8 ms·

> And it got personal. On-campus visits began with a questionnaire, the WITY, or "what's important to you." Interestingly, I remember the same tactics being us

by sethrin 10y ago

> And it got personal. On-campus visits began with a questionnaire, the WITY, or "what's important to you." Interestingly, I remember the same tactics being used by the last Marine recruiter that I talked to. He had little flashcards you were supposed to rank in order, with various ideals like honor and financial security that you were supposed to rank in importance. I thought at the time that it was a pretty transparent trap, but I imagine it works pretty well. However, if we're going to suggest that these tactics and empty promises are immoral, are we to also hold the military accountable?

alasdair_ 10y ago
I would hope so, especially because the military is unlike any other kind of employment - you can't simply say "fuck you, I quit" once you're signed up and realize the promises made were empty ones.
- linkregister 10y ago
  What empty promises are you referring to?
  - sethrin 10y ago
    It's probably not the right phrasing. In both cases it seems like the idea was to show you a bunch of things that you think you would want out of the experience. The recruiter then focuses on those abstract ideals that you rate highly and tries to paint a story of how what they're selling will help you obtain those ideals. To me it was pretty overt manipulation. Whether or not you end up fulfilling those ideals is an open question, so whether or not they can be considered "empty promises" is probably in the eye of the beholder. In both cases the potential downside is minimized. I would prefer military recruitment to focus on the highest integrity rather than the most recruits. I don't have much of a position about this particular tactic, but I do see these two issues as morally linked and I am interested in others' perspective and analysis of the matter.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      I think it's good to have society influence military recruitment towards practicing integrity. That will be secondary to fulfilling requirements to recruit an extra few thousand servicemembers to fulfill a military objective, e.g. The Surge in Iraq. Congress and the Executive will demand results if the military isn't keeping up with recruitment. I see military service potentially fulfilling all of a person's ideals/goals, but this is primarily based off of that person's willingness to work hard, exploit opportunities, and luck. I could have mixed up the importance of those qualities, maybe luck is the most important.
  - jff 10y ago
    Based on what I've heard, recruiters may say you're guaranteed for whatever particular job you want, but in the end that has zero impact on your MOS.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      That's a semi-valid complaint. The occupational field is usually specified in the contract, but often recruiters fail to mention that most Marine recruits end up with the less glamorous job within that field. Many new Marines with the Legal/Administration guarantee end up being Administrative (HR) clerks instead of a legal clerks (a much less common MOS).
  - Tactic 10y ago
    In my case they told me I could choose where I was stationed. It turns out what they really meant is I could choose the TYPE of base I was stationed at. Of course during the paperwork they had me sign that I would like a particular type of base saying I had to take that type for my job, not realizing what was going on, I did what I was told. This is their tactic more than out-and-out lying, they take advantage of your lack of experience with the rules, regulations and verbiage. And they are your only guide through the red-tape, so you follow. Similarly they told me the job I wanted (computer programming) was not available because it was full since so many people wanted it and recommended electronics on attack helicopters as it was at least technical. (So I did it.) What they didn't say was that new classes open every week, so while the one he showed me was full, the next one wasn't. (Had I balked I believe a class would have had a "sudden opening".) Or that while there were technically electronics it was really just black box replacement and the real work was on the weapons themselves and involved little to no relevant electronic experience. Again... not out-and-out lies, but certainly to the military's benefit more than your own.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      I'm guessing ADA Programmer was getting phased out anyway (it disappeared in 2002). Or was there another programmer MOS around that time period? I don't know of any subsequent programmer MOS's. Some soldiers and sailors program now but those are very limited cases for the "Cyber" Brigades, and not on any table of organization. In that case it sounds like the recruiter barely knew what went into O-level avionics so he or she guessed and said it was electronics-heavy. You now know that it's the I-level or Depot level techs that actually do troubleshooting with multimeter/oscilloscope, but only because you were involved in the Avionics field.
      - Tactic 10y ago
        This was back in '85 ;) And while the skills may not have been applicable these days the work experience in the field at that time surely would have been. To be fair the 10 month training for 68-J did include classes on circuits, resistors, etc... not that we ever used it.
  - ensignavenger 10y ago
    I've heard of recruiters telling recruits that they were "guaranteed" to get certain assignments. Also, my mother (who never has been very good at reading paperwork she is signing) was told she was signing a permission form for my brother to take a test, when actuality she was signing a form giving him permission to enlist. He was 17, but only a few months from turning 18. He would have just joined anyway in a few months if my mom hadn't signed the form, but she was pretty upset that she was lied to about what it was.
  - alasdair_ 10y ago
    Small sample size warning: literally every one of the six people in the military that I know well has told me a story of a promise made by their recruiter that turned out to be a lie, whether in terms of money, their likelihood of being close to their family, their likelihood of seeing active combat or something else.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I don't know anyone who disagreed with this basic sentiment. My samples size is larger, both of my parents were military and I did a year contracting for Northrop Grumman and was located on a base working directly with many active duty personnel. It cames up in discussion too. Still hardly a statistically strong sample, but it is like 100% so unless we both have Major Sampling Bias... and I never met an officer named "bias".
      - jimbert 10y ago
        I think that this is a kind of confirmation bias. Those who are most upset with their experience in the military will be the ones most vocal about it.
linkregister 10y ago
Military recruiter service schools are dominated by sales training. Wouldn't you expect that its omission would be a waste of taxpayer funding? The key difference between the standard sales techniques when they're used by ITT or by any other organization is that ITT was making promises it couldn't keep. When I get the hard sell about a new car, at least I get a functional car even if I overpaid. If I take out loans to attend ITT, it's likely the training won't help me get a job.
- sethrin 10y ago
  Should military recruitment be focused on maximizing recruits?
  - gknoy 10y ago
    In an all-volunteer military, I think (based on talking to friends who were in the services) the prevailing attitude is that they want to find people who genuinely want to be there. They don't want to waste taxpayer dollars on sending you to boot camp, etc, only to have you wash out because you can't cut it, or to have you be a Crappy Soldier because you don't believe in the mission 100%.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      That said, do you expect Google or Facebook to hire recruiters who don't have sales or recruiting backgrounds? Plenty of software developers end up in their jobs after having been approached by recruiters, why does military recruiting have to be fundamentally different?
      - gohrt 10y ago
        Because programmer recruiters are searching for intelligent talented people, people who can walk out if they don't like the job. Military recruiting is capturing suckers, and signing them onto to multi-year contracts.
RUG3Y 10y ago
I worked recruiting in the military. I've also done sales outside of the military. Recruiting is basically just high pressure sales. Many recruiters are facing nearly impossible numbers and will do just about anything to get a candidate into the system.
- gozur88 10y ago
  How do you get stuck with that job? Seems like something nobody would want to do.
gohrt 10y ago
"we" who? You gotta pick: a draft, recruiting, or less war machine
- mikeash 10y ago
  Or pay more.
metaphor 10y ago
> ...are we to also hold the military accountable? The military trains you, pays you, houses you, feeds you, and provisions your family. Apparently, these for-profit scams can barely address the first the first bullet, let alone a full-ride-all-expenses-paid program, regardless if it's as bumpy as the Marines make it.

by sethrin 10y ago

alasdair_ 10y ago

I would hope so, especially because the military is unlike any other kind of employment - you can't simply say "fuck you, I quit" once you're signed up and realize the promises made were empty ones.

linkregister 10y ago
What empty promises are you referring to?
- sethrin 10y ago
  It's probably not the right phrasing. In both cases it seems like the idea was to show you a bunch of things that you think you would want out of the experience. The recruiter then focuses on those abstract ideals that you rate highly and tries to paint a story of how what they're selling will help you obtain those ideals. To me it was pretty overt manipulation. Whether or not you end up fulfilling those ideals is an open question, so whether or not they can be considered "empty promises" is probably in the eye of the beholder. In both cases the potential downside is minimized. I would prefer military recruitment to focus on the highest integrity rather than the most recruits. I don't have much of a position about this particular tactic, but I do see these two issues as morally linked and I am interested in others' perspective and analysis of the matter.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    I think it's good to have society influence military recruitment towards practicing integrity. That will be secondary to fulfilling requirements to recruit an extra few thousand servicemembers to fulfill a military objective, e.g. The Surge in Iraq. Congress and the Executive will demand results if the military isn't keeping up with recruitment. I see military service potentially fulfilling all of a person's ideals/goals, but this is primarily based off of that person's willingness to work hard, exploit opportunities, and luck. I could have mixed up the importance of those qualities, maybe luck is the most important.
- jff 10y ago
  Based on what I've heard, recruiters may say you're guaranteed for whatever particular job you want, but in the end that has zero impact on your MOS.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    That's a semi-valid complaint. The occupational field is usually specified in the contract, but often recruiters fail to mention that most Marine recruits end up with the less glamorous job within that field. Many new Marines with the Legal/Administration guarantee end up being Administrative (HR) clerks instead of a legal clerks (a much less common MOS).
- Tactic 10y ago
  In my case they told me I could choose where I was stationed. It turns out what they really meant is I could choose the TYPE of base I was stationed at. Of course during the paperwork they had me sign that I would like a particular type of base saying I had to take that type for my job, not realizing what was going on, I did what I was told. This is their tactic more than out-and-out lying, they take advantage of your lack of experience with the rules, regulations and verbiage. And they are your only guide through the red-tape, so you follow. Similarly they told me the job I wanted (computer programming) was not available because it was full since so many people wanted it and recommended electronics on attack helicopters as it was at least technical. (So I did it.) What they didn't say was that new classes open every week, so while the one he showed me was full, the next one wasn't. (Had I balked I believe a class would have had a "sudden opening".) Or that while there were technically electronics it was really just black box replacement and the real work was on the weapons themselves and involved little to no relevant electronic experience. Again... not out-and-out lies, but certainly to the military's benefit more than your own.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    I'm guessing ADA Programmer was getting phased out anyway (it disappeared in 2002). Or was there another programmer MOS around that time period? I don't know of any subsequent programmer MOS's. Some soldiers and sailors program now but those are very limited cases for the "Cyber" Brigades, and not on any table of organization. In that case it sounds like the recruiter barely knew what went into O-level avionics so he or she guessed and said it was electronics-heavy. You now know that it's the I-level or Depot level techs that actually do troubleshooting with multimeter/oscilloscope, but only because you were involved in the Avionics field.
    - Tactic 10y ago
      This was back in '85 ;) And while the skills may not have been applicable these days the work experience in the field at that time surely would have been. To be fair the 10 month training for 68-J did include classes on circuits, resistors, etc... not that we ever used it.
- ensignavenger 10y ago
  I've heard of recruiters telling recruits that they were "guaranteed" to get certain assignments. Also, my mother (who never has been very good at reading paperwork she is signing) was told she was signing a permission form for my brother to take a test, when actuality she was signing a form giving him permission to enlist. He was 17, but only a few months from turning 18. He would have just joined anyway in a few months if my mom hadn't signed the form, but she was pretty upset that she was lied to about what it was.
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  Small sample size warning: literally every one of the six people in the military that I know well has told me a story of a promise made by their recruiter that turned out to be a lie, whether in terms of money, their likelihood of being close to their family, their likelihood of seeing active combat or something else.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I don't know anyone who disagreed with this basic sentiment. My samples size is larger, both of my parents were military and I did a year contracting for Northrop Grumman and was located on a base working directly with many active duty personnel. It cames up in discussion too. Still hardly a statistically strong sample, but it is like 100% so unless we both have Major Sampling Bias... and I never met an officer named "bias".
    - jimbert 10y ago
      I think that this is a kind of confirmation bias. Those who are most upset with their experience in the military will be the ones most vocal about it.

linkregister 10y ago

Military recruiter service schools are dominated by sales training. Wouldn't you expect that its omission would be a waste of taxpayer funding? The key difference between the standard sales techniques when they're used by ITT or by any other organization is that ITT was making promises it couldn't keep. When I get the hard sell about a new car, at least I get a functional car even if I overpaid. If I take out loans to attend ITT, it's likely the training won't help me get a job.

sethrin 10y ago
Should military recruitment be focused on maximizing recruits?
- gknoy 10y ago
  In an all-volunteer military, I think (based on talking to friends who were in the services) the prevailing attitude is that they want to find people who genuinely want to be there. They don't want to waste taxpayer dollars on sending you to boot camp, etc, only to have you wash out because you can't cut it, or to have you be a Crappy Soldier because you don't believe in the mission 100%.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    That said, do you expect Google or Facebook to hire recruiters who don't have sales or recruiting backgrounds? Plenty of software developers end up in their jobs after having been approached by recruiters, why does military recruiting have to be fundamentally different?
    - gohrt 10y ago
      Because programmer recruiters are searching for intelligent talented people, people who can walk out if they don't like the job. Military recruiting is capturing suckers, and signing them onto to multi-year contracts.

RUG3Y 10y ago

I worked recruiting in the military. I've also done sales outside of the military. Recruiting is basically just high pressure sales. Many recruiters are facing nearly impossible numbers and will do just about anything to get a candidate into the system.

gozur88 10y ago
How do you get stuck with that job? Seems like something nobody would want to do.

gohrt 10y ago

"we" who? You gotta pick: a draft, recruiting, or less war machine

mikeash 10y ago
Or pay more.

metaphor 10y ago

> ...are we to also hold the military accountable? The military trains you, pays you, houses you, feeds you, and provisions your family. Apparently, these for-profit scams can barely address the first the first bullet, let alone a full-ride-all-expenses-paid program, regardless if it's as bumpy as the Marines make it.