And I pray to God I don't have to chop too many evals and awards written by these incoming mids in a few years.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
BIG CHANGES coming to the NROTC Scholarship
- Thread starter FormerRecruitingGuru
- Start date
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
I wonder if this is the USN taking the USAF lead? The USAF OR recruiter that I saw all the time wouldn't bother with anyone that didn't have a tech degree.
About 15 years ago, the Navy did a study to find out which majors performed best at the Navy's nuke school. The answer was English. I majored in math, and I can understand why the Navy wants to go to a STEM focus, but this new thinking is counter to their whole diversity stance, unless, of course, that diversity only exists for visibly discernible traits in the eyes of the Navy.
I think a much better idea would to reevaluate the schools that are part of the NROTC program and cut the ones that fall on the lower end of the academic spectrum and add to the ones at the higher end. Unfortunately, that will never happen because the NROTC parent schools are picked more for political than academic reasons. You get what you pay for.
I think a much better idea would to reevaluate the schools that are part of the NROTC program and cut the ones that fall on the lower end of the academic spectrum and add to the ones at the higher end. Unfortunately, that will never happen because the NROTC parent schools are picked more for political than academic reasons. You get what you pay for.
The Navy is in the position to be selective these days. Problem is, they wrongly equate 'STEM' with 'selective.' The Navy is already a cut above the other services in this regard, requiring all officers to do a year of calc and calc-based physics in undergrad. There truly not many 'rocks' in our officer corps.
I can only speak for SWO - we deal with highly technical systems, but none of it is all that challenging to grasp, especially at the operator level. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, having some English, Philosophy, and Finance majors in the wardroom brings a different perspective to the organization.
I can only speak for SWO - we deal with highly technical systems, but none of it is all that challenging to grasp, especially at the operator level. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, having some English, Philosophy, and Finance majors in the wardroom brings a different perspective to the organization.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I don't think that 15 year old NNPS data is relevant to the entire Navy. I'm not a tech major, but there are numerous times where I would've been able to apply that knowledge if I was.
If the ship is in trouble and needs to perform sailor alts to get home safe, you might be glad to have someone with an engineering degree onboard to help figure out the way to do it.
If the ship is in trouble and needs to perform sailor alts to get home safe, you might be glad to have someone with an engineering degree onboard to help figure out the way to do it.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
Those that apply via OCS do not have to have taken calc and calc-based physics unless the designator requires it.
The reason why English is valuable is because it requires logic to understand. Only EE/CS offer this on the STEM side of the house. Math, engineering, bio, ect are all exercises in repetition / memorization.
The Navy uses skin color as a proxy for actual diversity of thought, experience, and problem solving skills. And it will suffer for this over the next 25 years.
http://news.usni.org/2014/01/20/opinion-navy-needs-intellectual-diversity
Are you being serious? I can't speak for bio, but there's plenty of logic and critical thinking in math...when you actually specialize in it, it is far from the repetition/memorization of early undergrad and is pretty much all logic, albeit a very abstract and esoteric form. Same goes for engineering, though more practical, otherwise, we'd never build anything new.
I don't prescribe to the idea that STEM rules all, but the absolute worst SWOs I've worked with were all non-tech degree types. As azguy pointed out, none of the tech knowledge required for SWO is particularly difficult to understand, yet these humanities and finance majors could not apply basic knowledge to simple everyday problems. But it absolutely is more complex than that, as your earlier point about raising the bar for the academic institutions we recruit from was probably the other half of why they were...not so good. I know some humanities majors from prestigious schools that also did very well.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Your claim is absurd. You have a sound grasp of the English language by 8th grade (in most cases). Everything after that is reading books and writing an essay on the lessons it's supposed to teach. Also, if you don't agree with the status quo on these lessons, you won't get an A.
I'm not saying that non-technical majors cannot succeed in the Navy. But from the Navy's standpoint, a guy who can more easily grasp the way ship's (or aircraft's) systems work because he has a technical academic background is going to be more valuable than a guy who doesn't. That difference may be small to nonexistant in a JO tour, but as officers become more senior the advantages of a technical background start to manifest themselves. And the Navy isn't devoting scholarship money just for people who are only planning on doing a 4-and-out divo tour; it wants to have a competitive pick of officers who want to continue on that career path.
Yes. People who develop new mathematical / scientific concepts get Nobel prizes / Fields medals. Everyone else is just an executor.
In English, the roles are reversed. Everyone is expected to develop original points of view on the subject, even at the high school level. Anything less is plagiarism.
I'm sure there are many out there that agree with this statement, but it really only applies to crap colleges / programs. For a reference, the most difficult AP exams are English literature and composition.
http://www.totalregistration.net/in...013-ap-exam-score-distributions&catid=18:misc
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I got a 4/5 on the English ap exam without actually taking the course. It's called reading comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar, skills you learn way before 12th grade. Do well on reading comprehension (the most heavily weighted part when I took it) , memorize the monkey notes for several books' themes, write two coherent essays, profit.
Don't confuse proficiency with difficulty.
Don't confuse proficiency with difficulty.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Also, the scholarship isn't about which course of study is more difficult. If you think reading works of fiction and writing papers for hippies is the pinnacle of higher education, then fine. But the scholarship is about which course of study will bring value to the Navy, and the ability to dissect ee cummings' works is on the bottom of the totem pole. Especially as budgets get tight, the Navy needs officers who can bring innovation to solve small scale, everyday fleet problems. It's about the x-factor that technical majors can bring to the fleet, especially at the DH+ level.
Example: I had a DH who was able to automate the mission report through some excel programming. Saved a ton of time, and he's spreading it to the rest of the force. In general, the sub force is woefully behind the technology/software curve, and there isn't budget money available to truly fix it.
Another example: An auxiliary piece of equipment is on the fritz on station. The chief is scratching his head -- never seen it before. The book doesn't contain anything of substance on it. But you have someone with an ME degree who's able to go through the drawings, figure out not only what is wrong, but how to fix it and keep the boat from wasting a 2-3 weeks of deployment transiting to and from station get repairs.
Even on a more simple scale, I can't tell you how many times my Eng, a technical major, had to call bs when a chief wrongfully said 'it's supposed to do that.' Would a non-technical major be confident enough in his knowledge to be able to do that? Maybe, maybe not.
Yet another example: A DH who uses statistical analysis to refine his dept. training program to make it more effective, thus reducing the total time keeping the crew awake for 20+ hours running drills and mitigating the risk that comes with fatigue. Could a non-technical major run a sat training program? Yes. But a guy who hasn't taken a basic stats course ever won't be able to tell you with any kind of confidence whether his training program is actually working the best it could be or where he needs to tweak it. The most he can do is follow the book. And that's 'good enough' to pass inspections, but often it could be better. The mentality of build a model, test the model, refine the model, retest the model, etc. is a line of thinking that is taught in STEM, not English literature.
Those are the types of skills that technical majors bring to the fleet just for small-scale problems and it's why the Navy values them more highly. I'm sure more senior guys can give you a more high-level list of problems that tech majors have helped solve. And I say that as someone with a worthless biology degree.
Example: I had a DH who was able to automate the mission report through some excel programming. Saved a ton of time, and he's spreading it to the rest of the force. In general, the sub force is woefully behind the technology/software curve, and there isn't budget money available to truly fix it.
Another example: An auxiliary piece of equipment is on the fritz on station. The chief is scratching his head -- never seen it before. The book doesn't contain anything of substance on it. But you have someone with an ME degree who's able to go through the drawings, figure out not only what is wrong, but how to fix it and keep the boat from wasting a 2-3 weeks of deployment transiting to and from station get repairs.
Even on a more simple scale, I can't tell you how many times my Eng, a technical major, had to call bs when a chief wrongfully said 'it's supposed to do that.' Would a non-technical major be confident enough in his knowledge to be able to do that? Maybe, maybe not.
Yet another example: A DH who uses statistical analysis to refine his dept. training program to make it more effective, thus reducing the total time keeping the crew awake for 20+ hours running drills and mitigating the risk that comes with fatigue. Could a non-technical major run a sat training program? Yes. But a guy who hasn't taken a basic stats course ever won't be able to tell you with any kind of confidence whether his training program is actually working the best it could be or where he needs to tweak it. The most he can do is follow the book. And that's 'good enough' to pass inspections, but often it could be better. The mentality of build a model, test the model, refine the model, retest the model, etc. is a line of thinking that is taught in STEM, not English literature.
Those are the types of skills that technical majors bring to the fleet just for small-scale problems and it's why the Navy values them more highly. I'm sure more senior guys can give you a more high-level list of problems that tech majors have helped solve. And I say that as someone with a worthless biology degree.
You're all missing it. The Navy needs to hire officers who can lead. An officer will be expected to be able to lead from day one to day last, with appropriate development and maturation along the way.
Can EE majors be great leaders? Absolutely. And so can music majors. You guys are all focusing on what skills the new accession brings with him from his undergrad studies, and that is short sighted.
When will all those fancy USNA Aero E degrees get put to use? The VT IPs are pretty clear that they don't need a kid who can design a better trailing edge flap. They need someone who can embrace new material and find a decent level of competency, quickly. So when will that Aero E degree get used - or better - when does the Navy get some benefit out of it? When that guy goes to TPS. IF he goes to TPS, but only until he goes back to fleet, and then only until he takes his TP$ patch to the civilian world.
I'll make a possible exception for sub dudes. You prob can convince me that tech majors do better in nuke school, BUT we also know it's not an absolute. In that world I'm willing to play the odds though.
Big Red, I've got it on VERY good authority that guys who couldn't pick up the technical side of their SWO-dom weren't going to pick it up regardless of major.
It's not the Navy's job to solve the nation's STEM "problem". It's the Navy's job to hire people who can fulfill the most important part of their charter, leading Sailors.
Here's a nasty question to ask the nice folks at USNA: of the required 75% tech majors, what is the demographic breakdown of those students? Does the STEM push only apply to some students?
Can EE majors be great leaders? Absolutely. And so can music majors. You guys are all focusing on what skills the new accession brings with him from his undergrad studies, and that is short sighted.
When will all those fancy USNA Aero E degrees get put to use? The VT IPs are pretty clear that they don't need a kid who can design a better trailing edge flap. They need someone who can embrace new material and find a decent level of competency, quickly. So when will that Aero E degree get used - or better - when does the Navy get some benefit out of it? When that guy goes to TPS. IF he goes to TPS, but only until he goes back to fleet, and then only until he takes his TP$ patch to the civilian world.
I'll make a possible exception for sub dudes. You prob can convince me that tech majors do better in nuke school, BUT we also know it's not an absolute. In that world I'm willing to play the odds though.
Big Red, I've got it on VERY good authority that guys who couldn't pick up the technical side of their SWO-dom weren't going to pick it up regardless of major.
It's not the Navy's job to solve the nation's STEM "problem". It's the Navy's job to hire people who can fulfill the most important part of their charter, leading Sailors.
Here's a nasty question to ask the nice folks at USNA: of the required 75% tech majors, what is the demographic breakdown of those students? Does the STEM push only apply to some students?
+1
Happy to see an aviator post this. Couldn't agree more! That's what we're paid for at the end of the day. You can be the best stick or ship/sub driver in the Navy - you're shit without if you can't make people 'meet operational tasking.'