256 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIX, No. 1263 



<^0 



RATED 



AorB 



illiili 



Ll 



Company A DCDLrGn ll\L MUGiupHon |,^|r 1^^^ \^fr \^f ^ R\. FA 







ILIITERATE 

 OR 



Foreign 



Fig. 8. Inequality of companies in an infantry 

 regiment. 



tempt to emphasize the military importance 

 of this condition. The tasks of the officers 

 lof these two companies are wholly incom- 

 jparalDle, hut more serious even than the in- 

 lequaiities in response to training are the 

 risks of weak points in the army chain as a 

 result of such random or unintelligent as- 

 signment. 



1 Naturally enough the officers of the army 

 were quick to appreciate the disadvantages 

 ;of a method of assigning recruits which 

 permits such extreme inequalities in mental 

 (Strength to appear and persist. They 

 jpromptly demanded the reorganization of 

 improperly constituted units and assign- 

 ment in accordance with intelligence speci- 

 fications so that the danger of weak links in 

 (the chain and of extreme difference in 

 ■rapidity of training should he minimized. 

 I That serious inequalities existed in regi- 

 jments as well as in smaller units prior to 

 ■assignment on the basis of intelligence is 



Fig. 9. Inequality of regiments. 



proved hy the data of Fig. 9, which pictures 

 the differences found in four infantry regi- 

 ments and three regiments of field artillery. 



Following the demonstration of the value 

 of psychological ratings in connection with 

 ■assignment, the experiment was tried in va- 

 rious camps of classifying men in accord- 

 ance with inteiligence for facilitation of 

 training. To this end A and B grade men 

 were placed in one training group, C +, C 

 and C — men in another, and D and D — 

 pien in a third. The three groups were 

 then instructed and drilled in accordance 

 with their a:bility to learn. Thus delay in 

 the progress of high grade men was avoided 

 and the low grade soldiers were given spe- 

 cial instruction in accordance with their 

 ;rieeds and capacity. 



The marked differences in the mental 

 strength of groups in different officers' train- 

 ing schools are shown hy Fig. 10. For the 

 eighteen schools of this figure, the proper- 



