Why does the army hold so tightly on Soldier needing a 110 GT score in order to do anything, e.g. go green to gold, warrant, etc?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 00:08:12 -0400

<span style='line-height: 115%; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;'><font color="#000000">I believe that leaders should relook this. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just because a Soldier doesn't score a 110
doesn't meant that he or she won’t perform well, it could mean he or she doesn't take
standardize tests well.</font></span>

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2014 2:09 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 02:09:42 -0400

I don't think this requirement is bad. The army supplies a 6 to 8 week course here at Fort Hood to enable you to attain that 110 or higher GT Score. I am sure most post provides this also.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Apr 12 at 2014 9:31 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:31:50 -0400

So, because a Soldier can or is unwilling to raise their individual qualifications the Army should lower its standards?  Those days are over.<br><div><br></div><div>The General Technical score measures an individual's word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, and arithmetic reasoning...people can increase these by getting some more education.<br><br>Additionally, the 'doesn't take standardized tests well' is a complete cop out.  If you'd like to be an Army officer (even our NCOES are changing), you should be able to demonstrate education through standardized tests...which all goes back to the comprehension of word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, and arithmetic reasoning thing.<br><br>What do you think is a 'fair' quantifiable score for one of the Army's commissioning programs...or should they even have one, and why?</div>

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Apr 12 at 2014 9:37 AM

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:37:30 -0400

It's a baseline requirement which is determined from your General Technical capabilities demonstrated via your performance on the ASVAB.

Because all of our jobs are determined by the highest scores we get on the ASVAB, there is no reason to abandon the 110 GT requirement. The Army stated long ago that it was the minimum requirement for the higher-education programs.

I am never in support of relaxing a standard to make it easier for people to advance. *Except for when I was a Recruiter... And I wasn't supportive of it then.. I just needed to 'eat.'

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2014 10:26 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:26:12 -0400

I have done the GT improvement course and went from a 98 to a 124. Of course this was 16 years ago. Its a easy low impact class and the Army should maintain a 110 standard. What I believe needs to be done is this standard needs to be enforced! I have looked at thousands of ERB's and seen mid 90 GT scores on most. When I ask why don't you do GT improvement the same answer. Why? What's up with that?? The standard is 110 but if you don't have it the impact is low....I was not allowed to go to the E-5 board until I got that 110! So start with that NCO's!!! Soldier wants to go to the board get a 110 same with WLC, ALC and SLC. 6-8 weeks, 2hrs a day and on JBLM you can pick morning or afternoon.

Response by CPL Ryan Robinson made Apr 12 at 2014 3:52 PM

CPL Ryan Robinson — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 15:52:46 -0400

Why not. you dont want a dummy in charge. I would have made a great warrant i had a few as friends

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2014 11:38 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 23:38:12 -0400

GT score just measures your reasoning and ability to figure things out on your own. It has nothing to do with intelligence, just how relatively difficult it will be to train you a difficult task. Sure, (almost) anyone can learn (almost) anything, but it's a huge waste of time to teach a dud anything.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Apr 14 at 2014 12:35 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 00:35:02 -0400

I graduated college with a GT score of less than a hundred. I took a GT score improvement course, and I raised to 109. I haven't been back since then. I have heard soldiers over the years try to relate having a high GT score with intelligence or common sense. I throw them a quick chuckle and tell them the ASVAB is a job placement test and it does not project how intelligent one may be. Year ago I took a GT improve class at Fort Stewart, GA and all the instructor work on was English so that was a waste of my time.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2014 1:13 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:13:21 -0400

I agree with SSG Best on this. I have a 105 score. That doesn't mean I'm not a good mentor or leader. It has been a long time sence I have takes a standardized test. Not real good at them.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Apr 16 at 2014 12:40 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:40:05 -0400

I dont understand the whole waiver thing. Yes most things require a 110 score but it's waiverable to 100. Why then don't they just make the standard 100? Or same thing with TIS of 10 years, waiverable to 14. Just make it 14! I don't get it.

Response by SPC(P) Bianca Embry made Apr 16 at 2014 3:20 AM

SPC(P) Bianca Embry — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:20:28 -0400

Because Standards need to be met. If someone wants something bad enough they can go to BSEP and raise their GT score to go Green to Gold, Warrant, EOD, ETC. I went to BSEP to raise my GT from 103 to 113 so I could go to EOD school. It is not impossible. It all depends on the work you put into getting what YOU want from YOUR career.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2014 10:24 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:24:08 -0400

Excellent topic SSG Private RallyPoint Member I wish there could be a possibility for an update and/or waiver for the 110 GT score basic requirement for Direct Commission. What I mean with this is, for example: a 105 GT score and Master's Degree, or 110 GT and Bachelor's Degree. I've seen a lot of changes and updates within the Army but nothing regarding this topic. In my case, I got 105 GT in ASVAB, then I took the AFCT and again I got 105. I hope to get the 110 in the future but I am worried about the maximum times allowed to take the AFCT in the military career. This is just a thought and I respect all the other responses.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2015 8:17 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:17:52 -0500

SSG Best I agree with you my GT is a horrible 85 and I have been to Small Arms Master Gunner and got Exceeded Course Standards and in ALC I was on the Commandants List. I also went to Raven Operator Course and did very well in the top 5 of the class. I took the ASVAB when I was 17 and in high school and with a MOS of 11B I didn't see the need to better my GT score until I was about to make SSG

Response by SPC Susan Ess made Oct 24 at 2016 8:27 PM

SPC Susan Ess — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:27:47 -0400

OLD vet responding...It isn't about the numbers. It's about what they represent. On the Bell Curve, the "average" IQ is 100. The comparable GT score is, if I recall, closer to 90. One half the population has an IQ, or GT score, AT OR BELOW average. (The other half is, of course, AT OR ABOVE average.). Now, from which group would YOU choose someone to pilot millions and millions of dollars worth of metal through the sky...or to lead your son or daughter into combat?

Anf frankly, one major difference between scores is how long it takes us to figure stuff out. That is one reason the tests are timed. Extreme example of that point: my cousin with Down Syndrome, and a VERY LOW IQ, took until age 40 to learn to tie his shoelaces! That suggests that, given enough time, any of us could learn most anything. My MOS required my learning Russian...but...it also required that students learn Russian on the Army's timetable. Like...quickly.

Anyway, from a practical standpoint, there has to be a line somewhere. And, over time, the successes or failures of trainees in various MOSs has established that there is a higher likelihood of success in learning the required tasks IN THE TIME THE ARMY HAS DECIDED TO ALLOW, when the trainee has AT LEAST the minimum GT score required.

And, not to be Debbie Downer here, consider that if you squeak by with the MINIMUM score, you may be the most challenged student in the class from the git-go. Meanwhile, if you really are one of the "AT OR ABOVE" people who is just lousy at testing...you can fix that with practice.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2017 10:40 AM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Mar 2017 10:40:02 -0500

I do not agree, sadly. I myself had a 97 GT score when I first joined in 2008. This ate at me my entire career, but not for the excuse you provided. I felt this did not reflect the potential I felt I had within myself and my desire to be a Warrant Officer. So, years later I went back for a retest and scored a 120 GT in the 84th percentile. Further, I took the SIFT and qualified for flight school. Don't lower the Army's standards any further... raise yours.

Response by SP5 Lamour Johnson made May 17 at 2017 10:45 PM

SP5 Lamour Johnson — Wed, 17 May 2017 22:45:14 -0400

There has to be some standard. I went into the Womens Army Corps, now US Army since women and men are combined and had a 120 GT score. I went to the best school in Detroit and this was in the sixties.

Response by SP5 Lamour Johnson made May 17 at 2017 10:46 PM

SP5 Lamour Johnson — Wed, 17 May 2017 22:46:57 -0400

There has to be some standard. I went was in the Women's Army Corps in the 1960's and I had a GT score of 120. I did not realize how valuable it was.