If this was our solution to vet hiring and making TAPS class useful . . . we're really fucked.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS Navy to end ending all enlisted ratings!
- Thread starter AQ-AT-NAVCIV
- Start date
What's the difference between a rating and a NOS title? How are these at all different?
Yeah plenty willing to try to understand how ending rates will help.
Because combining the surprise rollout of a major change bucking tradition with vague and unconvincing descriptions of how/what things will improve is what's hurting the concept.
Civ employment? You can give civilian equivalent certs...that's what the civ market will care about.
NOSs...we already have numerical tracking of skills with NECs.
If you want greater cross pollination of skills, what does opening up NECs outside of rates not do that breaking the rating system entirely provide?
How does this improve Fit/Fill and unit manning?
Maybe this was the only way...but we did not get answers to what should be pretty basic questions.
Because combining the surprise rollout of a major change bucking tradition with vague and unconvincing descriptions of how/what things will improve is what's hurting the concept.
Civ employment? You can give civilian equivalent certs...that's what the civ market will care about.
NOSs...we already have numerical tracking of skills with NECs.
If you want greater cross pollination of skills, what does opening up NECs outside of rates not do that breaking the rating system entirely provide?
How does this improve Fit/Fill and unit manning?
Maybe this was the only way...but we did not get answers to what should be pretty basic questions.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
If you are talking about resume writing and things associated with getting a job no it doesn't, I was a huge proponent of TAP classes until I had a job in HR, the past 4 years have been an eye opener, TAP is great for benefit explanations and such, but resume's nope.
I have reviewed resume's from those out after 4 to those who retired with over 20, resume's from enlisted and officer, and the majority who were recently out sucked!
What the services need to do is have HR people from different companies come in and explain what they look for. I have had some really eye opening discussions with some of my peers that are at major companies.
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
Do you realize how dumb this is?
An attempt to be "gender neutral" and you refer to women sailors as seaman?
I swear to Christ I thought it was the onion.
Well, can you can hold more than one NOS simultaneously? (Unclear to me.)
Ex.: A sailor joins the Navy already fluent in a native language other than English. Let's assume it's an in-demand language. If he or she earns a DLPT of 4/4/4+, will the NOS system allow him or her to be a linguist (formerly CTI) for that language?
There may have been some sarcasm in my post
When I was going through TAPS my wife was getting her PhD in english and I was working with her and my father-in-law, a corporate VP, on my resume. I ended up running portions of the resume class in TAPS.
I'm not joking when I say there was a LS Chief in my squadron converted from SK, who, in his/her junior days was under the impression that every pen, pad, pencil, etc. belonged to "SK1 Illcraft" and could not get over how much stuff belonged to him.
When it hits you, you won't believe me. I'm not joking about this.
No clue. Even if you could I doubt it would end up working out that way due to quals, parachiolism, etc. under the old system you could transfer rates, etc but there was risk in that if you went from being an AD to a BC or a MN that you'd fall behind because you wouldn't have the experience that a "native born" BC or MN would have. Same as how a helo guy CAN become a jet driver. There are all sorts of official ways to allow this to happen but you end up as a marked man. Your old community hates you because you're a traitor and your new community doesn't know what to do with you because you're a senior unqualified guy.
Yeah, it is a big deal Pags. It's a big deal to those that have worn those rating badges, it gave them an identity and made them part of a community within the Navy. For me, wearing the Anti-Submarine Warfare rating badge was an honor and something I will always be proud of. I think for prior & current Sailors, they feel the same way.
So why can't the 1234 NOS, Helicopter Aircrew Tactical Sensor Operator (or whatever USN has decided to call Aicrewmen this week), still use and wear the rating badge? In that particular case they'll still get to wear wings because it's a warfare qualification (or whatever USN has decided to call them this week). I guess I'm missing the difference between "I'm an AW2, which means I'm a PO2 who's a helo rescue swimmer" and "I'm a PO2 with the rescue swimmer NOS". In both cases the Sailor still had the same job and wears the same wings.
From my time on the LHD it's not like it's any different in the USMC. They may call themselves LCPL, CPL, or Sgt but its also quickly apparent what their MOS is.
I never wore a rating badge so maybe I don't get it. But if they changed it from Naval Aviator to 1310, Naval aviator does it change the meaning of the work or the merit badge on your chest?
After reading all the comments, I am going to call bullshit on the "Your civ resume will be better" rationale. The ratings system did not prevent you from writing about your expertise, leadership, and education on a resume in a way that relates your qualifications directly to the job description.
As a DoD contractor and hiring manager who sees 200+ resumes a year (and hired 51 last year), the biggest fault I see is the false belief that their one-size-fits-all resume is sufficient, and the veteran doesn't need/want to tailor it to the particular job vacancy. Sometimes this comes from spending a lot of time polishing a single resume, and upon thinking it's the "best version," not wanting to tinker with it further. That may be fine if you're applying for just one type of job (e.g. 747 mechanic), but not if you're trying to have multiple irons in the fire, as most job-seekers have to do in this job market.
There may be other, compelling reasons to end the ratings system, but better civ resumes is a hollow argument. There's no LRP preventing it today.
As a DoD contractor and hiring manager who sees 200+ resumes a year (and hired 51 last year), the biggest fault I see is the false belief that their one-size-fits-all resume is sufficient, and the veteran doesn't need/want to tailor it to the particular job vacancy. Sometimes this comes from spending a lot of time polishing a single resume, and upon thinking it's the "best version," not wanting to tinker with it further. That may be fine if you're applying for just one type of job (e.g. 747 mechanic), but not if you're trying to have multiple irons in the fire, as most job-seekers have to do in this job market.
There may be other, compelling reasons to end the ratings system, but better civ resumes is a hollow argument. There's no LRP preventing it today.