Jump to content

The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)


tac airlifter

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, HercDude said:

Surprised that no one has pointed out to this crowd that in addition to getting an USAFA appointment, UPT slot, T-38 track, Raptor assignment, and admission to Harvard, his wife is a smoking hot fitness model/actress/influencer or some shit from Australia.

I'm sympathetic to his concerns, but yeah.....hard to feel sorry for this guy.

Notice the operative verb used over and over was feel, I felt this I felt that.  He had no specific instances of racial discrimination, intimidation or reprisal to cite.  He referenced his feedback received at different moments in his career and his interpretation of them as more evidence than the AF and the people in it in his community were aligned mostly against him based on his race, but he moved up.

If the institution / some of the people in it are so bad/racist/unfair, how the hell did he get where he is in the AF?

When you look around you think everyone or most are  X derogatory thing, maybe you are the problem and not the institution / people in it...

IDK, more context is necessary here but at first blanch he seems like a high performing type A who made it into a community of other high performing type A's and like every operational community, it has only so many upper level slots / prestigious vertical upward paths, not all will make it thru their filters.  Like him, I have zero evidence to reference beyond my hunch but 40 something years of life and 20 years in the AF lend me to this suspicion.  

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have any data on this raptor pilot? Heard a rumor that he was a terrible pilot. Was on CAP and probation because of his abilities. And that he got removed from a formal training program for his abilities or lack there of.

Any truth?

It’s pretty damning on him if so. This whole 60min thing seems like a witch hunt if so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Tucker Carslon goes after DOD and USAF claiming they have gone woke.

If you don't want to watch the start at 9:00 and watch what he said about Lt Gen Webb, AETC and the way we select pilots.  Sounds like having a PPL will soon loose any weight in the PMSV.

Sigh.  That clip really just seemed like another newscaster being incendiary for the sake of being incendiary.  Whatever brings in the ratings, I suppose.

The whole thing is tiresome though.  The Air Force has decided that they need to appease the woke mob, and the associated Drive for Diversity, regardless of reason or logic.  I honestly don't understand the background and chain-of-events that resulted in the current state of affairs, but regardless, here we are.  I think everyone in any kind of position of power has seen the writing on the wall, and understands you're gonna get on the Woke Express, or you're gonna get left behind.  Thus, you get Lt Gen Webb's comments.

None of it really matters though, because the DoD doesn't really care about promoting diversity.  They just care about the appearance of promoting diversity.  Like anything else, just follow the money.  If anyone really gave a shit about increasing the diversity of Air Force pilots, there is a pretty easy path.  Take a small pile of money, and start installing tutors and AF JROTC programs in schools that have the diversity you're looking for.  Put resources behind helping kids succeed in school.  Take the kids that show promise, and put more resources behind them, like funding their PPL.  Stand up the same programs in colleges.  Tutors to help people succeed, and PPLs for those who show promise.  FFS, it's Learning to Fly An Airplane.  The vary nature of it tends to attract the hopes and dreams of kids and young adults.  You'll have no shortage of people wanting to give it a try.

However, all of that takes money, resources, and not to mention the leadership to promote a course of action that is going to take a couple of years to start generating winged pilots.  And because the Air Force only wants to show the appearance of caring about diversity, you'll never get any appreciable resources and leadership behind it.  You'll just see the endless calls for "More diversity in the ranks!!!" from the woke mob, and replies of "But, we're trying!!" from the DoD.  And people like Tucker Carlson will make more breathless news clips that get passed round the interwebs.  The clip above has been out for a little more than 24 hours, and already has almost 700k views and 10k comments.  Not too bad for folks like #Tucker.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


None of it really matters though, because the DoD doesn't really care about promoting diversity.  They just care about the appearance of promoting diversity.  Like anything else, just follow the money.  If anyone really gave a shit about increasing the diversity of Air Force pilots, there is a pretty easy path.  Take a small pile of money, and start installing tutors and AF JROTC programs in schools that have the diversity you're looking for.  Put resources behind helping kids succeed in school.  Take the kids that show promise, and put more resources behind them, like funding their PPL.  Stand up the same programs in colleges.  Tutors to help people succeed, and PPLs for those who show promise.  FFS, it's Learning to Fly An Airplane.  The vary nature of it tends to attract the hopes and dreams of kids and young adults.  You'll have no shortage of people wanting to give it a try.


You mean like this?
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Holm-Center/AFJROTC/Flight-Academy/

https://www.maxwell.af.mil/News/Display/Article/2483043/hq-afjrotc-announces-2021-flight-academy-scholarship-winners/

230 PPL training program scholarships given out this year for AFJROTC cadets (from 1340 applicants, so about a 1 in 6 chance). Includes flying training, transportation to/from training, room and board, so pretty much a funded TDY flying training for cadets. Not solely funded by the AF, but the AF is leading the initiative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Plus, generally UPT studs who have (only) a PPL are generally indistinguishable from those who don't by the end of the first T-6 contact checkride.

I’d agree with this. 

When I went to UPT IFT was a PPL. Making a PPL part of the selection does limit the type of person that is competitive for a UPT slot. Kind of like you need to have a rich mom and dad to get onto the sailing team at Stanford. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Homestar said:

I’d agree with this. 

When I went to UPT IFT was a PPL. Making a PPL part of the selection does limit the type of person that is competitive for a UPT slot. Kind of like you need to have a rich mom and dad to get onto the sailing team at Stanford. 

Isn't this like saying athletic scholarships are biased because high schools with well-funded athletic programs tend to be in richer areas, so poor kids don't have the same access to weight rooms, facilities, trainers, etc?

If we want to target results, seems like a PPL is a clear indicator that someone can succeed in learning to fly an aircraft.  

Hell...if we want to argue along racial lines, requiring a degree is hampering the ability of minorities to succeed if you look at the statistics...rich people send their kids to universities more often than poor people.  Enlisted aviator program?  Waivers for degrees if you fit into a "diverse" background?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I’m confused by your post.  Are you for or against the new policy of ignoring flying experience as a factor used in selecting USAF pilots?

I have no issues at all with considering prior experience. My point on this thing is that people who are able to afford PPL are usually from a more advantaged background financially. Holistically, if that means people are excluded from UPT selection because of the hand they were dealt, that’s too bad but national defense is more important than equal opportunities prior to selection. However, if there was something out there beyond a gut feeling that people of various backgrounds (gender, race, religion, etc) would produce better pilot and officer candidates, then I would say ensure that the accessions account for them. If it’s purely in the name of diversity for the politics du jour, GTFO. This view doesn’t account for onesie twosie cases of talents from non-typical backgrounds, but that’s tough to do at an institutional level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Guardian said:

Anyone have any data on this raptor pilot? 

I don't know anything about the guy personally, but I do remember seeing him on the USAFA website recently. Looks like he's literally the one Academy grad (out of 69,000) who was highlighted as exceptional in their literature this month. Another example of the system keeping him down?

https://www.usafa.org/Service/Spotlight-March2021

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, HercDude said:

Surprised that no one has pointed out to this crowd that in addition to getting an USAFA appointment, UPT slot, T-38 track, Raptor assignment, and admission to Harvard, his wife is a smoking hot fitness model/actress/influencer or some shit from Australia.

I'm sympathetic to his concerns, but yeah.....hard to feel sorry for this guy.

You forgot to include his position as a Executive Consultant amongst the "elite" at Afterburner Inc......

https://www.afterburner.com/daniel-fuzz-walker/

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

Isn't this like saying athletic scholarships are biased because high schools with well-funded athletic programs tend to be in richer areas, so poor kids don't have the same access to weight rooms, facilities, trainers, etc?

Yes. That's exactly right. I mean, I just finished Operation Varsity Blues on Netflix, so maybe that's coloring my opinion a little. But this is exactly how D1 college scholarships work almost all of the time. I see this in my own small town where our swim club has a hard time competing with nearby large city clubs because we don't have access to the facilities and professional coaches that they have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I have no issues at all with considering prior experience. My point on this thing is that people who are able to afford PPL are usually from a more advantaged background financially. Holistically, if that means people are excluded from UPT selection because of the hand they were dealt, that’s too bad but national defense is more important than equal opportunities prior to selection. However, if there was something out there beyond a gut feeling that people of various backgrounds (gender, race, religion, etc) would produce better pilot and officer candidates, then I would say ensure that the accessions account for them. If it’s purely in the name of diversity for the politics du jour, GTFO. This view doesn’t account for onesie twosie cases of talents from non-typical backgrounds, but that’s tough to do at an institutional level.

That makes sense.  However that’s in line with Tucker’s opinion (although his presentation was caustic).  He criticized GOs by name who champion efforts to prioritize diversity at the expense of lethality.  So I was confused why you were critical of Tucker while also agreeing with the meat of his point.

It’s challenging to isolate ideas for discussion from the personalities & styles which present those ideas.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there's an effort to remove a PPL from consideration for selection?  Seems stupid.
I didn't get a slot in college (selection rate went to shit), so I competed for a slot on AD.  I knew a PPL was going to be huge, so I figured it out.  If I can find a way to get for a PPL, anyone can. 
I just looked it up, but back in 95 a 2nd Lt made $1636.20 a month.  BAH barely covered apt rent.  I found a local flight school and paid for my PPL, $2250 at the time, by nearly maxing out a credit card.  I paid what I could each month.  I then bought a block of 50 hrs for $1250 (yes, $25/hr wet, a huge bargain these days, but in a Traumahawk) and got my hours up over a 100 (the next big PCSM milestone). 
Lastly, in my UPT class, we didn't do FSP as it was cancelled a few months before attending and the AF didn't fire up the paid for PPL program yet.  A few folks that didn't have a PPL struggled.  Some made it, some didn't.
But maybe that's the problem here; people can't figure shit out anymore and need systems to change and make it easier for them.  Compare two people for a slot.  One is just existing, but doing good school. The other is busting their ass, working extra to pay for a PPL.  It's not that hard of a call.
It's awesome that you buckled down and did that. I, similarly, was able to save and get my PPL, but the costs were significantly different. I had to have a high paying civilian job to be able to do it in a reasonable time.

Now getting a PPL, could easily be 6-9 months of a 2d Lt base pay depending on the location. Getting a PPL, and crossing the 100 hour make with 2 months of pay saved up is a thing of the past. Very best case, you get a bare bones cessna 150 in a cheap area, fly solo 100% of the time and it'd still be about 7500 (another 3 months of base pay) for that 50 hour block.

I don't know for sure, but I bed if you'd needed a full years salary in the bank to get your 100 hours, it might not have happened.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app


Edit: I'm not saying drop the flight experience consideration, but guys are already getting 20ish hours at IFT.

If they want to cut out the flying experience consideration, they should slightly increase the hours at IFT and maybe change it back to IFS where people can wash out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, N730 said:

If they want to cut out the flying experience consideration, they should slightly increase the hours at IFT and maybe change it back to IFS where people can wash out.

An RFI was put out a few weeks ago seeking inputs on the feasibility of increasing IFT to 50 flight hours and also including instrument flight training. Will be interesting to see if it becomes an RFP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, kaputt said:

An RFI was put out a few weeks ago seeking inputs on the feasibility of increasing IFT to 50 flight hours and also including instrument flight training. Will be interesting to see if it becomes an RFP. 

Interesting. In the early 2000s IFT was a “go to the FBO and get a PPL on Uncle Sam’s dime” program. It was great. And had zero influence on my ability to fly the Tweet upside down or in fingertip. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N730 said:

Edit: I'm not saying drop the flight experience consideration, but guys are already getting 20ish hours at IFT.

If they want to cut out the flying experience consideration, they should slightly increase the hours at IFT and maybe change it back to IFS where people can wash out.

The hilarious part is previous secaf Debbie James changed IFS to IFT because they thought women and minorities were "disproportionately" washing out... I'd love to see them go back to an IFS construct for diversity and inclusion purposes only to have it completely backfire again.

But back on the selection method subject: I don't agree with the diversity push for diversity's sake but the way we generate PCSM scores right now is hugely effed up and the PPL is the biggest part of that.

I get that a lot of dudes sacrificed financially to get one, and that shows solid dedication and planning. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with natural flying ability or the ability to adapt quickly in a training environment. As a prior UPT instructor, you having a PPL tells me two things. You have an interest in aviation and your radio calls might not be complete trash for the first few sorties.  It tells me nothing about your hands, SA, or RM/DM.  This is because UPT flying is such a step up in intensity that it renders a PPL pretty much useless after a few rides.

The only prior experience Ive seen that made a decent difference was 1) Singaporean students who flew the PC-9, 2) prior strike eagle/b-1 WSOs 3) a few multi thousand hour regional airline pilots. And some of them still had airsickness issues.

Edited by Pooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there's an effort to remove a PPL from consideration for selection?  Seems stupid.
I didn't get a slot in college (selection rate went to shit), so I competed for a slot on AD.  I knew a PPL was going to be huge, so I figured it out.  If I can find a way to get for a PPL, anyone can. 
I just looked it up, but back in 95 a 2nd Lt made $1636.20 a month.  BAH barely covered apt rent.  I found a local flight school and paid for my PPL, $2250 at the time, by nearly maxing out a credit card.  I paid what I could each month.  I then bought a block of 50 hrs for $1250 (yes, $25/hr wet, a huge bargain these days, but in a Traumahawk) and got my hours up over a 100 (the next big PCSM milestone). 
Lastly, in my UPT class, we didn't do FSP as it was cancelled a few months before attending and the AF didn't fire up the paid for PPL program yet.  A few folks that didn't have a PPL struggled.  Some made it, some didn't.
But maybe that's the problem here; people can't figure shit out anymore and need systems to change and make it easier for them.  Compare two people for a slot.  One is just existing, but doing good school. The other is busting their ass, working extra to pay for a PPL.  It's not that hard of a call.


$100/hr for a wet Cessna 152 (lower end)
$40/hr for the instructor, 20 hr min
$100 for class 3 medical
$160 for written
$200-400 for the examiner

A 2Lt takes home about $3560 take per month in basic pay (assuming no state income taxes). At the bare minimum (40 hours, 20 dual, 1hr checkride), that'll run $5360. About 1.5 months pay assuming no expenses besides rent (bah) or food (bas). At a more typical pace (65 hours and 35 hours dual), it's about 3.5 months pay. So doable, if you have a good job and no other debt, and nothing else going on in your life. Add one more months pay to get to 100 hours.

If nothing else, LT pay only roughly doubled since you did your PPL, while hourly costs for an aircraft rental quadrupled.

If you're working a min wage job (like a high school or college student summer job), assuming no other bills, 1200 hours of work (30 weeks full time work) to pay off the typical PPL in a C152. Add another 12.5 weeks (42.5 weeks total) of full time work to get to 100 hours. And again, this is without any other essential expenses like food, housing, and transportation. If you figure disposable income is 50% of take-home (which I'd say it's pretty generous), it's 2 years of work to fund that flight training, just to have an improved *chance* at getting picked up.

Add about 25% if you're flying in something bigger like a C172, either for availability or weight (as in, if you weigh more than 170#, C152 probably isn't going to work out for you).

All the PPL does is show that you have some aptitude for flying, and had the means to do flying in the civilian world. The AF gets the same info through IFT/IFS.

Alternatively, you can do well on AFOQT and the TBAS, and your PCSM score will likely be high enough to be competitive without a significant amount of flight hours.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if someone did get a ppl and isn’t well to do or didn’t come from a well to do family? Isn’t that contribution diminished and this is potentially the very person the AF is looking for?

There are are ways through hard work to get a ppl and further your flying even if poor or not well to do. Potentially has nothing to do with any privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if someone did get a ppl and isn’t well to do or didn’t come from a well to do family? Isn’t that contribution diminished and this is potentially the very person the AF is looking for?

There are are ways through hard work to get a ppl and further your flying even if poor or not well to do. Potentially has nothing to do with any privilege.


PPL is just a proxy for some skills relevant to military flying.

Maybe this argument is different based on component (AD vs Guard or reserve). AD probably can accept more risk that a student washes out, while a guard/reserve unit can't (a washout potentially means a position they can't fill for a year or two). So I can see why using a PPL on hiring applications could be important for the guard/reserve hiring boards.

Is there a way to identify those skills/attributes without having applicants spend a huge chunk of change?

Is there another way to measure drive, dedication, and commitment than obtaining a PPL? PPL doesn't reduce UPT training (aside from IFT), so is it just practice bleeding? Should a person who paid their way through college by working get more consideration than someone on scholarship (or going to/graduated from the academy)?

Put another way, there are many AF pilots who have never touched a civilian airplane, and have done well in their military aviation careers. So what attributes/skills did they have that led to their selection and success, and what are the best ways to identify those skills and attributes?
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2021 at 2:56 PM, mcbush said:

I don't know anything about the guy personally, but I do remember seeing him on the USAFA website recently. Looks like he's literally the one Academy grad (out of 69,000) who was highlighted as exceptional in their literature this month. Another example of the system keeping him down?

https://www.usafa.org/Service/Spotlight-March2021

You’re a FGO and your highest medal is a AFAM? You made some O-6 mad 😂 

 

70F7FA4F-E6CE-43ED-A453-EBB09965AB89.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already know what it takes to make good (fighter) pilots: cognitive ability, emotional stability, and motivation to succeed (http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:180418/datastream/PDF/view). But leave it to the USAF to never read the studies they commission from RAND.

When I first started in the flying world, I personally over-emphasized being technically smart - after having done it for almost 20 years, I'm convinced physical/athletic talent is an important component as well. Not to the point of being a division one athlete, but you should be above-average smart with the general ability to play most sports.

As far as the PPL influencing the PCSM goes, I do think it matters since it's both a proxy to measure how motivated someone is, as well as a measurement of their ability to fly - there is at least some correlation between someone having a higher propensity to succeed in UPT who has a PPL vs someone chosen randomly from the population. I know the AF knows this, but the current effort is motivated by a desire to "uncuff" themselves from perceived restrictive selection criteria so they can implement whatever X-action program they want in order to have the right shade of skin flying their airplanes - not because current selection programs aren't actually working. Seems like fraud, waste, and abuse to me, but what the hell do I know?

Besides the above, I'm already certain it won't work for one simple reason: the balance of male/female cadets at USAFA (~7:1 while I was there) is not mirrored in the fighter pilot community (or the pilot community at large). These people are of equal talents, with equal access to UPT, with equal ability to fly, yet the balance becomes lopsided immediately after graduation. There are other factors at work that "select" for pilots - PPL at USAFA didn't make a difference, and it won't make a difference elsewhere.

Personally, I believe that great nations will inherently be diverse - talent has no color or sex - great nations know this. I don't think that logic works in reverse, though I suppose we'll see.

Edited by ViperMan
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already know what it takes to make good (fighter) pilots: cognitive ability, emotional stability, and motivation to succeed (http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:180418/datastream/PDF/view). But leave it to the USAF to never read the studies they commission from RAND.

When I first started in the flying world, I personally over-emphasized being technically smart - after having done it for almost 20 years, I'm convinced physical/athletic talent is an important component as well. Not to the point of being a division one athlete, but you should be above-average smart with the general ability to play most sports.
As far as the PPL influencing the PCSM goes, I do think it matters since it's both a proxy to measure how motivated someone is, as well as a measurement of their ability to fly - there is at least some correlation between someone having a higher propensity to succeed in UPT who has a PPL vs someone chosen randomly from the population. I know the AF knows this, but the current effort is motivated by a desire to "uncuff" themselves from perceived restrictive selection criteria so they can implement whatever X-action program they want in order to have the right shade of skin flying their airplanes - not because current selection programs aren't actually working. Seems like fraud, waste, and abuse to me, but what the hell do I know?
Besides the above, I'm already certain it won't work for one simple reason: the balance of male/female cadets at USAFA (~7:1 while I was there) is not mirrored in the fighter pilot community (or the pilot community at large). These people are of equal talents, with equal access to UPT, with equal ability to fly, yet the balance becomes lopsided immediately after graduation. There are other factors at work that "select" for pilots - PPL at USAFA didn't make a difference, and it won't make a difference elsewhere.
Personally, I believe that great nations will inherently be diverse - talent has no color or sex - great nations know this. I don't think that logic works in reverse, though I suppose we'll see.


Yup front, I'll say I generally agree with you. But...

Interesting paper, but there are limitations, and you're drawing a causal link when the paper does not show a causal link.


Boyd et al. emphasizes that the
fighter pilots as a group are a more homogeneous group than the airlift/tanker group or the bomber
group; however, the overlap in the range of scores indicates there are more similarities among the groups than differences.
...
The data is more descriptive in nature and does not suggest any causal relationships. The findings may suggest that a person with a particular personality type or cognitive ability level is more or less common within the fighter pilot community, but does not evaluate the predictive ability of the data presented.
...
While not predictive of success in pilot training, the results from this study may prove to be essential to psychologists working in aeromedical evaluation of USAF fighter pilots.
...
Overall, USAF applicants and rated pilots in general have higher IQs than the general population. The best single predictor for success in SUPT is general mental ability.
[/Quote]

PPL possibly shows motivation, but only for someone who doesn't have access to resources and has to hustle to earn that PPL. But those people are indistinguishable from the rich kid who had their parents pay for his PPL and didn't have to have significant drive to complete it. So it becomes a noisy indicator for motivation. Though PPL also doesn't influence PCSM, just the flight hours, so the rich kid could literally fly 200 hours dual to boost their score significantly.

But you're also right that measuring motivation *is* important. Figure out how to do it and you'll earn your PhD.

You do bring up an interesting point regarding gender at the academy vs pilots. Is there a perception problem that keeps some women from applying? Or is it the 10 year UPT commitment (really at a minimum 11.5 year commitment after commissioning) that turns otherwise great candidates away? Or something else? I think the AF is starting to actually explore how it selected pilots (well, except for the UPT commitment, which seems to be going the other way...), versus doing things the way they have been in the past just because it's the way we've always done things and it's turned out fine.

Remember that the data we have represents the makeup of pilots we had back when the data was collected, when the pilot population may not have been as diverse for any number of reasons. So I chalk a lot of this stuff up to the AF challenging is assumptions in what makes a good pilot. Is it spurred by the political climate right now? Absolutely. But does that mean it's not worth relooking at our assumptions and reassessing our process to make sure we are getting the best in our pilot candidates? I think so. Plus, the AF never solves a problem unless it's forced to, and right now, like it or not, the AF is being forced to look at it's pilot selection process.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jazzdude I think I get the gist of your post, but it got a bit garbled with one of your quotes. In any case, here goes.

Yes, the standard correlation/causation refrain. It may not be proven that those qualities lead directly to being a good pilot, but it is well-established that smarts is associated with general well-being in life - not causal - but associated. In any case, I think someone would be hard-pressed to argue the opposite: that being unmotivated, stupid, and emotionally unstable would make good pilot candidates. No one would seriously make that argument, so it's more of a necessary, but maybe not sufficient type of argument.

Regarding PPLs specifically, regardless of rich Johnny or poor Johnny, having a PPL (all else equal) shows motivation. It's a hurdle that has to be overcome regardless of "access to resources" and hence is a valid indicator. The issue the general is attempting to address is how can we not exclude people who didn't get a PPL, since it does tend to be expensive. Let's not call a valid indicator invalid, though, because we want to include something else - let's find that other thing that we might not be looking at that is also a valid indicator of success and add it to our ranking system.

What I think though, and what it looks like, is that they (TPTB) are tweaking something objective (however imperfect) to make room for something subjective - which is worrisome because it portends capricious decision-making under the guise of achieving some sort of artificial balance. Notice that the general didn't suggest what it was that we're missing - only that something needed to be removed because...why, exactly? Right...

I like an Air Force that takes the best of society. It is my preference that society's problems are solved by society, from which a great Air Force can be built; it's troublesome anytime we start meddling with "nature" and attempt to impose our vision of what perfection is supposed to look like. Let's answer this question first: what talent do we think is out there that we are missing? Let's identify that first, before we start tweaking something so critical to the USA's well-being (Air power).

My intention bringing up the gender differential observed between USAFA cadets and USAF pilots is to highlight the lowest hanging fruit I can think of to illustrate the fact that there are differences that arise between these populations that is the following:

  1. Not understood
  2. Has no reason for not being understood
  3. Is there anyway

We can't answer this question satisfactorily (with a population that is as close to being fighter pilots as one can get), yet we're hoping to look for talent in other far-flung corners of the world while simultaneously being unable to achieve balance with our women USAFA cadets? Please. How 'bout we clean up our own backyard first. Women have been at the zoo since 1976 - that's nearly 50 years. Why aren't 1/8 of fighter pilots women? It's because fighter pilots are not a random sample - which gets to the most basic point underlying all of this - TPTB have determined that the make up of all institutions within society (at least the prestigious ones) need to perfectly reflect the make up of the broader society writ large. That's it. It's that simple. Any time there is divergence between a population and a sub-population it requires a fix from on high. But all these populations are not random samples - there is a great deal of self-selection occurring. Buckle up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...