BUD/s Drop seeking information on going to OCS

[Griz882]

This was probably a true statement 25 years ago.

I don’t think money will stop passing trough the Middle East even as we focus on the CHYCAPS. If the Navy is that shallow in their officer selection then there are deeper issues to discuss.

 

[Griz882]

eh, none of the Intel "guys" I had picked up/at my NRD had any foreign language skills and the Intel officers we had doing recruiting said no matter what the PA says it isn't a factor.

That’s a shame. I’m surprised Navy intel recruits so shallow.

 

[Brett327]

That’s a shame. I’m surprised Navy intel recruits so shallow.

They shifted to a STEM vs liberal arts focus, since they're all "info" warriors now.

 

[Griz882]

They shifted to a STEM vs liberal arts focus, since they're all "info" warriors now.

Interesting, and probably necessary to a certain level, but global cultures tend to act outside the logic of STEM. But, I get the “info” stuff.

 

[taxi1]

They shifted to a STEM vs liberal arts focus, since they're all "info" warriors now.

That’s a mistake, I think.

 

[SN P A]

Not sure how long it has been since you have been out of BUD/S, but based on you having the desire to be a SEAL in the first place you may end up unhappy if you go the intel route and aren't even a line officer. Would take some time to consider what you really want. It probably isn't that.

Could you expand on that? I dropped from the most recent class going through currently. I'm pretty good at managing expectations and I don't have any preconceived notions about the nature of the work I'll be doing. I think I would be good in an Intelligence role and the general work that the community does interests me. I don't need to be doing James Bond-esque tasks to satisfy and fulfill me. I just want to be an asset somewhere that aligns with my interests and skillset.

 

[Flash]

I have never understood that. Not because your average INTEL weenie needs language, but because I think it is a benefit to any officer, especially with native use. It is short sighted. It should carry some weight. The Navy talks big about diversity but someone who lived overseas, learned a new culture and language doesn't get a break over the dude that spent a semester at McGill University in Montreal. When I was at NAVEUR I only met one active duty guy with significant language ability. But lots of guys in my Reserve unit had foreign language experience owing to the fact so many were expats. They often got orders and special gigs the active guys were less qualified to cover.

While it may be a nice to have I think the Navy is right not to use it as a discriminator, Navy Intel O's aren't going to be using their language skills unless they are in specific billets that are not common for them.

As someone who has worked with directly with several foreign forces knowing their language would have been helpful but professional knowledge was much more needed and much more useful. It doesn't hurt that the allies we work most with in a military capacity often know English, very fluently in many cases too.

For those that do in-depth analysis on foreign countries language skills can be pretty helpful but Navy officers rarely end up in those billets and they aren't there long.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

That’s a shame. I’m surprised Navy intel recruits so shallow.

Probably easier to have CTI's do what is needed.

I remember many years ago the CO needed to communicate in Japanese for some reason, the person they found that was fluent in Japanese was a SWO-N LT who happened to be my DIVO for a short time.

If I was to go back in time I would have taken learning a foreign language much more seriously, what I have done is instilled that knowledge with my kids, one is fairly fluent in Japanese and the other is quite good in ASL.

 

[Brett327]

Interesting, and probably necessary to a certain level, but global cultures tend to act outside the logic of STEM. But, I get the “info” stuff.

I think you vastly overestimate what we ask our junior and mid level Intel officers to do. Cultural analysis isn't in their job description, but understanding the relative capabilities of red and blue weapons systems sure is. Understanding radar theory and sensor fusion is valued. Speaking Arabic is a novelty.

 

[Flash]

I think you vastly overestimate what we ask our junior and mid level Intel officers to do. Cultural analysis isn't in their job description, but understanding the relative capabilities of red and blue weapons systems sure is. Understanding radar theory and sensor fusion is valued. Speaking Arabic is a novelty.

I wish English composition skills weren't such a novelty nowadays either.

 

[wink]

While it may be a nice to have I think the Navy is right not to use it as a discriminator, Navy Intel O's aren't going to be using their language skills unless they are in specific billets that are not common for them.

As someone who has worked with directly with several foreign forces knowing their language would have been helpful but professional knowledge was much more needed and much more useful. It doesn't hurt that the allies we work most with in a military capacity often know English, very fluently in many cases too.

For those that do in-depth analysis on foreign countries language skills can be pretty helpful but Navy officers rarely end up in those billets and they aren't there long.

A former frequent poster here, now in civlant, was a CEC officer that on more than one occasion negotiated contracts via...wait for it... Google translate.

Knowledge of a language and foreign cultures need not come at the cost of STEM comprehension or tactical knowledge. We are not talking the Navy investing money and time in language training. We are talking about the Navy not recognizing the value added of language proficiency in a candidate otherwise qualified. It mystifies me.

 

[Flash]

Knowledge of a language and foreign cultures need not come at the cost of STEM comprehension or tactical knowledge. We are not talking the Navy investing money and time in language training. We are talking about the Navy not recognizing the value added of language proficiency in a candidate otherwise qualified. It mystifies me.

Is there really a lot of value in a Navy officer candidate knowing a foreign language? We have proven indicators/prerequisites we use to determine if someone is a good candidate and I've never seen foreign language proficiency as one of them. Would it be a differentiator if you had two similar candidates for the same position? Maybe, but I am going to hazard a guess that usually someone applying to became a naval officer is qualified or not language skills notwithstanding. Whether or not STEM skills should be emphasized by the Navy as much as they are for applicants nowadays is another debate.

When language is needed for an officer, like FAO's and PEP's, from what I know the Navy does a good job of teaching the necessary language skills to the folks going to those billets. Occasionally things may match up to where a naval officer with the requisite language skills finds themselves in a position to utilize them in a professional capacity, more so in the reserves with the inherent flexibility of many short-term orders and the selectivity of some ADSW (whatever they're called now) billets, but most often you will just put a qualified officer in the billet no matter the language skill.

 

[wink]

Is there really a lot of value in a Navy officer candidate knowing a foreign language? We have proven indicators/prerequisites we use to determine if someone is a good candidate and I've never seen foreign language proficiency as one of them. Would it be a differentiator if you had two similar candidates for the same position? Maybe, but I am going to hazard a guess that usually someone applying to became a naval officer is qualified or not language skills notwithstanding. Whether or not STEM skills should be emphasized by the Navy as much as they are for applicants nowadays is another debate.

When language is needed for an officer, like FAO's and PEP's, from what I know the Navy does a good job of teaching the necessary language skills to the folks going to those billets. Occasionally things may match up to where a naval officer with the requisite language skills finds themselves in a position to utilize them in a professional capacity, more so in the reserves with the inherent flexibility of many short-term orders and the selectivity of some ADSW (whatever they're called now) billets, but most often you will just put a qualified officer in the billet no matter the language skill.

Simply disagree. You are working too hard trying to defend the Navy approach. Is there something wrong with hiring someone with MORE qualifications, more life experience, more knowledge? I am not saying the Navy need train officers for language, pay for their Masters in French, or change program requirements. I am saying recognize the value already in the candidate. The so called whole man concept. I have recruited officers, been a blue and gold officer and have participated in civilian hiring. I have never stopped looking when I come across someone who meets the minimum requirements. I look for the person who brings the most to the table. That is finding value in the labor market.

 

[Flash]

Simply disagree. You are working too hard trying to defend the Navy approach. Is there something wrong with hiring someone with MORE qualifications, more life experience, more knowledge? I am not saying the Navy need train officers for language, pay for their Masters in French, or change program requirements. I am saying recognize the value already in the candidate. The so called whole man concept. I have recruited officers, been a blue and gold officer and have participated in civilian hiring. I have never stopped looking when I come across someone who meets the minimum requirements. I look for the person who brings the most to the table. That is finding value in the labor market.

Even at best case foreign language is only a small part of what should be considered for officer applicants, even intel ones, and I've seen nothing in my career that it should be otherwise.

 

[Jim123]

The part I'm having trouble coming to grips with is whether a second language (or third...) is worth additional points on application- or if it's just a tiebreaker, or merely an "oh, that's nice" afterthought.

I thought officer recruiting was supposed to be base on the whole person concept. Maybe your GPA or your aptitude test scores could be a little higher, but you took a "hard" major and also here it says you went out for this or that sport in high school or college, you did volunteer work, you were vice-president of the students' council, you were treasurer of the chess club, any of these things are worth extra points on the secret formula of your package score because... leeduhrship.

Yet proficiency in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, German, Esperanto- none of that is actually worth anything on an application? The selection board basically gives you a virtual pat on the head?? Okay, maybe Esperanto should be negative points, but... really? That's the deal these days?


FWIW I firmly believe in the emphasis on STEM. We have quite a few tech dummies in the ranks and though they shore up their weaknesses by having strengths in other areas—and all of us have our strengths and weaknesses—there comes a point if a senior officer is befuddled by middle school-level science then it's counterproductive. @Brett327's comment about weapon systems is spot on. But, when it comes to the so-called "easy" majors, we have quite a few history and geography dummies in the ranks too. I think if we could time warp back to July 1990 and poll the commissioned officers in the armed services to find Kuwait on a world map (that's just for starters), the results would be embarrassing. For an ostensibly volunteer military in a democracy (okay, constitutional republic), it's a dangerous thing for the officer corps to be ignorant about the world. Foreign language proficiency matters more than we give people credit.