BIG CHANGES coming to the NROTC Scholarship

[SlickAg]

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.

Let's go back to when SlickAg is a senior in high school applying for an NROTC scholarship, not yet committed to a course of study. He has an interview with the Chief, he submits some paperwork, and they decide to award him a scholarship based on his leadership, academic, and athletic achievements, SAT scores, and class standing. They never asked me what my intended major was. They didn't care. I was awarded the scholarship based on my future potential as a Naval Officer. My proposed major never came up. They told me to apply to a college I wanted to go to.

SlickAg applies to Texas A&M as a History major and gets in.

SlickAg is now a freshman in college as a History major in the College of Liberal Arts. During the first week of school his advisor tells him the Navy encourages technical majors. SlickAg asks the LT if that means he needs to switch majors. The LT says no, just realize that technical majors will be given a multiplier in their GPA when it comes to service selection. SlickAg rolls the dice and remains a history major. A large number of SlickAg's peers start out as technical majors. A small number of SlickAg's peers finish as technical majors. The Navy has decided in those cases that it would prefer a non-technical major with above a 2.0 GPA than a technical major that is going to be kicked out for failure to maintain a 2.0. SlickAg graduates from college with honors, in 3.5 years.

This story began in the 2002 timeframe. The Navy didn't care what my major was then, why should they start caring now? WHAT has changed besides the nuke community saying they need more officers?

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?

Are you kidding? A pilot who is an aerospace engineer can better solve a tactical problem than a pilot who was a history major? I think you and I have VERY different definitions of "tactical". Wiring diagrams aren't tactical. TTPs are tactical. And TTPs aren't written with the academic background of the user in mind.

 

[Renegade One]

So is your point that ...the Navy is wrongfully filtering out talent by excluding non-technical majors?

Yes.

So is your point that ...leadership something that can be learned?

Yes again.

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.

I get it…it's a Sub community thingie. That's fair…

Now…correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always heard (anecdotally) that "other nuke-submarine Navies…and here I'm specifically talking about the Royal Navy submarine force…) bi-sect their officer wardrooms early-on into "topside" and "engineers". Those who totally understand and can control all of the high-tech stuff in the reactor rooms stay there..and the other cadre is on the Ops and Command path.

Also, I'm led to believe...all of their PCOs go through some course of "pass/fail" command qual school known as "Punisher". So far as I know, this is the ONLY "allied qual course" that no American officer has ever been sent to.

I have Condition ZEBRA set throughout the ship…standing by to receive hits forward, aft and amidships...fire away.

 

[bunk22]

As for pilots, tech degree's mean absolutely nothing.....unless your goal is something like TPS. Lame IMO (not TPS, but basing scholarships based on major).

 

[Gatordev]

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.

And again, this isn't the case elsewhere. Maintenance is the most technical realm in most communities, and for the majority of the URL, having the Officer be able to read a <insert technical thing> isn't high on the priority list.

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

He's not the only one. Maybe your message is the problem and not our "misunderstanding."

 

[CommodoreMid]

I guarantee you the average officer is going to be challenged on a daily basis with displaying tactical acumen and leadership skills. It's probably once in a blue moon that someone's undergrad degree saves the day with technical knowledge. What then do you think we should look for in an officer candidate? Is the science lab engineering geek inherently more qualified to be an officer than the history major who demonstrates leadership with multiple campus activity positions or can run the midshipman battalion effortlessly?

That being said I'm a history major who's a boss at excel, so your argument is invalid. I hope none of my future bosses are reading that statement.

 

[Pags]

That being said I'm a history major who's a boss at excel, so your argument is invalid. I hope none of my future bosses are reading that statement.

You want a course that will serve you well in the fleet? NROTC should teach a semester long course on the MS Office suite to include the proper way to use the damned master slide and track changes.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Unfortunately it's incredibly true. I took an econ class in college that was very heavy on excel usage to solve stat problems, and while I've brain dumped a lot of it, I know enough to be useful to O-4s with taskers. Sigh.

With WTI I'm now learning the intricacies of the master slide. Please someone put me out my misery.

 

[Pags]

With WTI I'm now learning the intricacies of the master slide. Please someone put me out my misery.

Once you learn the master slide, you'll never worry about slide jitter again.

 

[Spekkio]

I get it…it's a Sub community thingie. That's fair…

I think there are parallels in the SWO community as well, from what I can gather in conversations with SWOs. But their community is a lot less anal about fixing broken stuff, probably because they don't sink and crush if the ship stops moving.

Now…correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always heard (anecdotally) that "other nuke-submarine Navies…and here I'm specifically talking about the Royal Navy submarine force…) bi-sect their officer wardrooms early-on into "topside" and "engineers". Those who totally understand and can control all of the high-tech stuff in the reactor rooms stay there..and the other cadre is on the Ops and Command path.

Also, I'm led to believe...all of their PCOs go through some course of "pass/fail" command qual school known as "Punisher". So far as I know, this is the ONLY "allied qual course" that no American officer has ever been sent to.

That is correct, and it's something that a lot of sub officers have thought is a good idea (myself included) -- using LDOs/warrants for the supervisory nuke roles and focusing the line officers on tactics/nagivation.

Also, the British drive quite a bit more ballsy than us.

This story began in the 2002 timeframe. The Navy didn't care what my major was then, why should they start caring now? WHAT has changed besides the nuke community saying they need more officers?

I'm sure you're aware of the budget crunches that have come lately.

We have plenty of JOs, actually. The sub force was hurting in the early/mid 2000s. But since the crash of '08 and all the utilities closing, we've actually had to kick people out before DH lately, and not just the "I did something monumentally stupid to get a punitive action" types.

Are you kidding? A pilot who is an aerospace engineer can better solve a tactical problem than a pilot who was a history major? I think you and I have VERY different definitions of "tactical". Wiring diagrams aren't tactical. TTPs are tactical. And TTPs aren't written with the academic background of the user in mind.

No, I'm not kidding. When new weapons systems are being developed and the Navy analyzes how to use them, do you think that a senior officer just comes in and says 'eh, I think we'll do X' based on just his own gut instinct? Somewhere along the way there is a technical analysis that involves modeling its capabilities and performance before it goes into more expensive live tests. And there are commissioned line officers who work on those projects.

As for pilots, tech degree's mean absolutely nothing.....unless your goal is something like TPS. Lame IMO (not TPS, but basing scholarships based on major).

Well, I just watched an aviator give a presentation on how he was able to write an algorithm to do a primary school flight schedule in 20-30 minutes vice several hours. Now you need another tech major to code a GUI for it. It's not gonna win WWIII, but it's not 'absolutely nothing'.

In an ideal world the Navy would hire professional coders and developers to do such things, but they don't have the money and it's not high priority. And when they do have the money and it is a priority, they tend to overspend for a poor product.

I guarantee you the average officer is going to be challenged on a daily basis with displaying tactical acumen and leadership skills. It's probably once in a blue moon that someone's undergrad degree saves the day with technical knowledge.

I do not think that the Navy should select a poor leader just so they can have more people with technical degrees. And while it's not everyday, 'once in a blue moon' is more than 'never.'

 

[Spekkio]

You want a course that will serve you well in the fleet? NROTC should teach a semester long course on the MS Office suite to include the proper way to use the damned master slide and track changes.

Oh god yes. Also, how to do linear programming in excel, can help with watchbills if you get a CO who is nitpicky about who stands watch/duty with who.

 

[Pags]

No, I'm not kidding. When new weapons systems are being developed and the Navy analyzes how to use them, do you think that a senior officer just comes in and says 'eh, I think we'll do X' based on just his own gut instinct? Somewhere along the way there is a technical analysis that involves modeling its capabilities and performance before it goes into more expensive live tests. And there are commissioned line officers who work on those projects.

In my experience, most of the modeling is usually done by professional nerds, not line officers. The modeling is then vetted and checked for sanity by experienced users.

 

[Recovering LSO]

a STEM degree, which has been used and continues to be used to solve tactical problems?

Describe for me, please, how an EE degree helps a nugget better understand 2 v unknown intercepts, section engaged maneuvering, comm brevity, low altitude tactics, JDAM weaponeering, helo examples someone else can chime in with...

 

[Pags]

Describe for me, please, how an EE degree helps a nugget better understand 2 v unknown intercepts, section engaged maneuvering, comm brevity, low altitude tactics, JDAM weaponeering, helo examples someone else can chime in with...

None of the concepts in any TTP are so complex that anyone who could make it through college and flight school would struggle with reading and understanding them. A more important skill is the ability to quickly read, understand, memorize, and master these concepts. As I said before, the fleet needs operators, not academic nerds.

 

[SlickAg]

Describe for me, please, how an EE degree helps a nugget better understand 2 v unknown intercepts, section engaged maneuvering, comm brevity, low altitude tactics, JDAM weaponeering, helo examples someone else can chime in with...

When new weapons systems are being developed and the Navy analyzes how to use them, do you think that a senior officer just comes in and says 'eh, I think we'll do X' based on just his own gut instinct? Somewhere along the way there is a technical analysis that involves modeling its capabilities and performance before it goes into more expensive live tests. And there are commissioned line officers who work on those projects.

Dude, there's going to be a senior officer there, a LINE officer, to help the nugget do technical analysis and modeling. Calm down.

All sarcasm aside, Spekkio, you didn't commission through NROTC, so I don't expect you to understand the specifics of the NROTC program or how it operated before. But you're just about the only person who thinks this is a good idea. Additionally, you're using words like "tactical" that have totally different meanings to aviators.

But by all means, keep going. You're just reaffirming a decision made years ago to have as little to do with nukes and submariners as possible.

My favorite submarine anecdote is about what happened to a mid a year behind me. He was a ME major and had a decent GPA. He had 1) Pilot 2) NFO for his service selection. The Navy told him congrats, you got an interview to go nuke. "But I don't want to go nuke." Shut up and color. So he goes to the interview. The admiral asks him why he wants to go nuke. "I don't". The admiral tells him to leave, they only want people committed to going the distance. The mid ends up having to go NFO because they've already filled all the pilot spots. Sounds like solid nuclear logic to me.

 

[azguy]

I think there are parallels in the SWO community as well, from what I can gather in conversations with SWOs. But their community is a lot less anal about fixing broken stuff, probably because they don't sink and crush if the ship stops moving.

We are still pretty anal about fixing stuff. I'll tell you none of this stuff is so hard you need an ENG degree to work out voyage repairs with the Chief. I did OK with my economics degree. As I've said before, any naval officer with their year of calc and physics has the background necessary to do most line jobs. I'll admit it's great to have a better STEM background for Nuke, though I know guys with non STEM degrees who walk on water in the Nuke community.