NROTC
- Thread starter flyfishpj
- Start date
All medically qualified USNA grads must be unrestricted line officers; surface, aviation, special warfare, subs, or USMC. ROTC grads have all these options in addition to restricted line which is supply, CEC, intelligence, etc.
Additionally, there are USNA nominations available only for ROTC students. You can continue to pursue your USNA goals by accepting ROTC and then reapplying for USNA.
Good Luck.
Additionally, there are USNA nominations available only for ROTC students. You can continue to pursue your USNA goals by accepting ROTC and then reapplying for USNA.
Good Luck.
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
USNA69 said:
I wonder why that is. So one would actually have MORE career choices by joining NROTC than going to the academy? Initially, in one's career that would seem to be the case.
Whistle Pig
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,633
Yes you do. Back to park place, you go.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 146
Loophole said:
Unfortunately, yes. But that doesn't mean you can't take advanced classes. You can use a combination of validation tests and you college transcript to get out of plebe classes.
I got out of 17 hours thanks to both...that's pretty much a semester's worth of work out of the way.
Just_A_Mom said:
The Academy stresses combat specialties and leadership and has always assumed it could get better support specialties from civilian colleges that teach that sort of things. Business schools for supply types, civil engineering for CEC officers, etc. It makes perfect sense for ROTC students at colleges which offer these degrees, pursue them and then pursure the same specialty after being commissioned. Actually I was really surprised with the AFA thread discussing computer specialists. I would think there would be civilian colleges much more adept at training these officers.
Whistle Pig
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,633
And as the USNA reminds in its admissions info, there is NO CONNECTION (with a few exceptions in nukes and chemistry) between major areas and later USN assignments.
Whistle Pig said:
However, one should look beyond their initial assignment and think about how they want to spend their careers. Almost half their career will be on shore duty. The more senior they become, the less chances that these shore duty billets will be directly in operational support of their warfare specialty. One should pick up a secondary specialty. One of the more common is working in NavAir, NavSea, or NavSub as appropriate, in systems development and procurement. An engineering degree would bode one well in this environment. An advanced engineering degree would bode well in this environment and the Navy is much more prone to grant post graduate study to those with undergraduate technical degrees.
My son is a test pilot doing initial acceptance work on the new EA-18 Growler. A typical day consists of a couple hours of pre-flight briefings with engineers, the flight, and then another couple of hours of debriefings with engineers. He then has his desk job project managing various upgrades and systems developments. I dare say he would be there today if he did not have an engineering degree.
Additionally, this is certainly subject to debate, but I have always thought that an engineering mentality produced better Naval Aviators. Getting to know all the intricacies of an aircraft requires a certain amount of engineering knowledge. Post-maintenance functional check flights demand close coordination with the mechanics and someone with an engineering background can relate to these people better.
I have noticed, what to me is a disturbing trend in USNA degree selections. I have been told in previous briefings that federal law requires 80% of the total graduating class to possess technical degrees with 60% of the entire class gaining engineering degrees. I noted somewhere that that is no longer happening and that only 60% or so are pursuing technical degrees. I don't know if I was misinformed, misunderstood, or whether the law has changed. I do plan to find out at the next available opportunity because I find this trend very disturbing.
During the BGO interview, desired major is discussed. Engineering and technical pursuits are looked on favorably. USNA is an engineering school. The Navy is a technical career. I honestly believe that a liberal arts degree should only be a fall-back option for those incapable of meeting the demands of a technical education.
Additionally, when midshipmen go before their service selection boards, I am sure that down at the lower end, when there are two midshipmen and one aviation slot and all things being equal, the aero major gets the nod over the history major.
Last edited:
Whistle Pig
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,633
Of course you're right. Still over half of USNA mids now pursue liberal arts majors no matter that they all receive B.S. degrees.
peskemom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 147
USNA69
if there is one thing the USNA has done since it's inception - it is to adapt and adjust its curriculum to meet the current needs of its mission.
It wasn't always that USNA had majors like standard colleges - until I think around the late 1940's there was ONE standard curriculum that every mid took. But as USNA started comparing their graduating students and seeing they were non-competitive in research, in post-graduate studies - and realized they needed officers with skills beyond simply a technical/engineering focus - they began to block out majors and fields of study.
USNA is once again studying its mission and how their educational breakdown best meets this. This is one reason why they revised yet again their majors for the Class of 2010 - allowing Plebes to opt in ( after rigorous testing and screening) for Arabic or Chinese as a major. The needs of the modern Navy require their officers with skills in these areas.
Andrew Exum wrote a very interesting policy paper on this subject last month... here is the link. He is a U of Penn Army ROTC grad who served in the early fighting in Iraq.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2559
This has caught the ears of the Academies and some responses have been made to this line of thinking...all positive...
so while I support keeping USNA as the Navy's premier engineering and technical school - there is something to be said for the same school graduating midshipman who will go on to research, training, and experiences that best prepare them for serving long-term active duty experiences with skills that things like humanities/languages/ etc. provide
if there is one thing the USNA has done since it's inception - it is to adapt and adjust its curriculum to meet the current needs of its mission.
It wasn't always that USNA had majors like standard colleges - until I think around the late 1940's there was ONE standard curriculum that every mid took. But as USNA started comparing their graduating students and seeing they were non-competitive in research, in post-graduate studies - and realized they needed officers with skills beyond simply a technical/engineering focus - they began to block out majors and fields of study.
USNA is once again studying its mission and how their educational breakdown best meets this. This is one reason why they revised yet again their majors for the Class of 2010 - allowing Plebes to opt in ( after rigorous testing and screening) for Arabic or Chinese as a major. The needs of the modern Navy require their officers with skills in these areas.
Andrew Exum wrote a very interesting policy paper on this subject last month... here is the link. He is a U of Penn Army ROTC grad who served in the early fighting in Iraq.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2559
This has caught the ears of the Academies and some responses have been made to this line of thinking...all positive...
so while I support keeping USNA as the Navy's premier engineering and technical school - there is something to be said for the same school graduating midshipman who will go on to research, training, and experiences that best prepare them for serving long-term active duty experiences with skills that things like humanities/languages/ etc. provide
Exum's article was forwarded to me by a classmate when it first came out and I read it then so bear with me if I remember things out of context. The Navy is very different than the Army and, as a result, USNA must be very different than USMA. The vast majority of our graduates will be serving on technical platforms. What a Sunni thinks of a Shiite is of very little importance in an engine room of a destroyer. An Ensign needs to know the fundamentals of leadership and enough technology not to be threatened by his environment. To transform a curriculum to conform to the needs of a very small percentage of graduates does not do well for the majority. Graduates must go unrestricted line. When will they use Chinese? Most of them never. Their first shore duty assignment will probably be associated with their warfare specialty. Then back to sea duty. Maybe after ten years or so in the fleet, they will have an opportunity to use their language skills of which they will have forgotten most. DLI has an outstanding program, fully immersable in all pertinent languages. The officer would be much more effective attending this program than relying on rusty college studies.
Much of Exum's points address what would, for the Navy, be more senior officers. Our staff and war colleges do a very good job of training these individuals and keeping them up to date.
When one starts adjusting curriculum to existing conflicts, one very soon realizes even more so that they are preparing for the previous war. Along these lines, it is much more important to teach one how to think than what to think.
USNA grads have always stood head and shoulders above others because of, among other things, their technical expertise. All will use this expertise early in their career establishing them as valued officers. With all the humanities, it is at best, for anything other than personal fulfillment, a maybe. And as a taxpayer, personal fulfillment is way down my list of priorities of what should be taught.
Much of Exum's points address what would, for the Navy, be more senior officers. Our staff and war colleges do a very good job of training these individuals and keeping them up to date.
When one starts adjusting curriculum to existing conflicts, one very soon realizes even more so that they are preparing for the previous war. Along these lines, it is much more important to teach one how to think than what to think.
USNA grads have always stood head and shoulders above others because of, among other things, their technical expertise. All will use this expertise early in their career establishing them as valued officers. With all the humanities, it is at best, for anything other than personal fulfillment, a maybe. And as a taxpayer, personal fulfillment is way down my list of priorities of what should be taught.
Last edited:
Prove them wrong:
http://www.usna.edu/acdean/talks/10MjrsBrf.pdf
It is a "dumbing down" of the academy.
http://www.usna.edu/acdean/talks/10MjrsBrf.pdf
It is a "dumbing down" of the academy.
Whistle Pig
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,633
There is no exaggeration and in fact You've illustrated my point well in that 69% of class of 2010 have indicated they are majoring in non-engineering majors and in programs of study that can and are found in virtually every liberal arts college in the land. What you call "technical" degrees including chem, econ, math, general science, the Academy includes in their "Division of Math and Science." Aside from info technology and maybe oceanography, all of these programs are taught in virtrually every liberal arts and science college in the nation and are not considered "technical degees." Comp sci is no longer considered as such, altho we could quibble on where that belongs.
And the irony of your point of those 31% who do have undergrad engineering degrees as particularly valuable background for into-the-future shore duties, well the studies are rampant showing that even engineering degree programs are outdated and tecnologically "over the hill" after 18-36 months of graduating. While that may be some overstatement, an equally valid argument may be that indeed humanities and science degrees would be far more valualble looking into the future assignments. Let's not confuse "math and science" with "technical." These are different birds completely, just like having a chemistry, math and econ degrees are sorely different from EE or aero.
And to your point about all things being equal between the aero eng and the history major, the pilot nod goes to the aero eng. You may be correct. However, one could easily argue, as has been done here and elsewhere that the much more likely scenario is the history major with the 3.2 gpa and the aero major with the 2.2. All other things being equal, the nod for the cockpit goes to the history major. Again, the USNA admissions officers have indicated no connection between majors and assignments. Into the future speculation is just that.
Lastly, let me say I'm not arguing for the liberal arts and science majors which well over 2/3 of Mids now pursue in lieu of engineering (what I would consider the "technical" degrees). I'm simply saying, and the stats validate the point, well over half of the Brigade have liberal arts degrees. It would seem what we disagree on may be the definition of that 29% of mids who are in the Division of Mathematics and Science. You call them technical, I call them liberal arts students. While neither of us is, dare I say, "technically" correct, I don't think there's any way an econ or math or chem major can be deemed "technical" and thus better suited to senior assignments into the future. That strikes me as a stretch.
And the irony of your point of those 31% who do have undergrad engineering degrees as particularly valuable background for into-the-future shore duties, well the studies are rampant showing that even engineering degree programs are outdated and tecnologically "over the hill" after 18-36 months of graduating. While that may be some overstatement, an equally valid argument may be that indeed humanities and science degrees would be far more valualble looking into the future assignments. Let's not confuse "math and science" with "technical." These are different birds completely, just like having a chemistry, math and econ degrees are sorely different from EE or aero.
And to your point about all things being equal between the aero eng and the history major, the pilot nod goes to the aero eng. You may be correct. However, one could easily argue, as has been done here and elsewhere that the much more likely scenario is the history major with the 3.2 gpa and the aero major with the 2.2. All other things being equal, the nod for the cockpit goes to the history major. Again, the USNA admissions officers have indicated no connection between majors and assignments. Into the future speculation is just that.
Lastly, let me say I'm not arguing for the liberal arts and science majors which well over 2/3 of Mids now pursue in lieu of engineering (what I would consider the "technical" degrees). I'm simply saying, and the stats validate the point, well over half of the Brigade have liberal arts degrees. It would seem what we disagree on may be the definition of that 29% of mids who are in the Division of Mathematics and Science. You call them technical, I call them liberal arts students. While neither of us is, dare I say, "technically" correct, I don't think there's any way an econ or math or chem major can be deemed "technical" and thus better suited to senior assignments into the future. That strikes me as a stretch.
Whistle Pig said:
WP, This forum supports the US Naval Academy. Instead of creating our own definitions, we would all communicate better if we used standard USNA terminology. From the USNA 2005-2006 catalog, page 60, Majors Program paragraph:
"The Naval Academy is strongly oriented toward science and engineeering and the majority of graduates are engineers or technical majors."
Throughout their literature, they use the term "technical" to describe the math and science majors.
The issue for me is not being "technically" correct but to present the Academy perspective. I did.
After a lifetime of military service, working with officers from all branches of life and all different majors, I consider my observations more than "speculation." To what military background do you attribute the knowledge and experience to so label it?Whistle Pig said:
Last edited:
peskemom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 147
USNA69...back to the Exum article and ideas. I guess because our daughter is specifically interested in going Marine ground - the ideas in his essay resonate a bit more with her than otherwise. Her thoughts of future military service see her in Arabic countries where a knowledge of the language and culture as a Female Marine Officer are essential for any sustained military success....She is not thinking along the lines of SWO/engineering, but much more along the lines of Marine ground which takes us back to the 'Exum model' to coin a phrase.
I admire your passion for the USNA of 1969...With a husband '72 he experienced the Academy as you did. I frequently ask him about what is the same, and what is different - ( besides the OBVIOUS addition of females on the Floor!) But he always comes back to the fact that USNA continues to graduate the caliber of men and women that the Modern Navy needs and this is always a tension between your concerns and concerns of men like Exum.
GO NAVY
BEAT ARMY
I admire your passion for the USNA of 1969...With a husband '72 he experienced the Academy as you did. I frequently ask him about what is the same, and what is different - ( besides the OBVIOUS addition of females on the Floor!) But he always comes back to the fact that USNA continues to graduate the caliber of men and women that the Modern Navy needs and this is always a tension between your concerns and concerns of men like Exum.
GO NAVY
BEAT ARMY