More women in the class of 2018?

My two cents for whatever its worth as a female cadet...

So the way I look at it, and it may be a particularly jaded way to look at it, I recognize the sentiments coming from part of the male cadet population who feels that women are getting picked up at a higher rate than the men for certain positions. Looking at this year's BDE staff, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of an over compensation coming out of the rugby incident last year to make West Point look like they were trying to treat both genders equally considering the amount of backlash the institution got over the way they handled, in particular the graduating seniors involved with that incident. The rugby incident wasn't a completely isolated incident here on post, although they've done a much better job in terms of I think taking the time to properly investigate and handle similar situations since, that I think is being over looked. It played a big part in whether or not I wanted to interview for a leadership position this summer, because I don't want something because I'm "given" it...I want it because I earned it and am the best person to do the job.

With that said, the females who get picked up for those positions tend to be just as, if not more qualified than their counterparts. It was interesting watching how the selection for summer higher level selections went this summer, because demographics will play a part, just like anywhere else in ensuring that command teams fully represent the body which they're supposed to represent. Anecdotally, there seemed disporortionally more female cadets interviewing at the BDE level than would make sense, but when you started looking at their backgrounds, these were some of the most qualified of my classmates going up there, just like the men.

Part of what I'd put down to more of the women going for those positions comes down to self-selection on the side of the cadets and the need for some women who see these as a way to prove themselves, in order to be accepted on equal terms with the "guys." Exceling is the only way to prove to some people that women are doing just as good of a job.

Just something I'd say for people to think about that think women are getting things easy. It degrades the work those of us who aren't being placed into these positions for political reasons. As soon as people start seeing people as a "soldier" and not with the adjective "female" or "male" before it, I think we'll be off a lot better. You either meet the standards, or you don't at that point, and your command team better be helping you to get up to standards or else you need to find a different job. Just my thoughts.



I can't talk about what BigNick is saying about the TAC's being overly involved. In my limited experience, that is company dependent. My TAC lets our cadets run the company, and steps in only when needed but that's because, as a graduate, he sees this as our chance to learn. He's there to teach and let us make mistakes in a controlled environment which is what USMA is supposed to be.
 
Now the argument begins: there is a double standard AFPT screening between males and females. There are two women who have enrolled in ranger school. And this year a female Plebe broke a 20-year record for IDOC. Can females pass BUDS/SEALS training or survive Rangers school and the like? Time will only tell. I say give them the opportunity.

I agree with the sentiment. Wouldn't hurt to increase the female standards either...people train to the standard you set for them is one of the beliefs I'm pretty convinced on. If you set it low, unless they're intrinsically motivated otherwise, that's the standard they're going to meet because you aren't requiring them to do anything else.
 
Let me re-phrase...

Let me re-phrase after talking with someone. West Point wants all Officers to attend Ranger School. Especially those branching into infantry. So here is the dilemma, if women are now going to be in combat rolls how will they attend “male only” Ranger school? Women Officers will now be required to be Infantry Officers and be forced to attend Ranger School. There are two women who have “applied” for Rangers at this time.

The Army is always in a state of change.


Push Hard, Press Forward
 
The Cream Will Rise...

My two cents for whatever its worth as a female cadet...

So the way I look at it, and it may be a particularly jaded way to look at it, I recognize the sentiments coming from part of the male cadet population who feels that women are getting picked up at a higher rate than the men for certain positions. Looking at this year's BDE staff, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of an over compensation coming out of the rugby incident last year to make West Point look like they were trying to treat both genders equally considering the amount of backlash the institution got over the way they handled, in particular the graduating seniors involved with that incident. The rugby incident wasn't a completely isolated incident here on post, although they've done a much better job in terms of I think taking the time to properly investigate and handle similar situations since, that I think is being over looked. It played a big part in whether or not I wanted to interview for a leadership position this summer, because I don't want something because I'm "given" it...I want it because I earned it and am the best person to do the job.

With that said, the females who get picked up for those positions tend to be just as, if not more qualified than their counterparts. It was interesting watching how the selection for summer higher level selections went this summer, because demographics will play a part, just like anywhere else in ensuring that command teams fully represent the body which they're supposed to represent. Anecdotally, there seemed disporortionally more female cadets interviewing at the BDE level than would make sense, but when you started looking at their backgrounds, these were some of the most qualified of my classmates going up there, just like the men.

Part of what I'd put down to more of the women going for those positions comes down to self-selection on the side of the cadets and the need for some women who see these as a way to prove themselves, in order to be accepted on equal terms with the "guys." Exceling is the only way to prove to some people that women are doing just as good of a job.

Just something I'd say for people to think about that think women are getting things easy. It degrades the work those of us who aren't being placed into these positions for political reasons. As soon as people start seeing people as a "soldier" and not with the adjective "female" or "male" before it, I think we'll be off a lot better. You either meet the standards, or you don't at that point, and your command team better be helping you to get up to standards or else you need to find a different job. Just my thoughts.



I can't talk about what BigNick is saying about the TAC's being overly involved. In my limited experience, that is company dependent. My TAC lets our cadets run the company, and steps in only when needed but that's because, as a graduate, he sees this as our chance to learn. He's there to teach and let us make mistakes in a controlled environment which is what USMA is supposed to be.


This is extremely important. Especially to those who want to attend WP. If you think you can go to WP and go into cruise control for four years, then WP is not for you. Competition will generate the best candidate for the job. This year for the Class of 2018, there was an increase of applications from last year again. About 16,000 to 17,000. Even though there is the minimum qualification in all aspects don't settle for the minimum. Strive to be the top performer.

Push Hard, Press Forward
 
From Casey - "Just something I'd say for people to think about that think women are getting things easy. It degrades the work those of us who aren't being placed into these positions for political reasons. As soon as people start seeing people as a "soldier" and not with the adjective "female" or "male" before it, I think we'll be off a lot better. You either meet the standards, or you don't at that point, and your command team better be helping you to get up to standards or else you need to find a different job. Just my thoughts."

I agree 100%. However, that is not how it works in the Army or at West Point (this is based on many years of experience at WP and in the Army). When the Army is pushed to meet some "diversity goal" - to include women in combat or Ranger School etc. - officers are pressured to make sure we meet those goals. We go to great lengths to say that the standards will not be reduced - but they will be adjusted. This is what I think will happen in the Ranger School (I am a graduate). The very difficult standards will be reviewed to "make sure they are appropriate". We will suddenly discover that the number of push-ups , pull-ups etc do not need to be so high. Code - "lower the standards for women so they can get through the course".

Look at the physical standards for men and women at WP and in the Army. The results to get a max score for a woman would be in the lower third for men.

I am not against women being at WP or the Army but lets keep the standards high and work to get the "diversity" people up to those standards.

I sincerely hope that more women go to the Ranger School and are successful. I will be among the first to welcome them to the Ranger community - if they meet the traditional Ranger standards.
 
It would be most interesting to see the percentage of women in the top 10% of the class academically (and then compare that to percentage of women in the class). Likely that played a very large role in the selection of BDE staff.
 
Let me re-phrase after talking with someone. West Point wants all Officers to attend Ranger School. Especially those branching into infantry. So here is the dilemma, if women are now going to be in combat rolls how will they attend “male only” Ranger school? Women Officers will now be required to be Infantry Officers and be forced to attend Ranger School. There are two women who have “applied” for Rangers at this time.

Don't know who you talked to, but sending all officers to Ranger school is a fantasy or there is a conspiracy behind it. First, not all officers want to go to Ranger school. The Ranger school can't handle all officers attending it. As much as Ranger School was a great experience for me, folks don't attend Ranger school for the experience, they want the TAB. What do we do with folks that fail to complete the school? I doubt that things have changed that much as in old days not all combat arms officer positions required Ranger qualification. If my memory hasn't failed me, only one out of three mechanized Infantry platoon leader positions in a company was coded for Ranger.

Old days, all active duty Infantry LTs after IOBC graduation had slots to Ranger School. So if we have female Infantry officers, they should be given slots to Ranger school. Had a classmate of mine that "declined" to attend Ranger school. He was blacklisted. Some of us suspected that a few of classmates intentionally failed some early requirements to get out of Ranger school. Never confirmed it but heard a rumor that one of my IOBC mates refused to do the combat water survival test (it was November or December). Regardless, two of my former Infantry battalion commanders that were not Ranger qualified still became general officers.

My conspiracy theory is making the Ranger school a "leadership" school (i.e. all officers attend) instead of combat skills school. Sometime in 1994/1995, the Army limited Ranger school attendance to Infantry soldiers and only non-infantry soldiers in Ranger coded positions. So if the Ranger school changes to a leadership school, it could be shorten and become less physically demanding.

Many things at Ranger School is subjective, but many things are not - Worm Pit (nice wet obstacle course), Darby Queen (obstacle course), 5 mile run, combat water survival test, 5 pull ups, 18 mile road march, and etc. One of the scariest moments of my life was the buddy rappel, a requirement to pass the Mountain phase. I was hungry, tired, and fatigued, got a buddy that is about 170 lbs on my back (I was probably 160 lbs) and only thing that was preventing me and my buddy from falling is my right arm awkwardly on the small of my back holding the rope.
 
Now the argument begins: there is a double standard AFPT screening between males and females...And this year a female Plebe broke a 20-year record for IDOC.

Assuming you meant IOCT
Yet the rest of the females in her class will get A's with IOCT times that would be D's or F's for their male counterparts :rolleyes:

Pick one. Either women are capable of performing at the same level and should be graded at the same level, or they aren't and should not be put in competition for the same jobs.

And to comment on the female captains bit- they may have been the most qualified candidates. Companies recommend a few individuals for "Key Summer Leader" positions. Those positions are like tryouts for Academic Year slots. So if the companies feel pressured to send up more girls, the pool the Supe has to look at may in fact have more qualified girls, but that is not necessarily reflective of the corps at large. The First Captain was not even in the running for that position until a member of the rugby team lost his KSL slot as a result of the team punishment.
 
When I was a cadet I'd have done anything to get more women in that joint. Just sayin.
 
^^ Glad you are still around to make it real - I literally laughed out loud. Hope you are doing well!
 
Too often when the topic of increasing diversity is raised this idea of "best qualified" always pops up; both in civilian and military contexts. What some seem to forget is that leader selection (or teammember selection for that matter) is often based on a set of wider criteria that, yes, can and often should include diversity as a key component. Put simply... the right leader for the job can never be determed by a test score alone.

Military example... Imagine trying to work with an indigenous force in a hostile country. You can select from two leaders to lead this force. Both are qualified, but one has more experience, higher education/score, but doesn't look like or relate as well to the indigineous force. The other, again qualified, but not as experienced, lower scores, but being from the area is more likely to earn the trust of the force in short order. You will help train and support either. Who's the best choice?

Civilian example... Your company is looking to exapand it's favorable ratings with women consumers. As a result you believe your workforce may also need to evolve a bit and incorporate more women as to better relate to the target customer mindset, however currently the workforce remains predominantly male. Again, two qualified leader position candidates apply. Applicant #1 happens to be a male and is slightly better on paper perhaps as he had a 4.0 GPA. Applicant #2 happens to be a woman who also went to a good grad school and graduated with just a 3.6 but seems to relate to the target consumer audience better. Who's the best choice?

Perhaps we need to expand our definition of "best qualified" to mean who best fits ALL the needs of the role now and in the future.
 
Last edited:
A couple of thoughts based on my knowledge of women at USNA -- which probably apply in some measure to USMA.

First, apparently, studies have shown that a critical mass for any minority group is 20%. What that means is, once a group (racial, gender or other) reaches that percentage of the larger body, they are much less likely to be marginalized, discriminated against, etc. Thus, USNA made a push a few years ago to go from 16% to 20% in terms of percentage of women.

Along the way, they found the numbers actually increased slightly beyond that. USNA has been gender blind in admissions since around 1993 (when "combat" restrictions were repealed). They've typically found that, if they admit the best people regardless of gender, they get about the numbers they want of men and women.

In fact, in the early years, they had to be gender conscious, not b/c they would admit too few women but for fear they'd admit too many and not have billets in which to place them upon graduation. Once those restrictions were eased, they could be much more aggressive about reaching out to women, admitting women in number that corresponded to their merit, etc.

Today, entering USNA classes fluctuate between 20% and 24% women, with gender blind admissions.

I state the above b/c there tends to be an automatic knee-jerk reaction that, if more women are being admitted, they are less qualified then their male counterparts and/or men must now be more qualified. Unless you know the history (and I don't), you can't make that claim. It is possible that higher qualified women were actually being turned down in the past b/c USMA needed to restrict the number at WP b/c of limits upon graduation or for some other reason.

There are PLENTY of extremely well qualified women in this country so that USMA does not need to lower its standards to attract a higher number.

That said, I agree quotas are not a good thing if it means lowering standards. However, it USMA is now simply reflecting a different reality of more opportunities in the USA for women, it is merely a change, not a lowering of standards.
 
Tug-Boat

I hesitate to write this because some people will get irate. I am not a woman-hater nor am I against women at West Point, in the Army, or in combat.

I congratulate the female Cadet that broke the WOMEN'S obstacle course. This got a lot of positive attention for WP- it was even on some national news networks.

Not for the reality: The time she accomplished is surpassed by 2-3 hundred male Cadets routinely. A time on this course that will get a male Cadet a "C" will get a female Cadet an "A". Many male Cadets do not want the attention, but tire of the "Women Cadets are held to the same standards as men" fiction.

It seems that some women want equal opportunity and recognition but gladly accept unequal standards. I hope the Army in general and the Ranger School in particular retains their high standards for all students regardless of gender.
 
There are PLENTY of extremely well qualified women in this country so that USMA does not need to lower its standards to attract a higher number.

I partially agree as there are finite numbers of "well qualified women" in this country. West Point is in competition with other service academies, ROTC, and regular colleges. There is a female candidate in MD that was offered one of the early appointments. She has not accepted it yet and as she is waiting to hear from another college. I will only briefly mention the old AOG report how it shows that higher percentage of qualified women get appointment offers. But I don't need this report to prove my point. The number of qualified candidates for West Point have been somewhat consistent around 2500 +/- few hundred. West Point can't accept all the qualified females out of 2500 as something call nomination and WCS will get in the way.
 
I thought I would give a different perspective from when one of my deployments in Afghanistan with the USMC. We had several women attached to our unit as we patrolled. It was more difficult physically for them to manage the heavy loads for extended periods of time, BUT . . . if we're talking weight, they ended up being worth their weight in gold when they connected with locals and almost certainly turned up information that saved lives: ours. I don't dismiss the importance of physical strength for infantry work -- the ability to physically carry heavy loads on a smaller physical frame for long periods of time may be something that is structurally unattainable for most women, or maybe not (I don't have the medical background to know) -- but being a modern infantry soldier can't just be reduced to carrying a 140-lb pack either. Watching with interest on this overall issue.
 
I thought I would give a different perspective from when one of my deployments in Afghanistan with the USMC. We had several women attached to our unit as we patrolled. It was more difficult physically for them to manage the heavy loads for extended periods of time, BUT . . . if we're talking weight, they ended up being worth their weight in gold when they connected with locals and almost certainly turned up information that saved lives: ours. I don't dismiss the importance of physical strength for infantry work -- the ability to physically carry heavy loads on a smaller physical frame for long periods of time may be something that is structurally unattainable for most women, or maybe not (I don't have the medical background to know) -- but being a modern infantry soldier can't just be reduced to carrying a 140-lb pack either. Watching with interest on this overall issue.

Valid point. We just need to determine what core or essential tasks that all Infantry soldiers, regardless male or female, must perform.
 
Back
Top