Tech majors

[Steve Wilkins]

I didn't want to have to do this !

Know and understand that if you choose to follow the path of a technical major, you will have to do a lot of work. The first document was from my intermediate lab class I took my second year as a physics major, we had to do 5 of those in a semester. The second is a homework set from my E & M class, we had to do one set a week.

You have been warned.

Looks like shit we did in Power School.....every night.....for one class (subject). We were in 3 different classes (subjects) at any given time.

 

[Kickflip89]

1) that your interests may change over the next 10, 15, 20 years and 2) what you will do AFTER you get out of the Navy. Taking a technical major will open doors (or rather, keep them from being closed) for you while you're in the Navy and when you're on the outside looking for employment.

These are excellent points. I didn't mean to sound so rigid in my denunciation of technical degrees.

There are advantages to suffering through a technical major. You'll know what it is like to work hard, and the possibility of failing a class is always present, and you will gain confidence in your ability to solve difficult mental problems as well as manage your time. The effort is well-rewarded, in the long-term.

What I mean to say is simply that you should take on the challenge of a technical major only because you want to reap the benefits and believe you are up to the challenge. Not because someone (even the Navy) likes technical degrees.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Not because someone (even the Navy) likes technical degrees.

There's always the possibility that the Navy may start to promote/screen for command those with technical majors over those without. This would be what I called an unofficial requirement. While the Navy wouldn't technically require the tech degree, actions of the boards would indicate otherwise. I do believe that this will happen sometime in the future. Whether it happens before the guys just now getting in retire, who knows.

 

[pennst8]

There's always the possibility that the Navy may start to promote/screen for command those with technical majors over those without. This would be what I called an unofficial requirement. While the Navy wouldn't technically require the tech degree, actions of the boards would indicate otherwise. I do believe that this will happen sometime in the future. Whether it happens before the guys just now getting in retire, who knows.

C'mon you seriously think the Navy will be using that as a tool to screen?

If you're up for command shouldn't the requirements (official or unofficial) be what you've done during your career... not what you studied nearly two decades ago? How would being an engineering major make you any better at commanding a squadron or a ship? I fail to see the relevance outside of some very specific jobs (commanding TPS for example).

 

[Steve Wilkins]

C'mon you seriously think the Navy will be using that as a tool to screen?

If you're up for command shouldn't the requirements (official or unofficial) be what you've done during your career... not what you studied nearly two decades ago? How would being an engineering major make you any better at commanding a squadron or a ship? I fail to see the relevance outside of some very specific jobs (commanding TPS for example).

What happens to those folks who were commanding officers? What kinds of jobs do they go to after they finish their command tour?

 

[CommodoreMid]

And that guy lives in a friggin trailor...It's easier than Literature; or at least takes WAY less time outside of class. And you just might learn some good ole critical thinking skills. Most of the mids I see having problems with the core requirements just mindfuck themselves, and end up having to go to PRB over stupid academic crap.

It's all about what comes easy for you. I breezed through calc, but because I simply have never in my life been good at science, combined with the most assholish professor at my school, physics didn't go so well. I'm majoring in history and econ and I love it and I do have to work hard (the departments aren't particularly fond of giving A's), but I do well there. On the flip side, my engineering friends who rock the science stuff, when they are forced to take classes that require them to do things like read, analyze, and write, do miserably. It's all a matter of how you think and how you process information.

 

[pennst8]

What happens to those folks who were commanding officers? What kinds of jobs do they go to after they finish their command tour?

Well right now I'd say they're relieved for loss of confidence and retire early to drink maitais on the beach.

I suppose I don't think that far ahead (comes with my pay grade)...

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Well right now I'd say they're relieved for loss of confidence and retire early to drink maitais on the beach.

Yea, I'd say they need to get past that wicket first. Sounds like the navy needs to set up a lessons learned system for CO firings. Maybe a wiki or forum format......www.igotfiredbythenavy.com

I suppose I don't think that far ahead (comes with my pay grade)...

Not to worry. I'm here to do that for you.

 

[STA21pilot]

Enginerd

Does the Navy look at technical majors, as much as the Air Force does for students in the NROTC? Because I read on the Air Force website, and talked to a recruiter, he said you could attain higher rank with one, and may do better over all with one. Is this true, and if you are not really interested in a tech major can you still be qualified equally without?

Last I heard, for technical majors they got a .4 GPA boost when compared to non-tech majors for service selection.

Unfortunately this doesn't effect me due to being pre-selected, but I could have chosen a History major and still been able to designate SNA upon commissioning. Yet, I WANTED to get an engineering major, mostly because I wanted to be prepared when I got to flight school. By conditioning my mind and dealing with the constant pressure of possible failure, and subsequent expulsion back to the fleet, I've been able to perform under pressure that may be comprable to API/Primary/etc...

That said, there are many other priors in my unit that have stayed away from Engineering, only 3 of 30 currently are attempting the feat. I don't mind one way or the other for my peers who choose non-tech, we will all be on an even playing field in FL/OK/TX, but whether or not our difference will impact our career's remains to be seen. At least a couple of things are certain, like ability to go Test Pilot, but then there's always grad school.

I like engineering, and I can perform, so I don't mind the extra work. I'm graduating this year, so I'm pretty use to the work load by now.

BTW, I'm a NERD and I study 28 hours a day!

 

[austin_nichols]

Keeping in mind that my info is dated (I commissioned in 2006), but nationally NRTOC is required to graduate something like 60% "technical" majors. This doesn't mean engineers. This includes subjects such as Industrial Technology and Computer Science. They are VERY liberal with what it takes to define something as techincal. I think as long as it's a BS it pretty much counts.

Also, Engineers get 10/10 points towards selection, technical majors (non-engineerings) get 7/10, and I think non-techincal majors get like 5/10. Oh, and the physics/calc requirement isn't so they can make you go nuke (nuke is all volunteer), but so that you can have some kind of basic understanding of concepts that are going to presented to you in whatever pipeline you end up in.

Keeping all that in mind, once you select a pipeline no body gives a damn what your degree is in, up to the point where you screen for a specific job that has a unique skill set requirement (like astronaut). I am shocked no one has given the old adage: "PolySci to fly".

 

[incubus852]

There is a technical major weight...

I'm commissioning in december. I'm not sure about service selection, but as far as the score used to determine your class rank during ROTC, there is a slight weight given to your score if you are a technical major. Thus, a higher class rank, which, as far as I know, helps in service selection.

But the boost is small. Someone with a 3.0 in underwater basket weaving will probably still end up better than a 2.5 in engineering.

THAT being said. Only take a technical major if you really like it or want it for some reason...test pilot school, or something that requires it later on. You'll be must better off taking something you remotely enjoy and not struggling through 4 years of engineering... if you don't think you can pull off a 3.0 in engineering, don't do it.

 

[cosmania]

I'm commissioning in december. I'm not sure about service selection, but as far as the score used to determine your class rank during ROTC, there is a slight weight given to your score if you are a technical major. Thus, a higher class rank, which, as far as I know, helps in service selection.

But the boost is small. Someone with a 3.0 in underwater basket weaving will probably still end up better than a 2.5 in engineering.

THAT being said. Only take a technical major if you really like it or want it for some reason...test pilot school, or something that requires it later on. You'll be must better off taking something you remotely enjoy and not struggling through 4 years of engineering... if you don't think you can pull off a 3.0 in engineering, don't do it.

Wow, things must have really changed. I got a degree in Architecture but selected to flight school no problem. My grades weren't that good either. I don't think the class rank had as much to do with that as national rank (comparing me to the rest of the commissioned ensigns). I also don't know if they counted architecture as technical or not. I'm sure the engineers didn't think it was technical, but the poli sci's did. Regardless, I had an interesting time in school, got to fly jets in the Tailhook Navy and found a cushy Post-Nav job, so there's a lot more to your life and career than your major.

Giddy up.

 

[USN99]

I had to jump in here ...

There's always the possibility that the Navy may start to promote/screen for command those with technical majors over those without. This would be what I called an unofficial requirement. While the Navy wouldn't technically require the tech degree, actions of the boards would indicate otherwise. I do believe that this will happen sometime in the future. Whether it happens before the guys just now getting in retire, who knows.

Engineering/tech degrees to screen - what a pant load. :icon_rageIf the SWOs want to select engineers, their loss, enduring loss. This sort of half-baked, gratuitous thinking is so typical of SWOs, nee Shoes. It violates every tenet of leadership. In aviation, we select leaders. We've always suspected that our little Shoe buddies, rather, our diminutive SWO colleagues, were on some other planet.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Engineering/tech degrees to screen - what a pant load. :icon_rageIf the SWOs want to select engineers, their loss, enduring loss. This sort of half-baked, gratuitous thinking is so typical of SWOs, nee Shoes. It violates every tenet of leadership. In aviation, we select leaders. We've always suspected that our little Shoe buddies, rather, our diminutive SWO colleagues, were on some other planet.

I love the generalities. Seems like you're coming out of left field here and trying to pigeonhole me. I've never advocated that using technical degrees as a criteria for screening XO's and CO's would be appropriate. I simply stated that I could see it happening at some point in the future. I for one do not buy into the school of thought that technical degrees are the end all be all, whether they be for required for midshipmen or screening XO's and CO's.

As for aviators selecting leaders....puhhleeeze. Save that holier-than-thou rhetoric for the back yard bbq's with your aviation buddies. I'm sure Bunk would be glad to help out with grillin' the burgers. Aviators are just as guilty as SWO's are of selecting folks who have no business being in command and couldn't lead themselves out of one-way tunnel. To say or think otherwise is being disingenuous. The systems that our communities use are imperfect. Getting the right wickets checked so they can move on to the next wicket does not make one a good leader. And to be honest, I think a lot of XO's and CO's see their position as just that....another wicket to get through unscarred, instead of what it should be which is the pinnacle of their career.

 

[Flash]

There's always the possibility that the Navy may start to promote/screen for command those with technical majors over those without. This would be what I called an unofficial requirement. While the Navy wouldn't technically require the tech degree, actions of the boards would indicate otherwise. I do believe that this will happen sometime in the future. Whether it happens before the guys just now getting in retire, who knows.

I have not seen anything to indicate a trend to that, do you have something to back that up are are you just speculating?