<p>Interesting…She assumes he’ll have a cushy desk job stateside. This is the same gal that thought it was fine that she’s still claiming him on her taxes as she says she “supports him.” He’s a second year midn.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jadler, this is your wake up call. I will PM you my address so you can forward a bottle of Jameson as thanks. </p>
<p>You say success is surface command. Correct?</p>
<p>Pretty much every ship in the Navy is manned right now, right? A dozen or so first tour JOs, 4 or so Dept Heads and how many skippers? Tours are roughly the same length, I think. However, if not, play with the ratios to accommodate tour lengths. What do we have? Ten or so JOs, 3-4 Dept heads, and ONE CO. Actually, some commands are bonus commands so there are actually less total COs than this ratio. Guess what? Do the math. This is your ratio of success. </p>
<p>Or look at it another way. How many Ensigns each year from the Academy go surface? 400 or so? How many NROTC? Roughly the same? How many OCS? Another couple of hundred? Now how many surface ships are there? Exclude the deep drafts. Exclude the bonus commands. Divide by the CO tour length. How many names are on the surface command screen board results each year? 100? Your last CO was dreaming. A JO on his first tour has probably at best a 25% chance of making Dept head. And that Dept head has roughly an equal chance of making skipper. If you cruise along in the pack until Dept head thinking you are still in the running for command, you have a rude awakening. You have to hit the deck running at your first command and breakout in the top one or two of every fitrep you will ever get. If you are not number one one percent RAP in your last few regular ranked fitreps at each command, you have a long uphill climb ahead of you.</p>
<p>Next. Every set of orders in the Navy has a career ‘enhancibility’ factor. Every time someone gets orders, every one in the wardroom evaluates. Either “wow, great set of orders” .”who did he p*** off?”, or somewhere in between. And I am not talking about Earle NJ vs Pearl Harbor. I am referring solely to how career enhancing each set of orders is. Does the detailer simply randomly pass out these orders? Not at all. Your fitreps and your CO’s phone calls are the ticket to these great orders. And they are cumulative. Once you get on the fast track, it is not too difficult to stay there. Once you get a set of “who the heck did you p*** off”, you will probably never catch up. The journey begins, and begins in a big way, the day you report to your first command. But don’t despair, all communities are roughly the same. And command is definitely a noble and worthwhile goal.</p>
<p>
Grad school, overseas (I assume you mean IA), JPME, exactly what I was talking about when I said that commencing with the O-5 board, criteria commence transcending pure performance. Also, as you can see from the above illustration, not all new O-5s will have been promoted to remain operational. Actually, the operational track becomes secondary in totals here. Specific needs of the Navy become paramount. Subspecialties become the deciding factor. The USNA aero major finds he is one of the 5 on the board with a ‘Space’ subspecialty and is demand to pursue his secondary career. The ‘poly sci and fly major’ major who found that he was only eligible for a personnel management MBA and is now one of a hundred like individuals on the board eligible for a handful of personnel management subspecialty billets, both with equal previous performance, guess who gets promoted?</p>
<p>And don’t waste a year and a half of potentional RAP fit rep face time getting a graduate degree. Get it at night. Most bases have great programs.</p>
<p>
LOL. Not that I am, but what if I were to concede your point here and agree with you. That athletes only make equally as good officers as non-athletes. Athletes who, in some’s opinions, should not have been admitted to the Academy in the first place. Athletes who receive ‘special treatment’ once they get there and don’t deserve to graduate. Athletes that once they graduate become an embarrassment to the Academy. And they make equally as good officers as the stars-wearing six stripers? That in itself kind of proves my argument. And also my previous statement:
</p>
<p>
There is a stigma against restricted line and he could very well get caught up in the hype of why the SAs exist and end up as a Marine.</p>
<p>Probably the three most common restricted line career paths are CEC, Supply Corps, and Intelligence. As a JO, the Supply Corps and Intelligence types will deploy right alongside their unrestricted classmates. No difference at all in underway time, just a different job. The CEC will spend his junior years in a mobile seabee battalion. Deployed all over the world. I would imagine that with Iraq, Afghanistan, earthquakes, and hurricanes, they have more deployment time than any other branch of the Navy right now.</p>
<p>
Gonna have to call you on this one. What is your definition of ‘politics’ and what is your basis for this statement?</p>
<p>Perhaps one bases for what he says is just as simple as what you said before:</p>
<p>“Once you get on the fast track, it is not too difficult to stay there.” #22</p>
<p>Once you kiss that first a** and get on the fast track, as you put it, its not too difficult to stay there. Getting on the fast track isn’t a function of being the “best” in many cases. Nor, it seems, does it take being the “best.”</p>
<p>[See recent Capt. who was dismissed].</p>
<p>Politics [as in having an Admiral father and sister, for example] is clearly a factor.</p>
<p>I’d say our Senator from AZ and his familial intertwinings may be a classic illustration of politics at its “best.” Did he letter?</p>
<p>Indeed, there is a clear case to be made that those on the alleged “fast track” are there as a function of recognizing their options out of the Navy are limited, unlike a great many who determine the options outside the USN are so much more lucrative, rewarding.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
LOL. Not that I am, but what if I were to concede your point here and agree with you. That athletes only make equally as good officers as non-athletes. Athletes who, in somes opinions, should not have been admitted to the Academy in the first place. Athletes who receive special treatment once they get there and dont deserve to graduate. Athletes that once they graduate become an embarrassment to the Academy. And they make equally as good officers as the stars-wearing six stripers? That in itself kind of proves my argument.
[QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That is my point. You can’t judge one way or the other. I think it is a fair statement to say that the same standards should apply to everyone, once at USNA. Meaning, that it is Admissions determination to decide whether a candidate (who might have lower grades, SAT/ACT scores, etc.) is appointed – that is their job – to determine whether someone might be able to graduate. However, and a BIG HOWEVER, at the Academy, the same standards apply to both; if an athlete OR non-athlete gets themselves into conduct trouble, academic trouble, etc. the same practical standard is used. An athlete shouldn’t get any more privileges because of his/her status, nor someone ranked in the top 10 of the class or wearing MIDN CAPT! The article that Bill posted the other night is just outrageous! Rumor had it that Kyle Eckle had more demerits than was allowed and his QPR was less than 2.0, yet he graduated; someone else would have been seperated. If you hold one to a standard, you hold all – not a selection. Zerbin Singleton was able to manage it.</p>
<p>But to say that Division I athletes are more successful and are more apt to make Navy a career (especially based on promotion to LCDR) is way off course. I think you could make the same study up saying non-athletes are more successful and career oriented if they promote to O-5.</p>
<p>It is a shame to see unequal standards applied – but that is the Navy. It happens ALL the time. Is it fair? No. I think USNA needs to make sure that only the worthy MIDN graduate and commission into the military, athlete or not, male or female; but definitely not based off of how much sports fame you brough to USNA. The taxpayer is paying for a competent officer who has DEMONSTRATED his/her ability to discharge the duties of the office to which he/she will enter.</p>
<p>
??? LOL. Don’t know how you can say that I ‘put it’ that kissing a** was the key to the fast track.</p>
<p>
??? LOL. A very successful officer who had his career derailed by his time in POW captivity. </p>
<p>
??? LOL. Wouldn’t even know where to begin with this one.</p>
<p>jadler, I am not prepared nor do I have the desire to defend the research criteria of every thesis presented at NPS over the last 50 years. However, there are innumerable ones attempting to measure various aspects of successful officerhood. If you are really interested, the following link will fill all the free time you can manage over the next several years. You will be amazed. You will be shocked. You will find that football players serve their country at least commensurate with stars-wearing six stripers. You will most definitely become more informed. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nps.edu/Research/MoreThesisAbst.html[/url]”>About - Office of Research & Innovation - Naval Postgraduate School;
<p>Additionally, in the real world, you will find that the standards are not always the same. Some have worked harder than others and are more deserving of a second chance. Your 4.0 PO2 is late for muster one morning. Will he be punished equally to the barely marginal Seaman who commits exactly the same offense a day later? Equal standards are the lazy way out. Doing what is both fair and equitable, rewarding the hard worker for all he has done in the past but letting him know that his acts are not condoned is what sometimes makes leadership challenging. </p>
<p>We may never know why the four striper shows up at noon meal formation on Monday reduced to single stripes but I will guarantee you that the rumor-mongering Brigade feeding anonymous bloggers will give us a sensational version of every transgression of every star football player on the team. The four striper was afforded the dignity, the privacy, and the confidentiality stipulated by regulations that the football player was not. Additionally, for every star football player which public opinion without any facts whatsoever has been accused of receiving special treatment, I can provide another who was not. This leads me to believe the standards are administered a lot more fairly and equitably than the naysayers are willing to admit.</p>
<p>
jadler, I think your definition of success is somewhat idealistic, na</p>
<p>And the wind doth blow …</p>
<p>just want to clarify 2 points:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is my understanding that these lines will be closed to him based on color blindness… red, right, return and all of that.</p>
<p>Foundation scholarship program: is limited [by charter] to 16% of candidates being athletes. Considering the foundation program sponsors 60 candidates a year [on average], that means roughly 9-10 of the slots go to athletes.</p>
<p>Naps, as far as I know, has no such restriction.</p>
<p>carry on…</p>
<p>NAPS is limited to the same percentage of athletes as is in the Brigade at large which usually runs, if my memory serves me correctly, somewhere in the 25% range.</p>
<p>I know the topic has changed somewhat since the first page, but I would just like to say that I am a recruited football athlete, I came into contact with the navy footall team last August and upon visiting in September the main thing stressed was completing the application process. I applied just like everyone else and I recieved a Presidental Nomination and one from my Member of Congress. I recieved an appointment to NAPS in February. I’m not sure if I’m an exception to what you have seen since you guys don’t seem to think the application process is the same, but at least for myself it was.</p>
<p>Joe</p>
<p>Finally, a reply that addresses the original idea of the thread! My DD is an athletic recruit, too. She received and LOA (must have good grades to get one of those), is NHS, got her Nom from congressman. When the USNA PAID (does this make you mad you if your kid isn’t an athlete???) for our daughter to travel to USNA, paid for her hotel until she was able to check in for her recruiting visit and was able to spend 48 hours with members of the team and the coach, she knew this choice was for her. Is she any less deserving, or is Longsnapper, because they have gotten good grades, volunteered in the community, scored well on standardized testing AND done well in a sport? This isn’t an IVY where just being a brain is needed - you need the other parts as well.</p>
<p>I think there are a lot of sour grapes out there because some candidates and parents of these candidates feel like “their spot” is taken away by some dumb jock. Those kids just weren’t well rounded enough to play a sport (with MANY hours per week over months devoted to practice and games) AND get good grades!! </p>
<p>You can’t go backwards, but if you could, you should encourage your kids to participate in a sport.</p>
<p>
You hit the nail on the head. Your daughter equates to the vast majority of athletes at service academies. Good Luck to her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Suggesting this is NOT the case is purely patronizing, delusional and unsupportable. </p>
<p>Indeed, many recruited athletes, primarily in the revenue generating, higher profile sports …and let’s keep it at that specific target group since we’re NOT talking much about tennis or women’s soccer or swimming or rifle or sailing or cycling or the vast majority of minor sports offered … (altho there are no doubt deviants from the general profile and requirements of non-varsity athletes, even among those minor sports) (EX: We know a recently appointed women’s soccer player who’s been a foundation student and stood zero chance of regular appointment.)</p>
<p>So the point is, to state their are not numerous appointments provided to otherwise unappointable candidates as a function of their being a recruited athlete …is a delusion. And to suggest otherwise patronizes those who’ve the good fortune of receiving such from USNA as well as denigrates those many varsity athletes who attend and participate in USNA sports who need no special consideration and would be readily appointable whether they could block, tackle, slam dunk or swim the 100m in record time. And this includes many, perhaps most USNA varsity athletes.</p>
<p>Were this not so, there would be no need to alot spots @ NAPS and foundation schools. They would simply be available to the “next best candidates.” </p>
<p>Conversely, for frustrated parents or unsuccessful candidates to assume those spots would otherwise be theirs is equally delusional. </p>
<p>And this same scenario holds true for many special class students being appointed as “needs of the Navy.” Be they athletes, targeted ethnic classes, and as was previously the case, women.</p>
<p>Some posters should read what they write before pressing “submit”. Ranting just isn’t helpful. I thought these forums were supposed to be helpful. I have read too many posts posts over these past few month’s that I’ve been monitoring this forum that weren’t concise and filled with useful information. Brevity is sometimes the name of the game.</p>
<p>I only speak for myself, but I look at the forums so that I can garner information, opinions aren’t information. Talk radio this isn’t.</p>
<p>I read this twice before pressing “submit”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily true. I heard directly out of a CGO’s mouth that recruited athletes can get LOAs – just like coaches from other schools can tell admissions who they want. I am sure there are other cases where grades don’t prohibit someone from getting an LOA.</p>
<p>WP, concur, out.</p>
<p>
Interesting, since WP has gone on record opining that there is no such thing as an “Athletic LOA”.
Getting an athletic LOA or one related to recruiting is NOT indiciative of an inferior academic record. To suggest so is to lead folks astray.</p>
<p>WP - way too much personal information in your post. That this athlete could be discovered from your negative opinion of her qualifications is quite unsatisfactory, indeed.</p>
<p>KMKKS40 - yes, the Naval Academy forum here is full of “talk radio” opining.<br>
You are a rare voice of reason and should be a great asset and help to candidates.</p>