So last week I was reading a newspaper article regarding ASVAN Scores. The point of the article was that over the past year, the National Guard has raised the minimum score required for entry into the Guard. The article centered around an individual who had to take the ASVAB 3 times to obtain a qualifying score. Yet his qualifiying score was no longer qualifying because his score did not meet the new requirement. The article got me thinking about the Coast Guard and our own ASVAB requirments. Specifically my question is, should we "admit" individuals to our organization who don't have a minimum qualifying ASVAB score for any rate. I've seen this twice in my 10 year career. Both members were female. I'm not trying to be sexist, but I'll bring up my female point later. Regardless of the members gender, the best a member can obtain is SN/FN unless they re-take the ASVAB. Now my problem with re-taking the ASVAB, assuming they've completed Basic Training, and are now a SA/FA at there new unit, in today's kindler/gentler Coast Guard is that we are expected/obligated to mentor/teach/educate these members so they can re-take, and hopefully obtain an ASVAB score that qualifies them for "A" school. For a first unit, most units won't have the time/resources to assist these members. For example, a SA/FA onboard a cutter has to qualify helm/lookout (or Aux. Engineering) Watch and Basic DCPQS (or SEOPS). If the SA/FA is assigned to a Small Boat Station, the have Communincations Watchstander, Boat Crewman, and BTM. In the case of a FA, he/she will also have to qualify as Boat Engineer. Regardless of what platform a SA/FA is assigned too, this qualification process can take 6 months or more. A non-operational shore unit could possibly have the resources available to assist a member in getting a qualifying ASVAB score. Generally speaking, the ESO is a collateral duty. Now your using the SA/FA's time, and the ESO's time. Now for the female part. Both members that I can recall were females. Within the last month I was talking with a CPO who had returned from the CPO Academy. one of the classmates was a recruiter. The recruiter stated that due to the Coast Guard's diversity goals, there isn't a need for caucasian male recruits. Are we admiting recruits who meet minimum ASVAB scores, but don't qualify for a rate, because they meet our diversity goals? Somebody awhile back, when we had the recruiter's forum, that statistics show that a large percent of recruits who have a GED verses a high school diploma are less likely to complete there intial enlistment due to disiplinary problems. The more educated you are, the more likely you'll succeed in the Coast Guard. My opinion is that if a potentiol recruit really wants to be Coastie, and doesn't meet the minimum ASVAB score for any rate, the should strive to achieve on there own time/dime that they have the motivation to succeed by educating themselves to achive a minimum score. One of the members, was recruited by her father, had a GED, and did not have an ASVAB score that qualifyed for any rate upon entry to the Coast Guard. The member did end up re-taking the ASVAB, and obtained a qualifying score for "A" school. Did the members father bend the rules for his daughter's benefit prior to his retirement? The second member I can recall was "a couple sanwiches short of a picnic". She never got qualified Communications Watchstander at the Small Boat Station. She ended up getting a psychological discharge within 6 months of graduating basic training. Once a recruit graduates Basic Training, we expect them to know the "basics". If a unit has to go back and teach a SA/FA information that should have been a prerequisate before Basic Training.

Not sure I can really argue for or against you, just perhaps add some more information.

First, I personally am not a big fan of bringing people into the Coast Guard that don't qualify for an "A" School.

Having said that... It is entirely possible for someone to be a productive member of our organization without attending "A" School. While I personally did attend "A" School, I have known many a fine technician that did not. Certainly not a predictor of one's success in the organization.

Just one of ther thing... As one of those Chiefs whose collaterals include ESO, I think I may have a unique perspective. I have administered the ASVAB on several occassion. I have had the distinct pleasure of working with these young men and women and helping them meet their goals. Quite honestly, I don't know who was more proud of the accomplishment: them or me!

Having retired in '01, I must have missed something. When did Charlie Golf eliminate striking for rate? Admittedly, there were few ratings which could be 'struck,' but there were a few I seem to recall - BM, SS, and maybe DC and SK? Did all the rating consolidations produce ratings so broad and technical that resident training is required for all? Or did the transfer to DHS make us rich enough to send every swinging SA/FA to resident 'A' School? Something else entirely?

v/r - jb

There are opportunities to strike rates still, BM, EM, DC, and MK come to mind. There are a few others, but since I don't know which ones for certain, I won't list false information. I would encourage a SA/FA who wanted to strike, had the motivation to strike, and had the time to strike, that opportunity. However, with first unit quals, some SA's/FA's being married, and the others worrierd about chasing some tail. it probably wouldn't happen. A person motivated enough to strike, would more than likely have been motivated enough to obtain a qualifying ASVAB score before enlistment. One thing the recruiter said was more and more prospective recruits are calling the recruiter and saying, "what can you do for me?" when it should be just the opposite in, "CG Recruiter, this is what I can do for you and the CG."

2494906,

Interesting perspective regarding your collateral as ESO. I will remember that next time, "Who was more proud of the accomplishment?". Certainly a good bullet when you can list on your bullets that you help X number of members earn an ASVAB score to qualify for there desired rating. You are certainly right about the "A" school not always being a predictor of one's success. I remember when there was no BM "A" school, and we turned out many fine BM's who were all strikers.

Thanks for the input, appreciate the other points of view, and alternatives to help members suceed in our organization who want it.

quote:

in today's kindler/gentler Coast Guard is that we are expected/obligated to mentor/teach/educate these members so they can re-take, and hopefully obtain an ASVAB score that qualifies them for "A" school.

You're right about that. We are expected mentor/teach/educate/ our members. It's called "developing subordinates". It's been a few months since my last EER but I'm pretty darn sure it's listed in there somewhere. I don't know about you but I feel pretty good when I help a junior member gain the knowledge and skills they need to pursue their career goals, whatever they may be.

I would like to think senior members mentor and educate junior members not because of obligation or expectation, but because it's beneficial to the unit, the member, and the Coast Guard.

I used to the guy that could waive the requirement. When I received a requirement for the ASVAB score to be waived so a member could go to school, I would call the unit. I’d call the chief and ask very pointed questions about the ‘candidate’. If the chief was willing to put his/her reputation on the line, I would waive the points. I did this because the chief had belief in that individual. If the chief refused, I did not waive the points and asked why I received the request with the chief’s authorization on the request. I never had this fail. Not once did these people fail the school or become marginal performers in the field. The chief knew better than me whether or not the person would succeed.

BTW, sex had no determination in my decision. The chief had a lot of impact on my ultimate decision! Also, I would normally only waive a point or three... rarely, if ever, more.

OK, I got a couple of points:

a) All recruits MUST meet at least one A-School minimum. Period.

b) Any recruit that does meet just one A-School minimum will very likely be out of the race for other reasons. Our average ASVAB score for recruits has been the highest of all services for SEVERAL years.

c) It is and ALWAYS has been leaderships job to develop subordinates! It is not a new kindler/gentler thing. Always has been the "chiefs" job.

d) To back up Dis, as one of the guys that authorizes Comdt level waivers today, I just have to say 'ditto.' ASVAB scores are an INDICATOR at success in a TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, not for on the job. That indicator CAN be outweighed by drive and performance. Like Dis, I barely even consider the 'Command' input. I talk to the Chief every time. My best line for an indicator is "Chief, if I do this, it will be under the caveat that the member will come back/follow you for the next four years. You willing to do that?" (Funny how that can change a conversation in some cases! Seems some folks are willing to put a burden on OTHER units, but not themselves! Others say, YES.)

e) As some folks mentioned above, there are still strikeable ratings, and ASVAB scores have nothing to do with them. Again - that is becuase ASVAB scores indicate potential success in TRAINING environments, not on the job.

I pulled the following one out as a new reply on purpose:

If you are responsible for assiting a member with their ASVAB scores, please consider the following:

Go to the resources (T & E Manual for example) and get an understanding of what the individual score is supposed to measure. For example - MK is Math Knowledge. Instead of refering the member to ASVAB practice sites so that they get better at the test, (really so they can FOOL the test) have them work on the underlying subject area so that they improve their ABILITY. That is what will benifit them the most. If they need to retake the test, they will score better, becuase they ARE better, not becuase they can fool the test.

I'll say it, and proudly. I have a GED. I did very well on my GED.

I know folks that have a college degree that can't put two sentences together properly or have no idea when to use "they're", "their" and "there" correctly.

That female that was discharged for unsuitability... was that her fault... or the fault of the recruiter for enlisting someone unsuitable?

The ASVAB score is the MINUMUM score to allow an individual into the Coast Guard. It's not like we're accepting people into an Ivy League college.

You know what they call the person that graduated last in their medical class? A doctor.

As a former A school instructor I can tell you that you could pick out the sailors who showed up with the 5 point waiver who did not really try to learn the material, from those who were interested in improving their knowledge of the material.

Interestingly enough, in recent history lower ASVABs seem to be more of indicator to be too dumb to stay out of trouble OUTSIDE of class than any indicator of trouble in class.

Sometimes people just are not very good at taking tests, or have other reasons. I knew a few SNs on my ship that had very low ASVAB scores, but were extremely motivated and worked hard in striking their rate. I have also known “Boot to A”s with college degrees and have been kicked out of the Coast Guard for various reasons.

If someone is in the Coast Guard already, judge them on the work they do and attitude they have, not what score they got. Scores can be improved, and I am sure some who struck rates have ended to be a star examples.

Also to the OP, paragraphs would help, even more so when you are posting against members with low scores and education...