BUD/s Drop seeking information on going to OCS

[Brett327]

The first time anyone bothered to look in my record to notice that I had native proficiency in French was after already serving 22 years on AD. They put France in my portfolio as an AO on the Joint Staff. I don't know whether that provided value to the organization or not, but it did get me to a bunch of really nice "working" lunches and dinners at the French Embassy.

IMO, proficiency in a foreign language - particularly if you've lived abroad for a significant period of time where you can assimilate into another culture, brings with it perspective and tremendous potential for personal growth. All else being equal, people with language skills are better equipped to understand complex international and cultural issues.

I think this is what Wink is getting at, but I also think it's important to parse from an HR perspective what we might think makes a "most qualified" applicant vs. one that is still "highly qualified." Again, all else being equal, we should pick people with language skills for all of our designators, but that doesn't mean it should be a requirement for most of them.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

The part I'm having trouble coming to grips with is whether a second language (or third...) is worth additional points on application- or if it's just a tiebreaker, or merely an "oh, that's nice" afterthought.

I thought officer recruiting was supposed to be base on the whole person concept. Maybe your GPA or your aptitude test scores could be a little higher, but you took a "hard" major and also here it says you went out for this or that sport in high school or college, you did volunteer work, you were vice-president of the students' council, you were treasurer of the chess club, any of these things are worth extra points on the secret formula of your package score because... leeduhrship.

Yet proficiency in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, German, Esperanto- none of that is actually worth anything on an application? The selection board basically gives you a virtual pat on the head?? Okay, maybe Esperanto should be negative points, but... really? That's the deal these days?


FWIW I firmly believe in the emphasis on STEM. We have quite a few tech dummies in the ranks and though they shore up their weaknesses by having strengths in other areas—and all of us have our strengths and weaknesses—there comes a point if a senior officer is befuddled by middle school-level science then it's counterproductive. @Brett327's comment about weapon systems is spot on. But, when it comes to the so-called "easy" majors, we have quite a few history and geography dummies in the ranks too. I think if we could time warp back to July 1990 and poll the commissioned officers in the armed services to find Kuwait on a world map (that's just for starters), the results would be embarrassing. For an ostensibly volunteer military in a democracy (okay, constitutional republic), it's a dangerous thing for the officer corps to be ignorant about the world. Foreign language proficiency matters more than we give people credit.

Some designators look more for the "whole person" others not at all, Supply and IWC often do, but with the number of applicants they often are picking the ones with higher GPA's and such, that guy with tons of leadership, athletics, and a poor GPA just doesn't cut it.

 

[wink]

Even at best case foreign language is only a small part of what should be considered for officer applicants, even intel ones, and I've seen nothing in my career that it should be otherwise.

You are missing my point. @Brett327 did a fair job making it.

 

[robav8r]

Ultimately, shouldn't we embrace candidates that have a resume of challenging, comprehensive education?

 

[bubblehead]

Ultimately, shouldn't we embrace candidates that have a resume of challenging, comprehensive education?

A person with a degree in basket weaving can succeed in nearly all Naval Officer designators, especially SWO. It also does not take anyone special to succeed in Intel, IP, or CW based on the way the Navy trains people.

But, you do need some academic chops to get through EOD, Pilot/NFO, NUC, etc.

 

[Brett327]

But, you do need some academic chops to get through EOD, Pilot/NFO, NUC, etc.

Counterpoint, I had a 10th grade education when I became a WTI.

 

[Pags]

Counterpoint, I had a 10th grade education when I became a WTI.

Yeah, there's nothing that challenging in flight school and ACTC that you NEED an engineering degree for; an engineering degree is just an indicator of ability to easily master technical info. You could lose half of the technical info in the average NATOPS and still operate safely.

 

[CWO_change]

eh, none of the Intel "guys" I had picked up/at my NRD had any foreign language skills and the Intel officers we had doing recruiting said no matter what the PA says it isn't a factor.

Yep. The only time I see language skills come into play for officers is for those who want to be FAOs. Of course, you can only lateral transfer into that community.

 

[robav8r]

A person with a degree in basket weaving can succeed in nearly all Naval Officer designators, especially SWO. It also does not take anyone special to succeed in Intel, IP, or CW based on the way the Navy trains people.

But, you do need some academic chops to get through EOD, Pilot/NFO, NUC, etc.

Yeah, I get that . . . . .

Was speaking more holistically as we approach how we want to educate those young boys and girls that will become the next generation of officers and what we, as a society, want to value.

 

[Flash]

You are missing my point. @Brett327 did a fair job making it.

Nope.

 

[wink]

Nope.

Then you are purposely writing posts that do not address my point. OK. It's your nickel.

 

[Flash]

Then you are purposely writing posts that do not address my point. OK. It's your nickel.

I addressed it already, and I agree with the 'whole person' concept and going beyond what the Navy fixates on when it comes to quals. But I think you're fixated on one skill that frankly doesn't matter at all for a professional naval officer, and that is what I addressed. That is all.

 

[wink]

But I think you're fixated on one skill...

I am not. It just happens to be the one that came up in the thread. I am critical of a hiring process that seems to be satisfied with a bunch of the same homogenous resumes. I'd give credit to the guy that sailed around the world with his family in high school, turned a university capstone project into a business, was a ranked motocross racer, or a former AAA baseball player. I have seen guys like that. It doesn't matter to the professional naval officer. It should matter to the NAVY. Back in the late 70s and early 80s, at least, those things did get you points with CRUITCOM. Many years ago, the NTSB was critical of USAir for so slavishly sticking to a hiring matrix that resulted in a pilot corps they said was too homogenous and that may compromise safety.

 

[taxi1]

Is there really a lot of value in a Navy officer candidate knowing a foreign language?

Just a foreign language is not enough. Heck, google translate is getting to where it can serve just fine.

The language serves as a window into another culture. That's the real benefit.

 

[SN P A]

As an update to this post, I stuck with the application (ended up taking me just under 12 months to finish) and was selected. Will be in Newport next month!