Squirrel Girl
Well-Known Member
Well, I already have a degree in Chinese and about to have a Masters in Management, too late to go back and change majors. I'll just apply to several and be happy being an officer, which is the main goal anyways.
-
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
OCS DLPT Scores for Intel and IW
Well, I already have a degree in Chinese and about to have a Masters in Management, too late to go back and change majors. I'll just apply to several and be happy being an officer, which is the main goal anyways.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
be aware many designators will not consider you if you put them anything other than #1 or #2, if you already applied did you put SWO as one of them.
Squirrel Girl
Well-Known Member
I did, for this time I put Intel and SWO down.
LET73
Well-Known Member
Yep. As HH-60H points out, there can be overlap, but I've never personally worked with CTIs (though I have worked with other CTs). In the future there will probably be more overlap, as the lines between intel, IW, and IP blur into the Information Dominance glob--I mean, Corps (hence the focus on STEM degrees for intel officers, when intel really doesn't require a tech background).
When did the emphasis for Intel folks change from liberal arts to STEM? Seems like it was about 6-8 years ago. Was it a result of the whole Info Dominance merger? What effect do you think it has had (if any) on the average 1st and 2nd tour Intel Officers?
LET73
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the emphasis shifted to STEM right along with the creation of the IDC, so probably about six years ago. I commissioned in '07, and that was definitely before they were looking for STEM degrees as much as they are now. I don't remember it being mentioned at all when I was talking to the recruiter. I'd say it hasn't affected 1st tour Intel Officers at all, in that they're generally still going to do a squadron AI tour, a FID tour, or be stuck on the ONI watch floor. It's probably opened up some opportunities for 2nd tour Intel O's at Tenth Fleet/CYBERCOM, if that's what they're interested in, but I think the effects are more on the mid-career or more senior 1830s who have to go to a NIOC or something and do cryppie stuff in order to advance their careers.
I do think that the focus on STEM is a little shortsighted in that intel, as opposed to the rest of the IDC, is going to be an area that attracts the history and political science majors, and there's no compelling reason to make it relatively harder for them to get selected for intel. They're preemptively eliminating smart people who are interested in being Intel Officers.
I tend to agree. While I don't want or intend to paint folks with STEM backgrounds with too broad a brush, those who study poli-sci, history and IR tend to have more of a natural curiosity about the geo-political goings on, and that could be a significant benefit to them as they establish their careers as JOs.
Do you think there's merit in getting first tour Intel folks at the squadron level to start thinking like an analyst, or are they too junior to assimilate that kind of big picture thinking yet? From my vantage point, I don't think it's ever too early to start asking... "what do you think this means" of my Intel shop.
Thoughts?
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
That timeline fits with what I remember on recruiting duty, at the same time they made it a bit easier to get IW/IP as before they had said Calc/Physic required, not just preferred. One of the Intel officers put a post several years ago that at a brief the split for Intel new accessions was to shoot for 60/40 tech/non tech, not sure how that is playing out, it would be interesting to know how many tech guys there were picking before this as well.
LET73
Well-Known Member
It's absolutely valuable to get them thinking about it. Junior Ensigns won't necessarily have the context to fit information into the big picture, but they need to know that there is a big picture. I think it's really easy for them to get lost in the weeds--and in a way, being down in the weeds is their job--but they'll provide better intel if they think about and understand how the little bits of information they're looking at fit into that bigger picture.
Oh, that's interesting that calc/physics isn't a requirement anymore for IW/IP. I think the 60/40 tech/non tech split is at least backwards for Intel (if my paygrade were a lot higher, I'd want to see something more like maybe 75/25 non tech/tech). I do understand wanting to bring in people who are prepared to move between the designators within the IDC, but I think they're pushing a little too hard for STEM majors to be Intel Officers, when something like poli sci or history or some related field is a more natural fit.
Producing understandable products that the average sailor can utilize is a nice skill that the poly-sci/History/IR folks tend to do better with. There is definitely a place for folks with technical knowledge in IDC but I think the community at large is crimping themselves at the expense of one particular part of the 'corps' that seems to be enamored with latest and greatest in tech at the expense of the more core competencies that are the bread and butter of Intel.
