That's my point, sir. HSC also doesn't really value the HTs, and they certainly don't value the VTs. It's phrased exactly how you said it "yes it's production, but..." - and again, I don't have a problem with this system in and of itself, but at least in the HSC world, we introduce a lot of variables outside of performance, like gender, co-location (previously had been told no way does this help people get a better job, the couple must go to the lower of the two, or take a job in the same location that's off track [as in, husband gets Weapons School but wife gets HTs. They can either both go to the HTs, or the wife can take a staff job in San Diego and be "off-path"] but this doesn't happen in practice - people absolutely get "brought up" by their spouse), race, what squadron you're coming from ("oh, we couldn't possibly take more than 1 per squadron type per coast to either FRS!") quality spread, and timing all go into the mix. So again, my problem with the program is if we are introducing a quality spread into the mix and taking variables into account that are other than performance, then why are we pre-ordaining our Skippers by just assuming the WTIs and FRS instructors are going to make the best ones? Their performance may not have indicated it. They certainly don't get the most hours. Weapon Schoolers don't get any practical Division/Department leadership billets that an FRS or HT or VT guy might get in a more traditional squadron environment. So I am left asking - what warrants it if it's not performance, and that of course assumes that performance was a true indicator of performance and not a function of good timing anyway. (But, I'm even willing to work in the current system if it were to work like it was supposed to: Top guys and gals go to WTI and FRS; then HTs, then VTs, etc., but it doesn't with the aforementioned variables thrown in the mix.)