Hey all,
As a budding junior officer still working his way through API, I'd like to hear some input on a thought process that I've encountered more than a few times since commissioning. In an Internet post soliciting ideas for how sailors would improve the Navy, one person voiced their distaste for non-priors being able to commission via the Naval Academy and OCS.
I'm sure we've all heard this debate a million times, but in the interest of being a good division officer one day, I'd like to know what this forum thinks about this view. It's not something I particularly want to "argue" for the sake of being right, but as a commissioned non-prior, I'd like to know the best way to alleviate that sort of negative vibe with a reasonable explanation. Why SHOULD I be allowed to lead you without prior Navy experience? What are the real pros/cons to the current system, and what are the pros/cons to the "everyone should have to enlist first" schema?
Here are the best pros I can come up with. I am assuming that anything I write below is a "gamble"—none of these traits guarantee a good officer:
1.) Direct commissioning incentivizes people with favorable skillsets/traits—such as real-world leadership and people experience—to bring their already-cultivating pool of talents to the Navy.
2.) The programs require a positive academic track record, which might correlate to a chance at better performance in the fleet.
3.) These programs attract self-motivated individuals who need to work hard and with intent just to get accepted.
tl;dr Why is the current system of commissioning non-priors to lead enlisted sailors a good/bad idea?
As a budding junior officer still working his way through API, I'd like to hear some input on a thought process that I've encountered more than a few times since commissioning. In an Internet post soliciting ideas for how sailors would improve the Navy, one person voiced their distaste for non-priors being able to commission via the Naval Academy and OCS.
Get rid of the Naval academy and OCS in their current form. EVERYBODY joins as enlisted. 100%. If you are young and prove you can excel, you get an appointment to the Naval Academy. Already have a degree? You have to prove you have some leadership and managerial ability, THEN you can put on those gold bars.
Fuck this STA-21 noise. It's stupid and a waste of time. Having a degree does absolutely nothing to make you an effective manager. Possibly at the O-5 to O-6 level I MIGHT be able to see it. I fail to see why an intelligent person with management and administrative talent needs a fucking English degree to lead people.
Let's put our real leaders in positions of power and we'll see how things pan out.
I'm sure we've all heard this debate a million times, but in the interest of being a good division officer one day, I'd like to know what this forum thinks about this view. It's not something I particularly want to "argue" for the sake of being right, but as a commissioned non-prior, I'd like to know the best way to alleviate that sort of negative vibe with a reasonable explanation. Why SHOULD I be allowed to lead you without prior Navy experience? What are the real pros/cons to the current system, and what are the pros/cons to the "everyone should have to enlist first" schema?
Here are the best pros I can come up with. I am assuming that anything I write below is a "gamble"—none of these traits guarantee a good officer:
1.) Direct commissioning incentivizes people with favorable skillsets/traits—such as real-world leadership and people experience—to bring their already-cultivating pool of talents to the Navy.
2.) The programs require a positive academic track record, which might correlate to a chance at better performance in the fleet.
3.) These programs attract self-motivated individuals who need to work hard and with intent just to get accepted.
tl;dr Why is the current system of commissioning non-priors to lead enlisted sailors a good/bad idea?
Last edited: