Military Recruiting Ads Thread

[Spekkio]

Fascinating. From where did this predictor come? Clearly it wasn’t so during the Navy’s “golden” years of 1942 to 1952 when many combat officers didn’t even hold a college degree. It wasn’t the case in Vietnam where NavCads and AVROCS flew and commanded strikes without even finishing a degree. SWOs didn’t even have a school house until the 1970’s, learning their skill in much the same way Preble and Triston did. I’m not trying to be obtuse, I ask seriously. Is this, perhaps, a Rickoverian thing?

Are you suggesting we should just forget all the lessons with officers lacking education that led to Goldwater Nichols because it worked more than 75 years ago?

I haven't seen whether there's data or not to suggest technical majors do better at learning to employ today's Navy, which is why I specifically said "the Navy has decided..."

In other words, as a non technical major I don't really have a dog in the fight.

 

[Spekkio]

Ok, let’s add that hypothesis to the NPS dissertation then. I agree with you that the Navy accepted that as a fact, however not convinced there is any data to back it up.

The beauty of liberal arts and lots of writing is forcing a person to read a lot of stuff, analyze it, and then argue a point. Technical majors do write, but there is a difference in summarizing lab results or analyzing data and making an argument based on history.

I would agree the data doesn't exist.

The other question to add is not one about individual leadership performance, but what % of officers being technical majors are required to have a "critical mass" of aptitude as an organization and what is the impact to "off ramp" career paths that can make use of engineering majors?

 

[CommodoreMid]

I would agree the data doesn't exist.

The other question to add is not one about individual leadership performance, but what % of officers being technical majors are required to have a "critical mass" of aptitude as an organization and what is the impact to "off ramp" career paths that can make use of engineering majors?

Also don’t disagree with your question. Ultimately my hunch (which in line with this thread has no data to support) is that the NROTC STEM major push has more to do with trying to push mids to going nuke rather than think about the performance of URLs overall. My counter, which remains the same since 2006 when I did a SWO nuke cruise which convinced me I should do anything but SWO nuke, is that if we want to make more people go nuke, we should make nuke suck less.

 

[Spekkio]

Also don’t disagree with your question. Ultimately my hunch (which in line with this thread has no data to support) is that the NROTC STEM major push has more to do with trying to push mids to going nuke rather than think about the performance of URLs overall.

A STEM degree isn't required for nuke, only a year of calculus and calculus based physics.

 

[CommodoreMid]

A STEM degree isn't required for nuke, only a year of calculus and calculus based physics.

Yes, but the rules now for NROTC require an absurdly high number of mids to be STEM majors. Couldn’t find the big Navy reference so here’s one of the school pages

https://naval.dasa.ncsu.edu/join-nrotc/navy-tier-system/

Very difficult to get a scholarship if you’re non STEM.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

While attending AWS at Quantico in 1983, the CMC Gen. Barrow spoke to the AWS class.
He posed a question whether the requirement that one must have a HS diploma to enlist in the Marines really improved the Corps.
He lamented that he would not be able to join the Marines at that time, as he had 2 1/2 years of college and no HS diploma.
The following discussion was spirited and blunt.
Hard to say that he did not exemplify all a Marine could be, having gone from recruit, to DI to OCS to 2Lt in a little over a year; and then rising to be CMC.

 

[Gatordev]

That's because Marine company grade officers have balls and Navy junior officers (meaning O4 and below) don't.

We can have honest conversations.

But...I was in the Navy...and I was an O-4 and below in these scenarios. You've completely lost me now.

Meh, people read "functionally illiterate" and misconstrued that means they can't read and write basic sentences

I'm not sure your definition of "functional illiteracy" matches the rest of the world. From Googling several definitions, it seems it's more focused at the lower level of writing versus your more broad interpretation. That said, I do take you point...

If you've ever gone back and forth with a few emails and had to resolve the issue with a phone call, you've encountered someone who is functionally illiterate

While I don't agree he's functionally illiterate, this is any day in a week interacting with my boss.

 

[Brett327]

Ok, let’s add that hypothesis to the NPS dissertation then. I agree with you that the Navy accepted that as a fact, however not convinced there is any data to back it up.

The beauty of liberal arts and lots of writing is forcing a person to read a lot of stuff, analyze it, and then argue a point. Technical majors do write, but there is a difference in summarizing lab results or analyzing data and making an argument based on history.

This jibes with my experience as well. As a general rule, engineering majors are poor writers. They also tend to think in more absolute, less nuanced terms. Synthesis of ideas is different than aggregating data.

 

[Spekkio]

Yes, but the rules now for NROTC require an absurdly high number of mids to be STEM majors. Couldn’t find the big Navy reference so here’s one of the school pages

https://naval.dasa.ncsu.edu/join-nrotc/navy-tier-system/

Very difficult to get a scholarship if you’re non STEM.

Not disputing that.

Your explanation for the policy is to ensure a qualified pool of candidates for nuke, and I'm saying that they are qualified after a 101 / 102 calculus and physics sequence, so that hypothesis doesn't pass muster.

I think that the Navy believes technical majors will have an easier time understanding details and making better decisions about the equipment under their charge.

 

[Bad_Karma_1310]

Not disputing that.

Your explanation for the policy is to ensure a qualified pool of candidates for nuke, and I'm saying that they are qualified after a 101 / 102 calculus and physics sequence, so that hypothesis doesn't pass muster.

I think that the Navy believes technical majors will have an easier time understanding details and making better decisions about the equipment under their charge.

But nuke is exactly the reason why Academy/ROTC have to have so many STEM majors? It’s not a “Big Navy” decision as it really is NR specifically that is dictating that policy.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Not disputing that.

Your explanation for the policy is to ensure a qualified pool of candidates for nuke, and I'm saying that they are qualified after a 101 / 102 calculus and physics sequence, so that hypothesis doesn't pass muster.

I think that the Navy believes technical majors will have an easier time understanding details and making better decisions about the equipment under their charge.

Also agree that the basic calc/physics curriculum makes one qualified for going nuke. Have had plenty of friends who did liberal arts majors and were successful submariners. Also agree with you the Navy made that calculus on why they wanted more STEM types. My point is that I don’t think they made that decision based on any sort of data nor have they studied the consequences of that decision, meanwhile they have cut off a lot of otherwise potential great officers simply due to their academic interests.

 

[wink]

our explanation for the policy is to ensure a qualified pool of candidates for nuke, and I'm saying that they are qualified after a 101 / 102 calculus and physics sequence, so that hypothesis doesn't pass muster.

True enough, that has been the basic qualification for many years. Very very few nukes make it through NR interview and are selected with that basic qual. It is no different than saying meeting that the number of people meeting minimum qualifications found in other program authorizations creates an adequate pool of likely successful candidates.

 

[Spekkio]

Also agree that the basic calc/physics curriculum makes one qualified for going nuke. Have had plenty of friends who did liberal arts majors and were successful submariners. Also agree with you the Navy made that calculus on why they wanted more STEM types. My point is that I don’t think they made that decision based on any sort of data nor have they studied the consequences of that decision, meanwhile they have cut off a lot of otherwise potential great officers simply due to their academic interests.

There's probably not data available, but imagine a DDG wardroom with 0 STEM majors trying to decide on COAs with AEGIS tits up and explaining the risks of repair vs live with it staying on station to a CTF commander.

You're definitely going to lose something if not one of the members of the wardroom can speak and understand tech in-depth.

Of course, this gets into "why aren't CHENGs a separate career path?"

This jibes with my experience as well. As a general rule, engineering majors are poor writers. They also tend to think in more absolute, less nuanced terms. Synthesis of ideas is different than aggregating data.

The old rib among history professors is that STEM isn't real education, it's vocational training, because of the mindset a STEM education produces vs. liberal arts.

 

[Spekkio]

Very very few nukes make it through NR interview and are selected with that basic qual.

But nuke is exactly the reason why Academy/ROTC have to have so many STEM majors? It’s not a “Big Navy” decision as it really is NR specifically that is dictating that policy.

Not a true statement. Roughly 35% of any given wardroom on a sub is non-stem, with no impact to career progression.

There's also no data regarding whether tech majors attrite from the pipeline at a different rate than non tech majors. Getting a B+ or better in the pre-requisite courses and having good SAT scores seems to sufficiently predict success.

Of note, the S in STEM doesn't count as technical as far as the nuke community is concerned, so something like a chemistry degree might as well be a BA in theater.

 

[CommodoreMid]

I think we are in violent agreement. The Navy needs all kinds, but I think the current policy is unnecessarily excluding liberal arts types with no data to back it up. I wouldn’t necessarily oppose a min STEM major requirement, but 85% seems a bit excessive. On the anecdote side, my NROTC commissioning cohort was 14 people when we operated on the major in what you want plan. We had 1 nursing major, 5 liberal arts majors, and 8 engineering majors. 17 years later we have only 3 left on active duty, 1 liberal arts major and 2 engineers, so roughly an equivalent rate of making O5. The one engineer who went the nuke engineer specific path so yes her major mattered, but the other is a DDG skipper, and the liberal arts type is an O5 NFO. Fun fact all remaining are women. In the nuke engineers case obviously her major mattered, but when you look at the numbers of 1440s we have compared to the numbers of URLs, betting on a STEM degree to make URL leaders, which is the goal of NROTC, might not be a great bet. Again, I say this acknowledging I have no data to support, but I don’t believe the Navy has the data to support either.