1SG Carlos E Bonet 1308550 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div> 2016-02-17T02:25:29-05:00 1SG Carlos E Bonet 1308550

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>

2016-02-17T02:25:29-05:00 2016-02-17T02:25:29-05:00 SFC Michael Hasbun 1308636

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I would add SGT to that list... Especially SGT actually..

2016-02-17T05:55:01-05:00 2016-02-17T05:55:01-05:00 SGT Kennith Mcduffie 1308641

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I totally agree!!you have some that don't even know how to perform a proper PMCS.

2016-02-17T06:05:23-05:00 2016-02-17T06:05:23-05:00 CSM Private RallyPoint Member 1308715

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Absolutely. A more technical MOS is no excuse for not having an army established set of necessary skills that add to established national standards. Often times, the Army does not use specific professions in the same capacity as in the civilian world. NCOs must be better prepared to do their jobs, especially within a shrinking Army

2016-02-17T07:39:49-05:00 2016-02-17T07:39:49-05:00 1SG George Endicott 1308891

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It would be great for Soldiers that work the majority of the scope of their MOS regularly and time was carved out of the training schedule (around all of the AR 350-1 mandatory training, field/deployment prep, field exercises and deployments). I was around when we had SQTs, and I did well. However, as a combat medic in a line unit, it was hard to memorize 100s of pages in order to answer questions like "what is the third step in measuring a patient's blood pressure?" And I won't even get into the fact that in some MOSs (in the medical field) we had several manuals with completely different standards. There was the modules from the schoolhouse (AIT), the correspondence course books, the EFMB standards/guide, and the MOS skill level tasks book (to name a few), each with entirely different standards for the same task. Today medics also have to maintain several civilian certifications (including EMT certification) that has entirely different standards than Army standards (other than one must maintain the NR-EMT certification). This is not even speaking to the differences in job requirements between a line infantry medic and a medic working in a allergy and immunization clinic. Both hold the same MOS and both are given the "basics" to fill either role. However, anyone that has worked with medics will know that moving from one arena to another involves a steep learning curve in order to successfully make those transitions. To create a test of<br />Some sort comprehensive enough to test every combat medic on every aspect of every job they may or may not do that falls within the scope of where their MOS and skill level falls within the TOEs and TDAs in the entire Army would mean that medics would never do anything but study for an annual test. To make the test more generalizable (in other words, boil the subjects down to "common" tasks every medic in a skill level would perform) would be meaningless as a tool. There are already very robust mechanisms out there to rate soldiers and NCOs on their performance and most are too lazy and/or incompetent to employ those mechanisms. Teach, Coach, Mentor, Counsel (yeah REALLY counsel), and for NCOs: leaders have to make the time to properly do the aforementioned tasks and then give accurate NCOERs. First, there is no test that would serve as a substitute for these things performed properly. Second, it is LAZY to advocate for a standardized test that simply enables poor leadership and training. So, forget SQT style tests, they would be less than useless. Concentrate on teaching, coaching and mentoring your Soldiers and NCOs and, above all, MAINTAIN THE STANDARD!

2016-02-17T09:14:56-05:00 2016-02-17T09:14:56-05:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 1308926

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>We live in a sad military where reports and charts are more important than the realities behind them. In the USAR specifically there is zero support to conduct MOS training simply because it's not part of the Senior Commands evaluation factors. An MOS based assessment test, I'd like a three part, MOS technical, MOS performance (judged by practical evaluation) and MOS based PT requirements would provide quantifiable metrics that would be used to identify and fund specific training. That way we can get support for field training exercises rather than spending all our time discussing flu shots and dental records. Obviously that means we need a good test that measures can you actually do the job not the simple what is on page 5 of this FM crap that is so common is correspondence courses. Good thing there is a CTRL F.

2016-02-17T09:27:17-05:00 2016-02-17T09:27:17-05:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 1308963

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Not too many current Soldiers even remember the old MOS tests. But I do remember why they went away. They were very cumbersome to manage at the unit level, and it became a farce as pencil-whipping them was rampant - at least in the USAR.<br />While administrating them in the internet age would be easier, the last thing I want is more DL training requirements. At least this one is relevant.<br />If I could trade this one for the ridiculous Internet Security Awareness training, you have a deal.<br /><br />I miss the days when you actually has to know skills to a certain degree in order to progress in rank. This is something I believe the Navy still does.

2016-02-17T09:39:04-05:00 2016-02-17T09:39:04-05:00 COL Private RallyPoint Member 1309066

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As long as it is part of a holistic review and test of the individual for promotion. The SQT can ensure you don't get promoted, but it can't guarantee you get promoted. It has to be less than the majority of whatever else is a part of the promotion criteria. If we had the old "Specialist" ranks (Spec-5, Spec-6) then I wouldn't have an issue. Since we don't have that any longer, the evaluation of leadership ability is necessary. Just because you can take a test really well doesn't mean you can lead someone. You might test well and look like 260lbs of smashed cats. It has to be holistic.

2016-02-17T10:09:32-05:00 2016-02-17T10:09:32-05:00 CSM Private RallyPoint Member 1309071

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Pretty sure that Structured Self Development is supposed to do the same thing as the old SQT/SDT. Now, whether it is as effective (if you think the SQT was effective) that's another debate.<br /><br />I personally thought the SQT was extremely easy. The only thing I liked about it was if you failed it twice the Army kicked your ass out!

2016-02-17T10:11:30-05:00 2016-02-17T10:11:30-05:00 CW3 Kevin Storm 1309347

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As someone who took the SQT a few times back in the 1980's, I would love to go over the why we shouldn't bring it back, at least not in the way it was. The SQT did not have a hands on portion to go with it, a major flaw from the get go. Soldiers like 13B's who multiple positions and systems back then (towed 105's, 155's, and I suppose some relic 8", as well as SP 155, and 8") Always without fail got tested on a system they had no exposure too. Was that an accurate evaluation of a soldiers real technical knowledge? Not in my humble opinion. What about multiple position MOS's, my field had a large chunk of people who worked with host nation counter parts with in NATO, we had SQI of P for Physical Security for special weapons, we had not system equipment of our own, and few manuals outside of what we needed, and yet we got tested on it. Then came the commanders counseling, whether good or bad you still got it, then came remedial training suck up your weekends to learn about stuff you had no exposure, weren't going to have exposure too, only to see next year there wasn't a single question about it.<br />So Top, I don't have to many fond recollections of system that rewarded people who could read and memorize a book, but could not tell you a ratchet wrench from a spanner wrench. To truly get an accurate evaluation the test should be multiple areas, with a hands on portion, a common skills portion, and a leaders portion, that would more accurately portray what a leader in a given MOS would need to know, and not a short cut via a written exam.

2016-02-17T11:30:14-05:00 2016-02-17T11:30:14-05:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 1309384

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Absolutely YES. Were there flaws in the "old" SQT system? Yes, but lets takes the base of what it was intended for and IMPROVE on it and re-institute it. And it also needs to be reflected on NCOERs also. They talk the "Whole Soldier Concept" that would be the WHOLE concept wouldn't it?

2016-02-17T11:41:13-05:00 2016-02-17T11:41:13-05:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 1309398

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In a brief by my Regimental CSM while at SLC last summer he told us something similar to the old MOS SQT test is in the works. The ones I remember taking were MOS specific, nothing like the SSD. I liked them. Even though I've been away from artillery a ling time, I still remember a lot that I attribute to the test.

2016-02-17T11:46:23-05:00 2016-02-17T11:46:23-05:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 1309696

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I agree MOS tests would be beneficial to establish leaders that actually know their MOS. But on the other hand in the reserves their are non MOS positions such as a Platoon Sergeant for example. Some NCO's can be stuck in a leadership role that will take the majority of their time and may not have the same opportunities to get the hands on training other can get. I've been a Platoon Sergeant for the last five years. While I do participate in the training when I can it can be difficult to be up to date on the newest trends when you are handling Soldier issues the majority of the time.

2016-02-17T13:14:46-05:00 2016-02-17T13:14:46-05:00 SPC Matthew Birkinbine 1310994

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Great idea, across all CMF's!

2016-02-17T22:16:44-05:00 2016-02-17T22:16:44-05:00 1SG Arthur Schwarz 1329294

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>From my experience the SQT testing was a joke. I know for a fact that the test was continually compromised which led to its washing out.

2016-02-24T20:28:39-05:00 2016-02-24T20:28:39-05:00 1SG John Livingston 1330182

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I concur.

2016-02-25T09:08:32-05:00 2016-02-25T09:08:32-05:00 SSG Jay OConnor 1331356

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Because SOMETIMES it's not the soldiers fault. Sometimes the command will put that leader in a position for 3 or 4 years and they don't know their real job because of that. Is it his fault? Nope

2016-02-25T14:42:41-05:00 2016-02-25T14:42:41-05:00 1SG David Niles 1336559

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I am all for it

2016-02-27T14:45:20-05:00 2016-02-27T14:45:20-05:00 2016-02-17T02:25:29-05:00