Technical Major Incentives

[snizo]

Beleive it or not, not everyone in ROTC is there to be in the Navy (as unbelievable as that may sound...). Some people are there just for the money for college. So ... SOME people in NROTC must be financially inclined. Look at how they get Nukes (in the first palce haha) to stay in - huge bonuses.

The Navy influences people to do things with $. Thats just the way it is.

 

[cricechex]

nfo2b,
being a Mustang yourself, I am surprised how you refered to enlisted people as "monkies". I'll have you know that my "A" school was harder than any class I've taken thus far in College which includes Calc, chem, phys, and Electronics Engineering classes. I was very impressed with how well my fellow shipmates did considering some of the prior educations they had. Sure there are many SH*T bags in the Enlisted Navy but I'm sure there are officers with engineering majors too who don't do any better than their enlisted counterparts. The Navy operates smoothly because of the SOP's. I understand that thinking abstract is something that many people with technical degrees do but are the others monkies too because they only go by the book?

 

[nfo2b]

Okay, bear with me, cricechex, here's some more "nuking it" for you. Sit back, take your Ritalin, and pay attention.

nfo2b's first post is a prime example of why nukes have the a reputation in the Navy. He NUKED it!!!!!

Whoa, easy there killer. All I was doing was explaining the reasoning behind the Navy's obvious desire to recruit more technically oriented officers. It's not "nuking it", it's called supporting your argument. If you care to refute anything I said, I'd be delighted to hear your side, but to respond in the manner in which you did really doesn't show much intelligence, especially when you have no idea who you're talking about. What if I replied to you with "cricechex's post is a prime example of why very junior Navy kids have the a (sic) reputation in the Navy. He 'IHAVENOEXPERIENCETOBASEMYACCUSATIONSONed' it!!!!!" Not too bright, eh?

Also, being a Mustang yourself, I am surprised how you refered to enlisted people as "monkies". I'll have you know that my "A" school was harder than any class I've taken thus far in College which includes Calc, chem, phys, and Electronics Engineering classes.

Obviously, you completely missed my point. Perhaps they should've taught you a little bit of analytical reading at this incredibly difficult A-School that you went to. I wasn't calling anyone monkeys. I've been in the Navy roughly SIX times as long as you--I will always remember my roots, and I will NEVER forget what I've been through for as long as I'm an officer, and I will NEVER forget that the enlisted that I'm charged with are at the same place in their career that I was once. So I'm certainly not calling any enlisted (or officers) monkeys. (Actually, I have worked with several, but that's another thread...) Trust me, when you've had more than 1 PDS under your belt, you're going to hear the "trained monkeys" theory many times. Someday, you'll understand what is meant by it. I just don't care to take more time to explain it to you right now. You'll learn.

I was very impressed with how well my fellow shipmates did considering some of the prior educations they had. Sure there are many SH*T bags in the Enlisted Navy but I'm sure there are officers with engineering majors too who don't do any better than their enlisted counterparts.

As I stated in my first post, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule, but the assertions I made are based on 12 years of experience. I might know just a little about the Navy.

The Navy operates smoothly because of the SOP's. I understand that thinking abstract is something that many people with technical degrees do but are the others monkies too because they only go by the book?

Again, this is your inexperience talking. The key word in your statement is "smoothly." Yes, SOP's are what keep the Navy running smoothly, and yes, they work very well in most circumstances. But there are times when circumstances fall "outside the box" of SOP's. The Navy wants officers who will be able to adapt to the situation and go BEYOND the SOP's to overcome their shortcomings. And if you think that things never get outside this box, just wait until you actually do some real fleet time. You'll find out that the real Navy isn't always cut and dry, "just-follow-the-SOP's-and-all-will-be-hunky-dory" easy. There's a little bit of goat-locker jargon that Chiefs have been throwing around for a few years now--it's called "paradigm shift." What this means is that the Navy is (and has been for years now) in the process of changing it's way of thinking from a "just follow the SOP's" mentality to one of recruiting officers who can "think outside the box." This has less to do with "thinking abstract" as you stated, but more with being able to understand more than just what the book says, and understand how your systems work so that you can be a much more capable and flexible officer. And with systems becoming more and more technically complex, the Navy obviously feels that more technically degreed officers fit the bill. And again, (gawd, I hate repeating myself), I'm NOT implying that all Naval officers should be techies. In fact, I completely acknowledge that many tech-degreed officers are crappy officers, and many non-tech-degreed officers are outstanding officers. It's just that the Navy apparently wants more tech-degreed officers for the simple reason that it wants to expand its pool of tech-degreed officers for the reasons I opined above. Reread my post, and this time, pay attention, and employ a little more of your grey matter.
Lastly, let me say that I have to ill sentiments towards you for your obvious inexperience or juniority. We've all (priors, that is) have been there, and we've all been inexperienced in many ways throughout our career, not just the first couple of years. Neither do I object to intelligent rebuttals of my own assertions. I do, however, detest posts by junior personnel such as yourself that simply attack a person's arguments, based on some flimsy assumptions that have little or no basis on personal or professional experience. Again, this is not a personal attack on you. You're obviously an intelligent fellow, so I just humbly ask that if you're going to disagree with me, please do so intelligently. And I won't even say you're "nuking it."
Oh, (and this is a serious question)--I'm really curious as to how your Aviation Structural Mechanic-Safety Equipment 'A' School was more difficult than your calc/chem/physics/etc. classes in college. What do they do to you poor guys?

 

[Taildragger]

Yeah, I had to fill that form out last week. Here is my problem with this: in my opinion, what you major in during college has little/no bearing on how you perform as a Naval officer. Especially when it comes to being a pilot. A Ph. D. in aeronautical engineering and astrophysics may give you a good grasping of how airplanes work, but its not gonna do jack to make you a better stick. I am a political science major, and there is no amount of money that will make me change my major. The only way I would even consider if was if they guaranteed me a pilot slot, right now.

 

[cricechex]

NFO2B,

Point taken, I probably should have kept my thoughts to myself on this one but I read your post a few times and could only assume you were referring to grunts as “monkeys”.

“A REALLY well trained monkey, or a well-trained officer.”

If you had just said, “enlisted personnel” there would be no problems.

I have a great deal of respect for you as having so much experience in the Navy but it all goes down the drain if you were indeed implying that enlisted personnel are “well trained monkeys,” because those monkeys will keep your aircraft flight worthy. I won’t elaborate anymore because you already understand this.

Lastly, My “A” school was harder than my previous college courses because of the way it was taught. My instructors did not administer the test so they had no idea what we would be tested on. College classes aren’t taught in this manner because the professors are fully aware of what they will test on and therefore what to stress in the lectures. This translated to 3 hours of study every night in order to memorize every square inch of the material. I never had to study that much for a college class. Granted, my grades weren’t as high in college either, but 3.1 GPA isn’t bad.

When you consider my classmates, who never studied in high school and without any college experience, and put them into a demanding class like this you are impressed with their performance when they complete the course with good scores.

I don’t question your statement about the Navy’s reasons for wanting technologically educated officers, just your description of a certain group of people.

 

[nfo2b]

Ah, young grasshopper, now you're learning.
Seriously, though, you may not have experience, but your second reply shows maturity, something that's often lacking in young sailors. I appreciate that. Seems to me that while you may not have the years under your belt, you don't have the same youthful ignorance that junior personnel often have. These things will be valuable to you in your Naval career.
And I understand what you mean about your 'A'-school. I can't say that I sympathize, b/c Nuke 'A' School and Nuke Power School are very well taught. Those damn nukes have really "Nuked out" the whole science of teaching, and it's remarkably effective. (Did you know that the instructors there are actually taught to only wipe the boards up-and-down, and never side to side? Friggin nukes! ) But what I can say is that I have enough understanding to empathize with you. At least you made it through it, and apparently you did well, since you're now an OC.

I don’t question your statement about the Navy’s reasons for wanting technologically educated officers, just your description of a certain group of people.

Alright, let's discuss this (unless you're referring to the whole monkey thing, which I assume we've already cleared up). I love a good dialog.

 

[snizo]

FutureNavyPilot - but someone with a Aerospace Engineering degree is more likely to understand (quickly) what they teach you in flight school since they (hopefully) already know how the plane works. 5 yrs down the line its not likely that a poli sci or an engineer remembers much of what he learned in school, so yes I would agree that the pilot gets more from experience than he would from his major.

I just think the technical major has something to do with the stuff between being in college and being a pilot as well..

 

[ET-Mike]

Does anyone know if they have changed the 6% for ENG majors for service selection yet? My package is in right now and I was wondering if anyone had a definite answer.

 

[cooley4277]

A little insight from someone with a few years in. Not sure if it has any bearing on the current situation with ROTC. Technical majors are best, obviously because the Navy is a technical field. When I was going through, what you majored in wasn't a big deal. That's what separated us from the Air Force. We could take anyone and turn them into the navy man, I guess. Now a days, I would say business would be the second choice, just the way the service is going.. efficiency, etc. Technical majors definitively get priority over others (b/c they're a little more difficult). [I got a pilot slot with over a psych major with a higher GPA]. But I don't see the navy going to giving tech majors more money than non-techs. That's just my thinking and experience (3 years).