Changing major/college choices AFROTC App?

Discussion in 'ROTC' started by Winner, Jan 15, 2012.

  1. Winner

    Winner Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2010
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    1
    I started my AFROTC application sometime over the summer and I believe I submitted my desired major and college choices around that time. However I did not finish and send in my application until recently. It wasn't until I was sending it in when I realized that I'd like to change my major and college choices, however there is no place on my application to do so.

    On my application, the top section labeled "High School Application Form" is not-clickable, since I have already submitted it. (And I believe this is the section which holds my desired major and college choices).

    So basically is there any way to change this? Or is it too far gone.

    -Thanks,
     
  2. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,800
    Likes Received:
    932
    Contact your regional on Tuesday since Monday is a federal holiday.

    Overall don't worry about the school issue, because the AFROTC scholarship is not like A/NROTC you are not awarded it to one school and only one school. As long as any of your colleges accept AFROTC scholarship you are good to go.

    Changing majors is why you really need to contact them because if you are changing from tech to non-tech you will need their approval. Majors within the categories are usually no issue if you want to switch, i.e. ME to EE or CE,, because it is still a STEM major.

    The other issue is believe it or not some kids have issues because the wording of their major, it happened here last yr., where a cadet wanted to change their major and believed both were STEM, but found out that the new one would be classified as non-tech, so make sure that you verify it. Traditionally it is easy to see through the curriculum required, usually less math/science and more LAC than just the mins for graduation.

    Good luck and call your regional or your ALO they will help you def. sort it out.
     
  3. granpajoe

    granpajoe New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Switching Majors

    Hello Pima, I really didn't understand your comments about STEM. I have selected an Achitectural Major, and am leaning towards a Robotics Engineering Major now, how difficult would this be?
     
  4. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,800
    Likes Received:
    932
    You have to make sure the Robotics major is on their list of approved majors.

    I can't see why this would be a biggie for them because it is not as if architecture is a high needs field for the AF.
     
  5. cb7893

    cb7893 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    378
    Talk about barking up the right tree.

    granpa, I would suggest reading this befrore requesting a change in major.

    I don't think there is a Robotics Engineering Major at most schools. Robotics are generally a part of the Mechanical Engineering Department and I know Mechanical is an approved major.

    From yesterday's Wall Street Journal

    KILLER DRONES ARE SCIENCE FICTION

    By WERNER J.A. DAHM

    There's been a lot written lately about a future in which our military might use autonomous "killer drones" to hunt, identify and kill human targets. We owe it to a public made uneasy by this—rightfully so—to point out that while such stories make intriguing science fiction, autonomous lethal military strikes are unlikely to occur for a very long time, if ever.

    I should know. As the chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force, I led a major 2010 study, called "Technology Horizons," on the technology-enabled capabilities that we will need to meet the challenges we face in the next 10-20 years. The first volume of that report is publicly available.

    It describes the growing role of autonomous systems in reducing the Air Force's manpower costs, increasing its capabilities, and meeting the demands of modern warfare. Crucially, though, the report documented why we will continue to keep humans "in the loop" even as we move toward such increasingly sophisticated autonomous systems.

    First, it's not technology that has held us back from fully autonomous military strikes—from a purely technical perspective, it has been possible for some time to conduct them. Nor are the restraints merely legal and ethical. Instead, there is a less obvious technical reason why the military is unlikely to employ fully autonomous lethal strikes.

    The key is to understand that regardless of whether a military strike is conducted autonomously or with human involvement, it is not an isolated act. The actual launching of a weapon onto a target is one step in a sequential process that the military refers to as the "find-fix-track-target-engage-assess" chain.

    Each step in this chain is essential to enabling the following one, and each step takes time to complete. The entire chain takes substantial time, and that is why we look for ways to shorten these steps. Autonomy can reduce the total time needed to complete the chain, but let's look more closely to see where autonomy provides significant war-fighting benefits.

    The longest times in the chain come from the "find, fix and track" steps—together with the "assess" and, to a lesser extent, "target" steps. By comparison, the "engage" step—in which commanders make the decision to commit a weapon onto a target—is relatively short. As a consequence, shortening the "engage" step even further by making it autonomous does almost nothing to shorten the overall chain.

    For that simple reason, there is essentially no disadvantage to keeping humans involved at least in the "engage" step. And that is why there has been virtually no demand from war-fighters to autonomize that critical step.

    Simply put, until the "engage" step becomes the longest single part of the chain, there is no benefit to making it fully autonomous and nothing lost by maintaining human supervisory intervention at that step. Thus it's not technology that prevents fully autonomous strike, nor is it our cultural resistance or even the fact that we don't have the legal or policy tools to permit fully autonomous strike. Instead, it is the simple fact that we don't gain anything from it.

    Enjoy the science fiction, but expect to see humans "in the loop" for a long, long time to come.

    Mr. Dahm, the director of the Security and Defense Systems Initiative at Arizona State University, is a former chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force.
     

Share This Page