-
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
Does the college matter?
- Thread starter slitsoul
- Start date
- Status
vegita1220
User
Anybody who passes through an MIT or other top notch engineering program, even if they just BARELY eke through, is clearly "smart." The kids I knew who got in there were just natural whiz kids who really loved that stuff...I had to force myself to buckle down and study the crap that didn't really interest me.
A guy with a 4.0 at his local community college may have had it tough in life, may have busted his ass, may have been naturally smart, or any combination of the above, but it does not guarantee he was "smart."
I have no idea how much schools matter, but if they didn't...the selection process would be pretty jacked up wouldn't it?
On the other side of things...a Princeton(or Harvard unless they fixed the grade inflation problems there) grad with a 3.3 could just be a legacy grad, and the 3.3 could come from gross grade inflation.
Didn't one of the NROTC LTs on the board already say that CNET or whoever is in charge of such things has the stats on the universities, individual colleges, average GPAs, etc.? I have a hard time believing the Navy could be so screwed up as to not have taken that logical step. <insert sarcastic quip about Navy or general DoD bureaucracy here>
And like somebody already said...there's always grad school to look forward to, whether or not you stay in the Navy. I'm pretty sure they look at where you're coming from academically.
A guy with a 4.0 at his local community college may have had it tough in life, may have busted his ass, may have been naturally smart, or any combination of the above, but it does not guarantee he was "smart."
I have no idea how much schools matter, but if they didn't...the selection process would be pretty jacked up wouldn't it?
On the other side of things...a Princeton(or Harvard unless they fixed the grade inflation problems there) grad with a 3.3 could just be a legacy grad, and the 3.3 could come from gross grade inflation.
Didn't one of the NROTC LTs on the board already say that CNET or whoever is in charge of such things has the stats on the universities, individual colleges, average GPAs, etc.? I have a hard time believing the Navy could be so screwed up as to not have taken that logical step. <insert sarcastic quip about Navy or general DoD bureaucracy here>
And like somebody already said...there's always grad school to look forward to, whether or not you stay in the Navy. I'm pretty sure they look at where you're coming from academically.
vegita1220 said:
What do you mean by "smart?" If you are talking intelligence, IQ, or other numbers that try to quantify aptitude, you're a little off the mark. All passing through MIT or another top engineering program means that you are naturally inclined to be an engineer - not that you are necessarily "smart."
Take the same kid and send him through the culinary program at Johnson and Wales, or the theology program at Notre Dame, or the veterinary program at Ohio State - he could very well be lost in the sauce.
We all have different gifts and abilities. Take a group like Mensa, whose only criteria is that you have an IQ in the top 2% of the population. Their membership consists of everyone from astrophysicists to convicted felons. Not 100% engineers from MIT.
Or flight training. There are guys who ace flight training who were theater majors, yet some engineers can't pass the ASTB.
MIT doesn't mean you are "smart." It means you were meant to go to MIT.
One caution about aviation majors, e.g. Embry-Riddle. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. If you fly in the military and get out when the aviation industry is in the toilet (hmmm), you won't have a degree in another field to fall back on.
firefriendly said:
Your degree will in no way guarantee your success at flight school. There seem to be plenty of engineers on this board, and they seem to be making it. I know plenty of guys who were engineers and are excellent pilots. Plus, if you're into the whole TPS deal, it'd be pretty tough to get there with a Basket Weaving Degree.
The navy can't send you to nuke school. Subs is a volunteer program, just like aviation.
Im currently at Embry-Riddle and in NROTC. The program does pay for all your flight training if you are under scholarship and it is required for your major. That is for private, instrument, commerical, and multi-engine. The cost of flying at riddle as it says online is not accurate, it is a lot more (>10,000). I have a feeling in the next couple of years the navy is going to see that they are paying a s**t load of money and will cut back paying for flying but only time will tell.
Make sure you call NROTC at Embry-Riddle to get the most current infromation.
Make sure you call NROTC at Embry-Riddle to get the most current infromation.
vegita1220
User
Since when were they forcing people to go nuke?
Anyway, I'm just saying that some aviation principles come straight out of engineering concepts, an engineer who "got it" legitimately and understood it is probably not going to be suffering. With a history major, he might do well, but he could just as easily be a total space cadet. Of course there're no guarantees, but it just seems that one would offer better odds for success. I'd really be surprised if a MIT grad had problems with the academics in flight school. I wouldn't be too surprised if a history major from your local community college had a tougher time than his peers.
If you've gone ROTC and taken naval ship systems, you might know what I mean. The engineers or those in other majors who do fine in calc and physics requirements think it's the easiest crap in the world. Then there're the lib arts kids who're just totally out of their element, even though it's supposed to be dumbed down enough for anybody to understand. But I'm not saying lib arts means you're an idiot when it comes to the technical stuff either. They might have what it takes and just not want to bother with the hassle.
Anyway, I'm just saying that some aviation principles come straight out of engineering concepts, an engineer who "got it" legitimately and understood it is probably not going to be suffering. With a history major, he might do well, but he could just as easily be a total space cadet. Of course there're no guarantees, but it just seems that one would offer better odds for success. I'd really be surprised if a MIT grad had problems with the academics in flight school. I wouldn't be too surprised if a history major from your local community college had a tougher time than his peers.
If you've gone ROTC and taken naval ship systems, you might know what I mean. The engineers or those in other majors who do fine in calc and physics requirements think it's the easiest crap in the world. Then there're the lib arts kids who're just totally out of their element, even though it's supposed to be dumbed down enough for anybody to understand. But I'm not saying lib arts means you're an idiot when it comes to the technical stuff either. They might have what it takes and just not want to bother with the hassle.
vegita1220 said:
OR-
They might have "what it takes," as you put it, but have talents and interests that lie elsewhere - and not, "not want to bother with the hassle." Whether you intended it that way or not, you are implying that if you have engineering aptitude and decide not to use it, you are lazy.
Not necessarily true.
Let's say that you are a math guru like Will Hunting (I hear KBayDog shed a tear for that movie). What if you don't like math? What if you are more interested and decide to major in, say, kinesiology, because you want help others rehabilitate life-altering injuries? Does that mean that you "have what it takes" but didn't want to "bother with the hassle?"
Or does it simply mean that you decided to use your talents and interests in a non-engineering major?
- Status