Well since 75% of the ENS are OCS, I would assume OCS. But that's all statistics..I swear..
Yeah, you pulled that number out of your ass.
Well since 75% of the ENS are OCS, I would assume OCS. But that's all statistics..I swear..
OCS actually. Just goes to show that even the very BEST commissioning source produces a few bad apples. :icon_smil
Well the ROTC tree produces more hilarious apples. I still miss Peter Lee.
I still miss Peter Lee.
Come on, man. He was and still is a good guy, who really goofed up. Let's leave the Lead Ensign outta this one. ;-)
He'll always be lead ensign in my book. Nice wings, by the way.
I've met Pete Lee. I thought he was hilarious. Just sayin', NROTC puts out some good talent, and if you check the trunks of their cars, you probably won't find a crowbar or some birdshot.
You guys are looking at this all wrong. I think having the tests re-written levels the playing field for future API students. I'd be willing to bet there were tests out there before this happened, and if that's the case and you are one of the people who didn't have the "good" gouge, you'd be at a big dis-advantage. I just finished academics, and never used the gouge once. Trust me, the material is not difficult, and I'd be happy about having a level playing field.
Some people just have trouble seeing through the bullshit trickiness in the questions...
Oh FFS, lets not go down this damn road again . . .
Here's the thing about "not testing well" - one day you'll be tested in the aircraft because weather will go to shit, you'll be low on gas, with limited options on how to get your bird safely back on deck. Or you'll be tested by going downtown on a mission with ordnance in the face of a known threat.
Regardless of how you're tested, if/when you fail you do so because you couldn't handle the situation. The consequences are just ratcheted higher and higher the further along in this business you go.
So I have little patience for "not testing well" and "checkride-itis." You either got it or you don't.