BIG CHANGES coming to the NROTC Scholarship

[BigRed389]

Big Red, I've got it on VERY good authority that guys who couldn't pick up the technical side of their SWO-dom weren't going to pick it up regardless of major.

Yeah, I'm not going to really disagree with that, I made my point as a counterpoint to "English majors rock at nuke school." Maybe true in a certain study, but they're also all screened in technical interviews to make sure they actually paid attention to the basic math/physics they were required to take. And I'm going to guess an English major in consideration for the nuke program is already coming from a pretty strong academic background, good school, good grades in the technical courses.

But English majors being held up as leading the way for humanities in the Navy is just weird. Poli sci, Int'l relations, govt, history, regional studies, language, etc.; there's a lot of programs that add value more directly to what we do, to both specific missions and strategy, and is probably underestimated in value. Well, maybe English majors could actually make instructions less painful to read through creative use of literary devices.

 

[Spekkio]

You're all missing it. The Navy needs to hire officers who can lead. An officer will be expected to be able to lead from day one to day last, with appropriate development and maturation along the way.

Can EE majors be great leaders? Absolutely. And so can music majors. You guys are all focusing on what skills the new accession brings with him from his undergrad studies, and that is short sighted.

So is your point that leadership is an innate quality, and that the Navy is wrongfully filtering out talent by excluding non-technical majors? If so, how do you effectively screen for this in 17-29 year olds who typically apply without having significant management or leadership experience?

Or is leadership something that can be learned? Because if so, then one's course of study and what it can bring to the Navy then becomes a significant factor.

I'll make a possible exception for sub dudes. You prob can convince me that tech majors do better in nuke school, BUT we also know it's not an absolute. In that world I'm willing to play the odds though.

It's not just nuke school and it's not just new accessions. The sub force has a vested interest in officers who understand the ship's systems enough to keep a boat on station; the two most critical billets for this quality are the DHs and the CO.

The sub force also wants the pick of the litter for eng billets, the primary factor in determining eligibility for that billet is an officer's technical rating...which by that point is heavily weighted toward performance at PNEO, and NR keeps those scores close to the chest.

 

[RiseR 25]

About 15 years ago, the Navy did a study to find out which majors performed best at the Navy's nuke school. The answer was English. I majored in math, and I can understand why the Navy wants to go to a STEM focus, but this new thinking is counter to their whole diversity stance, unless, of course, that diversity only exists for visibly discernible traits in the eyes of the Navy.

I think a much better idea would to reevaluate the schools that are part of the NROTC program and cut the ones that fall on the lower end of the academic spectrum and add to the ones at the higher end. Unfortunately, that will never happen because the NROTC parent schools are picked more for political than academic reasons. You get what you pay for.

I concur. What are some said political reasons that you gather? I know that Riddle in Daytona Beach has all three (Navy, Army, Air Force). I never quite understood why my school only had the Army program when there was definite opportunity to expand to the other branches. Do you think its mostly a question of a Congressman who could get more programs in his state or something else?

 

[Flash]

The worst pilot I knew in Prowlers was an Aero Eng major who went to TPS. Among the COs I have known one was a French Lit/Women's Studies major (he said he did it for the chicks) and a PCO who flew his first tour with a GED. So it takes all types, the major certainly doesn't make the officer.

Oh, and I have never seen an Engineering major help fix a bird, we have sharp kids mainly with just high school and A school behind them who do a damn good job of it already.

 

[NUFO06]

Still have not used that Physics based Calculus I or II. The people fixing the equipment we use all have high school diplomas. Critical thinking comes from many places and I don't understand the Navy's obsession with tech majors. Navy should concentrate on helping ROTC students learn to become division officers because all the technical skills associated with whatever weapon system you operate is learned post commission.

 

[Gatordev]

Also, the scholarship isn't about which course of study is more difficult. If you think reading works of fiction and writing papers for hippies is the pinnacle of higher education, then fine. But the scholarship is about which course of study will bring value to the Navy, and the ability to dissect ee cummings' works is on the bottom of the totem pole. Especially as budgets get tight, the Navy needs officers who can bring innovation to solve small scale, everyday fleet problems. It's about the x-factor that technical majors can bring to the fleet, especially at the DH+ level.

It sounds like in your world, this may be the case, but it's not the norm for aviation. I'd argue it's not the norm for SWO-dom, either, based on what I've seen. A DH and/or front office is going to appreciate your ability to lead your people as well as hand them an eval/FITREP that isn't a pile of crap much more than being able to explain how an electron moves through a waveguide. Obviously the utopia would be the ability to do both, but those aren't everyday occurrences.

All of that is secondary to what was already mentioned, though. The Navy adjusts it's academic, medical, and whatever else requirements based on getting people in (or not). Right now the Navy can choose to be selective. I have no doubt the pendulum will swing the other way in the future. It has in the past and it will again.

 

[Renegade One]

...English majors being held up as leading the way for humanities in the Navy is just weird. Poli sci, Int'l relations, govt, history, regional studies, language, etc.; there's a lot of programs that add value more directly to what we do, to both specific missions and strategy, and is probably underestimated in value. Well, maybe English majors could actually make instructions less painful to read through creative use of literary devices.

Use of English…plays every day...
Use of the other stuff…actually plays maybe a handful of times in an entire career...

And then there is the whole instructions thingie…

 

[Spekkio]

It sounds like in your world, this may be the case, but it's not the norm for aviation. I'd argue it's not the norm for SWO-dom, either, based on what I've seen. A DH and/or front office is going to appreciate your ability to lead your people as well as hand them an eval/FITREP that isn't a pile of crap much more than being able to explain how an electron moves through a waveguide. Obviously the utopia would be the ability to do both, but those aren't everyday occurrences.

I'm coming from the perspective that a DH from any degree can produce a satisfactory eval/fitrep.

Use of English…plays every day...
Use of the other stuff…actually plays maybe a handful of times in an entire career...

And then there is the whole instructions thingie…

The style of writing and diction used to produce evals, fitreps, and instructions is significantly different from the style one would use to critique literature. For example, I was frequently instructed not to use active voice, when using passive voice generally gets you crushed in any reputable academic institution.

Writing is something one learns throughout grade/high school; a college degree in English Literature brings very little extra to the table.

The worst pilot I knew in Prowlers was an Aero Eng major who went to TPS. Among the COs I have known one was a French Lit/Women's Studies major (he said he did it for the chicks) and a PCO who flew his first tour with a GED. So it takes all types, the major certainly doesn't make the officer.

Oh, and I have never seen an Engineering major help fix a bird, we have sharp kids mainly with just high school and A school behind them who do a damn good job of it already.

I'm sure plenty of people have anecdotal evidence one way or another. I'd be intersted if there's actually data on things that tech majors vs. non tech majors have brought to the Navy.

As far as fixing things, perhaps it is unique. Like when your Nav ET chief is also the ANAV, who originally was a QM until the rates merged and knows virtually nothing about maintenance. So you have a first-tour E-5 trying to figure out how to read complex electrical diagrams and troubleshoot gear. It kinda helps to have someone on board who can go through that; thankfully because of the nuke training pipeline any officer on the sub generally can, but on a surface ship that's probably not the case.

 

[Renegade One]

Writing is something one learns throughout grade/high school;...

Oh, if that was only the case.

 

[Gatordev]

I'm coming from the perspective that a DH from any degree can produce a satisfactory eval/fitrep.

Then you're coming at it from a mistaken angle. This simply isn't true. Regardless of what degree, some can write, some can't. Not everyone is equal in this regard (or anywhere else, of course).

The style of writing and diction used to produce evals, fitreps, and instructions is significantly different from the style one would use to critique literature. For example, I was frequently instructed not to use active voice, when using passive voice generally gets you crushed in any reputable academic institution.

True, but it's still a style. What's far more important is whether you can adapt and overcome, regardless of the degree.

Writing is something one learns throughout grade/high school; a college degree in English Literature brings very little extra to the table.

I'm about to relieve a guy with an English Lit degree. I'll be sure to let him know you've dismissed his 24 successful years of Naval service.

As far as fixing things, perhaps it is unique. Like when your Nav ET chief is also the ANAV, who originally was a QM until the rates merged and knows virtually nothing about maintenance. So you have a first-tour E-5 trying to figure out how to read complex electrical diagrams and troubleshoot gear. It kinda helps to have someone on board who can go through that; thankfully because of the nuke training pipeline any officer on the sub generally can, but on a surface ship that's probably not the case.

Again, you're looking at this through a small sub-set. No one is arguing that the Navy likes a tech degree in the Nuke pipeline. But if a pilot (or I'd even say a SWO) is trouble shooting something better than the E-5 for a maintenance action, failure has already occurred.

 

[Pags]

Degree is largely irrelevant after a little while in the fleet. Soon enough, everyone will be an operator. No one will care if you wrote a great paper on Joyce or if you can design a better radar, all that will matter is how well you operate and lead. The average JO doesn't need to know the finer points of geopolitics or how the detect to engage sequence works, they need to know TTPs and current guidance to employ their weapon system.

 

[SlickAg]

As far as fixing things, perhaps it is unique. Like when your Nav ET chief is also the ANAV, who originally was a QM until the rates merged and knows virtually nothing about maintenance. So you have a first-tour E-5 trying to figure out how to read complex electrical diagrams and troubleshoot gear. It kinda helps to have someone on board who can go through that; thankfully because of the nuke training pipeline any officer on the sub generally can, but on a surface ship that's probably not the case.

You do realize that your perspective and experiences are quite different from pretty much anyone else on this forum? For us, technical expertise isn't about a wiring diagram or writing a ground-breaking excel spreadsheet.

That is impressive that you took the AP English exam and got a 4. Without taking the class. That's not anecdotal at all, right? Because most American high school students could do that? You can't discount peoples' anecdotes while using one of your own as a data point.

I got a 2 on Calc AB. And a 5 on US History. My major in college? History.

My general understanding of your beliefs is that I'm not qualified to be here because I couldn't explain a wiring diagram to a Chief, or a an E-5?

Sometimes I can't believe that we're all in the same Navy.

 

[Spekkio]

Then you're coming at it from a mistaken angle. This simply isn't true. Regardless of what degree, some can write, some can't. Not everyone is equal in this regard (or anywhere else, of course)...True, but it's still a style. What's far more important is whether you can adapt and overcome, regardless of the degree.

That's the point. Having a non-technical degree doesn't bring anything extra to the table in this area.

I'm about to relieve a guy with an English Lit degree. I'll be sure to let him know you've dismissed his 24 successful years of Naval service.

Nice strawman. My claim is that if the Navy has to be more selective with whom it awards NROTC scholarship money, it makes sense to me why it would select technical majors over non-technical majors because of the 'nice to have' skills they can bring to the fleet. Both technical and non-technical majors are capable of being successful officers and I never claimed otherwise.

Again, you're looking at this through a small sub-set. No one is arguing that the Navy likes a tech degree in the Nuke pipeline. But if a pilot (or I'd even say a SWO) is trouble shooting something better than the E-5 for a maintenance action, failure has already occurred.

Yea, merging rates that leads to retention issues and all the hot-runners specializing in navigation will do that. Maintenance was just one example, though. There are plenty of operational examples where the understanding/line of thinking that technical courses teach have been beneficial.

Degree is largely irrelevant after a little while in the fleet. Soon enough, everyone will be an operator. No one will care if you wrote a great paper on Joyce or if you can design a better radar, all that will matter is how well you operate and lead. The average JO doesn't need to know the finer points of geopolitics or how the detect to engage sequence works, they need to know TTPs and current guidance to employ their weapon system.

Yeah, JOs have never used technical knowledge to solve an operational problem.

I will concede that examples on this scale are rare, but you won't find any examples where a JO's extensive knowledge of early 20th century geo-politics he learned in his Poly Sci degree or Victorian era literature he studied for his English degree solved a tactical problem.

And as one gets more senior and is responsible for writing those TTPs and employment guides, having a technical background gives one the tools to have a deeper understanding of how systems work together and how to optimize their use.

You do realize that your perspective and experiences are quite different from pretty much anyone else on this forum? I'm not surprised that the only person who thinks this is a good idea is a submariner. Sometimes I can't believe that we're all in the same Navy.

Yes, and also part of the point -- the Navy awards NROTC scholarship money prior to service selection. I suppose if you could guarantee everyone would select aviation and also guarantee that they'd never have a tour where they need to use technical knowledge to solve any issues, then it wouldn't make sense to favor technical majors.

My general understanding of your beliefs is that I'm not qualified to be here because I couldn't explain a wiring diagram to a Chief, or a an E-5?

Where did I ever say that non-technical majors are not qualified to be officers? Your general understanding of my beliefs is mistaken.

 

[SlickAg]

Yes, and also part of the point -- the Navy awards NROTC scholarship money prior to service selection. I suppose if you could guarantee everyone would select aviation and also guarantee that they'd never have a tour where they need to use technical knowledge to solve any issues, then it wouldn't make sense to favor technical majors.

Do you understand our point? The only people who "need" the STEM majors are people going nuke. Why change the ENTIRE way we've been doing business for NROTC when people from other communities are saying that technical degrees don't matter. And you're the one insisting that nukes "need" those technical degrees so they can explain wiring diagrams and write Excel programs. So we're changing everything so the Nukes have more officer with STEM degrees, because they won't learn everything they need to in nuke school/prototype/OTJ?

Where did I ever say that non-technical majors are not qualified to be officers? Your general understanding of my beliefs is mistaken.

I'm not saying that non-technical majors cannot succeed in the Navy. But from the Navy's standpoint, a guy who can more easily grasp the way ship's (or aircraft's) systems work because he has a technical academic background is going to be more valuable than a guy who doesn't. That difference may be small to nonexistant in a JO tour, but as officers become more senior the advantages of a technical background start to manifest themselves. And the Navy isn't devoting scholarship money just for people who are only planning on doing a 4-and-out divo tour; it wants to have a competitive pick of officers who want to continue on that career path.

My apologies, I misunderstood. I now understand that while I may be qualified to be a Naval Aviator/Officer, I'm not as valuable of a Naval Officer because of my history degree. Thank you for explaining the Navy's opinion about my future success based not on my performance or skill but on my academic background.

 

[Spekkio]

Do you understand our point? The only people who "need" the STEM majors are people going nuke. Why change the ENTIRE way we've been doing business for NROTC when people from other communities are saying that technical degrees don't matter. And you're the one insisting that nukes "need" those technical degrees so they can explain wiring diagrams and write Excel programs. So we're changing everything so the Nukes have more officer with STEM degrees, because they won't learn everything they need to in nuke school/prototype/OTJ?

Yes, I understand your point that officers do not need STEM degrees to be successful, not even nukes, which I think you guys keep wrongfully harping on because the nuke training pipeline teaches it to you anyway. I've provided several non-nuke examples of where technical knowledge has been beneficial.

You're presenting a counter-argument for a point that I'm not making. I never said that you need a STEM degree to be a successful officer.

My apologies, I misunderstood. I now understand that while I may be qualified to be a Naval Aviator/Officer, I'm not as valuable of a Naval Officer because of my history degree. Thank you for explaining the Navy's opinion about my future success based not on my performance or skill but on my academic background.

And you still misunderstand the context of that paragraph: It's not the value of you as an officer, it's about the value of your education that the Navy is paying you to get.

Let me put it this way: Let's go back to when SlickAg is a sophomore in college applying for NROTC scholarship and not yet committed to a course of study. Why should the Navy pay you to get a history degree, which has not been used to solve tactical problems, instead of a STEM degree, which has been used and continues to be used to solve tactical problems?