exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
They are supposed to meet a week from Monday, they moved the deadline up to 17 July to accommodate the earlier board date
-
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
Oct 2013 IDC/SWO-IDC Options Board
- Thread starter Tenzo82
- Start date
They are supposed to meet a week from Monday, they moved the deadline up to 17 July to accommodate the earlier board date
LET73
Well-Known Member
I do plenty of analysis... and then spend more time plugging my analysis into Powerpoint form. I think it's useful to bring in more intel officers with tech degrees, but I think the 60-40 split of tech vs. non-tech degrees is off--maybe it should be the other way around.
Mike Edwards
Member
Powerpoint is just a cover term so we don't have to go into details about what were actually doing!!!! 
Scaevola
Arts and Crafts SME
Maybe I should have listed "PowerPoint wizard" as a skill on my APSR form - I make my fair share of slide decks in the business world too! 
My understanding is that this board, unlike SWO/SNA, is run outside of CNRC, so how soon should we expect to see pro rec results trickling out? Or does the same two to four week window apply here as well?
My understanding is that this board, unlike SWO/SNA, is run outside of CNRC, so how soon should we expect to see pro rec results trickling out? Or does the same two to four week window apply here as well?
egiv
Well-Known Member
This is definitely a subjective question and surely there is no one-size-fits-all, but what degrees/coursework/general types of knowledge do you think do the best to prepare people for Intel work?
LET73
Well-Known Member
Any degree that teaches you how to think and question things is good preparation. What you're doing in intel is looking at what's happening now and trying to predict what's going to happen next, and I don't think there's any one degree that teaches you how to do that. I majored in political science (focusing on international relations) and took a lot of history classes, and I've found it very helpful to have an understanding of the history (political and otherwise) of a couple of the regions I've looked at. That's not to say tech degrees are bad preparation. Sometimes you're looking at a set of information, and you notice a thing that's weird and doesn't seem to fit, and you need to figure out why that weird thing happened, and how it actually does fit into the full picture of what's going on. I imagine science/tech coursework encourages that sort of problem-solving. So, as a non-answer to your question, I don't think there's one particular type of degree that best prepares an individual to be an intel officer. That said, intel remains a non-technical field, and I think it's short-sighted to insist on a majority of new intel officers having technical degrees. As far as general knowledge, knowing what's going on in the world will get you far.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
I never did ask then what they defined analysis as, so maybe their definition and yours are a bit different. I do know that most of the people I had talk to them who wanted to go Intel decided afterward not to apply for it, of course it seems like most of the people I met that wanted to go Intel thought they were going to be sent to learn a foreign language after OCS, would be in the field interrogating people, flying all over the world, basically doing things that people see on TV, and not a desk type job.
I think on the split they are looking long term, both of the ones I dealt with quite a bit said that odds of them being selected now would be slim to none.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
The way the Intel community wrote the new program authorization it seems as though it was written as it is now or is becoming a technical field
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
Maybe I should have listed "PowerPoint wizard" as a skill on my APSR form - I make my fair share of slide decks in the business world too!
My understanding is that this board, unlike SWO/SNA, is run outside of CNRC, so how soon should we expect to see pro rec results trickling out? Or does the same two to four week window apply here as well?
Same window, they really can do the board anytime after they receive the CD's, given that they have been sliding people from FY13 to FY14 it will be interesting to see how many they select, or if they select a bunch this could be it for FY 14.
LET73
Well-Known Member
Ha, yeah, we're not James Bond.. but there are some pretty cool jobs here and there if you know the right people and do the right things. No one's going to get those straight out of OCS/NIOBC, though. I put up with the desk work because it leads to better things sometimes, and because sometimes the desk work is rewarding, too (but not the powerpoints).
I definitely agree that they're looking long-term, but I think the long term is a mistake. Intel and IW and IP are not interchangeable skill sets, and it's a mistake to treat them as if they are. It makes me think of how the Navy got rid of CTAs and made them all YNs, swearing up and down that YNs filling CTA-type billets would have the clearance and the training and go through a special pipeline to do the same job... and our prior CTA got replaced with a straight-up YN who didn't have an SCI clearance. I suspect it will all work out eventually, because we'll make it work, but there are better ways to do it.
I like to think I'd still be selected, but I don't know. It's more competitive now than it was in 2007, that's for sure.
I definitely agree that they're looking long-term, but I think the long term is a mistake. Intel and IW and IP are not interchangeable skill sets, and it's a mistake to treat them as if they are. It makes me think of how the Navy got rid of CTAs and made them all YNs, swearing up and down that YNs filling CTA-type billets would have the clearance and the training and go through a special pipeline to do the same job... and our prior CTA got replaced with a straight-up YN who didn't have an SCI clearance. I suspect it will all work out eventually, because we'll make it work, but there are better ways to do it.
I like to think I'd still be selected, but I don't know. It's more competitive now than it was in 2007, that's for sure.
LET73
Well-Known Member
True, but it shouldn't be. It's one thing to move in a technical direction, but I think intel is going to lose an important skill set if they try to make it something it something it really isn't.
egiv
Well-Known Member
Great information, thanks for your response.
In a way you confirmed my intuition about knowing history, etc. (which is entirely self-serving - I majored in History and then got an International Relations MA), because for the most part that's what most civilian intel agencies look for. However, I also understand the need for technically prepared Officers, especially in the event IDC is consolidated, as NavyOffRec mentioned.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
One of the Intel officers I know essentially was a fly on the wall when this was discussed, before it was put out and the PA changed, it all made sense to her but it has been several years so I really can't remember the specifics other than in the future they believed IW/IP/Intel would become one, who knows if they will be right or wrong, but that is why they get paid the big bucks
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
Having been at events with CIA and FBI recruiters not so much, every event that I was at with them they were looking for tech degrees, anything computer related, any engineers, they wanted the analytical thinking that comes along with those degrees.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
The bad thing for non tech guys is the number that apply with non tech degrees is so great compared to those that apply with tech degrees that the selection rate for those with non tech is so low.
I will say IDC is very good for AD guys, on several of the boards AD and prior service comprised 1/3 of the selections.