Academy returns focus to math, science majors (Navy Times)

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
21

<p>USNA does happen to be a technical college; thats why every graduate earns a bachelor of science major... however, to emphatically state that the taxpayers are paying for "technical officers" is not exactly true. The taxpayers are paying for graduates who are developed morally, mentally, and physically, etc etc etc... nowhere does it explicitly state that the purpose of the naval academy is to develop midshipman technically... That being said, I realize that the current Navy is technically based. However, that is why every graduate, regardless of major, graduates with a bachelor of science (a technical degree). Within the more specialized unrestricted communities, further training is necessary (i.e. aviation and nuke), however "technical" majors are neither a prerequisite nor a key to success for those given career paths...</p>

<p>I realize some people favor engineering, math, or poli sci... However, the path to being a successful officer from any field is attainable. Why is there such a big push to have those fields be so heavily concentrated in technical majors? (In recent years there has been a major argument as to why the social science major may be more effective for the modern officer)</p>

22

<p>Nowhere did I say that group 1, 2, or 3 majors won't have success in their field or become a better officer than others.</p>

<p>As we agree, USNA is a technical school, which means that having 25-30% of a class in a group 3 major is more than plenty. This is a lax-er than the previous 80% requirement. </p>

<p>My point isn't to try and say group 3 majors aren't necessary (because they are), it is just to re-emphasize what BUPERS is already doing (pushing the technical percentage number of MIDN in technical majors), I just feel it should be slightly more. Having 300-350 MIDN major in group 3 is a lot. Remember that most classes graduate with 1000.</p>

<p>If social science is that important, the someone might want to convince the administration of that.</p>

23

<p>I guess in the end, if you can become a successful officer from any field than I don't think they should have such restrictions... Looking at the much bigger picture though, the Navy really has the power to do what they feel is necessary. Being in the Navy you realize very quickly that your needs and wishes are secondary to those of the service, and in the grand scheme, your selection of a major is much smaller than many decisions that the Navy will make for you throughout your career.... I dont know, I guess it hits home on a much more personal level because I so much enjoyed my major. For me it was almost like a sanctuary from all the technical classes I took. My Academy experience would have been MUCH different had majored in something else.</p>

24

<p>The Academy awards all graduates a "B.S" in whatever major you decide to choose. So, yes, a Bachelor of Science in history is quite a popular route to getting a degree. All it says with the B.S. is that you've completed the prerequisite requirements to obtain a master's in an engineering field. If I was looking for the "needs of the Navy" I'd rather have someone with a non-technical undergrad (i.e. History from USNA) and Masters in engineering, than undergrad engineering (i.e. Systems engineering from USNA) and humanities masters somewhere else.</p>

<p>Either way, the B.S. designation tells anyone that you have a technical background. If you have the undergrad or graduate concentration in engineering, it just solidifies your capabilities. Either way, I think USNA undergrad in math and science gives you the knowledge you need in the fleet to be a career officer and to serve with the competency you'll need in the future.</p>

25

<p>Ugh. This debate is like "deja vu all over again".</p>

<p>You'd be hard pressed to find a school outside of the SA's that requires it's humanities majors to take 3 semesters of Calculus, two each of Chemistry, Physics and Electrical Engineering, and Naval Architecture, Thermodynamics, Weapons and various and sundry other technical courses.</p>

<p>As a History major (and damn proud of it!) I had no trouble finding a great job in High Technology because, drum roll, please...I had a BS from USNA with a lot of engineering courses, and more importantly more LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE at the tender age of 27, than most 30 or 40 year-olds on the civilian track. I currently run the Services Organization for a Billion dollar company, and while I am not a technical guru any longer, 15 years ago when I went into High Tech I was.</p>

<p>There were a lot of "technical majors" that are about as technical as any group 3 major. Physical Science? Gimme a break. General Engineering? That's where the folks who flunk out of their engineering major go to graduate. Computer Science? Yup, it's technical, but one of my roommates did it because it was the easiest technical major there was besides Phy Sci. I'm not denigrating their degrees, but just because someone chooses Group 3 doesn't mean they are those useless appendages sometimes attributed to bullfrogs... ;)</p>

<p>I know that was in the "olden days" when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and computers were booted with punch cards and reel to reel tapes, but Criminy! All graduates of USNA get dipped in technical curriculum, and in my experience - only speaking for myself - that was much more than enough to handle what the Fleet threw at me. I knew I was never going to be the Program Manager for acquisition of weapons systems or platforms, a design engineer, or an AEDO - but I never wanted to be one of those people, either. If anyone thinks greater success is guaranteed with a BSEE, I can give you more than a couple of examples of classmates who were brilliant engineers who did not "water anyone's eyes" out in the Fleet or in CIVLANT.</p>

<p>I'll get off my soapbox now. ;)</p>

<p>Angry Bull Major</p>

26

<p>As a Poly Sci major and proud of it, there is a need for balance. In my days as a mid, I typed (yes, "typed," as in on a typewriter!) papers for Eng/Sci/Math majors. I was amazed at the number who could not put together a coherent paragraph, let alone a persuasive argument.</p>

<p>The unfortunate fact is that, with the many professional requirements, "bull" majors take a lot of science and engineering, but Group 1/2 majors may never learn to write or even think critically. And, the ability to express yourself well in writing is critical. </p>

<p>Personally, I think the 65% "requirement" for technical majors is about right. Wish there were more opportunities for technical majors to take "bull" courses, but it is what it is.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
As a Poly Sci major and proud of it, there is a need for balance. In my days as a mid, I typed (yes, "typed," as in on a typewriter!) papers for Eng/Sci/Math majors. I was amazed at the number who could not put together a coherent paragraph, let alone a persuasive argument.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some things never change. My roommate and I edited a fair amount of my more technical bretherens' attempts at humanities papers.</p>

28

<p>^^^^ Ditto on the critical writing ability. "I are an engineer..." :)</p>

<p>I know I've said this before on another thread, but the one thing I think is a crying shame on the Group 1 & 2 side is that there are no language requirements for those majors. I literally just came back from Venezuela on Saturday, where my facility in Spanish helped turn a lousy, hideous situation into a success. I went from being a "Gringo" to being thought of as a cultured, considerate "man of the world". I learned Spanish at USNA, and honed it in a pre Flight School stash assignment with the Colombian Navy. It's been really handy, and as you know, we're not real popular in Venezuela at the moment.</p>

29

<p>isn't it interesting that just this year Congress said they wanted the service academies to produce more officers with language proficiencies (Arabic, Chinese, etc) and the Supe decides to return to heavy pressure tactics "encouraging" mids to go Group I and II. seems a little boneheaded to me. but hey, i'm a lowly group III (English), and so I will have little to reccomend myself to the job market: guess I better make the Navy a career! (isn't that what we want to produce, anyways?)</p>

30

<p>


</p>

<p>The mandate came from Chief of Naval Personnel, not the Supt. He is just following orders, the sign of a good Naval Officer.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
The mandate came from Chief of Naval Personnel

[/quote]
lAs I understand that is what Admiral Fowler told the Board of Visitors and reported in the BST. For rumors since any self respecting mid passes them - heard Supe recommended the change to the Chief of Navy Personnel and the Chief acted on it for both ROTC and USNA. Proof - Neither of us know what is the truth!</p>

32

<p>


</p>

<p>Yes we do. It came from Chief of Naval Personnel. What discussion and with whom which went on beforehand is immaterial. Many consider the sign of a good officer as one who takes inputs before he makes a decision.</p>

33

<p>The issue of what degrees naval officers should have has always been a swinging pendulum. The real truth, as I look back on my career in the Navy and my second career since retiring, is that you need to major in everything. </p>

<p>I did not attend USNA. I majored in economics, but I went to a college that required everyone to take differential and integral calculus, a lab science (physics or chemistry), and two years of foreign language. The language requirement came in handy on my first ship , where 70% of our port visits used it. The science and math helped me to perform better as an ASW evaluator, which was instrumental as we prosecuted several Soviet submarines in the Med. </p>

<p>I felt well-prepared for the Naval Postgraduate School, where I studied Undersea Warfare and Acoustics. I was quite surprised to discover that about 10% of the officers in technical majors do not complete their degree, primarily because they cannot get their thesis finished. Although IEEE considers me to be a signal processing engineer, I never really used it. </p>

<p>As a program manager in a NAVSEA related PEO, the technical aspects helped, but for that job, program management skills from my MBA program and the Defense Acquisition University were more instrumental. </p>

<p>In the past year, I have had the chance to counsel many officers at the Academy through my participation in the CSNTS program, as well as many of the midshipmen. One of the Lieutenants wanted to put “B.S. Political Science” on his resume, which is technically what I suppose he has. I essentially told him that most non-Academy graduates reading that would be confused, as normally one gets a “B.A.” not a “B.S.” at most universities in Poly Sci. </p>

<p>The truth is that the midshipmen really have a B.S. in Naval Engineering, with a minor in something else. Most civilian universities require 11-15 courses in a major, while an Academy midshipman would be hard pressed to get seven or eight whether he or she was studying Physics, electrical engineering, or history. </p>

<p>One of the things that I did last summer was to print a copy of the course listings and ask them questions about it, just to see what topics they were covering and books they were reading. Then I tried to tell them "Ok..you study that in this course...here is where it may come in handy." Sometimes they get a bit cynical about elements of their academy experience, and it helps to show them how what they are doing now can connect with something later on. </p>

<p>I agree with the point about language requirements. Iincreased language proficiency is a Congressionally Directed Action (CDA) for DoD and the intelligence community. Languages are now the ticket now in the latter group. I am not sure what is driving the change toward more technical courses, as the Brigade already has a very solid grounding in it anyway. I am not sure that moving from 61 to 65% is a really big change. Perhaps the next directive will be foreign language requirement for everyone. One of the points that I try to get across to the midshipmen is for them to take a broad view of what their levels of expertise should be as they build their careers as naval officers. </p>

<p>Although it I have not seen it openly discussed in the press, in the military forums, or in the academy, I had lunch a couple of months ago with a staffer on the HPSCI, who has a military background. I brought up some of the naval academy changes introduced this year by Admiral Fowler. </p>

<p>According to this individual, the old “What do the military service academies provide for us?” argument has reared its ugly head again. There was a GAO study that came out last year on accession and retention rates at the military academies, and they do not look good. The percentage of Ensigns and 2nd Lieutenants coming from the Academies is at an all time low, and they are not sticking around as long as the individuals from ROTC and OCS. It is particularly bad in the Army. </p>

<p>He brought up a couple of Naval Academy specific issues that I had heard from other sources. One was that NROTC midshipmen were spending double the number of days in the fleet that Academy midshipmen were spending. I think that the explanation is that USNA has the YPs and Navy 44s for its use. If NROTC units could access them, they would probably push their midshipmen in that direction. </p>

<p>I and most of my fellow (now retired) O-5s and O-6s have enormous respect for Admirals Fowler, Roughhead, and Mullen. Most of us knew or at least had met one of them. They have tough jobs in a challenging time. When I reread his Proceedings article “Crucible for Warriors”, it was clear that Admiral Fowler was trying to refocus the Midshipmen on what they will be facing in the fleet. I would probably fine tune things a bit differently, but I can see where he is going, and he has obviously thought deeply about it before taking his current position. I think that he is perhaps responding to some of the concerns voiced by my HPSCI acquaintance at the Pentagon and on the Hill. </p>

<p>I have read and heard in this forum that Academy midshipmen believe that they are considered to be deficient in some way. For example, the Fleet thinks that they are arrogant, and the Coast Guard thinks that they are deficient in seamanship. I disagree. </p>

<p>Whenever I sail with them (and I also work with the GW midshipmen, who come from Georgetown, GW, and Maryland), I just see the same budding junior officers that I saw in the fleet. They have all the energy, dreams, enthusiasm, anxieties, faults, strengths, confidence, and self-doubt that bright people their age possess in such abundance. </p>

<p>One of the things that I try to emphasize is that they are not "students at the Academy", but "future naval officers." I either call them "Future Naval Officer Smith" or by their billet titles on the Navy 44 ("Nav", "Cheng", "First Louie", "DCA", "Suppo") just like they will be called in the fleet. </p>

<p>At one of our meetings this fall, CAPT Margaret Klein announced that the CSNTS program would continue, although with some changes. In all honesty, I view most of these changes as being positive. I see my role as being to try to complement the rest of their educations with as much watchstanding, seamanship, and navigation as I can, while also bolstering the hope that their future careers as naval officers can be fun and fulfilling.</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
Perhaps the next directive will be foreign language requirement for everyone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think everyone can benefit from some experience with a foreign language, even if the outcome is something short of proficiency. If there is a concern about the additional course load given the requirements of Mids pursuing an Engineering/Science degree perhaps they could offer some language programs on a pass/fail basis or along the lines of a program in which they attend as time permits with some expectation for the total number of classes attended? If a Mid needs to allocate additional time to a class at some point they have the freedom to skip the language class without compromising their schedule or core curriculum. Given the time, those that are truly interested will be there as much as they can be. Just a thought.</p>

35

<p>i respect what you are suggesting, but the naval academy will never have a track with optional classes. classes at annapolis are never optional, unless the individual prof makes it so.</p>

36

<p>Wheelah</p>

<p>I understand and that may prevent such an approach from ever being adopted or even considered. We do live in a dynamic environment with challenges that change along with our potential foes; one of many reasons why change does occur even at the Naval Academy. I think it's reasonable for the Academy to consider some middle ground in whatever form so the future crop of Naval officers can place a greater emphasis on the pursuit of a technical degree and still have a chance to experience some language opportunities despite their choice of an Engineering/Science track. I understand it may come down to the fact that there are not enough hours in their schedule to make something like this happen.</p>

<p>If that is the case perhaps they can look at language proficiency as another element of summer training. Offer a language class as a 2-3 week summer block each year. Spend a block or two of your summer out in the fleet and one back in Annapolis working through an intensive language program. I think you would still need to use it during the year if any of what you learned during the summer was going to stick but it may provide enough of a foundation for a Mid to continue on their own. </p>

<p>Given the current approach to languages and his desire to select an Engineering major our son decided to buy a copy of the Rosetta Stone language program to work with when he has time. Short of a direct approach I guess they could always make them available to interested Mids.....</p>

37

<p>If you check, I think you will find several Mids majoring in engineering, math and science also taking languages. So, there is a way to fit it into one's schedule, without overloading.</p>

38

<p>^^^^^
Foreign languages can be taken to meet the humanities requirements for an engineering degree at the academy.</p>

39

<p>GA, </p>

<p>Thank you, I wasn't aware of that, I'll ask my Mid if he was. </p>

<p>Thinking about your comment two things come to mind; communication in English and the ability to articulate and present ideas or more importantly, orders through speech or the written word are as critical as any of the skills we are discussing, perhaps more so. Given the reality/perception suggested by those that pursued non-technical majors that us engineers suffer in that regard, should we not support or reinforce a very important skill through "normal" humanities requirements for those pursuing a technical degree? The majority of time an officer spends communicating in our Navy is going to be though the English language. The ability to speak Arabic or Chinese would be great so long as that officer is at least reasonably competent in English to begin with. Time and money are most often expended in a zero sum game, when you have only so much of either to throw around, you have to choose where you will get the greatest return on your investment. Unlike our government, people can’t deficit spend either commodity without facing bankruptcy. Mastering English shouldn’t be an elective spent on another language. Those that have the skills to begin with may indeed have that option. </p>

<p>Second, and this may be more my perception than reality, I think languages are a great challenge for some to learn and are often viewed as a somewhat intimidating course addition. I took a few semesters of Russian while pursuing my engineering degree and it did about as much good for my GPA as Thermo 2. If the goal of the Navy is to pursue a path that leads to a large percentage of the service population developing some skills in a language, I think the greatest benefit will come from providing a path that encourages as many as possible to give it try. Some may fail and come away with little, others may surprise themselves and pick it up quickly.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
In the past year, I have had the chance to counsel many officers at the Academy through my participation in the CSNTS program, as well as many of the midshipmen. One of the Lieutenants wanted to put “B.S. Political Science” on his resume, which is technically what I suppose he has. I essentially told him that most non-Academy graduates reading that would be confused, as normally one gets a “B.A.” not a “B.S.” at most universities in Poly Sci. </p>

<p>The truth is that the midshipmen really have a B.S. in Naval Engineering, with a minor in something else. Most civilian universities require 11-15 courses in a major, while an Academy midshipman would be hard pressed to get seven or eight whether he or she was studying Physics, electrical engineering, or history.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know if I would characterize an Academy degree as a B.S. in Naval Engineering and a minor in "something else." As a history major I took 13 history courses throughout my time, which apparently falls into your 11-15 at a civilian college. I only took 5 engineering courses (2 EE, boats, thermo, and weapons)...</p>

<p>If I had to characterize my degree as anything, than a B.S. in History would be the best way to characterize it. It shows that I took many classes in history, however I had a strong technical base as well. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but can't you earn a B.S. in a humanity from any college as long as you took a requisite number of technical courses?</p>

<p>... I guess I'm being a bit nitpicky. This was just something that kinda caught my eye</p>