The Economist once criticized a scholar this way: "To be politically incorrect is one thing; to be simply incorrect is quite another." The publication may as well have been talking about Henry M. Bowles III's Tuesday column in The Daily Northwestern."Less intelligent people are better equipped for most military positions, and have far less to lose," he wrote. The next day, history professor Jeff Rice correctly noted that IQ isn't a measure of inherent worth.
But leaving aside the issue of whether low-IQ individuals are or should be easier to sacrifice, the pertinent question is, "Is intelligence a hindrance to military performance?"
The idea has some face validity. Military recruits are expected to follow orders, and we at Northwestern are inclined to think smarter people are more likely to question authority. Hell, even Forrest Gump could handle the military.
Perhaps we forget that, in our high schools, the people who "questioned authority" through insubordination and misbehavior were seldom the brightest kids in class. We also tend not to consider that brainpower makes soldiers better able to understand orders, master technology and communicate with others.
The military itself seems to think intelligence is desirable – its Armed Forces Qualifying Test is essentially a measure of IQ. Test takers are divided into Categories I through V, with those of above-average IQ designated I through IIIa.
Category V scorers, the lowest 10 percent, are ineligible for military service (sorry, Forrest). Category IV scorers, who fall between the 10th and 30th percentiles, must have high school diplomas and can never make up more than 4 percent of a year's recruits.
For 2005, official government statistics indicate that 67 percent of Army recruits, 71 percent of Navy newbies, 68 percent of new Marines and 80 percent of Air Force recruits scored in Categories I through IIIa. In other words, a randomly-selected member of any branch of the military is more likely to have an IQ above 100 than a randomly-selected citizen of the United States.
In fact, October 2005 Pentagon statistics set off a minor uproar when they revealed that 12 percent of the month's Army recruits had come from Category IV – if the Army were proportional to America, that number would always be 20 percent.
"We will be at 4 percent at the end of the fiscal year; that's what matters," Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for Army personnel, told the Baltimore Sun. Hilferty was referring to the aforementioned cap on Category IV recruits.
But let's take Bowles' comment more literally. Maybe the military is slick enough to trick smart people into joining, even though dull individuals are better at military tasks. Maybe the Department of Defense is creating a military of disobedient, high-IQ back-talkers through its high standards.
As this graph demonstrates, that is not the case. Intelligent recruits tend to be given higher job performance ratings.
Also, a Department of Defense-requested study found "substantial correlations between AFQT scores and performance in a wide range of enlisted jobs, including combat specialties," according to the National Academies Press. Even when it comes to "cannon fodder" positions, a brainy soldier will outperform a dumb one.
Bowles should be lauded for his willingness to talk about truths others would prefer not to see, but he should make sure they're "truths" first. Like the notion that military recruits are disproportionately poor, uneducated urban minorities – a Heritage Foundation study found they have average class backgrounds, above-average educations, rural upbringings and only slightly darker complexions than Americans as a whole – the "brainless Army guy" idea is a myth.
