<p>^^^^^</p>
<p>I agree that rankings are helpful and, in many cases, probably better than grades. However, there are problems with that as well. Some schools outright refuse to rank. Some go as far as refusing even to provide guidelines (i.e., a student with a 3.25 GPA would typically be in the top third of the class). And, schools that do rank often have multiple (as in dozens of) #1s b/c of weighting, AP courses, etc. At the end of the day, no system is (yet) perfect.</p>
<p>Whistle - yep, it helped my friend's daughter decide whether she should 'give it a shot' and apply to USNA (she is going to go for it - and she'd be terrific!).</p>
<p>I was thinking about taking my son's data and doing the algebra, trying to figure out exactly what gets multiplied. I know he did take the Strong Interest Inventory, kind of doubt that he got the results back. He is USNA 2011, so they're still using it. Don't know how many of the 'optional' points he got - he is not a targeted minority or a Division I recruited athlete, so maybe not too many. He got in with a November LOA, so whatever the score was, it was enough. </p>
<p>I read some very interesting examinations of "bull majors" both online and off. Seems that there is great concern that there are too few USNA grads who are able to operate (and, more importantly) troubleshoot the Navy's highly complex weapons and surveillance systems now. </p>
<p>Therefore, the Navy needs more grads with experience in computer modeling and engineering, less grads with experience in U.S. history and English Lit. It's not a matter of any inherent prejudice against the "bull majors" - it is simply that the Navy has a strong need for grads with highly technical skill sets, able to hit the ground running with their equipment. </p>
<p>Navy 2010 - yes, I know the information is available here... but it was in a thread from 2004. Not many casual board readers would happen upon it. As you may have noted, I referenced the link and gave credit to the original author. And I doubt the percentages from 2003 will still apply in 2008 - but as Whistle noted, the overall trends give the essence of the review process.</p>
<p>USNA 1985 - Glad to see you back here. You give terrific advice, and as a peer of yours (same age, non-military) I have nothing but ultimate respect for women who were graduating from academies in the 1980s. I met a member of your class, another woman, at a plebe send-off social event and she was awesome - such a great role model!</p>
<p>I will admit to being a "Bull Major" and I have heard this familiar lament from engineers who think everyone from USNA should be an engineer. I respectfully disagree. Maybe not so respectfully. It's baloney, IMHO.</p>
<p>As a naval officer, you will rarely be required to roll up your sleeves, get on a workbench and repair or troubleshoot the "highly complex" gear that is installed in our aircraft, ships and submarines. Do you need to know how it works? Yes, but highly skilled enlisted personnel perform most of the troubleshooting and repair, as do civilian technical reps.</p>
<p>Taking calculus, chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, naval architecture, electrical engineering and weapons courses more than prepares grads to handle the technical requirements that the fleet throws at you. Bull Majors still take most of those classes along with many others.</p>
<p>I can honestly say that I never needed "Taylor's and McLaurin's series" to be effective in my job, nor did I need to spout out the "Continuity Equation" from Second Class Thermo class to save the day.</p>
<p>Unless you want to go off to grad school in engineering or hard science, or become an engineering duty officer, or got to Test Pilot School, you don't need to be an engineer. You get plenty of engineering fundamentals from the very thorough curriculum at USNA. </p>
<p>I have taught computer internetworking and telephony networks. I was a history major at USNA. Currently, I manage a services organization in a high tech company specializing in videoteleconferencing. I have been in high tech since leaving the active duty Navy 14 years ago, and I have only needed to talk about ohms and amps on a few occasions. I am more than prepared for that. I got an MBA at an international university instead. Lots of math and statistics, but nothing I hadn't already seen before at Annapolis.</p>
<p>Before I get blasted, nuclear power officers probably need to be technical or engineering majors. My bad. Having said that, I know more than a few "Bull Majors" who are submarine officers, or who were offered interviews for the nuclear power program.</p>
<p>I plan on being a humanities major no matter where I go...</p>
<p>If I don't get into USNA, it's because I'd like to go into something that involves international studies or journalism, and hopefully one day get into the world of politics.</p>
<p>If I DO go to USNA, it's because in the longrun (I guess around age 40), I might want to consider teaching history/english/polisci/foreign language or step into the realm of politics once again.</p>
<p>I know some people choose humanities because it's a "bull major." I think my choice has been thought through and well-reasoned. Now WHICH humanities major I'd choose is completely undecided...</p>
<p>Dad&Grad - honestly, I'd never, ever blast you. </p>
<p>I would, however, gently and sweetly and in a sotto voice point out the following:</p>
<p>Military technology (and civilian) has really changed since we were in college. REALLY changed. </p>
<p>I remember my first IBM AT computer in the '80s; I could pull it apart and service it myself. And I was an English lit/Chemistry double major - sort of a half-assed bull major, if you will. Ditto with my LED-display TI calculator, which I could drop on the floor, crack open, and resolder to save money on a repair. </p>
<p>Have you seen the calculators the plebes are using this year? The specs for their desktop computers?</p>
<p>Now I see DARPA proposals and projects in the pipeline that are, literally, mind-blowing. Even with twenty, thirty hours of physical sciences - I sincerely doubt that a "bull major" could effectively troubleshoot some of these systems. And these DARPA projects are part of the military wave of the future - our kids are going to be using and adapting and troubleshooting them. </p>
<p>Now, please don't blast me, OK?</p>
<p>If I understand his point correctly, he is saying that Service Academy graduate officers are not the ones that are (or will be) working on this new sophisticated equipment.</p>
<p>Enlisted and civilian contractors will be doing it.</p>
<p>Thanks, Luigi. I get it, I do.</p>
<p>But I have a hard time seeing how someone with 20, maybe 30 hours of undergrad credit in USNA intro science courses can effectively supervise a unit of highly-skilled enlisted and civilian contractors. </p>
<p>The analogy would be, IMO, a first-year dermatology intern trying to supervise an OR full of surgical nurses and neurosurgeons working on patients with a laser-based microsurgery system. While they may have a common basic knowledge and language, the dermatologist wouldn't be the best possible supervisor of the OR personnel. </p>
<p>And, no, I don't think that there is no need for 'bull majors' at USNA, or that every grad should be an engineer. Far from it - the skills humanitites majors bring to the table are incredibly valuable. But I keep reading and hearing that the Navy has a pressing need for JOs who are technologically adept and can immediately work with the new weapons systems, etc. that the Navy has bought and paid for.</p>
<p>In this context, the big picture - less bull majors, more studying - makes some sense to me. Again, it's not a matter of one type of major being better than the other, it's a matter of one fitting the requirements the Navy now demands.</p>
<p>Oh, and for a glimpse into future 'pie-in-the-sky' systems, see:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.darpa.mil/body/off_programs.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.darpa.mil/body/off_programs.html</a></p>
<p>I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :) </p>
<p>Like you, I've lived through the incredible changes in technology since the misty 80's. I can only offer my personal experiences and say that being a bull major has not hurt me in the least. For the candidates out there who are concerned about having to be engineers, it just isn't an absolute requirement for success in the Fleet. In fact, my language skills in Spanish have been far more valuable to me in career advancement than the technical courses I took. But again, that's my story. Individual results may vary... :)</p>
<p>My dad used a sliderule as an engineering student. I used a TI-55. Our kids are using the next generation of calculators and their kids will use something even more advanced, I'm sure. When I took statistics at USNA in the early 80's, I used a hand-held calculator and graph paper and paper tables. When I took statistics in my MBA in 1999, we used Excel. You adapt and learn how to use technology, or you get left behind.</p>
<p>I just don't believe that the requirement of troubleshooting gear to the bench level (again with tongue in cheek) is a major part of the Junior Officer's repertoire as a line officer in a ship or squadron. That's why we have CPO's and PO's, depot level maintenance and a huge reliance on civilian specialists from defense companies. If a module fails, you don't get out your soldering iron, you call for a replacement and send the defective unit back to be repaired. Just like you said in your post, the technology is so complex that even the idea of fixing a PCB yourself is just infeasible. You DO need to know how all of the systems interoperate and what you have available to you when there are system casualties. You learn that in follow-on, professional schools after USNA, and on the job as you qualify. </p>
<p>I think the not-so-subtle bias toward more engineers is that there is a belief - perhaps founded on empirical evidence - that engineers are smarter and have a higher aptitude than non-engineers. Maybe that's true. But as all of us older folks know, it isn't always the academically smartest folks who wind up in the CEO's office or with stars on their shoulders.</p>
<p>USNA Dad&Grad: I'm with you on "bull" majors being as able to LEAD well-trained people, and on the use of depot maintenance (Navy electronics maintenance was my field for a dozen years). I do see a real need for having the strongest possible technical background for those officers who are assigned to act as contractor liaison positions, or in the various "N" slots in the Pentagon. If those people get "snowed," it can make a huge difference for the entire life of a weapons system, etc.</p>
<p>USNA Dad&Grad, as a dad, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However calling the opposing view "BS" is a little harsh. However, as a grad and, hence, a “knowledgable expert", I would have hoped that you would be more accepting of Academy policies. Somehow, you seem to have reduced technology to the ability to manipulate a few black boxes. Those boxes still control real engines, motors, weapons, hydraulic and pneumatic systems, and much more.</p>
<p>It is what the Academy wants: </p>
<p>One of the five stated taskings of the Admissions Board is to select midshipmen who are:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Likely to choose fields of study that reflects needs of the Navy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They do this by weighing more heavily those attributes necessary for success in engineering and technical fields; Math SATs, AP Math and Science success, avowing interest in same on application and during BGO interview, among others.</p>
<p>They do this by stating in the catalog:
[quote]
The Naval Academy is strongly oriented toward science and engineering
[/quote]
and supporting the programs such that USNA is annually ranked as one of the top two or three undergraduate engineering schools annually.</p>
<p>It is what the taxpayers demand:</p>
<p>While someone on this site erroneously reported that the Supt worked directly for the Board of Visitors, they do provide oversight. Congress annually appoints a board to assess the “state” of the Academy. Their report is forwarded to Congress and becomes a part of the Annual Congressional Report to the President. Contrary to what some may believe, the Board is more concerned with majors than whether corn is a vegetable or starch. Therefore,since majors were established, the SecNavs, commencing with Lehman, have mandated minimum numbers of graduates in the technical/engineering fields. It has been as high as 80% and as low as 75%. The current administration has been the first to deem a minimum requirement unnecessary.</p>
<p>It is what the Navy wants:</p>
<p>From the NROTC website:
[quote]
NROTC Scholarship Program may pursue a major in any field of study leading to a bachelor's degree, although pursuit of technical majors is encouraged. All Navy option midshipmen are required to take two semesters of calculus and two semesters of calculus-based physics. The ability to handle technical material is an important consideration for future assignments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From the STA-21(Navy in-house Seaman to Admiral OCS Program) website:
[quote]
selectees are strongly encouraged to pursue technical degree programs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While the OCS Admissions board is about as secretive as the USNA board, it is a well known fact now that a technical degree is almost a requirement unless one has a very high GPA.</p>
<p>Why does the Navy want their officers to have a technical education? I don’t think that it is so they can repair black boxes necessarily. Naval Officers fight a weapons platform, be it a submarine, a surface ship, or an aircraft. The more they know about the technical aspects of that platform, and the effects of the failures thereof, the more capable they are in fighting it. There is also the every day maintenance of same. As an aviator, and post maintenance functional check pilot, I know I was better prepared to discuss systems and their workings than was a humanities major.</p>
<p>I also just pulled this off the internet when I googled scientific reasoning:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Science is an activity that consists in the explanation, prediction, and control of empirical phenomena in a rational manner. By "scientific reasoning" we mean the principles of reasoning relevant to the pursuit of this activity. They include principles governing experimental design, hypothesis testing, and the interpretation of data………………………….We need to make use of good reasoning to explain, predict, and control the events around us.
[/quote]
Kinda sounds like the kind of trained “mind” that I would wish to have flying my plane, running my CIC, and sitting in the Battle Group command center during a time of war. Is a “bull” major as focused or would he have to read a few books and write a couple of papers before he could make a decision?</p>
<p>Bottom line, it doesn’t matter a hoot what I think. As a BGO and thusly, a representative of the Naval Academy and it’s Admission’s Department, I would be horribly remiss and totally irresponsible if I did not support the Academy’s stated admissions requirements.</p>
<p>The National Defense Education Act of 1958, provided large-scale federal aid to education and was primarily aimed at producing a new crop of scientists who would apply their knowledge to bolster national security during the Cold War and beyond. It was thought that additional NDEA funding would vastly increase the number of college-educated Americans and many would be scientists and engineers. Schools that specialized in science, including the Service Academies continued to produce new scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. But, the majority of post-WWII American college students studied law, medicine, finance, and liberal arts-exactly what Ivy League grads had done for decades. </p>
<p>Why and when did the curriculum at the Service Academies change?</p>
<p>"I think the not-so-subtle bias toward more engineers is that there is a belief - perhaps founded on empirical evidence - that engineers are smarter and have a higher aptitude than non-engineers. Maybe that's true. But as all of us older folks know, it isn't always the academically smartest folks who wind up in the CEO's office or with stars on their shoulders." usna dad/grad</p>
<p>Most would agree that the academically selected elite don't control America. I've even seen this group described as, "Brainy, isolated, coast-dwelling, culturally liberal, and economically less so." Almost sounds like a description of Alan Greenspan! Heck, those hedge-fund zillionaires don't even waste time getting MBAs these days!</p>
<p>usna dad/grad, I appreciated your comments and agree with you.</p>
<p>Also, one of the most gifted pilots I know who currently holds many soaring records (Steve Fossett broke one of his world records this year), is a former Naval aviator, current FedEx captain, and was a marginal student. Another friend just retired as a Delta capt. He dropped out of law school to attend Navy OCS. Neither had strong technical backgrounds; both were brilliant pilots. My ex had BS/MS aero engineering degrees from elite college, senior scientist at Boeing, but couldn't hammer a nail straight.</p>
<p>"but couldn't hammer a nail straight." Too funny and so true of many engineers that I know. I have an Industrial Engineering degree ...my husband used to tell me it was an Imaginary Engineering degree as ISYE degrees are "light" on traditional engineering courses. He has a Civil Engineering degree through the PhD level. Obviously a bright man but I can repair anything around the house and he has to call the service man or the Mid with no degree. He was the one most distraught when his built in IT guy left for USNA.</p>
<p>When my Mid had his interview with his BGO, "scientific" major was never talked about, rather his interests and what he wanted out of his education in respect to life goals. This man was a Navy Pilot - Jets. My son had a mutual "friend" (well respected teacher at his school who know BGO very well) He commented to my son that this man was one of the most intelligent individuals he knew. Bull major - now an very successful investment analysts with MBA from an very elite business school. Bull major USNA...Naval Pilot service selection, Top of class at flight school, Jets. Not to bad for someone who supposedly would have to read the a few books and write a paper before he could fly the mission. </p>
<p>Personally most of the engineers that I know have to read the standards, run a computer program, analyze the data and think about a solution and then try to implement it, oh and that is after the PE has signed off.</p>
<p>An Undergraduate degree in any subject gives you the ability to think. This whole idea that Division I is somehow "better" than Division II majors and a whole lot better than Division III is unfound. They all take sufficient technical coursework to succeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, when your son's BGO went back to his computer and filed the interview, what did he put under the mandatory "Desired Major" column which scrolled down to "math and science, engineering, or humanities and social studies." I guess he just made something up, huh?</p>
<p>USNA69 is right, when i had my interview we talked about the majors and he told me it's a mandatory part of the interview....</p>
<p>If I recall correctly, our mid's 2 BGOs asked about his major....</p>
<p>BGOs are supposed to/required to discuss the concept of limited majors and make some effort to determine where a candidate is leaning in terms of his/her major (engineering/science/humanities).</p>
<p>The goals are (at least) twofold. First is to ensure students know that the options for majors at USNA are limited in type and number. I've had students tell me they plan to major in "computer science" or "criminal justice" or "biology" or other subjects that just don't exist as majors at USNA (or, in some cases, even as courses). BGOs are supposed to make sure that future mids understand what their choices will be.</p>
<p>Second, we are supposed to get some sense of the student's interests and/or potential major. Obviously, some candidates don't know -- and, in my opinion, that's fair. However, most people tend to say "science or engineering." It's rare for someone to say "it's either systems engineering or English." </p>
<p>BTW, if you're going to a BGO interview, do check ahead of time to see what majors USNA offers. You don't need to memorize them. But telling a BGO that you plan to major in "anthropology" at USNA probably makes the BGO wonder if (1) you have even looked at the catalog and/or (2) whether you have any idea of what USNA is about.</p>
<p>USNA69 - not to be a stickler, but I said "baloney" not BS. I'm a bull major though, so maybe I need to “read a few books and write a couple of papers” to be sure - I know attention to detail is more the province of the engineering types... :)</p>
<p>I completely respect the passion of your argument, but all you’ve done is prove my point: – engineers “know” they’re smarter than non-engineers. </p>
<p>“As an aviator, and post maintenance functional check pilot, I know I was better prepared to discuss systems and their workings than was a humanities major.”</p>
<p>I’m not opining that anyone is smarter than anyone else in my original post; I just don’t believe that success as a military officer is absolutely tied to being an engineer.</p>
<p>Ask a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant of Marines stationed in Iraq whether he would get more mileage from superior knowledge of Fluid Dynamics or the ability to speak Arabic – those aren’t mutually exclusive, I realize – but I think the answer is obvious. You’re not likely to see a lot of engineers in Arabic class at USNA, are you? In fact, foreign languages are not even required for engineers at USNA. Kind of a shame, and just furthers the opinion that Americans are a bunch of isolationists who don't care about anything outside of our borders.</p>
<p>As we all learned in those sticky summer days at USNA:</p>
<p>Qualifications of a Naval Officer – John Paul Jones</p>
<p>"It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor…etc. ’Nuff said? :) </p>
<p>I’m not sure how you have drawn the conclusion that I don’t support USNA or the mission, but maybe I don’t have any of that “scientific reasoning” stuff you mention in your post. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is what the latest USNA catalog states concerning majors:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Naval Academy is strongly oriented toward science and engineering; and the majority of graduates are engineers or technical majors. For those students with backgrounds or overriding interests in other fields of study, a broad majors program in those social sciences and humanities that can be reasonably related to the naval profession is offered.</p>
<p>While it is expected that the vast majority of midshipmen will be assigned to the majors of their first choice, the needs of the Naval Service and resource constraints at the Naval Academy may result in an assignment to a second major chosen from among disciplines in mathematics, science or engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The second paragraph concerning not getting one's first choice was only added to the catalog in 2005-2006, incidentially the first year, I think, engineering/technical majors selections commenced it's nose dive. For "needs of the Naval Service", substitute SecNav mandate. A proactive Supt would have done something about it then.</p>
<p>I never said major was not discussed - it was not presented that he needed to have a scientific major "When my Mid had his interview with his BGO, "scientific" major was never talked about, rather his interests and what he wanted out of his education in respect to life goals." My son went to USNA as undecided so the discussion with the BGO was about he wanted out of his education and his interests. I have no clue what the BGO may have put in the check box but I would be willing to bet in the comments he stated what my son's interests were and what division he was not interested. </p>
<p>On the application my Mid put a first and second choice in the area for intended major. He again, in his comments, stated that he was undecided and then stated what 3 different majors he was considering - none being engineering.</p>
<p>Also food for another discussion - the majors briefing and subsequent majors open houses and "recruiting" He went to programs in all three divisions, only division 2 and 3 followed up and really tried to "snag" him - never heard back from any of the Division 1 majors. Now maybe they knew that his application said he was not interested in Engineering but have they ever heard that one can change their mind? Anyway if this is really a concern to the Academic Dean and USNA that not enough are picking Div 1 don't you think he would make sure that those majors actively pursued students that attended their open houses?</p>
<p>
[quote]
A proactive Supt would have done something about it
[/quote]
I read a post a while back stating that maybe USNA69 did not like the former Sup .... I am starting to see it too... </p>
<p>
[quote]
engineers “know” they’re smarter than non-engineers.
[/quote]
Yep and certain types "engineers" think they know more than other types of "Engineers" And of Course the old PE knows it all! Been there experienced it all! :)</p>