Military Recruitment of High School Students

Emily Beavers

Literature Review The military demographics before AFV

(Stouffer et al 1949; Monskos 1971; White 2004; Baker 2008; Browne-Marshall 2008)

Demographics of Soldiers post AVF (Teachman et al 1993 ; Department of Defense 1998; Bachman et al 2000; Griffith 2008)

Literature Review cont. Military benefits for students (Ayers 2006;

Carnevale 2006)

Recruitment within high schools (Lewn 2003; Dobbs 2005; Feder 2006; Berkhart 2008)

Theory Power Elite (Mills)

“ men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environments…they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences” (Mills 2003:303)

Rational Choice (Merton 2008) People choose the best option to achieve a

goal.

Hypothesis Students of lower socioeconomic status

experience higher rates of military recruitment

Students of racial minorities experience higher rates of military recruitment

Students of lower academic achievement experience higher rates of military recruitment

Methods Quantitative

Surveys 20 questions 257 respondents

Concepts Qualitative

Interviews – Army recruiters Seven interviews

Results Descriptive Stats

59%

41%

Socioeconomic

Higher ($50,000 or more)

Lower ( $28,000 to $49,000)

4.80%

95.20%

Race

Racial Minori-tiesWhites

Results Descriptive Stats

63%

26%

11%

Education

High Academic Average AcademicLower Academic

Results Descriptive Stats

More than Once a Week

1-3 times a month

Less than Once a Month

15.40%

56.30%

2.30%

How often did Recruiters Visist High Schools

How often did Recruiters Visist High Schools

Results Descriptive Stats

36%

64%

Did Recruiters Personally

Contact Stu-dentsYes No

49.50%50.50%

How Often Did Re-cruiters Contacted

Students Personally

Once a Month or More

Once a Year for More than One Year or at Least Once

Results Cont. Prevalence of Recruitment

Table 16: Frequency of Personal Contact by AGI

Frequency of Personal Contact

AGI$28,000 - $49,000 $50,000 or More

Once a month or more

42.1% 54.4%

Once a year for more than one year

or at least once57.9% 45.6%

Total 100% 100%N 38 57

Significance .237 .237

Results Cont. Prevalence of Recruitment

Table 18: Personal Contact by Recruiter by Race

Personal Contact

Race

White Racial Minority

Yes 35.1% 53.8%

No 64.9% 46.2%

Total 100% 100%

N 239 13

Significance .143 .143

Results Cont. Prevalence of Recruitment

Table 19: Frequency of Personal Contact by Race

Frequency of Personal Contact

Race

White Racial Minorities

Once a month or more 48.9% 57.1%

Once a year for more than one year or at least

once51.1% 42.9%

Total 100% 100%

N 88 7

Significance .673 .673

Table 21: Frequency of Personal Contact by Academic Achievement

Frequency of Personal Contact

Grades

High Academic Achievement

Average Academic Achievement

Lower Academic Achievement

Once a month or more

43.3% 62.5% 54.5%

Once a year for more than one year

or at least once56.6% 37.5% 45.5%

Total 100% 100% 100%

N 60 24 11

Significance .918 .918 .918

Results Cont. Prevalence of Recruitment

Results cont.Table 22: Motivations by Socioeconomic Status

MotivationsSocioeconomic Status

$28,000 - $49,000 $50,000 or more

Scholarships

Yes

No

Total

Significance

28.6%

71.4%

100%

.221

50%

50%

100%

.221

Career

Yes

No

Total

Significance

71.4%

28.6%

100%

.127

44.4%

55.6%

100%

.127

N (14) (18)

Results cont.Table 23: Motivations by Academic Achievement

MotivationsAcademic Achievement

High Academic Achievement

Average Academic Achievement

Lower Academic Achievement

Scholarships

Yes

No

Total

Significance

43.8%

56.2%

100%

.905

33.3%

66.7%

100%

.905

40.0%

60.0%

100%

.905

Career

Yes

No

Total

Significance

43.8%

56.2%

100%

.182

50.0%

50.0%

100%

.182

80%

20%

100%

.182

N (16) (6) (10)

Results cont. Interviews

Five (of seven) army recruiters reported the demographics of those recruited

Of the five recruiters 4 reported visiting their schools once a

week Those schools varied in socioeconomic

status but had at least one majority Black school

Results cont. Interviews

Of those five interviewed only three recruiters reported student enlistments sums

Two of the three reported 24-26 students Both recruiters varied in racial

makeup and socioeconomic status One of the three reported 80 students

They recruited from majority Black, lower income students

Discussion Socioeconomic status did not seem to affect

recruitment

Academic status did seem to affect recruitment

Consistent with rational choice theory

Discussion cont. “You’d expect me say we recruit from the

‘holler’ and the ‘ghetto’ but we don’t” Turns out recruiters do approach racial

minorities first. Constant with Rational Choice Theory

Power Elite

Discussion cont. Other options beside the military

should be given to high school students

Bigger, Better, Sample