MN-Dad 2016, thank you for your kind comments on your earlier post. I believe our end goals and backgrounds by the way are similar, but we just disagree a little on how to get there.
Christcorp-Why, why, why can't you understand what Brovol is saying? Let me understand you. Basically, your belief is that the greater number of diversity boxes the SAs can check in their incoming cadets, the stronger the military will be because:
1)the led will more likely trust someone that looks like them and/or from similar backgrounds and
2)the divergence of ideas from dissimilar backgrounds will lead to a bigger pool of ideas and approaches.
3) More disturbing, it is hard to look at just numbers to decide who would make the best candidate, so EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE (capitals added for your benefit).
#1) The problems with premise number one on a realtime basis is that last time I checked, there was not a 1:1 leader to led ratio. So one leader can't be of similar background to the many people he/she might be leading, unless the military is considering segregated units again which would be going in the wrong direction. Personally, I am more likely to trust the leadership of someone I perceive to have high abilities regardless of race, gender or background than I am of my similar race, gender or background with low abilities. It is simply human nature to initially question the ability of someone who fits into the "diversity boxes" since the perception is that they might have been given special consideration for leadership simply because they fit into those boxes, and less so because of their ability. Current cadets on these forums have alluded to this multiple times. With the military putting emphasis on those boxes as you have said over and over again that they do in your posts, the military is automatically placing an extra burden of proof on those individuals, who appear on the surface to fit into these diversity boxes, to prove their abilities to the led. As you have said again and again, the military isn't a bunch of robots and policy simply can't dictate human nature and emotions away. Brovol has said over and over again he does not object to background playing a consideration in academy admission, but objects to gender and race being part of those considerations largely because, if I understand Brovol correctly, what the Supreme Court in the mid 2000's said in its ruling when it declared segregating schools by racial quotas illegal- "If we want to stop discrimination, we have to stop discriminating." I agree with Brovol that you have been at best inconsistent in your position on this- gender and race don't play a big role, then it should play a big role to "how do you know that gender/race candidates have lower scores?" It doesn't take more than a cursory reading of these forums to realize that regardless of the concrete qualifications of women and minority candidates, the perception is they are lower. And, as MN-Dad 2016 stated earlier, perception is power. If the perception is untrue, the SAs could readily dispel these perceptions by posting the average scores by gender and race just as it posts the admission percentages by gender and race. That would probably go a long way in addressing the perception of lower ability.
#2) This statement is based upon the assumption that demographics are the sole factor in deterring our ideas. My sister and I have identical demographics, but we have very different ideas and approaches to most topics. Also, studies of group dynamics show that for the most part, direction and goals are determined by the power in any room and any divergence of ideas is minimally only allowed in the execution phase. In other words, groupthink is prevalent in most groups. Christcorp, you have demonstrated groupthink most effectively in attempting to end the discussion with Brovol because he is able to see the pros AND cons of diversity, particularly as it pertains to gender and race, as an admission criterion versus what must be the current military line right now you are representing.
#3) I don't think you realize how disturbing this statement might be to some people. If this is true, then why should our kids improve their test scores, leadership positions, etc.? What it would all boil down to then would be who was connected to someone "in the know" about what particular criteria the individual SAs were looking for this year if there were criteria they could control, or maybe it is something they can't control, like what demographic they are in. We as Americans have generally frowned upon this socialist way of doing things. The maybe unfair sounding truth of the matter is is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. An independent study which the Air Force participated in published on these forums looked at how well different admission criteria predicted future success as an officer. As is true for graduate schools, medical schools, law schools, etc., one of the most reliable indicator of future success as an officer was standardized test scores, and one of the least reliable indicators of future success was the academy committee scores. In fact, the committee scores were so unreliable, the discussion in the study opined about eliminating academy committee scoring altogether and merely using the committee as an up or down vote for candidates. So, personally, when I read how SUBJECTIVE the criteria are, it reeks of favoritism and bending to prevailing political winds.
).
