<p>Academy</a> returns focus to math, science majors - Navy News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Navy Times</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Navy wants more commissioned officers with technical degrees in science and engineering, and it has directed the Naval Academy to graduate a specific number of those majors for the first time in years, the academys superintendent said Monday.</p>
<p>The chief of naval personnel recently directed the academy and Naval ROTC to have 65 percent of graduates who are commissioned to complete technical academic majors in science, technology, engineering or math, Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler told the academys Board of Visitors.</p>
<p>Fowler said about 61 percent of the academys graduates who go on to the Navy earn those technical degrees, not counting the academys Marine Corps commissions. Fowler said the academy will likely need to hire more instructors for the technical fields, but he didnt think the directive would be hard to reach....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This new requirement is still lower than the 80 percent requirement when I was a midshipman.</p>
<p>I hope they can do that without forcing people into majors that they don't want to do</p>
<p>The new percentages may reflect (more or less) the percentage of USN vs. USMC grads. USNA produces officers for two groups: USN and USMC. Apparently, USMC doesn't care what your major is whereas USN wants officers to have a technical background. It should be noted that the percentage of grads who may choose USMC is also increasing (from the roughly 17% in the 80s to ~23% today). </p>
<p>As for "forcing" people into majors . . . as GA says, in our day, the percentage was mandated at 80/20. To achieve that, the administration strongly encouraged students to select technical majors and tried to admit a very high proportion who indicated a desire to major in a technical subject and had the background (courses, SATs, etc.) to support it.</p>
<p>I don't recall anyone being "forced" into a major he/she didn't want but there was definitely a push to choose a technical major. To that end, it will be important to stress in the admissions process (and at NASS, etc.) that USNA wants more technical majors and that people should expect to major in one. </p>
<p>Of interest, we were told that the major that produces the highest percentage of career officers is . . . history. So go figure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of interest, we were told that the major that produces the highest percentage of career officers is . . . history. So go figure.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>assuming that was indeed the case, I am curious if they had any other data on where history majors typically spent most of their career, in other words is there a second part to this pattern that may explain the longevity. </p>
<p>Or was it simply a case of supply and demand, graduates with technical degrees could make more money on the outside?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of interest, we were told that the major that produces the highest percentage of career officers is . . . history.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that's because it is much more difficult to get a job on the "outside" - lol.
Being an officer in the US Navy sure beats stocking shelves at Wal-Mart.</p>
<p>For Engineers - jobs are plentiful and pay very well - the lure is great.</p>
<p>does this mean they're looking at candidates who chose group 1 and 2 for the first and second choice majors on the application more favorably?</p>
<p>First, the comment about history majors being career officers was not made in a disparaging manner and shouldn't be taken as such. </p>
<p>Second, I wouldn't knock history majors. Of the two I know personally, one spent over 20 years in the submarine force to include submarine command. Another is an executive with the Federal Reserve. May not be representative, but to denegrate history majors is not appropriate.</p>
<p>Also, for the majority of people, after about five years, your ability to obtain a job outside the Navy or USMC probably has as much to do with your military experience as your major. For example, if you are a pilot, I don't think the airlines care whether you got there as an English major or a Mech E major. I could be wrong, but . . .</p>
<p>Was not denigrating them at all - I have one who is living in my basement. ;) </p>
<p>But you are right - after 5 years as a Naval officer the major you have on getting out is less important.</p>
<p>I still believe it is easier for an engineering major to get out and make some really nice money......</p>
<p>
[quote]
does this mean they're looking at candidates who chose group 1 and 2 for the first and second choice majors on the application more favorably?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is an excellent -- and difficult -- question. The short answer is "yes." But that's not the entire answer. As noted above, USNA has two employers it supports: the USN and USMC. The larger of those has made clear that it wants a high percentage of technical majors. The smaller doesn't care. Thus, USNA must do its best to graduate a high percentage of technical majors.</p>
<p>Obviously, the willingness and ability of candidates to pursue technical majors is one thing that USNA looks for in the admissions process. It doesn't want (and really can't take) a class where 80% want to major in English and History. </p>
<p>That said, it is VERY important to understand a couple of things. First, DO NOT LIE in the process. If you have no intention of majoring in science, math or engineering, don't say that you plan to do so. Even with the new "requirements," up to 35% of each class can still major in the humanities. And, if you have a strong overall record, the fact you want to major in the humanities is unlikely to keep you from being admitted.</p>
<p>Second, your record speaks for itself. If you have a high percentage of high school courses in the humanities -- i.e., if your "electives" are language and English and art history, etc. -- and if your ECAs are heavily tilted toward the humanities, it will be harder to convince someone that your true desire is to major in engineering (even if true).</p>
<p>In my day (when the percentage was 80/20), I told my BGO and USNA that I would probably be a humanities major but was open to a science major. My decision came down to "General Science Management" (or something like that) and Political Science. Ended up with the latter because that was what I was most interested in. Of course, in my day, most women ended up in administrative-type positions where a technical background was not as important as it is today when all physically qualified women and men must select an unrestricted line specialty.</p>
<p>USNA 85,</p>
<p>I have to agree. I'm a history major and am already thinking about making the Navy a long career. I think it's a combination of job security and appreciation for the service that we gain here while studying history.</p>
<p>I don't know. I notice a lot of history majors here who would probably make great officers, and many EE majors who are already proclaiming that they're going to 5 and dive.</p>
<p>okay... in high school i've taken mostly science/math courses, reaching the ap level in most (ap physics, chem, math, computer science) but pretty much the bare minimum for english and history (3 years history, 4 years english). i listed group 1 as my first choice and group 2 as my second 'cause that's really what i want to do... i'm shooting for something like environmental engineering, even though Navy doesn't have it, most of the mids say that ocean engineering is similar... do you have any insight into this?
thanks.</p>
<p>Yep - go to USMA. They have environmental engineering there.</p>
<p>Department</a> of Geography and Environmental Engineering</p>
<p>Naval</a> Academy to push for more math and science majors - Naval Academy - (HometownAnnapolis.com)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Navy wants more commissioned officers with technical degrees in science and engineering, and it has directed the U.S. Naval Academy to graduate a specific number of those majors for the first time in years, the academy's superintendent said Monday. </p>
<p>The Chief of Naval Personnel recently directed the academy and Naval ROTC to have 65 percent of graduates who are commissioned to complete technical academic majors in science, technology, engineering or math, Vice Adm. Jeffrey Fowler told the academy's Board of Visitors....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ocean Engineering is most similar to Civil Engineering. Oceanography leans more to Environmental Science Mid and Husband who is a professor of Civil Engineering and has had USNA Ocean Engineering Grad students in the last few years - one graduated this past May with his Masters have stated this numerous times as has the LT Commander who just graduated.</p>
<p>ah, this is from the article that GA posted:</p>
<p>"The new policy will apply to the class of 2013."</p>
<p>guess it won't apply to my class...</p>
<p>Do you think that, once at the academy, you are almost frowned upon if you are not a math/science/engineering major? I know nothing of the process to earning stripes your firsty year- but would your major have a negative impact on anything like that?</p>
<p>For stripes, no, it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>Pretty much the only difference between group 1 & 2 and group 3 majors is that group 3 must take a mandatory language requirement (4 semesters) and less advanced technical courses. Group 3 also usually gets made fun of (jokingly) because of how "easy" their majors are.</p>
<p>I wish BUPERS would raise the percentage to about 70-75%.</p>
<p>Coming from a former history major, the workload is much different for group 3 majors. Its definitey a bit lighter. Much of the workload for group 3 majors is also stacked at the end of the semester (large papers), however, the work for the engineering majors is a bit more spread out... I still remember the last month of school being fairly frantic for me every semester... As far as being "easy," I would say that success in a group 3, or atleast in history, was much more dependent on your writing skills than working harder than anyone else... Why should BUPERS raise the percentage to 70-75?</p>
<p>USNA is a technical college....3/4 of the class should major in something technical (not that group 3 majors are uninmportant). The taxpayers are paying for highly technical officers.</p>