<p>Recently, I received an "Ask the Dean" question from a veteran who was planning to transfer from a community college to a four-year university. He asked if there was any advice that was specific to veterans. </p>
<p>In my [response,[/url</a>] I suggested that he use his application to point out the skills he acquired during his service, even if these skills weren't related to his academic pursuits.</p>
<p>But now there may be a more formal, official way of highlighting skills acquired in the military ... digital "badging," inspired by the Boy Scout/Girl Scout model.</p>
<p>Although designed to help veterans as they search for civilian jobs, I think that this concept will also be very useful in the college admission process. It will help to validate the many learning experiences that veterans have had outside the classroom and will show admission committees the wealth of pluses that vets can bring to their campus.</p>
<p>But I'm curious to know what actual veterans think.</p>
Right off the bat I feel a couple different issues with this:
If digital badges are designed to be a supplement to official education distinctions, then unless the badges and the veterans subsequent education have commonalities (i.e. a ‘maintenance’ service member went on to an utility repair-person training or educational program), then the badges end up adding nothing to their goals, career-wise.</p>
<p>I was in the infantry. Jobs I apply to will have nothing to do with calling for fire or anything else the ‘Infantry’ badge describes, so why would I use it on my resume or LinkedIn? I was always under the presumption to describe or explain how doing one skill, like calling for fire, taught/gave you a broader skill, like remaining calm under pressure and ensuring accuracy in everything you do. I’d rather put stuff like that on my resume than to confuse employers with something that may be unrelated to my career objective.</p>
<p>In the event that a veteran is applying for jobs that do directly relate to the job they held in the military, and an employer is military friendly (i.e. can understand some of the acronyms and jargon on the badges), then digital badges are a great thing, if anything for coming up with a way to describe your direct skills from the military without having to do it yourself.</p>
<ol>
<li>The badges themselves (hovering over the ones on the parsed link) initiate the same fallacy that much of the military documents possess – confusing military jargon that employers have a hard time deciphering and applying to the skills they are actually looking for in an applicant. For example, under the ‘Transportation’ badge for Transportation Senior Sergeant reads: “Serves as the principal NCO associated with SQI M in transportation companies. Assists in the coordination and implementation of operations, administration, training programs and communications activities. Accounts for location, employment, and development of organic operating equipment and maintenance activities.”</li>
</ol>
<p>Some employers will need a military pocket dictionary to understand that NCO means Non-Commissioned Officer, and that SQI M means Special Qualification Identifier – and then they’d need a regular dictionary to figure out that an NCO is like a “manager” or “supervisor” of sorts, and that SQI M means the service member was a high manager/supervisor, depending on how they guesstimate how big a traditional transportation company is . . .</p>
<p>When service members exit active duty, they are given a class to ‘teach’ them how to become assimilated back into civilian life. The course is about a week long and covers a lot including veteran benefits, and resume building and job searching/interviewing. I forget what the online program was called (I’m sure I can look it up later), but the course instructor had us go online to it, punch in the job he had in the military, and a report would be generated in clear and understandable language that employers outside of the military would be able to actually comprehend what that job entailed a service member to do – basically in terms the employers know and are used to seeing. In terms of use for employment, this is what I think the badges should reflect if they are to be a tool/asset/benefit for the service member.</p>
<p>As far as educational usage: ACE does a fairly good job, for the most part, in translating military education into civilian education that can be applied to an accredited degree or certificate. And, based on the questionable controls in which badges are issued, I think it best that it remains out of that realm of standing for college credit.</p>
<p>And for college applications: Again, most, and I can almost guarantee most college admissions officers and other school officials in the admissions process will not know what ‘calling for fire’ is or what knowing that skill can do for the veteran, and therefore it is best for the veteran not to focus on explaining the literal of the skills they acquired in the military, but what other valuable skills that those literal skills bestow upon the veteran. Also again, instead of a badge that simply describes ‘call for fire’ and a bunch of other mumbo jumbo surrounding it, the badge can say “Competent in calling for fire, which is often used on a battlefield, that requires clear thinking, accurate communication, and the ability to remain calm under pressure.”</p>
<p>Hopefully that way the emphasis is less on the ‘call for fire’ and more on the ‘clear thinking, accurate communication, and the ability to remain calm under pressure’.</p>
<p>Just like it may not necessarily be about the fact that traditional student A was educated in Philosophy, but the fact that to be successful, or competent, at understanding Philosophy to the point of obtaining a degree in it, traditional student A must also know how to write very well, based on certain points of an argument, and think logically to back up their writing claims and so forth. Traditional student A won’t typically market that they are well versed in Philosophy (unless of course the job description calls for it), but rather the critical and logical thinking skills, as well as the writing skills they obtained from that. Same rings true for veterans. Veteran student A was deployed to Afghanistan, but that alone doesn’t tell the admissions office what skills that experience gave the veteran student. That is what the veteran should emphasize (indeed the ‘Afghanistan’ badge simple states “(Badge recognizes in-theater service in Afghanistan.)”, which doesn’t even begin to describe what that can mean for the veteran).</p>
<p>This is actually the first time I’ve ever heard of these “digital badges”, so I’ll look into it more, but this is my initial take on it.</p>
<p>Interesting thoughts, turtlerock … especially your point about the military jargon that might turn up in the badge descriptions. That would definitely be confusing to admission committees. But, even if the admission folks don’t come close to fully understanding it, just reading it alone would remind them that this applicant has skills that the typical 18-year-old doesn’t. </p>
<p>Similarly, you’re certainly correct when you note that a badge that recognizes “in-theater service in Afghanistan” can’t begin to describe what that means to the veteran. But, again, it does highlight for the admission officials the diversity of experience that the student will bring to campus that will set him or her apart from many other applicants. </p>
<p>So, from my limited perspective, it does seem as if the badges could be beneficial to veterans in the admissions process, and, hopefully some of the potential flaws in the badge proposal will be identified and ironed out early on.</p>
<p>^I would agree. The badges can show admissions that this particular veteran applicants brings diverse experiences with them to the educational environment, even if the admissions staff can’t exactly pin down those experiences (if the badges don’t explain experiences in layman terms), except to possibly label them all together as one “veteran experience”, which would be a correct way of looking at it as well.</p>
<p>If anything, the badges could bring to light the myriad of things any veteran is trained to do, or actually does, in the line of duty. For example, when the admissions staff see that an applicant is an infantry veteran specifically, instead of having the two main things come to mind that are generally associated with infantry, shooting guns and a lot of walking, then the badges would give a much more detailed list of included training and experiences for admissions to draw from.</p>
<p>The goal for the veteran applicant is to stand out from other applicants by showcasing the unique training and experiences they bring to the table. In this regard the badges can do the job as the badges will rattle off those unique experiences and training (other traditional applicants would not be using call for fire in their applications) even if those experiences aren’t specifically tied to skills the veteran can use for a lifetime, though some of this can be shown in essays. This may be enough for a lot of schools, but I fear it still may do nothing for more competitive schools, though it may be more of a financial game with those schools.</p>
<p>What I mean is that the veteran hopes to be admitted to some schools that would have otherwise been out of reach for them if they applied as a non veteran traditionally from high school. For many schools these badges, and the veteran experiences they list, can be enough to bump the veteran past other applicants that are ranked academically superior. However, for more competitive schools I get the feeling that they do not place as much weight on the experiences of veterans, especially if they are not tied to an overriding theme that the veteran experiences instill in the applicant, and that will not take them any further in the application process at those schools. It’s no secret that the veteran-to-student ratio at top and ivy schools is extremely low compared to lower-ranked ones. If anything is devised to assist veterans in the school application process, it should focus on this deficit, IMO. I’ve met plenty of veterans that would have gone a long way in college at a wide range of schools even before they enlisted - let alone what their college possibilities would be after they left active service. However, after leaving active service, those veterans still aren’t breaking into the prestigious/ivy level because their unique veteran experiences are not showcased in an, in fact, unique way (though I admit again that it is often decisions from those schools are more financially motivated, IMO).</p>
<p>Is every veteran destined for Ivy league? Well no, of course not. But for those who were on the precipice of being admitted to those schools before the military, their veteran experiences unfortunately seem to bring them nowhere closer to obtaining their academic dreams.</p>