New scholarship rules

[Gatordev]

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.

Still, specific to the aviation side of things, that's 20% of about 10 people. Yes, I made that number up, but it's a pretty low number of people that a) attrite and b) attrite due to lack of knowledge/technical ability.

Another piece of food for thought... How is it that the Marines "manage" to keep their aircraft in the air when they don't require technical degrees?

It's an aviation-centric site, so that's where people are focusing, but my guess is that technical degree requirement has very little to do with aviation and more to do with getting more Nukes in the pipeline. The other statistics sited from the website are just easy talking points for big Navy to make their case. I'm sure it will swing the other way in a few years.

 

[DanMa1156]

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.

Granted, I'm at the Academy, but I'm an Economics major, and like everyone else here, I've taken so far:

2 Semesters Chemistry
2 Semesters Physics
Calc I, II, and III
Probability and Statistics (Though, I think there are several variants to this among the majors)

And have yet to complete:
2 Semsters of Electrical Engineering
Thermodynamics
Principles of Ship Performance ("Boats")
Weapon Systems ( I can't recall the actual course name..."Weapons")


Granted, we're definitely on the extreme end of forcing humanities majors into these classes, but I mean having a basic knowledge of some of these (especially the latter four I listed) can't hurt. EE seems to be a lot of practical knowledge so far as opposed to circut design/ theory, so that seems somewhat relevant.

But then again... I've never been a DivO or anything like that, so, maybe all of this is entirely unecessary.

 

[DanMa1156]

And with that said, they are offering a new "Boats" to those who think they are doing SEALs, EOD, or USMC called Engineering in the Littoral Zone that focuses on the engineering needed in a ship-to-shore movement.

Seems like a pretty cool idea.

 

[HokiePilot]

The problem the Navy has is that it wants its Officers to have more technical experience than PolySci+Calc/Physics. At the Academy, the Navy shows this by requiring those more advanced technical courses. Instead of just giving Midn a basis of Physics and Calc, they are forcing the Midn to apply those concepts to solve problems in specific fields. Hopefully, this will allow those future officers to apply those concepts to solve other problems in other fiels.

Well, the Navy can't tell every university to drop some high level Poly. Sci. classes in favor of some of those applied classes. They surely would instead of requiring 85%.

 

[ea6bflyr]

Gee, who could that have been?

nittany03: Uh, my post wasn't to call you out....

What I meant by my post was that while the NAVY will force more TECH majors (to get the scholarship), it probably won't change the fact that not everyone CAN and WILL be a TECH major. I saw some kids at college struggle in the ENGR courses when they weren't meant to be there in the first place. What ever happened to do "Do what you love"?

-ea6bflyr

 

[NozeMan]

nittany03: Uh, my post wasn't to call you out....

What I meant by my post was that while the NAVY will force more TECH majors (to get the scholarship), it probably won't change the fact that not everyone CAN and WILL be a TECH major. I saw some kids at college struggle in the ENGR courses when they weren't meant to be there in the first place. What ever happened to do "Do what you love"?

-ea6bflyr

That brings up another interesting point. What will a unit do with a scholarship student that is honestly struggling in an Engineering major? Let them fail and kick them out, or let them switch to a more appropriate major?

I switched from engineer to poli sci as a freshman, and probably couldn't have done it any other way. I was also a scholarship student. Too bad those days of easily switching your major (provided you could graduate on time) may be gone.

 

[bunk22]

"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."

Where did these stats come from? Flying and having a technical degree pretty much have nothing to do with each other. If the above is true, is specific to ground school or is it specific to study habits? Flight school just isn't that difficult, from API to the FRS. If one has a desire, no matter what major, they will make it through. Might be a good Capstone project for me though.

 

[nittany03]

nittany03: Uh, my post wasn't to call you out....

What I meant by my post was that while the NAVY will force more TECH majors (to get the scholarship), it probably won't change the fact that not everyone CAN and WILL be a TECH major. I saw some kids at college struggle in the ENGR courses when they weren't meant to be there in the first place. What ever happened to do "Do what you love"?

-ea6bflyr

No worries, I didn't think you were calling me out. Hence the smiley as I fessed up to being an ex-engineer.

 

[C420sailor]

You're going to have a lot more Mids failing out of college.

I started off as a mechanical engineer. I was under the false impression that engineering was mainly building things---hands on. I had NO idea that it was 85% math and heavy duty calculus. Halfway through my sophomore year I was struggling badly. My LT told me that it was time to get out and pick a new major. I switched to business administration, my grades came way up, I was much happier, and now I'm commissioned. If he told me that the Navy would have stripped me of my scholarship if I switched to business, I would have ended up riding the engineering train until I failed out. That would have been a loss for both the Navy and myself. What's the logic in that?

 

[MIDNJAC]

As for the grades/major thing, I saw it go both ways, though more commonly it was the advisor's recommendation for the mid to stick with it and not waste time switching........but in 3/5 cases I can think of the mid didn't really have that "oh shit" moment where he realizes it was the wrong major until well into sophomore year or even later. At that point, it seems like the Navy has less options, as it would force the student into a 5th year in many cases. I had a good friend stick w/ a major he really shouldn't have been in, barely graduated (including accidentally commissioning before he found out he failed a class his last term), and got his dead last choice for service selection. Ended up attriting in P'cola, and then successfully lat x-ferred into his original first choice community after being probably the best stashed ENS in the history of the Navy.

 

[mcorrigan1@neo.]

NROTC Scholarship and Technical Majors

What the Navy needs is a certain percentage of officers who are well rounded technical majors that can influence and assist the other officers who aren't so technically oriented. Being a hard science engineering major, I can't tell you how grateful I was to serve with officers of other backgrounds who gave me a perspective on life that you don't get in a rigid, unforgiving engineering program.

When I went into the Navy after barely sliding through an engineering program, I had a poor outlook on my abilities. I thought I was an incompetent engineer and incompetent officer. After working with other people a couple of years, I realized that my abilities were advanced as compared to others. This was despite graduating near the bottom of my NROTC class and engineering program. I was so relieved to find the active duty Navy wasn't anywhere near as difficult and unforgiving as an engineering program. You don't have time in an engineering program to learn to relate to others and what work is really about. Hence, we tend to overanalyze things right out of school. Engineering programs were meant to be hard (but they shouldn't be) and only the brightest even survive. Once I learned to work with others, having a technical degree was an asset to me, the Navy, and the officers I served with. One thing I thought was unfair was that people quit engineering because they couldn't get good grades and were afraid of not selecting for their program. Thus, engineering majors were put at a disadvantage when it came to selecting.

If you think about it another way, anybody who has the discipline (and/or likes pain) and work ethic to finish an engineering program has a great amount of discipline, a quality that every officer should have. On the opposite side of this, engineering majors lack courses in the humanities, law, arts, etc., to balance out an ingrained thought pattern to seek a mathematical solution to every problem. I've been accused of not being human. When you need to come port to avoid hitting a mine, it might be simple for the engineer to calculate how far port you need to go, but you don't always have time. Hence, you can't always equate technical ability with good judgement and experience. I found that I had this in addition to my technical competence and the Navy wasn't so frightening to me. I also appreciated English majors who were able to help me put things into words when I couldn't. The business majors enabled me to see that the underlying financial picture is more important sometimes than the techincal issues. Thus, we need many different people to make things work. However, given that so many people quit engineering programs because it is "too hard", I think we have to resort to setting quotas to ensure that there is enough of an technical influence in the Navy and to make it fair to those who persevere.

 

[CommodoreMid]

I don't think anyone has a problem with setting a quota on engineering majors, but to mandate that 85% have to be engineers is a little ridiculous.

 

[bunk22]

What the Navy needs is a certain percentage of officers who are well rounded technical majors that can influence and assist the other officers who aren't so technically oriented. Being a hard science engineering major, I can't tell you how grateful I was to serve with officers of other backgrounds who gave me a perspective on life that you don't get in a rigid, unforgiving engineering program.

When I went into the Navy after barely sliding through an engineering program, I had a poor outlook on my abilities. I thought I was an incompetent engineer and incompetent officer. After working with other people a couple of years, I realized that my abilities were advanced as compared to others. This was despite graduating near the bottom of my NROTC class and engineering program. I was so relieved to find the active duty Navy wasn't anywhere near as difficult and unforgiving as an engineering program. You don't have time in an engineering program to learn to relate to others and what work is really about. Hence, we tend to overanalyze things right out of school. Engineering programs were meant to be hard (but they shouldn't be) and only the brightest even survive. Once I learned to work with others, having a technical degree was an asset to me, the Navy, and the officers I served with. One thing I thought was unfair was that people quit engineering because they couldn't get good grades and were afraid of not selecting for their program. Thus, engineering majors were put at a disadvantage when it came to selecting.

If you think about it another way, anybody who has the discipline (and/or likes pain) and work ethic to finish an engineering program has a great amount of discipline, a quality that every officer should have. On the opposite side of this, engineering majors lack courses in the humanities, law, arts, etc., to balance out an ingrained thought pattern to seek a mathematical solution to every problem. I've been accused of not being human. When you need to come port to avoid hitting a mine, it might be simple for the engineer to calculate how far port you need to go, but you don't always have time. Hence, you can't always equate technical ability with good judgement and experience. I found that I had this in addition to my technical competence and the Navy wasn't so frightening to me. I also appreciated English majors who were able to help me put things into words when I couldn't. The business majors enabled me to see that the underlying financial picture is more important sometimes than the techincal issues. Thus, we need many different people to make things work. However, given that so many people quit engineering programs because it is "too hard", I think we have to resort to setting quotas to ensure that there is enough of an technical influence in the Navy and to make it fair to those who persevere.

If there's a program that requires an engineering degree, then what you have said makes sense. However, not all programs require such a degree. Aviation, ie pilots, is certainly one where it isn't required.

 

[mcorrigan1@neo.]

I agree with MIDNAdmiral. I am a former SWO and have technical degree. Although officers with engineering degrees may seem to overanalyze things at first, we have skills that are critical to the Navy and society. Thus, it's in the best interests of the Navy to encourage as many people as possible to get a technical degree. When you have an engineering graduate who actually can learn to be a leader, such as through the Navy's program, you have a person who can virtually take over any organization. I know this from experience because everything I've done since the Navy (including law school) has been really easy. Imagine the impact on society of all these highly trained engineers coming out the Navy with leadership skills? That would stimulate the economy.
One observation I have based on my experience is that after an engineer gets some experience, our logic blows everybody out of the water. After a little Ensign acne, I thought being a SWO got really easy (so much for eating their young - this is a myth created by incompetent JO's). Most of the other JO's with engineering degrees felt the same way I did and kind of thought most of the other non-technical major officers were kind of stupid. I saw the history, poly sci, business majors struggling with stuff that a first year engineering student would laugh at. There is definitely a significant advantage having a technical degree than not.

 

[bunk22]

I agree with MIDNAdmiral. I am a former SWO and have technical degree. Although officers with engineering degrees may seem to overanalyze things at first, we have skills that are critical to the Navy and society. Thus, it's in the best interests of the Navy to encourage as many people as possible to get a technical degree. When you have an engineering graduate who actually can learn to be a leader, such as through the Navy's program, you have a person who can virtually take over any organization. I know this from experience because everything I've done since the Navy (including law school) has been really easy. Imagine the impact on society of all these highly trained engineers coming out the Navy with leadership skills? That would stimulate the economy.
One observation I have based on my experience is that after an engineer gets some experience, our logic blows everybody out of the water. After a little Ensign acne, I thought being a SWO got really easy (so much for eating their young - this is a myth created by incompetent JO's). Most of the other JO's with engineering degrees felt the same way I did and kind of thought most of the other non-technical major officers were kind of stupid. I saw the history, poly sci, business majors struggling with stuff that a first year engineering student would laugh at. There is definitely a significant advantage having a technical degree than not.

Are you fucking joking or actually believe the garbage you just spewed?? I'll tell ya, I've seen jackass's of all types in the Navy...and out. Not one factor was key. Of course I have no idea what goes on in the SWO world and could really give a shit but in the aviation world, engineering/science degrees have meant jack shit in terms of performance or leadership. Want to be an engineer, scientist or just like that type of challenge? By all means, get a technical degree. For aviation, unless you want to go to TPS or maybe have a slight advantage in understanding systems, it doesn't do jack shit for ya. I've known and know a few very successful folks and not one has a technical degree. What does that mean? Nothing except maybe the fact that degrees don't determine how successful a person can be.