• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Urban vs Rural recruits. Do similar patterns exist in Canada?

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
I have had some unfortunate experiences with recruits out of the Toronto area (although judging from their dress, attitude etc., I think they would have done poorly in any structured environment), this article suggests differences may be very environmental in nature.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051107.aspx

The Real Problems With Urban Schools and Recruiters

November 7, 2005: The U.S. Department of Defense sees urban schools as ones of its biggest recruiting obstacles. Not because leftist teachers in some of those schools try to keep recruiters out, but because so many potential recruits have to be turned down because of the poor education they have received in those schools. While only 21 percent of Americans live in rural areas, 44 percent of the qualified recruits come from these areas. What's strange about all this is that the rural areas spend much less, per pupil, on education, but get much better results. Part of this can be attributed to differences in cost of living, but a lot of it has to do with simply getting more done with less. Per capita, young people in rural areas are 22 percent more likely to join the army, than those of the same age in urban areas.

The rural recruits are also a lot easier to train, and generally make better soldiers. The urban recruits often have a bad attitude, as well as a difficult time getting along with others, and following instructions. The urban schools deserve some of the blame for this, while rural schools tend to be far more orderly, and put more emphasis on civil responsibility. Many of the urban recruits are aware of these problems, and joined the service to learn useful (for getting a job) social skills. Those skills are more often found among rural recruits because out in the boondocks, people are more involved with local government, and more involved in general. This has been noted in urban neighborhoods, and for decades, many urban parents have sought to send their kids, "to live with kinfolk in the country" to get the child away from the bad influences of urban life.

Over the last decade, there's been a movement back to the rural areas. Urban areas may be more exciting, and offer more employment opportunities, but they are a tough place to raise kids, or find suitable recruits for the military.



 
a_majoor said:
I have had some unfortunate experiences with recruits out of the Toronto area (although judging from their dress, attitude etc., I think they would have done poorly in any structured environment), this article suggests differences may be very environmental in nature.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051107.aspx

I'd suggest there might be a difference between the US and Canada in this area. Canadian cities, most especially the cores, don't seem composed of the same types of populations that US cities are. The poor don't flock to the downtown core of Toronto to live because the real estate is too expensive. From what I gather, the residents of core urban areas in the US are generally poor, with those that can afford it preferring to live in the suburbs. If this is true, it's no surprise that recruits from urban cores are often less qualified than rural ones.
 
a_majoor said:
I have had some unfortunate experiences with recruits out of the Toronto area (although judging from their dress, attitude etc., I think they would have done poorly in any structured environment), this article suggests differences may be very environmental in nature.
yeah, I've noticed the same thing. It seems like the smaller cities produce better troops than the larger ones, the smaller towns likewise, right down to hamlets and villages. The more rural the area a troop comes from, the better work ethic and better education he generally has.

And that has always struck me as odd. I can understand the work ethic part, it goes along with the stereotype. But I had always expected the cities, and the larger ones especially, to have the better education systems.
 
I agree, but for some different reasons.

I don't think its so much education as it is attitude and having stronger character.

Most of the better troops I know have grown up in small towns or in the middle of nowhere etc, while alot of the whiny poor attitude troops seem to be coming from cities.

I blame muchmusic and the overall insane amount of pop culture brainwashing on the youth of those cities.
Ive lived in a small town my whole life... I was in Toronto for the second time this summer.... wow. Just, holy crap. Its not hard to see why the people would be so much different.

People are constantly bombarded with advertisements and pop culture, everybody is in a hurry and seems to be rude and pissed off, theres alot more crime so people are less trusting.. I could go on, but im not really positive on how to explain further, but I guess what im trying to say is the people from cities are on average, (in my opinion) dont have the same potential as troops from rural areas.

Im not going to name names, but theres a big difference in attitudes between some of the units around here, when comparing urban to rural locations (maratimes).
 
I actually wrote a paper on this, somewhere around 1990. 

I don't have the paper any more, but it was based on my observations that rural recruits had (on average) far better mechanical aptitude, a better attitude, and a willingness to learn.

I also commented on how big city folk has absolutely no sense of direction, especially in the woods or at night.  No nice street lights to follow, I guess.

It was a large mistake, I think, to centralise our recruiting centers in mega cities, instead of spreading them around in areas away from the US border.  I would personally (again, based on average) have had soldiers from Newfoundland or Northern Ontario in my crew than any from Toronto or Vancouver.
 
I've lived in a small town all my life and i think it might be a little on how people are raised. For me living in a small town means knowing most of the people living around you and having a bond with them. I think you work harder when you live in a small town, i grew up on a farm so i am used to getting up really early and working hard long days in some of the worst weather. There's less crime usually and less Chance of "getting in with the wrong crowd"  When i was growing up i was always taught hard work is good for you the whole no pain no gain kind of thing. So in a way i do think that Smaller communites produce better recruits. We just need more recruiters to come to our schools or towns. i found that there's never any news or anything about the army, i didn't find out that you could join the reserves through co-op until i one of my friends from a bigger town told me about it.
At least that's what it's like for my town
 
I can't say that I've ever noticed any quality difference between urban and rural troops, in so far that I don't think that one has any sort of systemic advantage over the other.

But I can definately say that troops raised in an urban environment lack a lot of common "living in the bush" skills, plus have little experience with the things that live there.

I have seen a troop run screaming out of a copse of bushes becasue he encountered a porcupine (the fattest, laziest porcupine I ever saw) and was afraid of being perforated "They shoot their quills!"

I had a pair of troops tell me that they left a position near a pond because a beaver slapped the water with his tail and they were afraid that signified incipiant beaver attack.

I have been shaken out of a sound sleep because a troop felt he was being stalked by (what turned out to be) a baby racoon and wanted assistance.

I have woken up with a nose full of racoon ass because my hooch-mate had a huge bag of Twizzlers in her ruck and when Brer Raccoon attempted to libarate same, he backed into my face.

I'm starting to think that we should be teaching a PO on "Scary things that live in the woods" on DP1.

DG 
 
"Raccoon ass in the face" now that's funny!

Getting back to my first post, I think students in smaller communities receive more one-on-one instruction with their teachers, as they have smaller classes, and therefore have more time to devote to those with difficulties.
 
I think the lack of anonimity in a small town is a big factor, anything you do will likely get back to your parents who will be holding you accountable.

Teachers in the school are also usually part of the same small community and may golf, curl etc. with your parents, so if jr. isn't behaving an impromptu parent teacher conference can pass that info back to the head of the house.
 
I would personally (again, based on average) have had soldiers from Newfoundland or Northern Ontario in my crew than any from Toronto or Vancouver.

I have to disagree with this statement, and frankly I find it rather offensive. To say that you would never work with a soldier just because he is from a large city is a ridiculous notion. Their are many fine soldiers across Canada and I am sure not all of them come from rural areas. To me, now this may seem a little extreme, saying that all urban soldiers are bad soldiers just because some are bad soldiers is no different then saying all Chinese drivers are bad drivers just because some are bad drivers or saying all teenagers are trouble makers just because some are trouble makers.

Now, I may have limited experience in the CF but I have worked with soldiers from the smallest of towns to the largest of cities. Every area of this country has dumb, lazy people and dumb, lazy soldiers. To stereotype all urban soldiers as bad soldiers is just ignorant.

I believe that you must judge the soldier for how he preforms job, not for where his address is.
 
boehm said:
I believe that you must judge the soldier for how he preforms job, not for where his address is.

From someone who grew up in Ontario's version of Newfoundland- [the Sudbury Area] - I agree. :salute:

 
While some of the best troops I have worked with come from rural areas like the Prairies and Maritimes, some of the largest wedges I have the displeasure to work with are also from those same areas...but by god, no matter how thick, they would work.....

But like most, I'd have time for a stupid person who works hard, vs a genius who was just darn lazy.

I believe it all goes to quality time...time parents spend with thier children. It tends to be more in rural areas, less in the cities, and the larger the city...
 
As someone who spent the vast majority of his childhood fishing, hunting, trapping and hiking through the Nova Scotian Highlands with his father, I feel it has a lot to do with simple exposure to wildlife.

For most Torontonians, a weekend to North Bay in the family camper is considered 'roughing it'. The schools really arent that different from Toronto and various locations amoungst the maritime provinces, other than the actual communities involvement in eachother. Everybody knows everyone and their dog within a 50 mile radius, but i really dont see how that relates to ones ability to perform in the Armed Forces any better than a school closely resembling nothing more than a controlled crowd.

Whats to be said for those who have grown up watching their fathers, grandfathers and uncles working earlier than the sun dares to show its face, until the night has well impeded, be it fishing, mining, trapping, logging, farming..etc. I would say that had a bigger impact on my work ethic than any romp in the forest and chat in the schoolyard ever had.

A perfect example of this would be, Auroras squadron to Torontos Squadron within the QYR. I rest my case  ;D

 
Alot of "I thinks...." and what-not on this thread - is anyone going to provide some substantive evidence to show that rural recruits are better off than urban ones, or are we all going to paint with the broad-brush-of-bias?  I know city guys who have went to the pinnacle of the profession while a bunch of thick farm boys couldn't even make it through basic training.
 
Infanteer said:
Alot of "I thinks...." and what-not on this thread - is anyone going to provide some substantive evidence to show that rural recruits are better off than urban ones, or are we all going to paint with the broad-brush-of-bias?   I know city guys who have went to the pinnacle of the profession while a bunch of thick farm boys couldn't even make it through basic training.

That might mean not casting asperions on urbanites, apparently Torontonians especially, and that would be simply unCanadian.  ;)
 
Gee, I dunno.  Seems to me that a youngster from TO should be a great recruit. After all, he's probably very proficient with small arms and OBUA before his 15th birthday.  Easy enough to teach them to light a stove afterwards.... >:D
 
Kat Stevens said:
Gee, I dunno.   Seems to me that a youngster from TO should be a great recruit. After all, he's probably very proficient with small arms and OBUA before his 15th birthday.   Easy enough to teach them to light a stove afterwards.... >:D

Exactly!  ;D
 
Kat Stevens said:
Gee, I dunno.   Seems to me that a youngster from TO should be a great recruit. After all, he's probably very proficient with small arms and OBUA before his 15th birthday.   Easy enough to teach them to light a stove afterwards.... >:D

lol.. that was witty. I'm going to steal that.  ;D
 
I recently reviewed the results from the latest Military Police Assessment Committee and it was interesting to note that the applicants with below acceptable standard for integrity and who responded inappropriately to ethical dilemmas were from the Metropolitan Toronto area.

From the latest BMQ:

Western Canada - 6 VRs for physical fitness and wrong career choice.
Eastern Canada - 4 VRs for physical fitness and wrong career choice.

Two applicants kicked out were from Ontario and NS.

All recourses were from Eastern Canada.

Top Candidate was from Vancouver and the rest of the top awards went to candidates from NB and NFLD.
 
DG-41 said:
I have seen a troop run screaming out of a copse of bushes becasue he encountered a porcupine (the fattest, laziest porcupine I ever saw) and was afraid of being perforated "They shoot their quills!"

I had a pair of troops tell me that they left a position near a pond because a beaver slapped the water with his tail and they were afraid that signified incipiant beaver attack.

I have been shaken out of a sound sleep because a troop felt he was being stalked by (what turned out to be) a baby racoon and wanted assistance.
 

English is a vibrant language, a "living" language, so I hesitate to comment on DG-41's use of the noun "troop".

The Oxford dictionary defines the word as 1) a group of soldiers, 2) a cavalry unit, 3) an orderly group of people (i.e. "a troop of children"

Merriam-Webster: 1) a group of soldiers, 2) a cavalry unit, 3) a collection of people

Cambridge: 1) a group of soldiers, 2) an organized group of young who are scouts.

I realize every generation, especially those in the military, will generate their own slang, but why say "troop" when really the correct term is "trooper'.

I hear this frequently on both Canadian and American news.

Humbug!!
 
Back
Top