was cheap, I paid 1/3 of the utilities, the jobs I worked didn't have the level of stress or responsibility that my "grown-up" jobs have had. The amount of responsibility in taking care of your own tuition and paying for college housing is not anywhere near the level of responsibility of managing employees, working in your career, raising kids, paying the mortgage, etc. There's no comparison, seriously. Nobody else was depending on me to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads. I didn't have to do laundry for a bunch of other people, clean up other people's messes, shop for their clothes, etc. In comparison to my current level of responsibilities, it was no big deal.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by AGDee
The amount of responsibility in taking care of your own tuition and paying for college housing is not anywhere near the level of responsibility of managing employees, working in your career, raising kids, paying the mortgage, etc.

Except for the 'kids' part, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

-RC
--So other than 'raising kids', the responsibility of working and paying tuition doesn't hold a candle to the responsibility of . . . working . . . and paying bills . . . nicely done

[Tom Earp]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Where is this true? Have you been smoking the wacky tobaccy?

I do not have a Link. But Feel Free to find it as I will not do it for You!

It is in Child Abuse Laws.

You Do, You Get Time. Over protective was used as a Do not Hurt THe Kids.:mad:

[Tom Earp]

Originally posted by valkyrie
That's the problem. What in the hell are we doing? I am by no means an expert on anything military, but isn't it pretty much common sense that we shouldn't be stretched as thin as we are right now? Doesn't the current state of the world suggest that we shouldn't be all over the place like we are -- so when something DOES happen, we'll be more likely to have the resources to deal with it?


Oh, Welcome to The Real World!

The Fed. Govt. cut over many Years the Military Budget saying the The Researves and National Guard will be the fill ins.

Well, Now They are and Our Civilian Soldiers are many who are losing their lives. Because of the cut backs which are going on today is the reason.

Our Weekend Worriers who may be call up "In A Time Of National Emerencys" are Now over In War Zones. They are not just weekend any more are they?

National Emergencys are of Local Importance such as Kristina and Helping Our Home People.

It is the Same GOVt. that Cut The Coast Guard Budget which now seems to be very Important for Home Land Security!

It is the same Govt. that Cut INS Budgets before OOPs Illegal Aliens.

Maybe that will answer Your ???s!:rolleyes:

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by AGDee
As far as Greek Life taking a hit, in my scenario, everybody would do something else before starting college, so everybody would be starting at age 20. Colleges, Universities and Greek Life would all take a hit for two years while it was being implemented, until the whole freshman class was at least 20.

One of my undergraduates that was taking over in my Sorority was in the reserves before the Iraq War was started... The Navy was paying her way to go to college. She heard all the stories about NPHC membership intake and thought it would not be any worse than boot-camp, then discovered it was a total different idea that she just loved when she became one of my sorors. She literally had tears in her eyes after her final initiation because she had not been surrounded by that much "love"...

So, no, I don't think military service conflicts with joining a greek organization unless folks make it out to be...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I think that many (maybe most) who have not served in the armed forces get their impressions of the military from movies and TV.

The officers (managers, as I said above somewhere) run into the same problems and need and develop the same skill sets as managers in any level of business. With pun only slightly intended, running a company is like running a company. There is paperwork, there are budgets, personnel (HR) issues, the necessity of internal and external communications, planning, reports, meetings, and many other of the same things involved. Then, of course, there is the necessity of leadership. The bigger the military organization, the more experience and the bigger the company or corporation you may have the opportunity to run.

Have you ever noticed that politicians (there are exceptions, obviously), from dog catcher to President list their military service at the top of their political resumes?

I dunno, the retired Rear Admiral I knew became the CEO of USAA a few years back...

But yeah, from dog catcher to US President, they do put on their military service at the top of their resume, as they should...

And yeah, there may be training needed for business skills, but one gets them over time... I guess from some "corporate think tanks", I guess they say, at least they know where the CEO will stand when there is a "sinking ship..." :rolleyes:

And then again, Ollie North didn't "biatch out" when he up in front of congress during the Iran-Contra affair...

With the retired military on TV: And why are all the retired military mostly on the Fox News Channel??? That's one thing I cannot figure out... Like Lt. Col. Bonaventure et al. And he looks young... With the exception of those that are hating on Rummy right now, who else is on TV--besides Ollie?

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by AGDee
I didn't say that I didn't work.I started working when I was 13 years old. I worked two jobs through most of my college years and held an academic scholarship which required at least a 3.50 to keep.

My rent was cheap, I paid 1/3 of the utilities, the jobs I worked didn't have the level of stress or responsibility that my "grown-up" jobs have had. The amount of responsibility in taking care of your own tuition and paying for college housing is not anywhere near the level of responsibility of managing employees, working in your career, raising kids, paying the mortgage, etc. There's no comparison, seriously. Nobody else was depending on me to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads. I didn't have to do laundry for a bunch of other people, clean up other people's messes, shop for their clothes, etc. In comparison to my current level of responsibilities, it was no big deal.

That's fine - I suppose teaching preschool, running a babysitting business, and worrying whether I would be making enough for tuition wasn't stressful at all.

Perhaps we shouldn't judge how much "responsibility" others have had.

[PiKA2001]

Originally posted by DeltAlum

We used to staff our military with the idea of being able to react to two separate major conflicts in different parts of the glove.

It's not just two, but three.

[AGDee]

Originally posted by KSigkid
That's fine - I suppose teaching preschool, running a babysitting business, and worrying whether I would be making enough for tuition wasn't stressful at all.

Perhaps we shouldn't judge how much "responsibility" others have had.


I believe that, 20 years after college graduation, most will look back on those years as the most fun years of their adult lives. I also believe that most would rate their level of responsibility in their post-university jobs as higher than that of the jobs they held while in school. There are other life responsibilities that don't come up until later also. More people depend on you in a variety of different ways. You're taking care of your parents, instead of the reverse. You frequently have responsibilities to a spouse, to children, or other dependents. Your financial responsibilities grow exponentially. Your responsibilities within your household increase (upkeep of a house vs. a student apartment, etc).

Whether you experience more "stress" or not is a whole different discussion and irrelevant to this thread. Stress and responsibility don't necessarily go hand in hand.

You really seem to be taking this as a personal attack and it isn't, so I'm not sure why you're taking it that way. In the type of system I've spelled out, by babysitting and teaching pre-school, you would have fulfilled the requirements. You just would have served in that type of capacity for two years before beginning college, while earning money, and had a "GI Bill" type deal to help you with college after that.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by AGDee
I believe that, 20 years after college graduation, most will look back on those years as the most fun years of their adult lives. I also believe that most would rate their level of responsibility in their post-university jobs as higher than that of the jobs they held while in school. There are other life responsibilities that don't come up until later also. More people depend on you in a variety of different ways. You're taking care of your parents, instead of the reverse. You frequently have responsibilities to a spouse, to children, or other dependents. Your financial responsibilities grow exponentially. Your responsibilities within your household increase (upkeep of a house vs. a student apartment, etc).


I cannot begin to imagine how if, as you say, the college years are the most fun years of many people's lives and that often there are fewer responsibilities than exist later in life, that is a bad thing.

[AGDee]

I think that many don't realize it at the time and they might appreciate it more if they did some of the other stuff first, that's all.

Implementing it would be a total nightmare and there is no funding for such a program, so it's a moot point anyway. I just think it would be good for the country and the individuals who experienced it.

If given a choice between a military draft for everybody or a choice between a draft or community service for all, I'd support the latter, but not the former.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by AGDee
I believe that, 20 years after college graduation, most will look back on those years as the most fun years of their adult lives. I also believe that most would rate their level of responsibility in their post-university jobs as higher than that of the jobs they held while in school. There are other life responsibilities that don't come up until later also. More people depend on you in a variety of different ways. You're taking care of your parents, instead of the reverse. You frequently have responsibilities to a spouse, to children, or other dependents. Your financial responsibilities grow exponentially. Your responsibilities within your household increase (upkeep of a house vs. a student apartment, etc).

Whether you experience more "stress" or not is a whole different discussion and irrelevant to this thread. Stress and responsibility don't necessarily go hand in hand.

You really seem to be taking this as a personal attack and it isn't, so I'm not sure why you're taking it that way. In the type of system I've spelled out, by babysitting and teaching pre-school, you would have fulfilled the requirements. You just would have served in that type of capacity for two years before beginning college, while earning money, and had a "GI Bill" type deal to help you with college after that.

I'll admit I'm probably taking this too personally, and taking too much of my own life experience into this (admittedly a poor tactic for discussion)...I just think you're painting things with an awfully broad brush. I'm married, house-hunting, have bills and financial obligations, and have a challenging job, and I still believe I had quite a bit of responsibility in college. If I ever end up having kids, maybe that will change that, but I don't think I'll ever look back at college as a responsibility-free zone.

It's not only you who has said it, and I probably shouldn't direct my responses only to you, but I just get annoyed by the whole "When you get older, you'll realize real responsibility" argument.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I just felt the need to respond with mine.

[AGDee]

And, there is probably some of the "good ole days" syndrome working on my part too. I think we look back and remember mainly the good, but it seemed stressful at the time. I definitely remember feeling totally freaked that dues might go up $10 a month (how would I come up with that????) and feeling like there was no way I could be ready for those 3 tests AND get that paper done all in one week when I was scheduled for 30 hours between my jobs.

It felt as stressful in college as it does now, I'm sure. Retrospectively, it seems like the stakes are much higher now, with a dying parent, kids to take care of, a much more stressful and busy job, and a WAY higher mortgage payment. My mortgage increase this year (due to an ARM) is what I used to pay for my whole rent in college!

I think the biggest group that the compulsory service idea would benefit are those who don't go to college. There is a sub group of collegians that it would apply to also... the ones who flunk out because they didn't learn how to balance the good times with the responsibility. As GLO members, we learned that well. The folks who would benefit most aren't likely to be reading this board.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSigkid
It's not only you who has said it, and I probably shouldn't direct my responses only to you, but I just get annoyed by the whole "When you get older, you'll realize real responsibility" argument.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I just felt the need to respond with mine.
Noted, and now, I hope you will allow me to share my opinions without branding them as nonsense as someone -- not you -- did earlier in this thread.

One of the buzzwords in hiring or promoting management level people for the past few years has been "progressive responsibility." I think that means that as you gain experience, perhaps manage more people, bigger projects or a bigger budget, you also gain the skills and understanding to keep on progressing into more and bigger responsibilities.

In most businesses and the military -- which is part of what this thread talked about earlier -- more responsibility comes with age and experience.

Sorry, but how many thirty year old Fortune 500 CEO's do you know of? There may be a couple, but I can't name them.

That's not to say that older people are smarter. Some people are naturally more gifted than others. Brother John Elway wasn't a Hall of Fame Quarterback when he graduated from Stanford, though -- although the basic skills were there to hone. Nor could Colin Powell have understood how to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when he graduated from West Point. (I think he went to USMA -- if not, change "West Point" to "college").

In school, you learn theory and basics. In business you learn how things really work. Isn't that why there are internships -- to learn how to turn theories into reality?

To rankle at the suggestion that greater responsibility comes with age and experience would assume that a person pretty knows all there is to know and is ready to tackle anything life or business has to offer coming out of school.

I just can't agree with that. I think it works that way in our personal lives as well.

Of course many of us have/had responsibility (and stress) early in life, but most of us continue to gain knowledge, experience and responsibility for many years.

[Rudey]

Progressive responsibility means nothing more than a structured corporate environment where you hold your lip 99% of the time, others take credit for your work, and there is a level of bureacracy surpassed only in government halls in India.

The only thing I've come to accept is the phrase "Grind, Mind, Find". First you grind. You work your butt off. Then you mind. You start to think about processes and coming up with new ones. And then you find. You start to bring in business. The mind is difficult to do without knowing the business but it doesn't take decades to learn. The find is the only thing I do think age helps in because I can't work the magic of someone above me who dines with some CEO and his wife every Friday and then golfs with that same client all the time. It's near impossible.

And I'd love to know how interns learn reality. In 99% of the cases I know interns do nothing. There is no reality there and that dream they live is either a great one or a nightmare.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not black and white. As much as age helps with experience, age also gets a free ride at youth's expense.

-Rudey
--Quick, write that line down...it belongs in a movie script.

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Noted, and now, I hope you will allow me to share my opinions without branding them as nonsense.

One of the buzzwords in hiring management level people for the past few years has been "progressive responsibility." I think that means that as you gain experience, perhaps manage more people, bigger projects or a bigger budget, you also gain the skills and understanding to keep on progressing into more and bigger responsibilities.

In most businesses (and the military -- which is part of what this thread talked about earlier -- more responsibility comes with age and experience.

Sorry, but how many thirty year old Fortune 500 CEO's do you know of? There may be a couple, but I can't name them.

That's not to say that older people are smarter. Some people are naturally more gifted than others. Brother John Elway wasn't a Hall of Fame Quarterback when he graduated from Stanford, though -- although the basic skills were there to hone. Nor could Colin Powell have understood how to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when he graduated from West Point. (I think he went to USMA -- if not, change "West Point" to "college").

In school, you learn theory and basics. In business you learn how things really work. Isn't that why there are internships -- to learn how to turn theories into reality?

To rankle at the suggestion that greater responsibility comes with age and experience would assume that a person pretty knows all there is to know and is ready to tackle anything life or business has to offer coming out of school.

I just can't agree with that. I think it works that way in our personal lives as well.

Of course many of us have/had responsibility (and stress) early in life, but most of us continue to gain knowledge, experience and responsibility for many years.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Progressive responsibility means nothing more than a structured corporate environment where you hold your lip 99% of the time, others take credit for your work, and there is a level of bureacracy surpassed only in government halls in India.

And I'd love to know how interns learn reality. In 99% of the cases I know interns do nothing. There is no reality there and that dream they live is either a great one or a nightmare.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not black and white. As much as age helps with experience, age also gets a free ride at youth's expense.

-Rudey
--Quick, write that line down...it belongs in a movie script.
I like the line. Nothing is totally black and white, and the age piece is cute. I'd just say there are a lot of folks who have spent a fair amount of their careers bringing along younger ones.

In most of the companies I'm aware of, holding your lip is a good way to be totally overlooked. Being the loudest and most obnoxious at the table doesn't work too well either. An internship is what you make of it.

Two thoughts about internships. First, I hope my doctor learned something during his internship. Second, in the the TV stations I've worked for, the bright, hard working interns are the ones who get the jobs upon graduation. That's assuming, of course, that there is a position open. An internship certainly isn't a guarantee.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Noted, and now, I hope you will allow me to share my opinions without branding them as nonsense as someone -- not you -- did earlier in this thread.

My use of the word 'nonsense' wasn't meant to be dismissive of your opinions in general, but rather to point out that your conclusions did not follow what I thought your argument laid out - I think this was clear, and sorry if it was not.

Originally posted by DeltAlum
One of the buzzwords in hiring or promoting management level people for the past few years has been "progressive responsibility." I think that means that as you gain experience, perhaps manage more people, bigger projects or a bigger budget, you also gain the skills and understanding to keep on progressing into more and bigger responsibilities.

In most businesses and the military -- which is part of what this thread talked about earlier -- more responsibility comes with age and experience.

Sorry, but how many thirty year old Fortune 500 CEO's do you know of? There may be a couple, but I can't name them.

These are cute concepts, but they contain some inherent contradictions that make it slightly difficult to use them as proof of your overall concept.

For instance, can't we explain almost all of these points by saying "opportunity comes with age"?

Rather than "progressive responsibility" I'll posit that these 'brilliant' HR people are simply promoting "progressive opportunity" - this is a slow, semi-efficient method of testing an individual at discrete points to ensure they succeed before offering increased opportunity to prove it at the next, higher levels.

It's a brilliant way of accounting for a slow, moderately effective method that also, not coincidently, prevents catastrophic mistakes in advancement at the low, low cost of efficiency (which can't really be measured) and a few who are underemployed and left behind. Think about it - this is just as plausible as the concept of "progressive responsibility" and passes the 'sniff test' (and Occam's Razor) perhaps more effectively.

Originally posted by DeltAlum
That's not to say that older people are smarter. Some people are naturally more gifted than others. Brother John Elway wasn't a Hall of Fame Quarterback when he graduated from Stanford, though -- although the basic skills were there to hone. Nor could Colin Powell have understood how to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when he graduated from West Point. (I think he went to USMA -- if not, change "West Point" to "college").

I agree with the Powell example - that's a great example, albeit extremely limited by the fact that his current job carries infinitely more responsibility than anyone is generally afforded. I hate the Elway analogy - Elway was certainly not playing at his HOF-caliber highest level when he retired, either. Age diminishes some skills, as well - stress levels, outisde interferences, ability to rebound from long work weeks, etc . . . since we can't quantify these things, it seems like more wishcasting, or perhaps more specifically, shifting the examples to fit the desired outcome.

Originally posted by DeltAlum
In school, you learn theory and basics. In business you learn how things really work. Isn't that why there are internships -- to learn how to turn theories into reality?

Some internships accomplish this - I think you might be somewhat skewed by the fact that your field (specifically TV) seems like it would have one of the steepest learning curves in this regard. However, I'm not 100% sure that applies to anything else - for instance, if a friend interns at Goldman Sachs, his 'theoretical' use probably shouldn't be different from actual implementation, and if it is then the utility of that implementation can certainly be argued.

I guess my point is that this can be true to varying degrees; however, again, I think most of this is learning, which is somewhat unrelated to what spawned this discussion if we remove your assumptions from above in this post - which I think are somewhat dubious, as laid out.

Originally posted by DeltAlum
To rankle at the suggestion that greater responsibility comes with age and experience would assume that a person pretty knows all there is to know and is ready to tackle anything life or business has to offer coming out of school.

I just can't agree with that. I think it works that way in our personal lives as well.

Of course many of us have/had responsibility (and stress) early in life, but most of us continue to gain knowledge, experience and responsibility for many years.

I agree with these points completely - but I don't think this is what most people (and specifically ksigkid) are doing. No one is trying to claim that wisdom is not achieved with age and experience - but more likely that this connection isn't all that applicable to the other points being raised.

[Munchkin03]

Gen. Powell did not graduate from the USMA, he is an alumnus of City College here in NYC. It's not as if he was groomed for an officer career when he was in school.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I agree with these points completely - but I don't think this is what most people (and specifically ksigkid) are doing. No one is trying to claim that wisdom is not achieved with age and experience - but more likely that this connection isn't all that applicable to the other points being raised.

Exactly - there seems to be an assumption by some in this thread that the issue is black and white, and it's not. By no means was I making the generalization that age and responsiblity had nothing to do with each other; I just don't think it's that cut and dry in many cases.

At times, it's lightly tossed around that younger people don't know responsibility, and I just believe people should think twice before making that assumption.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I hate the Elway analogy - Elway was certainly not playing at his HOF-caliber highest level when he retired, either. Age diminishes some skills, as well - stress levels, outisde interferences, ability to rebound from long work weeks, etc . . .
Actually, I think that, in a way, this underscores the importance of experience gained over a career.

Elway was named SuperBowl MVP in his very last game.

Nobody would argue that he was in his top phisical form at that age after having his body beaten up for years.

But he had the experience to know how to overcome those deficencies.

On another topic, thanks for the info on Colin Powell. I'm glad I qualified it in my post since I wasn't sure he graduated from West Point.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Actually, I think that, in a way, this underscores the importance of experience gained over a career.

Elway was named SuperBowl MVP in his very last game.

Nobody would argue that he was in his top phisical form at that age after having his body beaten up for years.

But he had the experience to know how to overcome those deficencies.


Without getting into a VERY nerdy sports discussion, I'd simply like to point out that this is exceptionally results-oriented thinking. While Elway was the MVP and probably the most important piece of that Broncos team, his contribution to that team's success (from a purely numerical standpoint) was certainly less than his contribution to earlier, worse Broncos teams.

Also, again, you're conflating 'experience' and 'learning', neither of which really address what spawned this discussion (although I agree that Elway did these things, and that's part of his legendary status).

It's up to you to determine whether this supports or assails your views, but I think we're way off the rails of this discussion anyway - just pointing this out.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSig RC
...but I think we're way off the rails of this discussion anyway - just pointing this out.
Yeah, I agree. That tends to happen on GC I guess.

[squirrely girl]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Yeah, I agree. That tends to happen on GC I guess.

which is why i generally stop reading threads after about 30 posts...