[patorjk]

> Veterans are given preference for hiring, yes, because they have a skillset that too few private sector employers realize unfortunately. There are studies to prove that point.

This seems a little like hand waving. Can you go into what skillsets you're talking about and what these studies are? For certain jobs I can see their experience helping, but I don't see how they should be given preference across the board, especially for technical jobs (ex: given two DBAs, I would imagine you'd want to hire the one most skilled at being a DBA).

[USNetizen]

And who better at being a DBA than someone who did it, for example, for the intelligence community processing millions of records per day/hour? Who better for supporting IT systems than someone who did it in the middle of the desert during combat operations? Life stateside has nothing comparable to that level of experience or pressure.

You can Google it. There are dozens of studies showing that companies that favor or are led by veterans are more stable, have higher morale, better cohesiveness, etc. The skills, in particular, they bring are typically "soft" - leadership, adaptability, teamwork, integrity, confidence under pressure, a truer world-view, character, etc. but more and more bring highly advanced technical skills, particularly in the cyber realm. Trying finding those in your average college grad who only knows what he/she experienced on campus and read in a few books.

Technical skills aren't everything - they can be taught comparatively easily. Other skills are ingrained in a person through experience. Those are the skills I speak of. If you are hiring only for pure tech ability at that one moment in time and not for the "whole person" then you have a truly short-term view. Even Google and other tech giants realized this.

[EvanPlaice]

You're assuming every military network admin was directly responsible for keeping the system up and running.

The reality is much different. Usually, it's a small minority of exceptional individuals that keep things running while the rest skate or gain merit through other means (ex high PT scores).

Even then, training for a speciality often covers the bare minimum to operate the equipment for a few reasons. First, training must be standardized across each MOS leaving little room for differentiation. Second, training standards are often set by senior ranking NCOs/COs who may have risen through the ranks for reasons other than technical ability.

Any role requires a higher degree of skill (ex engineering) or higher degree of differentiation (ie systems design) are passed off to contractors because the time/money costs of training an entire MOS to a higher degree of technical ability are too high.

It's gotten to the point where security has shifted to civilian-only support because the service members can't be trusted to follow best security practices when their superiors take a 'make it happen or your career will suffer' stance.

It's really common for the most talented/capable service members to leave the service and immediately return as contractors. They get paid more and don't have to deal with all the rank-and-file BS. The system doesn't reward talent in spite of good intentions.

I'm not trying to bag on veterans. I worked as a contractor and personally know many individuals I wouldn't hesitate to follow to the end of the earth.

Some individuals are truly exceptional in terms of leadership and/or technical ability but stating that all veterans can be lumped into that group is naive.