There is still a test and I think it is still called the ASVAB...


>When I was in the Air Force you had to take tests to qualify you for different areas of assignment. If you received 40 percentile average on all your written tests you were qualified to be a Cook, Air Policeman, Supply Clerk, or work in the Motor Pool.
>
>95 percentile qualified you for electronics schools – radar – computers, etc. If you had a 90 percentile in any one of your test scores you would be qualified for an administrative job such as company clerk, even though all the rest of your scores were 95 percentile. I think that the test was called AFQE, and measured several areas of knowledge and ability to solve problems.
>
>Times change and I have no idea how a recruit is treated when it comes to career fields in the military in this day and age.
>
>
>
>>No problem. Yes, when you join the military you chose the branch (Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, National Guard, Reserves) and you choose your job (MOS - Military Occupational Specialty) as well. Each job has a different enlistment commitment. Usually it depends on the amount of training the military will invest in you as to how long you will have to stay in. If the military has a shortage on some jobs then they offer incentives (bonuses) to join as well. For instance, my training lasted a year so I had a 6 year commitment. During my enlistment there was a shortage as well in my job (the school was tough and few passed) so those already in were offered 25,000 to reinlist (to save the military the cost of training someone to replace them). Other jobs that are not too technical have a shorter enlistment requirement - some as short as 2 years. If they are hard to fill though (like infantry) then they may offer a huge bonus to sign up even though the commitment is
>very short.
>>
>>The reality is though that even though you sign up for a specific length of time, if there is war then the military can instigate a 'stop loss' which in essence means they can keep you in after your 'active duty' commitment ends for a period of up to 6 years. Most commitments are for active duty time and you remain on the reserve list for the period remaining up to 6 years. There is the active reserve where you actually report for duty monthly on 2 weekends and inactive reserves where you only remain on a list and could get called to active duty.
>>
>>For officers it is entirely different. Officers actually have to RESIGN officially in writing or else even after their commitment (8 years) they can be called to active duty.
>>
>>
>>>You're right. I was just restating what CNN said in it's report. I'm not a military person, so tell me, when someone "joins the military", do they get to choose the reserve, or is that up to the military to decide. I know that's probably a very naive question but the truth is (don't get mad now) I've never paid much attention to the processes of the military and I have no idea how all that works. Maybe you "join the reserve" instead of the army etc?
>>>
>>>>Ok, the death rates are listed per 100,000. Let's look at the numbers:
>>>>
>>>>Total active duty: 1,411,287
>>>>Total Guard/Reserve: 66,000
>>>>Total Reserve Full Time: 234,629
>>>>Total For Computations: 1,711,916
>>>>Total Active Duty all Components: 2,659,000 (I won't use this number)
>>>># of Military Deaths in 2004: 1887 (it was 1410 in 2003 but we'll use the higher number)
>>>>
>>>>Deaths per 100,000 in 2004: 110
>>>>Deaths per 100,000 in 1999: 32.4
>>>>End Strength in 1999: 1525942 Deaths 788 Ratio: 51.63
>>>>
>>>>Last year, the military lost 310 service members and employees to car crashes alone
>>>>
>>>>That puts yr 2004 at number 2 (after Timber Cutters which were at 117.8) and ahead of Fishers
>>>>and yr 1999 (a typical year) at (#5 on the list after Metal Workers & before Roofers)
>>>>
>>>>31,000 convenience store clerks are shot every year (I had no idea)
>>>>
>>>>The problem with the combat related deaths is that they cover 1 May 2003 to the present which encompasses multiple years. For a true comparison, you have to break it down to the number of deaths per 100,000 for the same year. The most recent statistics I found numbers for (which I posted) were for 2003.
>>>>
>>>>http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Except that you are linking to a money cnn report from 2003. If you link to the current one from August 2006 here, you'll see partway down the page, the following statement:
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>The BLS does not count combat deaths in its survey;
>>>>>if it did, the military would undoubtedly have qualified
>>>>>as America's most dangerous job last year.
>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect the Bureau of Labour Statistics didn't include combat deaths in 2003 either.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Those are actuarial statistics based on per capita rates. The military doesn't even make the list. They have less of a chance of getting killed in their profession than those on the list (statistically speaking). The apologist crowd will just ignore the facts and make up their liberal gobbly-gook (sp?). The libs don't want facts and logic, they want "make-me-feel-good" emotionalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have you looked at the internet for dangerous jobs? I did a google and found 2 different sites that list 10 of the most hazardous jobs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/
>>>>>>>http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/03/0903worksafe.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>how many jobs other then the military have over 1 million (not sure of the exact number) employed at the same time? Timber cutters lost 84 out of 100,000 in 2002.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You said this:
>>>>>>>>"the military is no more dangerous than most other professions"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm not sidestepping anything by saying I think you're wrong and that is ridiculous. (yeah my spelling stinks...heh)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What other professions here in the USA lost 105 people last month due to the nature of the job, hummm? I assure you that "most other professions" did not loose 105 people due to the nature of their job. What does this have to do with driving your car? ...unless you're a truck driver or something....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Again, without side-stepping the argument:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Statistics show that you have a greater chance of being killed or seriously injured by driving your car than you do by being in the military. Therefore, driving is more dangerous than being in the military.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>P.S. The word is "ridiculous"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Tamar:
>>>>>>>>>>>... the military is no more dangerous than most other professions.....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's ridicilious.