Best of Times Worst of Times

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
1

<p>My mission, while I still post here, is to make sure that those considering the USNA have as much information as possible to consider.</p>

<p>I think one of the most disconcerting issues for plebes is not the summer, not the plebe b/s, but when they come to realize that this place is not the perfect place it seems to be in your [and everybody else's] imagination.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, there is plenty to like about this place but there is plenty to dislike. So, in this end-of-year time of lists, her is my list of what I like and disklike about the USNA.</p>

<p>I'll try to come up w/ 10 but probably won't. Current mids, chime in. Past mids--event hough there is no way of enforcing this--you MUST start your sentence with</p>

<p>"In ________, [insert year], what I liked/disliked about the Academy was: ]</p>

<p>LIKE
1. SOME of the people. I have made some great friends here.
2. MOST of the professors.
3. OPPORTUNTIES for learning, involvement, experience. Far beyond what my friends have experienced.
4. Heck of a career opportunit upon graduaton.
5. COST! I just saw a person I know who is Navy ROTC at a nother university. He was working at a department store over the holidays to help with his costs. I don't have to worry about that.</p>

<p>DISLIKE
1. MOST of the people. What you think about the "best and the brightest" is simply not true. These are the "best and the brightest" of those who choose to serve.<br>
2. The general disregard for standards and discipline that has develooped int he past ten [?] or twenty [?] years. Those who look to maintain standards are looked down upon as "Joes" and given a hard time.
3. The complete disregard for sanity that seems to have developed in the past year. Formation at the end of the academice year when less than 1/2 of the brigade is here? What purpose does this serve.
4. The food situation is deplorable.
5. The current administration.</p>

<p>I have a friend who is thinking about not signing his commitment papers. He is very disillusioned about his felloe mids [in particular a situation where a fellow mid has not been punished for infractions], the pettiness of those supervising him, etc.</p>

<p>I say this, because I want you to know that the place is not perfect.
It's pretty good, but not perfect. You are surreounded by many different cultures and backgrounds. Some good and some not so good.
Some trying really hard, others less so.
Just come in w/ your eyes open as much as possible. Even then, it won't be like you think it is.</p>

2

<p>I am a bit worried about your second DISLIKE point. I saw it when I was there at CVW and got a bit dissalusioned. Luckily I did see some guys maintaining standards. But like you said, they were labled Joes. In fact it was a varsity athlete making most of the smart remarks about friggin Joes.</p>

<p>So my question is how you deal with it? Can you deal with it? You can't alienate those around you entirely, but I at least, would feel obligated to uphold standards, thats what the institution's about. Are there a lot of individuals that think like you do in your company? Or do the bad appples outweigh the good ones, so to speak?</p>

3

<p>My squad leader at NASS told us about Joes (and even exerted her hate of Joes)</p>

4

<p>What makes someone a "joe"?</p>

5

<p>joes are people who take it upon themselves to be the policemen of the brigade, enforcing every single rule, blowing many things out of proportion and generally making themselves the pompous holier-than-thous of the brigade. it is a decidedly negative term. to those who say they would feel it necessary to 'uphold standards'...joes are about so much more than that. but until you get to annapolis, you can't really know what they are. you know one when you see one. joes are usually insecure and subpar performers who feels the needs to make up for it by cutting everyone down around them and 'exposing' the various misdeeds of their classmates, no matter how minute.</p>

6

<p>I guess I'm a little confused about your second dislike:what type of standards are you talking about? </p>

<p>it seemed to me that people were way more chill at CVW than I had thought they would be, but everyone still had standards that they upheld.All in all I think that it made everyone seem more personable and likeable- they were professional when they had to be, yet they were still college kids.</p>

7

<p>In this discussion of “Joe’s” you seem to be talking about two different people, at least I hope that is the case. </p>

<p>I think for the benefit of those potential Mids asking these questions I want to suggest all of you consider the difference of the individuals in question and how you evaluate the conduct of people in the context of the position they hold and the responsibilities they are charged with. There will always be those with character flaws that may try to use the mistakes of others to distract from their own deficiencies. I can understand how someone that may act in such a way would be looked upon with disdain and perhaps labeled a “Joe”. Such conduct is an entirely different from the actions of an individual that acts in support of tradition or their perception of the rules of conduct and comes across as a hard-ass or tough. I would hope that such an individual would not be labeled as such assuming they act in a manner that is fair and reasonable. </p>

<p>I don’t know how you could have a discussion about the Naval Academy without spending a great deal of time talking about traditions. I would also ask you to consider that regardless of who is in charge of the brigade or the academy at large at any point in time, the traditions and expectations for conduct will not be diminished if you do not let them. I’m sure you recognize in any institution or organization it’s easy to become discouraged or disenchanted with people and their actions. There are no places I know of where perfection exists. No matter how things are going for you on any given day, the manner in which you conduct yourself is your responsibility first and foremost and will ultimately reflect on you and you alone.</p>

8

<p>Wheelah is correct in her definition. Theproblem is that some mids are applying that term to more and more people. That is, as I understand it, the term "joe" was applied to those where the most egregious--and offensive--in their application of every rule, i.e. they look for every opportunity to fry others for even the most minor of infractions.</p>

<p>What I am suggesting is that more and more people are being called "Joes" when, in fact, they don't really deserve the term.</p>

<p>To clarify.
What I have disappointed in is that few people really seem to be trying to "push" themselves, either honorably, physically, or mentally.
Many--at least in my opinion--seem to be trying to "get by." The honor concept seems to be more of a bother than a standard; we all have examples of serious infractions--some have been mentioned on this board--that did not seem to resutl in serious punishment to the mid involved. That is unfortunate.<br>
While current administration talks about restoring integrity, etc., etc., some of these infractions have occurred this year.
Yes, I don't know all the facts. But when persons accused of sexual assault are still int he Brigade, well, it does make one kind of wonder what in the heck is going on?</p>

<p>So. . . your observations may be correct. It's not so much that whomever you are referring was [based on past definitions] a true "Joe" as much as he/she was just being labeled as such by one [in this case a varsity athlete] who didn't beleive he/she should be held to a standard higher than other college athletes.</p>

<p>As long as you don't have an expectation that all mids are these honorable, all-stars who excel at everything and lead a straight-arrow life [refer to the drunken mids for reference] then you will havea better frame of reference.</p>

9

<p>I have been doing everything I could to stay out of this thread but the following bears comment:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>First off, do the actions of 'joes' only apply to classmates. If so, that was completely unheard of in my time.</p>

<p>Wheelah's observation caused me pause. I had never really thought about it before but, in my time, the "flamers" of plebes were certainly most often "dirtbags". Not sure about her amateur psychology, but she does have a point.</p>

<p>Now for the rest of the story. I don't know how many times I have met these self same "flaming dirtbags" over the past 15-20 years, only to comment "How did that a$$hole make Cdr/Captain?" It seems that an inordinate number of them did rather well in their military careers. Maybe Wheelah's psychological observations are correct. Their insecurities caused them to fear the private sector so they stayed in and the Peter Principal did it's job. Interesting thoughts non the less.</p>

10

<p>I always thought that most of the “Flamers” I experienced probably had a tougher Plebe year than most and now being in an actual or assumed position of authority wanted others (underclassmen) to experience the same suffering they did. However, I do not remember “Flamers” dealing with Classmates in the same manner, mainly because it would have been squelched one way or another. As USNA69 mentioned you will always run into someone in the Fleet and you will wonder how did they make it this far. Like anywhere else things happen. Eventually, they change or it catches up with them. But, one final observance, there is a fine line between too much and not enough. I have seen in the Fleet where there is a lack of discipline, and this can also cause major issues; both the command’s ability to perform and the individual’s success. Look at the “Joes” and look at those that do command your respect, and learn from the best attributes of both styles.</p>

11

<p>


</p>

<p>Yep, without a doubt. And some, if not most, had a tougher plebe year because they were dirtbags.</p>

12

<p>Roger that!!!</p>

13

<p>I'll have to agree with most of that. Being a plebe this year, I'd have to say that there is a serious problem with overall attitude at the academy right now. Most midshipmen, especially all the upperclass, are very cynical about the school because of the new administration (understandable, of course). I like the friends I've made and the valuable training I have been given. I don't like the huge focus on the technical background of academics such as chemistry and stuff.</p>

14

<p>Thank you for getting this thread back on track.
Now that we have covered "Joes" more than its worth . . .back to the original quesiton:</p>

<p>What do current mids like the most and least about the Academy?</p>

15

<p>I think a lot of positive outlook vs. cynicism can come from your company. Personally, I love my company and especially my classmates in company. I know they have my back and would do anything to protect me or help me out, which is the kind of camaraderie that the military tries to create (a cohesive unit, one where its members are so in tune with each other that they can almost communicate without talking, at least as I see it).</p>

<p>Of course, not everything's perfect: rankings still seem to be based on popularity rather than the quality of leadership a person exhibits (I'll admit, I'm guilty of giving higher rankings to those I spend more time with...when you're in a closer proximity, you feel you know them better and so of course it's going to seem like they're a better leader to you), firsties who run a company seeming to be biased, people not getting billets that they want.</p>

<p>Still, there's nothing like realizing how much of a bond you have with 140 other people who happen to be randomly assigned to the same company as when you're home on break and think, "Gosh, I really miss my roommates...gosh, I really miss the guys down the hall..."</p>

<p>Or maybe that's just me. :) ha. My mom says I accidently called Bancroft "home" when I was talking to her today, as in, "Gee, I can't wait to get home and start next semester."</p>

16

<p>From friends who have graduated in the previous decades - have them from the 60's 80's and 90's, the cynicism has always been there - it is not just the new administration. Probably a bit more so with this administration but not the total cause. The place just lends itself to cynicism.</p>