Farting in Church

[HAL Pilot]

Simple. Enlisted are the workers/lower management while officers are upper management/executives. Upper management/executives are the decision/policy makers. Decision/policy makers need a better education than workers/lower management as better rducation (usually) leads to better decisions/policies. (At least in theory....)

 

[Spekkio]

One could also argue that SNCOs are also managers of their work centers, and that a college degree that supplements in-rate knowledge and develops problem solving approaches (e.g. Mech E for mechanics) would be equally valuable and allow them to better troubleshoot equipment issues when they arise. Besides, you explained why the Navy wants Officers to have degrees, but not why it pays for them.

Outside of nuke world on submarines, there are very few enlisted Sailors who really understand how their gear works and thus how to fix it when it breaks. We are relying more on contractors to fix said gear in availabilities, but that's not always going to be an option.

 

[Jim123]

Regarding academia, formal education, trade school, work experience, and how you train your people-

In a previous lifetime I worked in aircraft engine test & development. Pretty specialized, technical stuff, right? Detailed plans, procedures, deadlines, logistics, budgets, a little bit of risk and uncertainty thrown in the mix, and a few smart people who are pretty good at what they do. Almost like a lot of the things we do in the military from day-to-day... There are a lot of things in common between the junior engineer-senior technician relationship and the junior officer-senior NCO relationship (and how both related to upper management). I know, I know, nobody is shocked by this statement.

 

[PropAddict]

Somewhat related but tangental topic...

Why does the military pay for college education up front at all for Officers with no initial service, but not for enlisted Sailors?

Because we realized long ago that a college degree is needed to do an Officer's job (at least by a 21 year old with no other military experience) and that if Uncle didn't pay for it, his applicant pool consisted largely of the black sheep, fuckup children of wealthy parents. By offering financial incentives, we cast a wider net for recruitment. And let's not forget: we heavily pre-screen and are much more selective With officer accessions than enlisted. Based on the indicators, we can say with reasonable certainty person X or Y has the background and characteristics we want to be a leader and we can count on an average of Z years of service.

For enlisted personnel? Some of them pass a physical screening and a test of basic literacy. That's it. I would argue there is no E-1 to E-3 whose job requires a college degree, so no need to provide one.

For enlisted Sailors, they need to fulfill an inital commitment before they have the opportunity to do dedicated college coursework by utilizing the GI bill -- and to accomplish that without any other military duties, they usually have to leave active duty. The disadvantage to this is they are at least 4 years older than all of their college peers by the time that they attend. There is no way I am aware of for an enlisted servicemember to do an undergraduate degree shore duty in return for 3-4 more years of enlisted service, yet there are opportunities for graduate school for officers.

I've known Chiefs and SCPOs who went to full time grad school on the Navy's nickel based on the jobs they were doing and demonstrated prior performance.

The honest answer, though, is most enlisted do not benefit the Navy more with more education. Every sailor I've had in my division who has come in with a Masters has left the service at his first out. If you have a graduate degree in Microminiature Electronics, do you really want to be changing cannon plugs, troubleshooting vacuumtube-era radios, and emptying trash cans on a port-stbd schedule for what works out to be just over minimum wage?

Further, I'd estimate over 50% of the E's in my command are pursuing a degree using TA or have earned a degree using TA. Those E's who want higher education can do it very economically. The others, either lack interest, commitment, or are pursuing technical certifications for follow on careers, which, OBTW, Uncle pays for as well.

 

[LFCFan]

What are the individuals teaching? A degree does NOT convey expertise. Having taught college as well, I've seen lots of folks with PhD's who have never done anything outside the classroom.
Many of these folks can speak intelligently on many topics, but they have never actually done the job they are teaching.


Who do you want teaching your mids/cadets? I want Naval Officers and civilian academics teaching the next generation so we have a good foundation of practical experience and theoretical understandings.

You're right, a degree does not convey experience - although to earn a PhD in science or engineering one must actually do a fair bit of both to get said degree. In my experience this meant working at least 50-60 hour weeks, often longer, slaving over research articles, lab equipment, writing programs, analyzing data, and so on. And getting it published, which is the measure of "doing" science.** I can't speak for business or the humanities. My point was that the standards of teaching in the civilian world are often much lower than people think they are, and that I would pick the kind of experienced person with a master's degree at an academy over a grad student with no experience or advanced degree. As an example, my brother had a history prof at USAFA who was an Army major or LTC in one of the special forces units and taught a class on the history of insurgencies or something like that. I think his expertise plus a master's degree beats out a PhD with no other experience, for sure. As I said before, I taught a class at 23 that I only took a year beforehand when I was an undergrad (at least my ratings were good!). I'd like to ask the critics of the academies who got the better deal: the taxpayers who paid for my brother's class, or the parents and students who paid the tuition to take that course from me.

**My apologies if your experience is in this area and you know all that from having lived it yourself - I have no idea what your background is and want to correct the misconception others may hold that all these years in grad school haven't been "doing something."

 

[Spekkio]

Because we realized long ago that a college degree is needed to do an Officer's job (at least by a 21 year old with no other military experience) and that if Uncle didn't pay for it, his applicant pool consisted largely of the black sheep, fuckup children of wealthy parents.

Is there any real data on this? I definitely don't think that my classmates at OCS consisted entirely of black sheep, fuckup children of wealthy parents as you assume they would be.

As far as I know, service academies are practically as old as America herself. You'd have to go back to the pre-civil war era in order to find a time where Uncle Sam didn't foot the education bill for at least some of his Officers, and the tradition came from Great Britain before that. At the same time, the academies in the U.S. were founded at a time where the minority of Americans could actually read and write, and most of the students were from upper class families. Clearly the benefits of having a more highly educated Officer corps were more pronounced at that time.

For enlisted personnel? Some of them pass a physical screening and a test of basic literacy. That's it. I would argue there is no E-1 to E-3 whose job requires a college degree, so no need to provide one.

I would agree with you, and my post rambled a bit...but I did mention a dedicated college shore duty with continuation contract vice initial entry. There are E-5+ Sailor who would benefit from a college degree because they are supposed to be the system experts on systems that consist of modern day circuit cards rather than transisters, and being able to do a dedicated study shore duty prior to CPO would be useful.

Further, I'd estimate over 50% of the E's in my command are pursuing a degree using TA or have earned a degree using TA. Those E's who want higher education can do it very economically. The others, either lack interest, commitment, or are pursuing technical certifications for follow on careers, which, OBTW, Uncle pays for as well.

On a submarine there is almost no chance a Sailor will complete his degree while on a sea tour. He would have to reenlist to go to shore duty to get TA there, but if he's reenlisting for TA, he might as well get out and use the GI bill. PACE courses are doable if someone wanted to lead the same lifestyle as they did as a non-qual, ie 3-4 hours of sleep a day if they're lucky, except now they have to sit in front of a computer screen or panel in the dark for 6 hours and try not to go to mast for standing an 'inattentive watch.' I've seen some people pull it off with some C's, but there's a very very high failure rate for those who try. I wouldn't call that lack of dedication, I'd call it that after their 4th ORSE drill set of the week, they made a choice between being able to function for their job or trying to pass PACE courses, and they decided that functioning in their primary duty was more important.

It's easy to say that Sailors lack commitment for not getting degrees, but a lot harder to be committed to working into the wee hours of the night on shore duty to get your degree when you just got off 4-5 years of 100+ hour work weeks inport and 3-section underway rotations at sea duty. You also have to factor in that for a Sailor to be promotable, he needs a shore assignment in-rate, which generally means more work than our JO shore duties. At some point, something has to give.

 

[Gatordev]

Outside of nuke world on submarines, there are very few enlisted Sailors who really understand how their gear works and thus how to fix it when it breaks. We are relying more on contractors to fix said gear in availabilities, but that's not always going to be an option.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I disagree in the aviation community. There's some stuff they aren't allowed to fix, but then it just goes to I-Level where other sailors fix it.

 

[Pugs]

Outside of nuke world on submarines, there are very few enlisted Sailors who really understand how their gear works and thus how to fix it when it breaks. We are relying more on contractors to fix said gear in availabilities, but that's not always going to be an option.

Always been that way in the squadron. The folks that got the additional detailed knowledge usually got it during an AIMD or NAMTRA tour and some things even there were simply shipped off.

When I was a reserve program manager at the NAR Whidbey I had an NAS reserve unit and a first class who's day job was as a calibration gear design engineer at Boeing. AIMD had whole racks of calibration stuff that he would fix on his drill weekend that no one else had a clue how to fix.

 

[PropAddict]

It's easy to say that Sailors lack commitment for not getting degrees, but a lot harder to be committed to working into the wee hours of the night on shore duty to get your degree when you just got off 4-5 years of 100+ hour work weeks inport and 3-section underway rotations at sea duty.

Yeah, sorry. I was speaking only of my experience in Aviation.

Thank you for reminding me once again how glad I am to not be in subs. There used to be a saying that may be pertinent. . .something about rates and fates. . .

 

[HAL Pilot]

It's easy to say that Sailors lack commitment for not getting degrees, but a lot harder to be committed to working into the wee hours of the night on shore duty to get your degree when you just got off 4-5 years of 100+ hour work weeks inport and 3-section underway rotations at sea duty.

I call Bull Shit. 100 hour work weeks are 14.3 hours/day 7 days/ week. This may happen occasionally but it does not happen every week inport for 4 to 5 years. It happens occasionally in squadrons and on surface ships too.

Now I might believe 12 hour days M-F with some weekends thrown in but what you are claiming is complete crap.

 

[ea6bflyr]

On a submarine there is almost no chance a Sailor will complete his degree while on a sea tour. He would have to reenlist to go to shore duty to get TA there, but if he's reenlisting for TA, he might as well get out and use the GI bill. PACE courses are doable if someone wanted to lead the same lifestyle as they did as a non-qual, ie 3-4 hours of sleep a day if they're lucky, except now they have to sit in front of a computer screen or panel in the dark for 6 hours and try not to go to mast for standing an 'inattentive watch.' I've seen some people pull it off with some C's, but there's a very very high failure rate for those who try. I wouldn't call that lack of dedication, I'd call it that after their 4th ORSE drill set of the week, they made a choice between being able to function for their job or trying to pass PACE courses, and they decided that functioning in their primary duty was more important.

Not in SSBN land; I've know several sailors that completed their AA or BS while on Sub duty attached to Boomers. Are you referring to Fast Attack subs?

-ea6bflyr

 

[boobcheese]

I call Bull Shit. 100 hour work weeks are 14.3 hours/day 7 days/ week. This may happen occasionally but it does not happen every week inport for 4 to 5 years. It happens occasionally in squadrons and on surface ships too.

Now I might believe 12 hour days M-F with some weekends thrown in but what you are claiming is complete crap.

There might be a little hyperbole in his statement but not much depending on how you count duty days. I'd say that a 10hr day was the norm on non-duty days but longer days are not uncommon and nukes are typically on 3 section rotation inport (full weekend off every third week... woohoo). While not necessarily working for the full 24 hours on duty days, you are stuck on the boat the entire day with little to no free time.

Overall, I'd estimate that I was averaging 80-90 hours a week on a fast attack inport if you give full 24hr credit for a duty day.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Yeah and I was stuck on the CVN for 24 hours every 4th day on duty. That doesn't mean I worked continuously for the 24 hours though. In my current job I can be gone from home for 72 hours yet be in cockpit for as little as 10 of those hours. If I do two of these trips back to back, does that mean I just worked a 144 hour work week?

So you're on the boat 80-90 hours, you didn't work that many and you had time to relax and sleep during that time. I'll go with maybe 60-65 hours of actual work.

Saying 100+ hour work weeks for 4 to 5 years is a gross over exaggeration and I call Bull Shit. They work hard but no one works that hard.

 

[boobcheese]

Yeah and I was stuck on the CVN for 24 hours every 4th day on duty. That doesn't mean I worked continuously for the 24 hours though. In my current job I can be gone from home for 72 hours yet be in cockpit for as little as 10 of those hours. If I do two of these trips back to back, does that mean I just worked a 144 hour work week?

It depends on your perspective. I know you're not an hourly employee but I think its safe to say that you are being compensated for more than just the 20 hrs of "work" you would be putting in that week.

Like I originally said, it depends how you count the duty days. I agree you're not working the full 24 hours on those days but between standing watches, doing maintenance, training, duty section cleanup, etc., those 2+ days a week are a complete loss in terms of being able to work towards a college degree. Throw in trying to spend some time with your family on your non-duty days and completing a degree becomes quickly becomes very impractical.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I know you're not an hourly employee but I think its safe to say that you are being compensated for more than just the 20 hrs of "work" you would be putting in that week.

Ummm, pretty sure that airline pilots are hourly employees. The bulk of their pay comes from those 10 hours out of 72.