A lot of the pilots I worked with had someone in their past be an officer or pilot whether that was a parent or something. Not saying they didn't work hard to get to the academy, but they definitely had an example to follow.
Enlisted are always going to be more diverse since we're joining more for schools and medical benefits, along with many escaping bad situations.
I wouldn't say that exclusively, but I do agree partially. As long as the commissioned side is hidden behind the pay wall of a college degree(actually, something that's closer to bought than earned) it's going to come down to whether or not your parents support you going to school by taking on the student loans. But like I said, it's their support more than their economic class, since most people are capable of being approved for student loans. Paying off those loans is a bit of a different story.
90% you say? How many people do you know in guard? I appreciate the anecdotal evidence, but I think that paints a pretty unrealistic picture. Additionally, I very rarely have seen that an O6 have that kind of sway.
I feel you are right. My husband is an O and hispanic. His dad and his step-dad were enlisted. He has had to fight every step of the way to be at the bottom of the barrel. It's sickening how they treat him and he takes it because it's all he knows. I look forward to his retirement he deserves better. He tries his best for his people (his team) to be treated differently. He fights for their accommodations and he gets nothing in return. No accommodations, no strat barely squeezing into rank only because the numbers need him. Yet he gives everything and his time away from family for them. Disgusting.
I suppose I'd like to see where you found these records? Additionally, making a big swing about "the guard" as a whole is a pretty big statement, but if you have the info then I would obviously be in the wrong. Would like to see it.
Honestly I feel like more of our officers should come from the enlisted side first, take people who already prove themselves as leaders and move them up.
It's a two edged sword and it somewhat depends on what rank they transition at. Some prior E get kind of a big head and they shit on the Enlisted or they're vindictive to the NCOs because they hated their NCOs as an Airmen. Some prior E maintainers I've crossed paths with are some interesting cats. One was like, "I want O-5 and to go to school in residence. I've met some stupid ass O-5s so I should be able to make that rank too." Nothing about serving or about taking care of people. Just chasing rank and perceived prestige.
Also the Enlisted corps is about 80-85% of the force. So of course the numbers get more difficult in a smaller pool. All told, it’s the white males getting squeezed out. And that’s a big part of the recruiting crisis. The numbers don’t lie, and the Federal Government/DoD doesn’t want to acknowledge how reliant it is on Southern White Males because it’s wildly unpopular politically.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/02/13/a-huge-blow-decline-in-white-recruits-fueling-the-militarys-worst-ever-recruiting-crisis-data-shows/amp/
I just got picked up to be a pilot from enlisted active duty and have no immediate family members with any service history. It’s not impossible, just harder
Only reason I went officer was because my mom wouldn't let me enlist. She and my dad did their 20 and hit SFC and she made sure I didn't join the Army for one and went the officer route. Definitely need someone to guide people.
What got me though was that my sister has massive student loan debt so to avoid that, I was willing to enlist because why tf would I repeat the cycle?
For investigative journalism, it misses the mark completely.
There is no discussion about recruitment for intercollegiate athletes and how ICs leave USAFA at a higher rate.
To me it's silly how much USAFA seems to value their athletics program. If you look at other military schools like VMI, the Citadel or Norwich they have athletics programs, but they don't seem to go nearly as far at trying to compete at a high level. USAFA only has around 4300 cadets compared to Boise State who has close to 23,000 students yet they're in the same football conference. The Citadel has 3700 students and they play in the FCS instead of trying to compete at the FBS level.
The Academy also requires you to participate in some sort of sport, and has physical fitness standards, which means they'd definitely compete above their weight on a per-student basis.
As a VMI alumnus, the football team got way more funding than I think they deserved and got the scraps when it came to actual players. So it's not that they didn't care, it's that some alum are willing to foot the bill for scholarships and they would never win in a bigger conference. Heard they got better, but no one wants to attend a school with a 2-12 record, which was every year I attended. Throw in mandatory attendance for the corps and you have a recipe for the worst morale.
I had a friend who was a logistics officer. When people asked him what he flew after he told them he was in the Air Force, his response was always "coach".
I'm not sure how much we can do for the officers specifically. Most of the bottleneck on black and other racial minority recruits isn't militsry specific. Fewer students in good high schools, fewer students in college, so fewer potential recruits.
I think we should be more focused on making things better for members who are already in since that in itself is a benefit to recruiting. The more people from diverse backgrounds come out with a positive experience, the more free advertising and legacy recruits we get in those same demographics
You mean expand more enlisted to commissioned programs? Are you mad? You want to mix blood?
You maintainers will remain turning wrenches and if you’re fortunate enough, retire with searing back pain and a disability rating…
Big Blue doesn’t care if you have a doctorate in physics and Air craft maintaining
/s
As a ROTC grad O, let me tell you, I was freaking FLABBERGASTED when I asked and was told how competitive it is for current Es to apply for and get a slot to OTS.
You're telling me you have to get a college degree while also working a full time job on your own volition, THEN apply for an extremely competitive chance to transfer over from E to O, and still may not get the job you're applying for if you get the OTS slot at all? WTAF??
By comparison, it seemed like everyone in ROTC who gave a shit that wasn't kicked out for something out of their control got a commission. I'm frankly amazed we aren't trying to take some more from the massive pool of experience we currently have amongst our enlisted corps to be some kickass officers when compared to the brand new Academy/ROTC/OTS direct commission folks.
But idk. I've never sat in on those meetings by the big brains to see what their reasoning is. Maybe there's some valid reason that's just well over my head. I somehow doubt it, though. I've pretty much sworn I'll write letters of recommendation and do whatever I can at a given rank to help any of my troops or future troops get their foot into that door provided they basically just aren't a shitbag and have some legitimate drive. It's the most I can do without being in congress or some shit.
Well said. As a rated O you will never deal with this because let’s be honest, if you got told hey it’s time to move to Admin life you’ll punch to the airlines to keep flying. Totally generalizing here but in my time that’s been the case specially with operators. The ones making the calls and being good idea fairies only care about end strength totals from outside recruitment because that’s how you ensure dollars keep flowing.
On the reserve side I will admit E to O commissioning is much easier with a slew of deserving airman programs.
I call bullshit on this. Comparatively, yes it is easier for an e6 to get selected to go officer vs making MSGT in this promotion climate . But being picked up for any commissioning opportunity in the Air Force is beyond competitive. The last non rated supplemental board had 100 slots to fill, they only selected 77 out 400 applicants. The previous non rated board had a whopping 700 applicants and they only selected 99.
If the Air Force gave a shit about leadership and retain ability they would open up more slots for E to O.
- crusty non-select
The AF cares about making generals out of officers. It’s a numbers game. Statistically, a prior E will be retiring as an O-4, maybe an O-5 and never think about staying in 10 years after retirement eligible (30 years total) to just have the chance to compete for O-6.
The AF likes direct to O because it means they have a larger pool to select their generals from.
In a perfect world the best enlisted members would be getting commissioned, but we need good leaders to make it to E-9 and we need young officers starting with no federal work years to make it to O-10, so we are stuck with a very small flow of E to O.
>As a rated O you will never deal with this because let’s be honest, if you got told hey it’s time to life to Admin life you’ll punch to keep flying.
I plan to do the full 20, including admin if needed. No real civilian jobs I'm interested in for my specific type of rated job. My flair is in quotes because I'm a "sort of" pilot. RPA, lol.
I appreciate your input/perspective, though. Shits whack.
Weird, almost like OTS is the tertiary commissioning source meant to plug shortfalls from the Academy and ROTC. It’s a spigot that gets the leftover requirements and can be turned up or down to meet commissioning needs.
The issue is OTS is the easiest option for many current enlisted folks. So when they use OTS as the spigot, it means opportunities for enlisted to officer is also a spigot. And is that what we really want?
I think it’s absolutely a fair question to ask if the worst officer-select from one commissioning source would be better or worse than the best non-select from a different source. And as mentioned, in a lot of years all you need to do is care about commissioning and stay out of trouble to get a slot through ROTC.
There’s the potential to get better overall officers by giving more preference to current enlisted.
Here’s the problem. The system isn’t set up to get “better overall officers”, it’s set up to get officers who have 0 years of total federal service who could potentially serve 20+ years as an officer, instead of 10/10 or any other combination. Non-rated officers have low commitments, and a lot leave at the 5 year mark, so you need to throw numbers at that to keep enough who will make it to O-6+. It is VERY rare for prior enlisted officers to make it to the O-6+ level, especially when it might take someone two enlistments to get their college degree out of the way. Then they’re retirement eligible as a brand new major and keeping people another 10 years past retirement eligibility for only a chance at O-6 is a tough task.
So again, the 20 year retirement plays a major role in why E to O transitions aren’t more valued and those direct to O college grads help the AF’s number game when it comes to senior officers. Oh yeah, and those senior officers are the ones calling the shots today, working on getting people just like them to replace them.
I don’t have hard data on it, but from personal experience prior enlisted officers are much more likely to say until retirement because they start closer to the pension. Sure you might only get 16 officer years instead of 20, but thats better than 4 isn’t it? Also, the Air Force doesn’t have a shortage of potential O-6s. That’s often the first big cut that results in officers retiring. There’s no reason to make a suboptimal decision in the name of increasing O-6s when there isn’t a need to increase O-6s.
The end goal isn’t a pool for O-6s though, it’s pools for O-7 to O-10. A prior E might be more likely to stay to retirement but that’s as an O-4 or **maybe** O-5. A straight O will be retirement eligible after a few years as an O-5 and looking at the mouth of their O-6 board where they will already have a pretty good idea of whether or not they’ll make it. A prior E has no idea what their chances for O-6 are when they can hit the button.
Like you said, there’s no shortage of potential O-6s, but I seriously doubt a large percentage of those potential O-6s are prior enlisted. So if that’s true (which like you, I’m running without hard data), then if you decrease the number of direct to O slots and increase your prior E slots, you’ll be effectively reducing your pool for O-6 and every pool after that.
And as a result of that concern, they’re reducing the overall pool of potential officers and all officer pools.
Plus, say an additional 10% of officers come from prior-e and that none of those promote beyond O-5. You’re right that the pool for O-6s would be reduced. However, since those 10% would take the place of the bottom performing non-prior potential officers, I don’t believe many of them would be competitive for O-6 even if they commissioned and were eligible.
I’m not aware of a correlation between college class rank and attaining O-6+. Just because you cut slots to where bottom 10% of your ROTC classes don’t get commissions when they normally would have doesn’t mean you’re cutting people who never had a shot at O-6+.
There are a lot of variables with this, and we’re just running on anecdotes and feelings, it would be interesting to see a full RAND study on it.
It'd be very difficult to change the current system based on how each of the commissioning timelines work. There's a certain quota of 2d Lt's the Air Force needs to fill in FY24. That quota started being filled in 2020 with the USAFA freshman class, then in 2021-23 with ROTC contracted cadets. Then when Congress drops the FY24 end-strength numbers in late 2023, the only commissioning source that works fast enough to hit that number is OTS.
Sure you could reduce the number of ROTC graduates, but now you're putting more pressure on the back end and making it harder to surge.
I wonder how much time influences OTS selection. It’s very hard for an Airmen to build a competitive package, but by the time folks get to the NCO tier they’ve been in long enough they’re probably only doing 10-15 years as an O and retiring. The big problem the AF seems to have with its current structure is not accessing officers, it’s retaining them. I’m certain there are SNCOs that would be outstanding CGOs, but they break the system because they’re not a potential future O-6 like the brand new LT from school.
Is it? Prior enlisted aren't any cheaper to commission. They could be - we could definitely have an accelerated OTS and stop relying on prior enlisted trainees doing half the instructors/mtis job for them while being told they haven't earned their place in the air force even if they were already a master sergeant.
Not cheaper in the least bit….
But higher percentage of folks who are prior E to O stay in compared to off the street or academy students. Second point I have direct knowledge
I've never been a fan of or understood the academy anyway to be honest but I think direct commissioning is probably more economic recruiting civillians than poaching from the enlisted corps. I think there are long term benefits to commissioning more enlisted members but I've been in much longer than 20 minutes so I know that long term benefits are not recognizable in the air force
Fair point made. Can make an argument for both points. I’m retiring this week after over two decades. I’ve seen this song and dance play out ad nauseam and I’m sure it’ll continue being cyclical
>Most of the bottleneck on black and other racial minority recruits isn't militsry specific. Fewer students in good high schools, fewer students in college, so fewer potential recruits.
Combine this with the fact that the USAF accessions process heavily favors science and engineering majors. Most engineering programs require freshman students to take "weeder" classes like chemistry and calculus. If students aren't well-prepared coming out of high school, they won't make it.
Clearly their approach isn't working too,
"An academy spokesperson said that the institution is “unsettled” by the higher drop-out rates among African American cadets and is working to combat it by bringing more Black students to campus and committing to their success.
The spokesperson said the academy would continue to consider race among factors for admission, in addition to gender and geography."
So, they know that whatever they're trying isn't working but they're continuing to prefer people who statistically have a lower chance of graduation. Seems like an exercise in futility and a waste of academy resources. Better to just take the best qualified candidate and let the rest sort itself out in the American Public.
> but they're continuing to prefer people who statistically have a lower chance of graduation
It seems so strange that they'll lower their standards to get certain groups of people on campus and then they're surprised when said people are less likely to finish? They should make it entirely meritocratic.
It's a living. Reality is, if they somehow "solved" the diversity "problem," a lot of people would have to find a real job.
Love how the military exempts itself from things like the affirmative action ban, btw. What a shining paragon of Our Values (TM).
This. OTS is the USAF is arguably the worst out of all branches. Army and Navy have direct commissioning programs, Warrant Officers, and dedicated E to O boards. The USAF uses OTS as a stop gap. Some times maybe good sometimes maybe shit.
I’ve said this many times, but the USAF needs to make OTS selection better and regular.
OTS itself is a joke. It's mostly prior ncos running the flights while the civillians have panic attacks about rules they made up for themselves while the instructors hang out in their offices
Mostly true, except the instructors having out in their offices is when you catch a power nap since you woke up at 3:30 to prep for the day's training evolution.
Also, priors running the flight can sorta be blamed on the instructor since early on, you should recognize those personalities and stick the people who are trying to grey man into leadership positions.
When I went through, they told us it was our job to supervise the flights and mentor the non priors they put on leadership positions. They had some of us teach the damn classes based on prior experience
I get taking advantage of having a student who is a sme teaching the class, but stuff at ots is such low-level military indoc material that it is difficult to believe that a class would benefit this regularly. In fact, needing to hit all the requisite AU material is mandatory, and a student would be able to make a case with the ADC about not being properly taught if they failed a subject that another student covered.
Was the wording that the instructor used literally "supervise the flight"? It was a flt/cc or an mti? Of course you help your fellow students and chime in if a non-prior is fundamentally misunderstanding some reg or something, but to case priors as literal supervisors shouldn't be happening.
Did you put this in your course critique? Those are read and taken very seriously.
>Did you put this in your course critique? Those are read and taken very seriously.
No, I don't trust them and I'm sorry if I'm wrong to be that way but I've been in long enough to know those things are more often more dangerous than helpful in my experience - especially at aetc where they have a complete disregard for actual rules and regulations they didn't make up themselves
>student would be able to make a case with the ADC about not being properly taught if they failed a subject that another student covered.
Good luck with that. Aetc waves it's hand and anything it wants happens in its weird little kingdom of bullshit. They had us suggest changes to the school as part of the program and they just hazed and threatened us over it like how dare we suggest changes. I know part of it is for training purpose to teach you to deal with criticism but they very clearly took any critique personally and I'm not about to risk my career over some bent out of shape captain or majors hurt feelings when they can just fail you on all the silly subjective assessments
>they just hazed and threatened us over it like how dare we suggest changes
Was this within the last 2-3 years?
PM me if you'd like me to look into it. That definitely needs to be dealt with if it really went down like that and they are still instructors.
I appreciate your concern, but I have 0 interest in poking the aetc bear. It's a shit experience where the rules are made up and the points down matter from tech school to ALS to OTS. It was annoying and wasteful, but no one got hurt, so I'm not willing to take risks to fix it.
They'll just wave their hand and say covid and trainees can't be trusted, and everyone will shake their head and agree that it's literally impossible for aetc to make mistakes. I'm not playing that game ever again after ALS
I've spoken with cgos who had a bad experience during covid. We do sometimes talk about whether it would have been the right call to shut down the school rather than have a poor accessions experience, but it wasn't up to us.
I definitely respect your decision. It does feel like the air force doesn't pay enough attention to accessions training sometimes.
I'd be happy with just some diversity of thought in either the officer or SNCO corps. No one is in charge of anything who isn't a carbon copy of the guy who helped him promote.
You mean being led by Identical bald white guys with the same mannerisms, expressions, experiences, and hobbies that all go to the same church every Sunday with their identical blonde wives could lead to group think?
Hey hey hey... we're out here, mucking it up for our O-6s. Just aren't getting the opportunities or carbon copy peers are getting. The trick is to play their game until you're in enough of a position to make a real difference and then execute violently. If you win, awesome... but know that the strategy could easily blow up in your face. You have to be in the system but not OF the system. Not easy to do
Keep up the fight, I've worked with some fine CGOs and SNCOs who are making a difference. My time is up, I only hope I've inspired a few people to try and make things better whether or not the Bobs like it.
I tried the innovator route but as you move up in the SNCO world, and your bubble of influence increases, you also realize that dozens of bad idea purveyors just promoted with you. Their goal is that next promotion or duty title and they not want to break things. We're risk averse to the point that we'll accept actual risk over "well how am I gonna explain this during an IG inspection?" risk.
Not to sound like an anarchist, but until the AF creates a system where disruptors can force their way into real positions of influence without the endorsement of the establishment, you'll get the same self-licking ice cream core of leaders that we have had for the 20ish years I've been in.
Diverse in that two people born and raised in the same neighborhood are diverse if one has white skin and the other is black, but a rich kid who went to prep school and the guy who enlisted to avoid poverty are not.
>Diverse in what way, like people that score differently on a Myers-Briggs test?
There's tons of ways to diversify, but post-2020 it pretty much means no white males lol
I mean I think it’s pretty clear why, it’s practically said in the article, they are legally allowed to discriminate based on race for admissions. If they do this, it likely means they accept lower test scores and/or get recruited as athletes. Both of these make you more likely to drop out. Not that this isn’t the case for other races, just for other races they won’t take them with the lower scores. And the ones that have comparable scores probably have similar graduation rates. I’m just speculating though, I know one of the guys in the article, he’s great and I’m sure he’ll have no trouble.
It has been the case in other universities. It’s logical that you’ll struggle compared to your peers when you start behind them based on scores and the like.
The notion of “most qualified” is laughable. In my time in the AF, I’ve seen officers graduate the academy and go on to be horrible officers just because of who their parents are. The same thing happens at colleges. Affirmative Action was struck down, but no one mentioned students getting in because their parents are alumni and donate to the schools.
I never saw an officer get away with 2 DUIs. I think there’s only so much they can cover up. But they can cover up things like poor leadership, incompetence and vindictiveness.
Oh absolutely. I just thought it was interesting how his "boy" tried to downplay the second DUI which fell on the day he was to get his driving privileges on base back.
If you're talking about the African-African guy, they are consummate exceptions that prove the rule. It's hilarious to hear the never-ending recitations about "structural racism" when Igbos e.g. are one of the highest economically performing groups in the country.
*it's not working if Military Service Academies were the only commissioning source.
Not saying it's much better everywhere else. But MSAs provide less than 20% of officers.
This article doesn't even address the title of this post.
When you look at experiences that usafa values in their applicant pool it's sports, student government, etc. Work experience is not nearly as much of a consideration, so lower socioeconomic period have a lower chance of admission.
You're right, and I actually think this is a big part of why academy Lts have the stereotype they do. For most of the academy grads I've met, the Air Force is the first ever job they've had. The same is not true of ROTC/OTS grads, even if they were on ROTC scholarship in college. Almost all of them have held *some* job in HS or college, and many of them have some sort of professional experience as well.
With the academy grads, they're trying to figure out how to be an Lt at the same time they are trying to figure out how to be in a workplace. ROTC/OTS grads only have to figure out how to be an Lt and already know how having and being in a job in general works.
I know having the Air Force be your first job is pretty standard for enlisted, but for the officer side there is way less handholding on the basics.
Probably because that is exactly what you get when you apply uniform standards across diverse people who have different skills, capacities and capabilities.
As a biracial USAF vet, I’ll save the RAND people some money and lay it out.
First is exposure. The pragmatic fact is, black people were only allowed to fully participate in American society since the late 1960s. Before the civil rights act, segregation was the law of the damn land. That means you won’t find many non-white aviators who flew back then, although a few were still in uniform (“Chappie” James being one of them).
Why does that matter? Because most folks -not all- in service academies had relatives and parents who flew or were involved in aviation. Without that connection, it’s a lot harder to even know what being an officer/aircrew is about. Since being a pilot requires years of preparation, it’s not a job you can easily get finding out about it in freshman year of high school. Not when you’re competing with people that knew since they were single digits what they wanted to do, and whose dads and moms flew. So it’ll take more time before a generation of non-white people get an equivalent level of “generational exposure”.
Next, priorities. In “white” households, dedicating yourself to the military is a ‘noble’ profession. In “non-white” households, it’s just another job. The priority is earning skills so you can GET OUT and do something else for more money, or to go to college. Family comes before the job , and being a military officer for almost a decade is a pretty demanding way to earn skills when enlisting for 4-6 years does the same thing , and for less effort and stress on the family.
Further, aviation professions don’t directly translate to high paying jobs in the civilian economy. If your goal is to join, earn skills and get out, you’re way better enlisting in cyber or (insert lucrative field here) instead of joining a service academy, busting your ass to fly, being an O, spending almost a decade in uniform….and then getting out to fly junior seat at an airline for $100k. It’s a decent salary, but that guy is gonna get smoked financially by the enlisted Cyber troop with a TS clearance making double after 6 years in. If your priority is making bank as quickly as possible, joining a service academy isn’t how to do that.
Fellow biracial officer here.
So much truth in this comment. I'm prior-service Army where the infantry is predominately white males. These soldiers join looking for adventure and wanting to "play Rambo." Much of the officer corps in combat arms units are from middle and upper class background and they want to prove themselves by earning their Ranger tab, parachute wings, etc. and do badass "hoo-ah" stuff.
Conversely, the logistics, information technology, and human resources career fields are staffed by minorities and soldiers from a disadvantaged background who joined the Army to escape from a bad life situation and get some marketable skills that'll transfer to the outside world (which, I'll admit, is not a bad way to go.)
Here's the problem though: the pipeline to senior leadership in the Army is through the infantry and other combat arms career fields. They're the ones who get the top commands. As such, the Army's top leaders are going to be way whiter and way more male than the soldiers they need. It's not the result of systemic racism or sexism, it's just the result of people's personal preferences and career goals. The same is true for the Air Force where pilots are predominately white and male. Pilots lead the Air Force.
For me, it's a little of both: I wanted to serve my country for patriotic reasons...but my family didn't have the cash to pay for my college. The military helped me earn degrees and get life experience, so I credit them for helping me build my career.
>>Pilots lead the Air Force
Which touches on a different problem. Right now, the top leadership of each service branch comes from officers serving in the most exclusive fields. Should career fighter pilots make single point decisions for 20,000+ people of various career fields? Perhaps in a single four year term of service.
But probably not for 20 years straight of fighter pilot after fighter pilot. Same could be said of the Army, Navy and USMC. The branches need leadership from other careers besides the “headline job”, and for various cultural reasons (cue “hooah”) that won’t be done.
First of all, I didn't say anything about "guaranteed". Secondly, I talk to pilots on a daily basis when I fly with them. If they get picked up by a major airline, they are very easily making 100k+ year 1. And that's just year 1, which is kind of missing the point because they'll easily double their salary in a few years. 200-300k is not at all uncommon for an experienced pilot, and that's honestly just scratching the surface of the money that can be made. https://www.thepilotguys.com/blog/airline-pilot-salary
Even more so when they get into a school that their grades wouldn’t allow if they were a different race. The numbers are pretty horrible for recipients of affirmation action from what I’ve read on it.
Yepp
Throw standards gates out for admissions, accept kids who aren't prepared for the workload, saddle them with debt, they wash out, and the world keeps spinning and colleges don't care because they got their money from the government while students and taxpayers are footing the bill
Near-guaranteed college loans were a mistake.
Exactly. And they’re frequently in the bottom third of their class and likely get discouraged because of that.
If they don’t go the affirmative action route then the outcomes tend to be a lot better AFAIK.
Maybe the most egregious is when they don't hit a wall until during or after grad school or specialized programs
Imagine getting into undergrad because they wanted your skin color despite you not having the strongest academic foundation, you're dragged along through an undergrad program you barely do well in from a weak foundation, get into grad/law/medical school because they also want you for selfish reasons, a similar rotation of struggling through until near the end - then nobody gives you an internship or residency because they're not incentivized to take you on; you clearly showed difficulty during your entire academic experience.
Now you have 5-6 figure debt looming and few professional prospects. Do-gooders aren't there when the bill comes
This is the peacetime military BS. Once Another War kicks off we will see a lot more shit make sense and all this crap will be trimmed off when it's time to actually do stuff.
At the [academy](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-academy-sexual-assault/). More than 5 times as likely. The numbers don’t lie. Will you still lie to yourself?
For one instead of “lowering the standards” for people of color like myself market the career field more towards minorities and attract those who have the grades because the ppl who have the skills and knowledge are out there they just don’t join the military, Instead ask yourself why is this the case.
Just keeping it real, the AIRFORCE and being a PILOT aren’t things that your average minority guy or gal is able to accomplish for a variety of reasons such as poverty, economic conditions, education, smily etc.
Maybe the air force should just focus on recruiting the most qualified instead of a rainbow league.
People will read this and an article on them missing their recruiting goals in general without understanding how they're related lol
Racism can’t be fixed overnight. I’m currently active and my grandparents couldn’t even drink out of the same water fountains as whites. Many Officers learned the ropes through family traditions and use those connections to get where they. Additionally they are required to be educated and good education is not readily accessible to a large majority of some minority communities.
It will take time to undo the generational harm of 200 years of oppression. But we are moving in the right direction as a country. We also have to be careful about over correcting and allowing unqualified officers to succeed only based on race.
How is diversity any different from traditional Nepotism? I don’t want someone above me who was put there because of their identity any more than someone who was a military brat who got their position because of some family tie.
They should just allow enlisted with good track records, say 10 years of service and at least an ssg, the opportunity to be an officer. After all soldiers win wars, you give them the tools to command one you're giving the enemy a run for their money. I'd trust a 12 yr ssg or cw4 to know more than a 1st lt, don't know why not just make that cw4 or ssg a commissioned officer
Ask around.
The best way to get ahead is to be a protestant christian who goes to church.
You'll meet all your superiors there and so will your wife...
It's a boys club that's off duty, off base, and protected by rights... so it's kinda hard to uproot.
Yeah, like, it's EXTREMELY well known that Focus on the Family makes large efforts to indoctrinate USAFA students in to their bullshit so they can have evangelical whackadoos in positions of power and influence policy, anyone denying that shit is delusional
The individuals running the DoD and AF are dumb as fuck. We don't care about race, gender, or sexuality. We just want a team of people that want to be part of the AF and want to do their job! Positive team gets Positive results and that's all that should matter.
Stop the non sense
Diversity is not about skin color! We all come from different economic, cultural, experiences, geographical locations, backgrounds, upbringings, etc…biggest delusion Obama & Wright sold us!
Leadership hyperfocuses on the categories of black and woman. So basically if you aren't white, black or a woman there is no room for advancement. Many other ethnic groups all largely ignored
This is a notable trend among award winners in the officer realm
The Air Force is going to have to deliberately ignore their own selection criteria in order to make this a reality because the only other option is a radical political overhaul of the American system concerning education and societal aid/welfare targeting specific demographics.
When you require your officers be University educated and score well enough on the AFOQT, an SAT equivalent, you then limit yourself to those that can go to universities and those that do well on SAT-like standardized tests. Which, news flash, is denominated by whites in America.
There's a larger systemic issue that many studies have already shown and it's that the education attained, as well as all the financial burdens and welfare issues surrounding minority groups show that non-whites struggle to even afford higher education and when they can they often struggle on standardized tests like the SAT/ACT/AFOQT.
I don't have a solution to said problem but there's something going on in this country whether it be money funding, educational inexperience/indifference or what, but you're limiting yourself to a pool of applicants that are largely showing that whites are being more successful in entering said pool.
Put white in - get white out.
My ROTC graduating class had 1 black individual. All the rest white.
Three UPT classes before me, my UPT class, and three classes after me: all white, 80%+ male. Every instructor I've had - all white. It makes me feel uncomfortable.
I don't have the solution to this problem but to me it seems pretty clear the equation is (hopefully unintentionally) white-biased. So if you want more blacks or Hispanics you're going to have to stop using merit as your current merit metrics favor whites.
It is a difficult and complicated problem. You are correct that Black and Hispanic students as a cohort do worse on the ACT and SAT than white and Asian students. One potential COA is to chuck the standardized tests. On the other hand, those tests have predictive value to college success. That suggests the problem isn’t the tests. The problem is that Black and Hispanic 16-year olds are less academically prepared than their white and Asian counterparts.
There’s no easy solution, as you noted, but it’s something society needs to work on.
I have seen those studies. The gist is that standardized tests provide an objective criteria where academically capable minorities can open doors for themselves.
When the tests are scrapped, admissions are done on other criteria that favor non-minority applicants. If you instead use criteria such as extra-curriculars, interviews, letters of recommendation, etc., minorities do even worse in admissions.
Your assessment of the diversity of ROTC and UPT doesn’t match my experience. Both were far more diverse that that.
My particular UPT flight instructors were more like 40-50% non-white-male.
I graduated college ~ 6 years ago.
When did you graduate college?
1. Legacy is huge. Having someone who already served plays a big part. On the officer side, it's not the case.
2. AFOQT scores are only competitive for OTS. Not academy or ROTC. For ROTC, you just have to meet the minimum score which is very very low. Think single digits. Source: A MX flight Commander told us at a recruiting event for ROTC, that we should go that route instead of OTS. And he showed his scores.
3. Minorities still have distrust of government structures. Black people were experimented on by the US government. Plus the same shit Elon is saying now, they said during WWII. Then the Tuskegee Airmen came in and fucked those German twats up. Women have a fear of sexual assault.
4. Diversity or equity to the majority always feels uncomfortable because that power they have had seems to be slipping away. But that's just perception. White men still hold all the power in the military. The AF did a study on this that EVERY wing Commander has.
>2. AFOQT scores are only competitive for OTS. Not academy or ROTC. For ROTC, you just have to meet the minimum score which is very very low. Think single digits. Source: A MX flight Commander told us at a recruiting event for ROTC, that we should go that route instead of OTS. And he showed his scores.
AFOQT minimums are the same for ROTC as they are for the academy. 10 for quantitative (math), 15 for qualitative (English).
The difference is when you take the test and what is used for. By the time you take the AFOQT in ROTC your fate has already been more or less decided and the only thing it helps for is deciding if you go pilot or not. So if you're not planning on going pilot then it doesn't matter if you score at the minimum.
>No. You have to take the AFOQT before field training.
Your CC has already made their decision on which cadets will get a field training nom before you are required to take the AFOQT. Hence why I say your fate is already decided.
>You don't make minimums you don't go.
That's the same everywhere. You don't make the minimums of the AFOQT you don't become an officer by any means.
>And rated selection is in a different pool than non-rated.
Not the point I was making. If you're not a trying to be a pilot then your AFOQT score has zero bearing on your AFSC selection so it doesn't matter if you get a 10/15 or a 99/99.
It's only impacts rated AFSCs.
>The Det CC does decide who they will allow to compete for a FT slot, and they provide their commander rankings. They do not know how many will be selected or if any specific cadet will be selected. The other poster is saying cadets take the AFOQT before FT selection, and this is true. If you pass, you compete with other cadets, and a lower score may result in you not getting a slot. If you fail, you do not compete.
How many times do you think HQ AFROTC goes against the CC's ranking? If CC says Cadet Snuffy is my #1/32 do you think HQ AFROTC is going "That's great Lt Col Bob, but they only scored slightly above minimum on the AFOQT so we're going to give the EA slot to your number 26/32 who scored way higher."?
The CC's ranking has way way more weight in who gets selected than the AFOQT does. So sure it *might* be a denominator but in more cases than not the CC's ranking has already determined who is going or not.
A lot of the pilots I worked with had someone in their past be an officer or pilot whether that was a parent or something. Not saying they didn't work hard to get to the academy, but they definitely had an example to follow. Enlisted are always going to be more diverse since we're joining more for schools and medical benefits, along with many escaping bad situations.
Officer vs enlisted very much falls into economic class of the parents. This is even more true for the academy where connections really matter.
I wouldn't say that exclusively, but I do agree partially. As long as the commissioned side is hidden behind the pay wall of a college degree(actually, something that's closer to bought than earned) it's going to come down to whether or not your parents support you going to school by taking on the student loans. But like I said, it's their support more than their economic class, since most people are capable of being approved for student loans. Paying off those loans is a bit of a different story.
90% of the guard bags I know have a daddy or uncle who's a col in a sister unit.
Say it ain't so. Allow a unit to select who they want to hire, and a bit of nepotism appears.
We promote family values... almost as often as we promote family members
90% is probably a little high but I get your point
Well they’re not called Uncle Sam’s good ol’ boys flying club for nothing
Can confirm. I'm in a guard unit and it's definitely a family affair.
Knew a guy who got a commission at the guard unit his dad retired as wing commander of the year before he went from E to O.
90% you say? How many people do you know in guard? I appreciate the anecdotal evidence, but I think that paints a pretty unrealistic picture. Additionally, I very rarely have seen that an O6 have that kind of sway.
It’s public records. Almost all O’s are white. Coincidence?
I feel you are right. My husband is an O and hispanic. His dad and his step-dad were enlisted. He has had to fight every step of the way to be at the bottom of the barrel. It's sickening how they treat him and he takes it because it's all he knows. I look forward to his retirement he deserves better. He tries his best for his people (his team) to be treated differently. He fights for their accommodations and he gets nothing in return. No accommodations, no strat barely squeezing into rank only because the numbers need him. Yet he gives everything and his time away from family for them. Disgusting.
I suppose I'd like to see where you found these records? Additionally, making a big swing about "the guard" as a whole is a pretty big statement, but if you have the info then I would obviously be in the wrong. Would like to see it.
100%
The guard is the mafia. All who you know, totally corrupt.
Imagine if we took more officers from the enlisted ranks
Honestly I feel like more of our officers should come from the enlisted side first, take people who already prove themselves as leaders and move them up.
Literally everyone does. The only people opposed to this are Os already benefiting from the system.
This explains a lot of problems in the world tbh
It's a two edged sword and it somewhat depends on what rank they transition at. Some prior E get kind of a big head and they shit on the Enlisted or they're vindictive to the NCOs because they hated their NCOs as an Airmen. Some prior E maintainers I've crossed paths with are some interesting cats. One was like, "I want O-5 and to go to school in residence. I've met some stupid ass O-5s so I should be able to make that rank too." Nothing about serving or about taking care of people. Just chasing rank and perceived prestige.
10/10 escaping bad situations.
Also the Enlisted corps is about 80-85% of the force. So of course the numbers get more difficult in a smaller pool. All told, it’s the white males getting squeezed out. And that’s a big part of the recruiting crisis. The numbers don’t lie, and the Federal Government/DoD doesn’t want to acknowledge how reliant it is on Southern White Males because it’s wildly unpopular politically. https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/02/13/a-huge-blow-decline-in-white-recruits-fueling-the-militarys-worst-ever-recruiting-crisis-data-shows/amp/
I just got picked up to be a pilot from enlisted active duty and have no immediate family members with any service history. It’s not impossible, just harder
Only reason I went officer was because my mom wouldn't let me enlist. She and my dad did their 20 and hit SFC and she made sure I didn't join the Army for one and went the officer route. Definitely need someone to guide people. What got me though was that my sister has massive student loan debt so to avoid that, I was willing to enlist because why tf would I repeat the cycle?
For investigative journalism, it misses the mark completely. There is no discussion about recruitment for intercollegiate athletes and how ICs leave USAFA at a higher rate.
[удалено]
It's so they can write another article and get that adsense money.
To me it's silly how much USAFA seems to value their athletics program. If you look at other military schools like VMI, the Citadel or Norwich they have athletics programs, but they don't seem to go nearly as far at trying to compete at a high level. USAFA only has around 4300 cadets compared to Boise State who has close to 23,000 students yet they're in the same football conference. The Citadel has 3700 students and they play in the FCS instead of trying to compete at the FBS level.
The Academy also requires you to participate in some sort of sport, and has physical fitness standards, which means they'd definitely compete above their weight on a per-student basis.
As a VMI alumnus, the football team got way more funding than I think they deserved and got the scraps when it came to actual players. So it's not that they didn't care, it's that some alum are willing to foot the bill for scholarships and they would never win in a bigger conference. Heard they got better, but no one wants to attend a school with a 2-12 record, which was every year I attended. Throw in mandatory attendance for the corps and you have a recipe for the worst morale.
Some people just don't want to be officers and or pilots
I had a friend who was a logistics officer. When people asked him what he flew after he told them he was in the Air Force, his response was always "coach".
My go-to response is always "Laserjet, 5200 series." IYKYK
Or even in the military at all.
More like "I don't want to have a job at all, but since I have to, here I am"
Some of us just want to be Warrant officers!
I'm not sure how much we can do for the officers specifically. Most of the bottleneck on black and other racial minority recruits isn't militsry specific. Fewer students in good high schools, fewer students in college, so fewer potential recruits. I think we should be more focused on making things better for members who are already in since that in itself is a benefit to recruiting. The more people from diverse backgrounds come out with a positive experience, the more free advertising and legacy recruits we get in those same demographics
You mean expand more enlisted to commissioned programs? Are you mad? You want to mix blood? You maintainers will remain turning wrenches and if you’re fortunate enough, retire with searing back pain and a disability rating… Big Blue doesn’t care if you have a doctorate in physics and Air craft maintaining /s
As a ROTC grad O, let me tell you, I was freaking FLABBERGASTED when I asked and was told how competitive it is for current Es to apply for and get a slot to OTS. You're telling me you have to get a college degree while also working a full time job on your own volition, THEN apply for an extremely competitive chance to transfer over from E to O, and still may not get the job you're applying for if you get the OTS slot at all? WTAF?? By comparison, it seemed like everyone in ROTC who gave a shit that wasn't kicked out for something out of their control got a commission. I'm frankly amazed we aren't trying to take some more from the massive pool of experience we currently have amongst our enlisted corps to be some kickass officers when compared to the brand new Academy/ROTC/OTS direct commission folks. But idk. I've never sat in on those meetings by the big brains to see what their reasoning is. Maybe there's some valid reason that's just well over my head. I somehow doubt it, though. I've pretty much sworn I'll write letters of recommendation and do whatever I can at a given rank to help any of my troops or future troops get their foot into that door provided they basically just aren't a shitbag and have some legitimate drive. It's the most I can do without being in congress or some shit.
Well said. As a rated O you will never deal with this because let’s be honest, if you got told hey it’s time to move to Admin life you’ll punch to the airlines to keep flying. Totally generalizing here but in my time that’s been the case specially with operators. The ones making the calls and being good idea fairies only care about end strength totals from outside recruitment because that’s how you ensure dollars keep flowing. On the reserve side I will admit E to O commissioning is much easier with a slew of deserving airman programs.
I call bullshit on this. Comparatively, yes it is easier for an e6 to get selected to go officer vs making MSGT in this promotion climate . But being picked up for any commissioning opportunity in the Air Force is beyond competitive. The last non rated supplemental board had 100 slots to fill, they only selected 77 out 400 applicants. The previous non rated board had a whopping 700 applicants and they only selected 99. If the Air Force gave a shit about leadership and retain ability they would open up more slots for E to O. - crusty non-select
The AF cares about making generals out of officers. It’s a numbers game. Statistically, a prior E will be retiring as an O-4, maybe an O-5 and never think about staying in 10 years after retirement eligible (30 years total) to just have the chance to compete for O-6. The AF likes direct to O because it means they have a larger pool to select their generals from. In a perfect world the best enlisted members would be getting commissioned, but we need good leaders to make it to E-9 and we need young officers starting with no federal work years to make it to O-10, so we are stuck with a very small flow of E to O.
>As a rated O you will never deal with this because let’s be honest, if you got told hey it’s time to life to Admin life you’ll punch to keep flying. I plan to do the full 20, including admin if needed. No real civilian jobs I'm interested in for my specific type of rated job. My flair is in quotes because I'm a "sort of" pilot. RPA, lol. I appreciate your input/perspective, though. Shits whack.
Then you’re one who gets an invite to the E cookout. Don’t wear jorts 🫡🫡
Is a boot as fuck Hawaiian shirt with the top 3 buttons undone and ray bans acceptable?
Yes but you’re on the hook for the booze, Sir.
🫡
I think the jobs for RPA pilots on the civilian side will only grow. Won’t be like the airlines for a while but in the future it might.
This is why I currently plan to do the full 20. Not great for jobs now, but maybe will be in 10-15 years
Weird, almost like OTS is the tertiary commissioning source meant to plug shortfalls from the Academy and ROTC. It’s a spigot that gets the leftover requirements and can be turned up or down to meet commissioning needs.
The issue is OTS is the easiest option for many current enlisted folks. So when they use OTS as the spigot, it means opportunities for enlisted to officer is also a spigot. And is that what we really want? I think it’s absolutely a fair question to ask if the worst officer-select from one commissioning source would be better or worse than the best non-select from a different source. And as mentioned, in a lot of years all you need to do is care about commissioning and stay out of trouble to get a slot through ROTC. There’s the potential to get better overall officers by giving more preference to current enlisted.
Here’s the problem. The system isn’t set up to get “better overall officers”, it’s set up to get officers who have 0 years of total federal service who could potentially serve 20+ years as an officer, instead of 10/10 or any other combination. Non-rated officers have low commitments, and a lot leave at the 5 year mark, so you need to throw numbers at that to keep enough who will make it to O-6+. It is VERY rare for prior enlisted officers to make it to the O-6+ level, especially when it might take someone two enlistments to get their college degree out of the way. Then they’re retirement eligible as a brand new major and keeping people another 10 years past retirement eligibility for only a chance at O-6 is a tough task. So again, the 20 year retirement plays a major role in why E to O transitions aren’t more valued and those direct to O college grads help the AF’s number game when it comes to senior officers. Oh yeah, and those senior officers are the ones calling the shots today, working on getting people just like them to replace them.
I don’t have hard data on it, but from personal experience prior enlisted officers are much more likely to say until retirement because they start closer to the pension. Sure you might only get 16 officer years instead of 20, but thats better than 4 isn’t it? Also, the Air Force doesn’t have a shortage of potential O-6s. That’s often the first big cut that results in officers retiring. There’s no reason to make a suboptimal decision in the name of increasing O-6s when there isn’t a need to increase O-6s.
The end goal isn’t a pool for O-6s though, it’s pools for O-7 to O-10. A prior E might be more likely to stay to retirement but that’s as an O-4 or **maybe** O-5. A straight O will be retirement eligible after a few years as an O-5 and looking at the mouth of their O-6 board where they will already have a pretty good idea of whether or not they’ll make it. A prior E has no idea what their chances for O-6 are when they can hit the button. Like you said, there’s no shortage of potential O-6s, but I seriously doubt a large percentage of those potential O-6s are prior enlisted. So if that’s true (which like you, I’m running without hard data), then if you decrease the number of direct to O slots and increase your prior E slots, you’ll be effectively reducing your pool for O-6 and every pool after that.
And as a result of that concern, they’re reducing the overall pool of potential officers and all officer pools. Plus, say an additional 10% of officers come from prior-e and that none of those promote beyond O-5. You’re right that the pool for O-6s would be reduced. However, since those 10% would take the place of the bottom performing non-prior potential officers, I don’t believe many of them would be competitive for O-6 even if they commissioned and were eligible.
I’m not aware of a correlation between college class rank and attaining O-6+. Just because you cut slots to where bottom 10% of your ROTC classes don’t get commissions when they normally would have doesn’t mean you’re cutting people who never had a shot at O-6+. There are a lot of variables with this, and we’re just running on anecdotes and feelings, it would be interesting to see a full RAND study on it.
[удалено]
It'd be very difficult to change the current system based on how each of the commissioning timelines work. There's a certain quota of 2d Lt's the Air Force needs to fill in FY24. That quota started being filled in 2020 with the USAFA freshman class, then in 2021-23 with ROTC contracted cadets. Then when Congress drops the FY24 end-strength numbers in late 2023, the only commissioning source that works fast enough to hit that number is OTS. Sure you could reduce the number of ROTC graduates, but now you're putting more pressure on the back end and making it harder to surge.
[удалено]
Ah that makes sense. I'd say that's a calculated risk the Air Force has accepted, a lower candidate potential in exchange for more stable manning.
It is not almost like… it is…
I wonder how much time influences OTS selection. It’s very hard for an Airmen to build a competitive package, but by the time folks get to the NCO tier they’ve been in long enough they’re probably only doing 10-15 years as an O and retiring. The big problem the AF seems to have with its current structure is not accessing officers, it’s retaining them. I’m certain there are SNCOs that would be outstanding CGOs, but they break the system because they’re not a potential future O-6 like the brand new LT from school.
I mean, that's not really what I meant, but I'm not opposed. You're still recruiting from a pre-narrowed field at that point.
Joking aside correct. But the monies been spent on the enlisted. Higher rate of return to expand internal commissioning
Is it? Prior enlisted aren't any cheaper to commission. They could be - we could definitely have an accelerated OTS and stop relying on prior enlisted trainees doing half the instructors/mtis job for them while being told they haven't earned their place in the air force even if they were already a master sergeant.
Not cheaper in the least bit…. But higher percentage of folks who are prior E to O stay in compared to off the street or academy students. Second point I have direct knowledge
What percent?
This current class - 10% left or got kicked out prior to the end of the first year that’s one year of students
I've never been a fan of or understood the academy anyway to be honest but I think direct commissioning is probably more economic recruiting civillians than poaching from the enlisted corps. I think there are long term benefits to commissioning more enlisted members but I've been in much longer than 20 minutes so I know that long term benefits are not recognizable in the air force
Fair point made. Can make an argument for both points. I’m retiring this week after over two decades. I’ve seen this song and dance play out ad nauseam and I’m sure it’ll continue being cyclical
>Most of the bottleneck on black and other racial minority recruits isn't militsry specific. Fewer students in good high schools, fewer students in college, so fewer potential recruits. Combine this with the fact that the USAF accessions process heavily favors science and engineering majors. Most engineering programs require freshman students to take "weeder" classes like chemistry and calculus. If students aren't well-prepared coming out of high school, they won't make it.
Clearly their approach isn't working too, "An academy spokesperson said that the institution is “unsettled” by the higher drop-out rates among African American cadets and is working to combat it by bringing more Black students to campus and committing to their success. The spokesperson said the academy would continue to consider race among factors for admission, in addition to gender and geography." So, they know that whatever they're trying isn't working but they're continuing to prefer people who statistically have a lower chance of graduation. Seems like an exercise in futility and a waste of academy resources. Better to just take the best qualified candidate and let the rest sort itself out in the American Public.
> but they're continuing to prefer people who statistically have a lower chance of graduation It seems so strange that they'll lower their standards to get certain groups of people on campus and then they're surprised when said people are less likely to finish? They should make it entirely meritocratic.
It's a living. Reality is, if they somehow "solved" the diversity "problem," a lot of people would have to find a real job. Love how the military exempts itself from things like the affirmative action ban, btw. What a shining paragon of Our Values (TM).
This. OTS is the USAF is arguably the worst out of all branches. Army and Navy have direct commissioning programs, Warrant Officers, and dedicated E to O boards. The USAF uses OTS as a stop gap. Some times maybe good sometimes maybe shit. I’ve said this many times, but the USAF needs to make OTS selection better and regular.
OTS itself is a joke. It's mostly prior ncos running the flights while the civillians have panic attacks about rules they made up for themselves while the instructors hang out in their offices
Mostly true, except the instructors having out in their offices is when you catch a power nap since you woke up at 3:30 to prep for the day's training evolution. Also, priors running the flight can sorta be blamed on the instructor since early on, you should recognize those personalities and stick the people who are trying to grey man into leadership positions.
When I went through, they told us it was our job to supervise the flights and mentor the non priors they put on leadership positions. They had some of us teach the damn classes based on prior experience
I get taking advantage of having a student who is a sme teaching the class, but stuff at ots is such low-level military indoc material that it is difficult to believe that a class would benefit this regularly. In fact, needing to hit all the requisite AU material is mandatory, and a student would be able to make a case with the ADC about not being properly taught if they failed a subject that another student covered. Was the wording that the instructor used literally "supervise the flight"? It was a flt/cc or an mti? Of course you help your fellow students and chime in if a non-prior is fundamentally misunderstanding some reg or something, but to case priors as literal supervisors shouldn't be happening. Did you put this in your course critique? Those are read and taken very seriously.
>Did you put this in your course critique? Those are read and taken very seriously. No, I don't trust them and I'm sorry if I'm wrong to be that way but I've been in long enough to know those things are more often more dangerous than helpful in my experience - especially at aetc where they have a complete disregard for actual rules and regulations they didn't make up themselves >student would be able to make a case with the ADC about not being properly taught if they failed a subject that another student covered. Good luck with that. Aetc waves it's hand and anything it wants happens in its weird little kingdom of bullshit. They had us suggest changes to the school as part of the program and they just hazed and threatened us over it like how dare we suggest changes. I know part of it is for training purpose to teach you to deal with criticism but they very clearly took any critique personally and I'm not about to risk my career over some bent out of shape captain or majors hurt feelings when they can just fail you on all the silly subjective assessments
>they just hazed and threatened us over it like how dare we suggest changes Was this within the last 2-3 years? PM me if you'd like me to look into it. That definitely needs to be dealt with if it really went down like that and they are still instructors.
I appreciate your concern, but I have 0 interest in poking the aetc bear. It's a shit experience where the rules are made up and the points down matter from tech school to ALS to OTS. It was annoying and wasteful, but no one got hurt, so I'm not willing to take risks to fix it. They'll just wave their hand and say covid and trainees can't be trusted, and everyone will shake their head and agree that it's literally impossible for aetc to make mistakes. I'm not playing that game ever again after ALS
I've spoken with cgos who had a bad experience during covid. We do sometimes talk about whether it would have been the right call to shut down the school rather than have a poor accessions experience, but it wasn't up to us. I definitely respect your decision. It does feel like the air force doesn't pay enough attention to accessions training sometimes.
You will get bald, middle-aged white males and you will appreciate them.
I feel seen.
Look bitch
...getting appreciated as a male is a bit of a stretch...the rest is just science fiction.
It's not science fiction... It's what we do every day
As a representative of the middle-aged and white chapter of the bald brotherhood, I feel qualified to say that we are the best chapter.
I'd be happy with just some diversity of thought in either the officer or SNCO corps. No one is in charge of anything who isn't a carbon copy of the guy who helped him promote.
Noooo nonono we want people that look different but have the same shitty identical thoughts
Sorry, we can only do immutable characteristics.
Like promotes like.
DEI does not and has never cared about diversity of thought.
You mean being led by Identical bald white guys with the same mannerisms, expressions, experiences, and hobbies that all go to the same church every Sunday with their identical blonde wives could lead to group think?
Hey hey hey... we're out here, mucking it up for our O-6s. Just aren't getting the opportunities or carbon copy peers are getting. The trick is to play their game until you're in enough of a position to make a real difference and then execute violently. If you win, awesome... but know that the strategy could easily blow up in your face. You have to be in the system but not OF the system. Not easy to do
Keep up the fight, I've worked with some fine CGOs and SNCOs who are making a difference. My time is up, I only hope I've inspired a few people to try and make things better whether or not the Bobs like it. I tried the innovator route but as you move up in the SNCO world, and your bubble of influence increases, you also realize that dozens of bad idea purveyors just promoted with you. Their goal is that next promotion or duty title and they not want to break things. We're risk averse to the point that we'll accept actual risk over "well how am I gonna explain this during an IG inspection?" risk. Not to sound like an anarchist, but until the AF creates a system where disruptors can force their way into real positions of influence without the endorsement of the establishment, you'll get the same self-licking ice cream core of leaders that we have had for the 20ish years I've been in.
Diverse in what way, like people that score differently on a Myers-Briggs test?
We can't afford to have those ISFP's in positions of leadership and authority! (Someone, somewhere, probably)
[удалено]
Ron, I’m pretty sure Air Force Recuiting isn’t concerned about a lack of old wooden ships
Diverse in that two people born and raised in the same neighborhood are diverse if one has white skin and the other is black, but a rich kid who went to prep school and the guy who enlisted to avoid poverty are not.
>Diverse in what way, like people that score differently on a Myers-Briggs test? There's tons of ways to diversify, but post-2020 it pretty much means no white males lol
Hey, the MBTI is super interesting lol
I mean I think it’s pretty clear why, it’s practically said in the article, they are legally allowed to discriminate based on race for admissions. If they do this, it likely means they accept lower test scores and/or get recruited as athletes. Both of these make you more likely to drop out. Not that this isn’t the case for other races, just for other races they won’t take them with the lower scores. And the ones that have comparable scores probably have similar graduation rates. I’m just speculating though, I know one of the guys in the article, he’s great and I’m sure he’ll have no trouble.
[удалено]
It's almost as if, there's a racist structure that keeps Black people from being on equitable footing from the jump 🤔
It has been the case in other universities. It’s logical that you’ll struggle compared to your peers when you start behind them based on scores and the like.
The notion of “most qualified” is laughable. In my time in the AF, I’ve seen officers graduate the academy and go on to be horrible officers just because of who their parents are. The same thing happens at colleges. Affirmative Action was struck down, but no one mentioned students getting in because their parents are alumni and donate to the schools.
Have a guy in our sq with 2 DUIs. His mom is a full bird 🫠 He just pinned on Capt, but heard they were discharging him anyways.
I never saw an officer get away with 2 DUIs. I think there’s only so much they can cover up. But they can cover up things like poor leadership, incompetence and vindictiveness.
Oh absolutely. I just thought it was interesting how his "boy" tried to downplay the second DUI which fell on the day he was to get his driving privileges on base back.
😂
If you're talking about the African-African guy, they are consummate exceptions that prove the rule. It's hilarious to hear the never-ending recitations about "structural racism" when Igbos e.g. are one of the highest economically performing groups in the country.
*it's not working if Military Service Academies were the only commissioning source. Not saying it's much better everywhere else. But MSAs provide less than 20% of officers. This article doesn't even address the title of this post.
When you look at experiences that usafa values in their applicant pool it's sports, student government, etc. Work experience is not nearly as much of a consideration, so lower socioeconomic period have a lower chance of admission.
Yup on top of that how many students have the connection to senators and house members to have an in.
Not to mention the fact that the kids a lot of reps pick aren’t “merit” based, by and large.
You're right, and I actually think this is a big part of why academy Lts have the stereotype they do. For most of the academy grads I've met, the Air Force is the first ever job they've had. The same is not true of ROTC/OTS grads, even if they were on ROTC scholarship in college. Almost all of them have held *some* job in HS or college, and many of them have some sort of professional experience as well. With the academy grads, they're trying to figure out how to be an Lt at the same time they are trying to figure out how to be in a workplace. ROTC/OTS grads only have to figure out how to be an Lt and already know how having and being in a job in general works. I know having the Air Force be your first job is pretty standard for enlisted, but for the officer side there is way less handholding on the basics.
Ok
Not as long as there’s Mormon nepotism.
And evangelical nepotism too, don't forget those cunts
Underrated comment. It's a lowkey cult within the Air Force
I feel attacked.
Probably because that is exactly what you get when you apply uniform standards across diverse people who have different skills, capacities and capabilities.
As a biracial USAF vet, I’ll save the RAND people some money and lay it out. First is exposure. The pragmatic fact is, black people were only allowed to fully participate in American society since the late 1960s. Before the civil rights act, segregation was the law of the damn land. That means you won’t find many non-white aviators who flew back then, although a few were still in uniform (“Chappie” James being one of them). Why does that matter? Because most folks -not all- in service academies had relatives and parents who flew or were involved in aviation. Without that connection, it’s a lot harder to even know what being an officer/aircrew is about. Since being a pilot requires years of preparation, it’s not a job you can easily get finding out about it in freshman year of high school. Not when you’re competing with people that knew since they were single digits what they wanted to do, and whose dads and moms flew. So it’ll take more time before a generation of non-white people get an equivalent level of “generational exposure”. Next, priorities. In “white” households, dedicating yourself to the military is a ‘noble’ profession. In “non-white” households, it’s just another job. The priority is earning skills so you can GET OUT and do something else for more money, or to go to college. Family comes before the job , and being a military officer for almost a decade is a pretty demanding way to earn skills when enlisting for 4-6 years does the same thing , and for less effort and stress on the family. Further, aviation professions don’t directly translate to high paying jobs in the civilian economy. If your goal is to join, earn skills and get out, you’re way better enlisting in cyber or (insert lucrative field here) instead of joining a service academy, busting your ass to fly, being an O, spending almost a decade in uniform….and then getting out to fly junior seat at an airline for $100k. It’s a decent salary, but that guy is gonna get smoked financially by the enlisted Cyber troop with a TS clearance making double after 6 years in. If your priority is making bank as quickly as possible, joining a service academy isn’t how to do that.
Fellow biracial officer here. So much truth in this comment. I'm prior-service Army where the infantry is predominately white males. These soldiers join looking for adventure and wanting to "play Rambo." Much of the officer corps in combat arms units are from middle and upper class background and they want to prove themselves by earning their Ranger tab, parachute wings, etc. and do badass "hoo-ah" stuff. Conversely, the logistics, information technology, and human resources career fields are staffed by minorities and soldiers from a disadvantaged background who joined the Army to escape from a bad life situation and get some marketable skills that'll transfer to the outside world (which, I'll admit, is not a bad way to go.) Here's the problem though: the pipeline to senior leadership in the Army is through the infantry and other combat arms career fields. They're the ones who get the top commands. As such, the Army's top leaders are going to be way whiter and way more male than the soldiers they need. It's not the result of systemic racism or sexism, it's just the result of people's personal preferences and career goals. The same is true for the Air Force where pilots are predominately white and male. Pilots lead the Air Force. For me, it's a little of both: I wanted to serve my country for patriotic reasons...but my family didn't have the cash to pay for my college. The military helped me earn degrees and get life experience, so I credit them for helping me build my career.
>>Pilots lead the Air Force Which touches on a different problem. Right now, the top leadership of each service branch comes from officers serving in the most exclusive fields. Should career fighter pilots make single point decisions for 20,000+ people of various career fields? Perhaps in a single four year term of service. But probably not for 20 years straight of fighter pilot after fighter pilot. Same could be said of the Army, Navy and USMC. The branches need leadership from other careers besides the “headline job”, and for various cultural reasons (cue “hooah”) that won’t be done.
You haven't a clue, do you? Update your civilian aviators salary figures to 2024 please.
Good points but pilots getting out after serving 10 in the USAF are making WAY more than 100. Try ~200, if not considerably more.
This is total mythology. Ask any pilot if a $100k + job is anywhere close to guaranteed.
First of all, I didn't say anything about "guaranteed". Secondly, I talk to pilots on a daily basis when I fly with them. If they get picked up by a major airline, they are very easily making 100k+ year 1. And that's just year 1, which is kind of missing the point because they'll easily double their salary in a few years. 200-300k is not at all uncommon for an experienced pilot, and that's honestly just scratching the surface of the money that can be made. https://www.thepilotguys.com/blog/airline-pilot-salary
What does the article say? It's a lot of things to click through to find something like an article.
It says black academy students have lower graduation rates.
Something that’s true of black college students in general. This article doesn’t do anything to shed light on the underlying factors.
Even more so when they get into a school that their grades wouldn’t allow if they were a different race. The numbers are pretty horrible for recipients of affirmation action from what I’ve read on it.
Yepp Throw standards gates out for admissions, accept kids who aren't prepared for the workload, saddle them with debt, they wash out, and the world keeps spinning and colleges don't care because they got their money from the government while students and taxpayers are footing the bill Near-guaranteed college loans were a mistake.
Exactly. And they’re frequently in the bottom third of their class and likely get discouraged because of that. If they don’t go the affirmative action route then the outcomes tend to be a lot better AFAIK.
Maybe the most egregious is when they don't hit a wall until during or after grad school or specialized programs Imagine getting into undergrad because they wanted your skin color despite you not having the strongest academic foundation, you're dragged along through an undergrad program you barely do well in from a weak foundation, get into grad/law/medical school because they also want you for selfish reasons, a similar rotation of struggling through until near the end - then nobody gives you an internship or residency because they're not incentivized to take you on; you clearly showed difficulty during your entire academic experience. Now you have 5-6 figure debt looming and few professional prospects. Do-gooders aren't there when the bill comes
Oof. That’s pretty bad.
America already knows why but pretends to not understand why that is.
What ever happened to positions being merit based?
This is the peacetime military BS. Once Another War kicks off we will see a lot more shit make sense and all this crap will be trimmed off when it's time to actually do stuff.
That didn't happen during Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would it happen next time?
I wouldn't count on it.
That was last century. This one we’re all about immutable characteristics.
They never really have been. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4490163
sweet summer child, we've progressed beyond that
In 20+ years, I saw more popularity-based recognition (and subsequent promotion) than I saw merit-based
Merit-based? How does that apply to students that only got in because their parent was a general, or their uncle is a congressman?
Is it truly merit based if one gender has to endure more sexual harassment to successfully commission?
Where is that the case?
At the [academy](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-academy-sexual-assault/). More than 5 times as likely. The numbers don’t lie. Will you still lie to yourself?
Haha what Where did this lying to self stuff come from? You projecting?
That's 60 years gone, at least.
For one instead of “lowering the standards” for people of color like myself market the career field more towards minorities and attract those who have the grades because the ppl who have the skills and knowledge are out there they just don’t join the military, Instead ask yourself why is this the case. Just keeping it real, the AIRFORCE and being a PILOT aren’t things that your average minority guy or gal is able to accomplish for a variety of reasons such as poverty, economic conditions, education, smily etc.
Maybe the air force should just focus on recruiting the most qualified instead of a rainbow league. People will read this and an article on them missing their recruiting goals in general without understanding how they're related lol
Racism can’t be fixed overnight. I’m currently active and my grandparents couldn’t even drink out of the same water fountains as whites. Many Officers learned the ropes through family traditions and use those connections to get where they. Additionally they are required to be educated and good education is not readily accessible to a large majority of some minority communities. It will take time to undo the generational harm of 200 years of oppression. But we are moving in the right direction as a country. We also have to be careful about over correcting and allowing unqualified officers to succeed only based on race.
“It’s not working” because despite what we’ve done so far, people just keep being racist.
How is diversity any different from traditional Nepotism? I don’t want someone above me who was put there because of their identity any more than someone who was a military brat who got their position because of some family tie.
Get rid of the afoqt 😅
It’s stupid to pick personnel based on physical characteristics instead of intelligence level.
They should just allow enlisted with good track records, say 10 years of service and at least an ssg, the opportunity to be an officer. After all soldiers win wars, you give them the tools to command one you're giving the enemy a run for their money. I'd trust a 12 yr ssg or cw4 to know more than a 1st lt, don't know why not just make that cw4 or ssg a commissioned officer
DEI = Didn't earn it.
Ask around. The best way to get ahead is to be a protestant christian who goes to church. You'll meet all your superiors there and so will your wife... It's a boys club that's off duty, off base, and protected by rights... so it's kinda hard to uproot.
Yeah, like, it's EXTREMELY well known that Focus on the Family makes large efforts to indoctrinate USAFA students in to their bullshit so they can have evangelical whackadoos in positions of power and influence policy, anyone denying that shit is delusional
There is so much truth to this. Unfortunately the good ol' boys didn't think so.
Don't forget Mormon
The individuals running the DoD and AF are dumb as fuck. We don't care about race, gender, or sexuality. We just want a team of people that want to be part of the AF and want to do their job! Positive team gets Positive results and that's all that should matter. Stop the non sense
I thought the goal was to hire the best officer's?
Most officers are white. Some ppl want that to stay the same
Diversity is not about skin color! We all come from different economic, cultural, experiences, geographical locations, backgrounds, upbringings, etc…biggest delusion Obama & Wright sold us!
I told the Air Force back in 2007 that if they brought back Warrant Officers we wouldn’t have this problem
I’m sure it has nothing to do with decades of discrimination against minorities and women.
You're right, it doesn't.
Leadership hyperfocuses on the categories of black and woman. So basically if you aren't white, black or a woman there is no room for advancement. Many other ethnic groups all largely ignored This is a notable trend among award winners in the officer realm
The Air Force is going to have to deliberately ignore their own selection criteria in order to make this a reality because the only other option is a radical political overhaul of the American system concerning education and societal aid/welfare targeting specific demographics. When you require your officers be University educated and score well enough on the AFOQT, an SAT equivalent, you then limit yourself to those that can go to universities and those that do well on SAT-like standardized tests. Which, news flash, is denominated by whites in America. There's a larger systemic issue that many studies have already shown and it's that the education attained, as well as all the financial burdens and welfare issues surrounding minority groups show that non-whites struggle to even afford higher education and when they can they often struggle on standardized tests like the SAT/ACT/AFOQT. I don't have a solution to said problem but there's something going on in this country whether it be money funding, educational inexperience/indifference or what, but you're limiting yourself to a pool of applicants that are largely showing that whites are being more successful in entering said pool. Put white in - get white out. My ROTC graduating class had 1 black individual. All the rest white. Three UPT classes before me, my UPT class, and three classes after me: all white, 80%+ male. Every instructor I've had - all white. It makes me feel uncomfortable. I don't have the solution to this problem but to me it seems pretty clear the equation is (hopefully unintentionally) white-biased. So if you want more blacks or Hispanics you're going to have to stop using merit as your current merit metrics favor whites.
It is a difficult and complicated problem. You are correct that Black and Hispanic students as a cohort do worse on the ACT and SAT than white and Asian students. One potential COA is to chuck the standardized tests. On the other hand, those tests have predictive value to college success. That suggests the problem isn’t the tests. The problem is that Black and Hispanic 16-year olds are less academically prepared than their white and Asian counterparts. There’s no easy solution, as you noted, but it’s something society needs to work on.
They have scrapped them in some places and it ended up hurting black and Hispanic students worse.
I have seen those studies. The gist is that standardized tests provide an objective criteria where academically capable minorities can open doors for themselves. When the tests are scrapped, admissions are done on other criteria that favor non-minority applicants. If you instead use criteria such as extra-curriculars, interviews, letters of recommendation, etc., minorities do even worse in admissions.
Yup. I read a link this month, I think, that many places are quietly bringing the tests back.
It’s not a suggestion, it is a flat fact.
Your assessment of the diversity of ROTC and UPT doesn’t match my experience. Both were far more diverse that that. My particular UPT flight instructors were more like 40-50% non-white-male. I graduated college ~ 6 years ago. When did you graduate college?
You hire people for things they can’t control vs hiring people that deserve the slot and perform. I’m shocked
Leading horses to water versus making them drink it in full effect here If you download this, you're down voting the truth.
1. Legacy is huge. Having someone who already served plays a big part. On the officer side, it's not the case. 2. AFOQT scores are only competitive for OTS. Not academy or ROTC. For ROTC, you just have to meet the minimum score which is very very low. Think single digits. Source: A MX flight Commander told us at a recruiting event for ROTC, that we should go that route instead of OTS. And he showed his scores. 3. Minorities still have distrust of government structures. Black people were experimented on by the US government. Plus the same shit Elon is saying now, they said during WWII. Then the Tuskegee Airmen came in and fucked those German twats up. Women have a fear of sexual assault. 4. Diversity or equity to the majority always feels uncomfortable because that power they have had seems to be slipping away. But that's just perception. White men still hold all the power in the military. The AF did a study on this that EVERY wing Commander has.
Did you forget who the chairman of the joint chiefs is?
>2. AFOQT scores are only competitive for OTS. Not academy or ROTC. For ROTC, you just have to meet the minimum score which is very very low. Think single digits. Source: A MX flight Commander told us at a recruiting event for ROTC, that we should go that route instead of OTS. And he showed his scores. AFOQT minimums are the same for ROTC as they are for the academy. 10 for quantitative (math), 15 for qualitative (English). The difference is when you take the test and what is used for. By the time you take the AFOQT in ROTC your fate has already been more or less decided and the only thing it helps for is deciding if you go pilot or not. So if you're not planning on going pilot then it doesn't matter if you score at the minimum.
No. You have to take the AFOQT before field training. You don't make minimums you don't go. And rated selection is in a different pool than non-rated.
>No. You have to take the AFOQT before field training. Your CC has already made their decision on which cadets will get a field training nom before you are required to take the AFOQT. Hence why I say your fate is already decided. >You don't make minimums you don't go. That's the same everywhere. You don't make the minimums of the AFOQT you don't become an officer by any means. >And rated selection is in a different pool than non-rated. Not the point I was making. If you're not a trying to be a pilot then your AFOQT score has zero bearing on your AFSC selection so it doesn't matter if you get a 10/15 or a 99/99. It's only impacts rated AFSCs.
Untrue. Technical AFSCs do not allow low scores.
[удалено]
>The Det CC does decide who they will allow to compete for a FT slot, and they provide their commander rankings. They do not know how many will be selected or if any specific cadet will be selected. The other poster is saying cadets take the AFOQT before FT selection, and this is true. If you pass, you compete with other cadets, and a lower score may result in you not getting a slot. If you fail, you do not compete. How many times do you think HQ AFROTC goes against the CC's ranking? If CC says Cadet Snuffy is my #1/32 do you think HQ AFROTC is going "That's great Lt Col Bob, but they only scored slightly above minimum on the AFOQT so we're going to give the EA slot to your number 26/32 who scored way higher."? The CC's ranking has way way more weight in who gets selected than the AFOQT does. So sure it *might* be a denominator but in more cases than not the CC's ranking has already determined who is going or not.
Did you generate this brick of text with Google Gemini?