This is not true. My buddy who was NCOIC of RASP at the time attests that the course was not churched up for the camera. The low attrition rates are now more common due to a more vigorous weeding out process that occurs throughout basic, airborne school, and pre-RASP, with Ranger liasons at each stage rather than at the end of airborne as we knew it. It's not so much that they're letting everyone in as much as the fact that the right people are attending. Most of the drop outs are due to medical reasons or failing an event than from quitting.
I have no room to talk on this topic at all, but I would like to point out what Jack Murphy wrote in his article on sofrep.com.
"Something changed with RASP class 5-12. In the class that the Discovery Channel filmed, 20 RASP students failed Land Nav and still graduated. 7 students were caught drinking and still graduated. A student received 90% negative peer reviews and still graduated. Since class 5-12, graduation rates have continued to be abnormally high with upwards to 130 students graduating per class."
"Over a dozen RASP graduates from class 5-12 are already being or have been RFS’ed but it will take years for NCO’s to shovel all of the dead weight out the door."
Here's my buddy's response to the article:
"That article really pissed me off.
Everyone wants to see 200 start and 20 finish because that makes them feel "Special". Well being a good Ranger is what made me "Special". Having good leaders is what makes us "Special". I am curious toknow when the writer graduated rip. Here is the part that the writer failed to mention. First, so called PFC A graduated from RIP meaning that RIP was not in any way developing great Rangers. Second, the RFS numbers speak for themselves. A high percentage of all RIP graduates were RFS'ed within two years for one reason or the other. There has only been a handful of RFS's that RASP has produced. By the way RASP has been around for nearly two years now. Thirdly, this whole article reeks of "I was in the last hard RIP class." The writer does not understand the big picture. The big picture is not about numbers. It is about having the right person in the right spot. Pre-RASP is an awesome program and it does a lot more than raise the graduating rate by 10% (on the high end). Here is another part that the writer failed to include: how many people quit Pre-RASP on a daily basis. I can't even count how many times I would call Pre-RASP and ask them about how many guys is RASP picking up for the next class and they would say, "X number just quit today and 17 out the 40 airborne students we picked up today quit."
I think there's a great deal of truth here. People get wrapped up in the numbers all in the name of perception. Just because they're not eliminating 90 percent in the course like when we went through doesn't mean that the Regiment isn't elite anymore or that a superior product isn't being produced by the school house. The critical end state should be that the Regiment receives the best young soldiers possible that will be molded into outstanding leaders, and continue to take the fight to our enemies doorsteps, not how warm and fuzzy we former Rangers feel to have been a part of a club that's more exclusive than all the other clubs. What good does it do the Regiment to send 10 dudes to a battalion out of which 6 will get RFS'd within a year? Why not just take 20 guys that will be successful, guys that will definitely be assets to the unit? Seems to be a more sensible strategy to me. I imagine if you take all the Basic, Airborne, and Pre-RASP dropouts, then the numbers will still levitate around 90 percent attrition.
can you ask him what the final numbers were? Pre RASP starters, RASP candidates, and then finally Ranger graduates.It sure is. My son graduates Thurs. heading up tomorrow. 007-12 Class!!!
RLTW
I have no room to talk on this topic at all, but...
Like I said I can't comment on any of this...
Interesting comments but I think some of them are out of context and/or based on a failure to understand what I wrote. For instance, I pointed out that the standards were lowered previously with RIP and it led to poor performers filling the ranks in the Ranger Regiment and I give an example of what that looks like and why it is dangerous. My point was that we have previous experience with lowering standards and should learn from it. It wasn't right for RIP and it isn't right for RASP. In no shape or form was I placing RIP up on a pedestal and tearing down RASP. Everyone I talk to thinks that RASP is a much better program than RIP and I agree.
You can point out to your friend that I graduated RIP on June 20th, 2003. Questioning people's professional credentials because you disagree with them is a really cheap rhetoric technique.
My information is that pre-RASP consists of PT, some admin, and that the Soldiers are released by lunch in most cases. Is this information incorrect? Are they given formal blocks of instruction that give them a leg up during RASP, such as Land Navigation and medical training? From what I understand, Pre-RASP does not sound that different than RIP hold. I understand that a lot of people quit pre-RASP just as they would quit in RIP hold. You could factor this into over all attrition rates I suppose but I don't see how it makes a difference here.
As far as the numbers game, I've seen it all before. There are tons of excuses used to get those graduation numbers up. One of the ones I saw was in the Q-Course where they introduced the "whole man" concept. The idea was that the whole man is evaluated throughout the duration of the course. No single event is pass/fail in this instance. In other words, this is a Power Point commando manner of saying that there are no real standards and that you can fail any event and still graduate. It sounds like this is what is happening to RASP. Does the NCOIC have any comment about the students who failed Land Navigation but still graduated? Is it now like Basic Training and the idea is that they will just learn it when they get to their unit? What about the dude who got 90% peers and graduated?
I respect the opinions of others, but this one clashes greatly with what I've been told.
I think we can all agree that RASP is much better than RIP in every facet. It's just in the way that it is implemented that is causing the controversy.
Also, I don't see how the RSAE can be a non-graded event when the Ranger Creed says we can arrive by "land, sea, or air"