Great, now we just need a SEAL or EOD officer to agree and it will be nearly universal.
-
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
BIG CHANGES coming to the NROTC Scholarship
- Thread starter FormerRecruitingGuru
- Start date
Great, now we just need a SEAL or EOD officer to agree and it will be nearly universal.
Yet you, and for that matter Big Navy, do not recognize that these policies are favoring the once in the blue moon scenario than the every day leadership issue. Engineering geeks can absolutely be outstanding leaders and tacticians, but for a matter of practicality you're eliminating a huge pool of people that are leadership potential/competitors solely on academic interest and money. I personally could not have gone to Vanderbilt if the Navy hadn't paid for it. My history degree hasn't hurt me in the slightest and so far I'm doing pretty well for myself in this aviation thing, but if they had said I had to be an engineer to get the scholarship, I probably wouldn't be an officer today because of how I would have gone to college and the difficulty of getting into OCS. Again, anecdotal, because everyone can name great officers who are liberal arts majors and shitty ones who are engineers and vice versa, but why are we limiting ourselves? If you expand the talent pool to all academic backgrounds then you're going to get greater talent overall in the officership category, not to mention the overall academic quality. Somehow I figure the academic rigor of a history degree from Vandy is a little more challenging than an engineering degree from Podunk St U. But according to your philosophy he's more likely to be able to solve problems down the road. And that's not even taking into account the leadership intangibles. The Podunk St U history grad may be a better officer candidate than the Vandy engineering major, but your metrics don't account for that. God forbid we take the whole person into account when making these decisions.
We're in agreement. I'm curious to hear Spekkio's answer.
I suspect, other than simply having a very skewed perspective of what is required of a Naval Officer (not just a SWO/Sub/Aviator/EOD/Seal) over a career, this is really at the root of Spekkio's line of reason.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to predict who will be a good leader. In fact, what constitutes a good leader will vary greatly with the audience.
Please stop talking about things that are so far out of your swim lane. TIMS (and STASS before it) was written by professional coders. There is money to hire them and they do this regularly (and release fixes). This happens in the fleet, as well (see: SHARP, ASM, OOMA, etc). It (like the majority the Navy/DoD's computer systems) may not be the best or most effecient (and we all know they aren't even close), but they aren't being written by a typical O-3 URL. Again, you have a single example of a process improvement that doesn't demonstrate an overall change in the way we do business because of your degrees.
But again, none of this matters. This is just a way to cull the herd for now until the Navy needs more bodies. Then they can adjust the reqs again.
FIFY.
Don't believe me, because, thankfully, I was NEVER in an environment like that. But go read some MOH citations and the hundreds/thousands of battlefield commissions that came with or without. You never really know until you know…
Now, having gone all "maudlin" with you, I do understand that the above is not exactly the most efficient way to "screen for future leaders". Screening for tech degrees is one thing…for those communities where that's important. Linking that to "leadership" is something quite else again.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I should have used the word 'operational' which has a broader meaning, but I wrote tactical because I had just posted that link about LT Ekelund, and that was a tactical problem.
My answer is that people keep linking technical majors with leadership qualities; I don't think that they are mutually exclusive, nor do I think that they are codependent. I agree with Pags that it is difficult to screen for military leadership traits in an 18-20 year old applying for an NROTC scholarship. I'd wager that if there was a way to objectively predict who the next Chester Nimitz would be at 18-20 years old, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
My central point that keeps getting somewhat twisted around is that: A) There is a demand for officers with technical backgrounds in the fleet and shore rotations; B) it's not limited to submarines and C) that, if the Navy has to be picky about whom to award scholarship money, I can understand why it would select STEM degrees over non-STEM degrees for that reason. But as is typical with education threads on this board, several of those who don't have STEM degrees construe that as an insult to their intelligence and leadership abilities.
If you guys think that there are absolutely no billets in aviation whatsoever where a technical background can be remotely beneficial to an officer, then fine. I don't believe you, but I'm in no place to argue. But I know that's not the case for subs, which includes the non-nuke part -- actual submarining, and SWOs.
Last edited:
I responded to your PM. I find this quote a little off-putting. Because it's obvious you're missing the point of everyone's responses. I think the majority of them are NROTC graduates as well. We understand the program a little more thoroughly than you I imagine. And we seem to all agree, as NROTC graduates, that this is a dumb move. And an unnecessary one. Because you're probably going to cull out a lot of qualified young men and women from the applicant pool for little to no reason. The Navy said that I needed to take calculus and physics. So I did. And I was eligible to go nuke because of it. Why is the Navy changing the requirement now? And so drastically?
If nothing else, all the advanced technology should be easier to operate and understand. My grandpa was an Econ major and he was his ship's Navigator. His technical background was Midshipman School. He managed. Actually, the skill most vital to his success in the Navy was his ability to swim. Since it kept him alive when his ship was sunk. His skipper didn't have a STEM background. He actually didn't go to college. In retrospect, it's a little shocking that since the CO was a former bluejacket and the XO/Nav was an Econ major that they didn't run aground even once.
In summary, I don't think it takes a STEM degree to 1) be a good leader 2) learn whatever it is the Navy wants you to know and 3) listen to your Chiefs. There's more to it than that. And based on some of the new officers I see every day, the Navy's putting its eggs in the wrong basket.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I made that comment because it certainly seemed like some posters took my argument that way.
I understand people's point -- that do be a successful leader, you don't need to be a technical major. I agree.
My theory is that if they have to be selective about paying for your college education, they want you to major in something that at least has the potential to be used in the fleet. Yours, if I understand you correctly, is that they want to make everyone a nuke.
And John Paul Jones never even went to high school. Times evolve. At some point, it was decided that a college education was something all officers should have.
It is absolutely no secret that the only reason midshipmen are REQUIRED to take calculus and physics is so they can attend nuke school if required. Every Naval Academy and NROTC scholarship midshipman needs to be eligible to attend nuke school. That is a carryover from the Hyman Rickover days. Everyone realizes this. I feel like you think we're making this up and it's some vast conspiracy. It's the truth. Please accept it. If it was 'useful enough' for nuke school, I feel like it should be 'useful enough' for anything the fleet could throw in one's way.
Has the Navy suddenly realized that these ships keep running aground and COs keep getting fired because they're all liberal arts majors?
And sub guys used to have senses of humor. In fact, it probably used to be required; I've seen Down Periscope.
[TL/DNR: taking in only STEM majors wouldn't make a lot of sense, but it wouldn't be the end of the world either. If I were a betting man, I'd say they will end up with some completely arbitrary ratio that we will make up a rationale for after the fact.]
A lot of people in this thread are misunderstanding the Navy's perspective in regards to leadership potential and the ability to become tactically proficient. It is absolutely true that your college major is completely unrelated to those two traits. If you sift through 1000 STEM majors and 1000 baristas you will get two near-enough identical results as to make no difference. I haven't seen anybody make a valid argument to the contrary, and I don't think the Navy has some secret study showing otherwise either. What the Navy is really doing is saying that since it can get the same leadership and tactical abilities regardless of which major pool it draws from, why not get them from a pool of STEM majors that may (possibly, in a few limited situations) add other benefits later?
Granted, I don't agree with that outlook because I don't think that the need for those STEM majors is that great. Yes, Nukes, AEDOs, EDOs, and TPS represent needs (self-defined, in some of those cases), and filling slots at NPS represents a desire, but outside of the acquisition and maintenance worlds - and there only to a limited extent given the extensive civilian support - I don't see how all this "technical" capability will ever be used.
But just like the need for STEM majors is overblown, I'd also say the fear that we are somehow losing something irreplaceable by having fewer non-STEM types around is pretty much groundless. The claim that the non-STEMs have some sort of magical way with words is stupid for multiple reasons, not least of which is how large a percentage of Navy writing is just FITREPs/EVALs and ppt briefs (and seriously, those two forms of communication are at best one step advanced from throwing feces at each other). I'm also not concerned about a lack of poli-sci and history majors in our ranks causing an increase in difficulties interacting with other countries/cultures. By the time anybody is senior enough to interact with another country in a meaningful way, the Navy has long since become the dominant driver in their outlook and knowledge base.
A lot of people in this thread are misunderstanding the Navy's perspective in regards to leadership potential and the ability to become tactically proficient. It is absolutely true that your college major is completely unrelated to those two traits. If you sift through 1000 STEM majors and 1000 baristas you will get two near-enough identical results as to make no difference. I haven't seen anybody make a valid argument to the contrary, and I don't think the Navy has some secret study showing otherwise either. What the Navy is really doing is saying that since it can get the same leadership and tactical abilities regardless of which major pool it draws from, why not get them from a pool of STEM majors that may (possibly, in a few limited situations) add other benefits later?
Granted, I don't agree with that outlook because I don't think that the need for those STEM majors is that great. Yes, Nukes, AEDOs, EDOs, and TPS represent needs (self-defined, in some of those cases), and filling slots at NPS represents a desire, but outside of the acquisition and maintenance worlds - and there only to a limited extent given the extensive civilian support - I don't see how all this "technical" capability will ever be used.
But just like the need for STEM majors is overblown, I'd also say the fear that we are somehow losing something irreplaceable by having fewer non-STEM types around is pretty much groundless. The claim that the non-STEMs have some sort of magical way with words is stupid for multiple reasons, not least of which is how large a percentage of Navy writing is just FITREPs/EVALs and ppt briefs (and seriously, those two forms of communication are at best one step advanced from throwing feces at each other). I'm also not concerned about a lack of poli-sci and history majors in our ranks causing an increase in difficulties interacting with other countries/cultures. By the time anybody is senior enough to interact with another country in a meaningful way, the Navy has long since become the dominant driver in their outlook and knowledge base.
You are largely correct from what I know but the Royal Navy doesn't just limit it to submarines, they do it for their surface fleet too. Of course they also make their aviators who move up the ranks do SWO tours too so they aren't perfect
. It is actually called 'Perisher' and US Navy officers have periodically attended since 2002.
Good info and corrections. THANKS!Of course they also make their aviators who move up the ranks do SWO tours too so they aren't perfect
It is actually called 'Perisher' and US Navy officers have periodically attended since 2002.
"Punisher"..."Perisher"…I was SO CLOSE on this one! You gotta give me an NFO "pass" on that…
I don't think a SWO tour (disassociated tour in our vernacular?) is a bad thing at all. Makes everyone smarter...
The "linked read" was incredible…thanks. Truly a "wheel house" submarine community post.
My favorite part: Perisher’s tradition for handling an unsuccessful student is not to make him aware of his failure until a small boat approaches to remove him from the submarine. Unknown to the unfortunate officer, his sea bag has already been packed by a member of the crew and brought up for the transfer. Upon departure, he is presented with his personal gear and a bottle of whisky, never again to return to submarine service.
Sheesh..talk about "pass/fail"…bit I do wonder: what kind of Whisky?
Think less of an 'appreciation' tour like our disassociated tour and more like full on SWO tours where you are a DH on an FFG or DDG. As a bonus the CV CO's haven't always been aviators either, something that seems to have caused some friction from time to time as expected.
In the Royal Navy they really do seem to take the 'URL is a URL' quite literally, not surpassing given their smaller size. We are one of the few navies left that can have many of the highly specialized fields we do.