phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
A-12, Seawolf, LCS, DDG-1000... You were saying?!?
-
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
New scholarship rules
- Thread starter CommodoreMid
- Start date
haha. the number crunchers took over already!
In the end, it's a piece of paper that uncle sam paid for, that states "you now possess the ability to learn."
In all actuality, all of us will never stop learning.
I do agree, this is possibly a way to make more nukes.
RADM Lotring was at a retirement ceremony of my last CO who had a big hand at me getting accepted (he went and sat the board)
He saw I was an OC and came to introduce himself at the reception. He asked what my prior rate was, I told him. Then he automatically assumed I was going on further to be a nuke officer. I politely informed him that I was pre-selected for NFO. He seemed dumbfounded and wanted to know why. I told him that the Navy simply burns us out, standing 2-3 times as much watch, coming in a day or two early to start the plant up, staying 6-8 hours to shut down. Not to mention ABSOLUTELY NO shore duty availabilities. He said, but you get paid a lot of money with bonuses and all.
I told him that I turned down $100,000 bonus for the program. Then, I stated, money can't always buy happiness. He said to keep "us" (the nukes) in mind and they'd love to have me back as an O. I told him thanks for the offer, but I'd pass.
The BIG Navy, IMO, simply believes, that they can either pay the Nukes more (primarily enlisted), or force commissioning sources into going Nuke. The ONLY thing that it would create is a feeling of animosity and resentment. Now, you have a bunch of disgruntled trapped JO's, which breeds pissed off sailors. And, finally, every nuke gets our after their first term. In an era, where conventional carriers are being replaced with Nukes, the Navy can NOT simply afford to lose the experience and expertise that seasoned Nukes have.
SORRY RANT OVER...
More tech majors possibly a very bad thing... (coming from a EE major)
In all actuality, all of us will never stop learning.
I do agree, this is possibly a way to make more nukes.
RADM Lotring was at a retirement ceremony of my last CO who had a big hand at me getting accepted (he went and sat the board)
He saw I was an OC and came to introduce himself at the reception. He asked what my prior rate was, I told him. Then he automatically assumed I was going on further to be a nuke officer. I politely informed him that I was pre-selected for NFO. He seemed dumbfounded and wanted to know why. I told him that the Navy simply burns us out, standing 2-3 times as much watch, coming in a day or two early to start the plant up, staying 6-8 hours to shut down. Not to mention ABSOLUTELY NO shore duty availabilities. He said, but you get paid a lot of money with bonuses and all.
I told him that I turned down $100,000 bonus for the program. Then, I stated, money can't always buy happiness. He said to keep "us" (the nukes) in mind and they'd love to have me back as an O. I told him thanks for the offer, but I'd pass.
The BIG Navy, IMO, simply believes, that they can either pay the Nukes more (primarily enlisted), or force commissioning sources into going Nuke. The ONLY thing that it would create is a feeling of animosity and resentment. Now, you have a bunch of disgruntled trapped JO's, which breeds pissed off sailors. And, finally, every nuke gets our after their first term. In an era, where conventional carriers are being replaced with Nukes, the Navy can NOT simply afford to lose the experience and expertise that seasoned Nukes have.
SORRY RANT OVER...
More tech majors possibly a very bad thing... (coming from a EE major)
MIDNAdmiral
Registered User
Here is a link to the NROTC website, which lists this new policy just in case some of the BA majors couldn't find it 
:
https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/academicreq.cfm#academic
There is some encouragement with engineering majors getting the 10% bump in the community selection process points calculation. I don't know how publicized that is, because personally I had to ask when I was trying to get all the info about going Flight.
Perhaps this is being looked at in the wrong way. There is a shortage of engineers throughout the country, and maybe the Navy is trying to attract what engineering majors are out there to make sure the Navy has enough. Granted, an engineering major would be able to make more money outside the Navy, but the promise of a substantial scholarship right now at a major university is a pretty good deal to an 18 year old who just graduated from high school. Of course, 85% seems rather high.
As an engineering major, this doesn't particularly bother me, and I've always felt that the Naval Academy graduating English majors seems unnecessary to me. One of the reasons I chose to be an engineering major is I felt it was a good background to have for a job outside the Navy. On the other hand, the Navy seems to work fine with the current situation. I watched the whole PBS Carrier series and as I recall the Chief Engineer was a History Major. He must be a very smart guy, but it seems ironic to me as a Marine Engineering major that a History Major is a Chief Engineer of a Nuclear Powered carrier. Being a Chief Engineer in the Navy is a bit different from being a Chief Engineer on a commercial ship though, so I guess one can get by without being an engineering major in the Navy.
One final thought: only four out of nineteen 1/c midshipmen being technical majors of some sort from one NROTC unit that I have ties to is disheartening to me, but I think it is a sign of our current public educational system.
:https://www.nrotc.navy.mil/academicreq.cfm#academic
There is some encouragement with engineering majors getting the 10% bump in the community selection process points calculation. I don't know how publicized that is, because personally I had to ask when I was trying to get all the info about going Flight.
Perhaps this is being looked at in the wrong way. There is a shortage of engineers throughout the country, and maybe the Navy is trying to attract what engineering majors are out there to make sure the Navy has enough. Granted, an engineering major would be able to make more money outside the Navy, but the promise of a substantial scholarship right now at a major university is a pretty good deal to an 18 year old who just graduated from high school. Of course, 85% seems rather high.
As an engineering major, this doesn't particularly bother me, and I've always felt that the Naval Academy graduating English majors seems unnecessary to me. One of the reasons I chose to be an engineering major is I felt it was a good background to have for a job outside the Navy. On the other hand, the Navy seems to work fine with the current situation. I watched the whole PBS Carrier series and as I recall the Chief Engineer was a History Major. He must be a very smart guy, but it seems ironic to me as a Marine Engineering major that a History Major is a Chief Engineer of a Nuclear Powered carrier. Being a Chief Engineer in the Navy is a bit different from being a Chief Engineer on a commercial ship though, so I guess one can get by without being an engineering major in the Navy.
One final thought: only four out of nineteen 1/c midshipmen being technical majors of some sort from one NROTC unit that I have ties to is disheartening to me, but I think it is a sign of our current public educational system.
uhh, WTF? Are you serious? Go build a bridge or something, let the real brains figure out how to run the world.
MIDNAdmiral
Registered User
No no, I'm a Marine Engineering Major not a Civil Engineer. I just bang on pipes with channelocks and otherwise run the plant of a ship. There is a shortage of engineering majors graduating from college and the problem starts with too few kids in school learning enough math and science in their precollege years. That is a problem for politicians to solve, and I am not a lawyer thankfully .
and otherwise run the plant of a ship. There is a shortage of engineering majors graduating from college and the problem starts with too few kids in school learning enough math and science in their precollege years. That is a problem for politicians to solve, and I am not a lawyer thankfully .
I don't see this chamging the system. While INITIALLY the NROTC's will have more TECH majors, in the end, the breakdown will be close to what it is now.
I saw lots of ENGR majors bail out and change to NON-TECH degrees before it was all over.
This is like forcing a horse to drink water.....you can do it, but it's awfully hard.
-ea6bflyr
I saw lots of ENGR majors bail out and change to NON-TECH degrees before it was all over.
This is like forcing a horse to drink water.....you can do it, but it's awfully hard.
-ea6bflyr
I see alot of people change from tech majors to non-tech just because they don't like or can't handle the challenge. Is that fair for them to go on and make a 4.0 GPA compared to their engineering classmates who barely make a 3.0 I don't know nor care. but that's the reason the 10% raise on the final score isn't looked at as an actual benefit. For SWO selection, I've seen alot of non-tech majors getting top picks for duty stations, while the Aero major got screwed at the bottom of the list. The guy was extremely smart, and could have easily been at the top of the list had he picked an easier major, but he stuck it out and went with engineering.
My point is, maybe it's a good thing not to allow so many people just to quit and choose an easier major. 85% might be a little steep, but they are training to be officers afterall, and quiting isn't an option once you hit the fleet.
My point is, maybe it's a good thing not to allow so many people just to quit and choose an easier major. 85% might be a little steep, but they are training to be officers afterall, and quiting isn't an option once you hit the fleet.
it seems like tech majors don't do any better in aviation than non-tech majors... the older guys who are through flight school/in the fleet or in the later stages seem to agree with this...
has it occurred to anyone else to oh i dunno conduct a study on whether people with technical degrees do better than liberal arts majors?
if that's been done, anyone wanna spill the results?
has it occurred to anyone else to oh i dunno conduct a study on whether people with technical degrees do better than liberal arts majors?
if that's been done, anyone wanna spill the results?
Don't know about any other part of the Navy but...
"The failure rate is five times greater for those ensigns with non-technical degrees than with technical degrees in nuclear power academics."
"Also, according to a Naval Post Graduate School study, those with "strong" technical skills are 10 percent more likely to earn their Surface Warfare Officer designation in the first year if they studied a technical major in college"
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38185
"The failure rate is five times greater for those ensigns with non-technical degrees than with technical degrees in nuclear power academics."
"Also, according to a Naval Post Graduate School study, those with "strong" technical skills are 10 percent more likely to earn their Surface Warfare Officer designation in the first year if they studied a technical major in college"
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38185
Oh come on, If you found the facts, share them, don't exclude a fact that refutes your claim.
"On average, on the aviation side, ensigns with non-technical degrees suffer a failure rate of more than 20 percent greater than those with technical degrees during flight school."
Knowledge is power!
Although I agree with the direction the scholarships are going in, I do think 85% is a little much. That's a big leap from less than 50% this past year.
Gee, who could that have been?I saw lots of ENGR majors bail out and change to NON-TECH degrees before it was all over.
This is like forcing a horse to drink water.....you can do it, but it's awfully hard.
-ea6bflyr
Yes, we need technical expertise in the Navy; that's a given. But one of the reasons I bailed was due to the restrictiveness of the curriculum. Penn State is a fairly competitive engineering school. If it's any representation of engineering curricula as a whole, it is very narrow and restrictive; i.e. thou shalt take these courses in this order and no others. Don't worry about required electives and general education, "we've got that figured out for you."The problem is that a military officer requires a skill set which is more broadly based than the civilian engineer. Our job is political and cultural in the macro sense, and technical in the micro sense. Especially given the current IA/GSA environment. I went from Aerospace Engineering to Information Sciences and Technology, and almost got out in 3 1/2 years. But if I ever get IAed to East Durkastan, I will get more mileage out of the Islamic Civilization and Arabic electives I was able to take than I could out of an Advanced Regonkulator Design Theory "tech elective."
I think the proper course load for the aspiring officer lies somewhere in the via media between the BS liberal arts degree and the BS engineering degree (pardon the pun). ea6bflyr will also recall a classmate of mine who was Battalion CO and a chemical engineer. Between that and ROTC, he had the equivalent of a 20+ credit load every semester to get out of school on time. Granted, he went subs, and probably was served very well by all the engineering in his case. But nucs have a reason for that. Is this what we want out of all our officers just to have the option of MAYBE sending them all to nuc school? I think this bureaucratic way of thinking is too prevalent in the military under the guise of "leaning forward."
I would submit that more leavening with humanities, specifically military history, naval history, and maybe even a little philosophy or polisci is a better bet in this day and age. We already make the basketweavers take calculus, chemistry, and calc-based physics. What more do they need? DiffEq? Calc III? Just because it's worth doing, it's not worth overdoing. One random LT's opinion.
whoops. didnt see that one. the other two stats might as well refute my claim too...
but now that i've seen that stat, i still don't think 20% is a whole hell of a lot. as most people who've been through flight school seem to agree, there just isn't a whole hell of a lot of correlation between major and success in aviation...
to shrink the concept down, aren't officers present for leadership/management and enlisted for technical expertise? even with an engineering degree, i don't understand the planes i fly any better than those with non-technical degrees. the navy teaches us what we need to know.
the bottom line is you can take a hard-working, dedicated officer and teach him anything. so let people study whatever the hell they want, but perhaps set the bar higher for the easier (not all) non-technical majors.