Navy enlistment questions

[Atcrossroad]

It's quite loser's story but, hell, I'll not fall lower by telling it.


I've made a big mistake in my life, namely, I've got a Ph.D. in
engineering from a second tier graduate program. Since graduation, I
had a string of sh*t pay, no benefits, long hours, dead-end postdocs
("permanently" temporary research slave jobs for 50% of the fresh (and
not so fresh) Ph.D.s who cannot find a real job). Well, me (and many,
many others) had/have no other options. During postdocing (brain
numbing, overall pointless, BS peddling to cheat a buck from Uncle Sam
kind of a job), I have developed a strong aversion to the (academic)
research trade. I cannot stand it (even in an exchange for a
theoretical lofty paycheck). Had I liked it, I would have roughed
through everything, but………research is for the single-minded zombies
with talents of a used car salesman. And it's not me.
I really like engineering, but with my degree and experience, entry
level engineering jobs are reliably out of my reach. I am
overqualified for entry-level jobs (too old also), and I am
unqualified for experience-only jobs. >1 year of unsuccessful applying
for all kinds of engineering jobs is enough to realize that there is
nothing for me in the "real world". Do not get me wrong, I have good
GPAs (3.9 both in undergrad and grad schools), I have 10 or so
publications in the premiere science journals, I have a good research
resume and good recommendations. But all that is not enough to land an
engineering job these days.

What to do?

I do not have a formal degree in EE, but I do like electronics and I
do know a lot about it. It's my true passion. I'd like to pursue a
career in electronics (desirably engineering, but technician jobs are
OK too – more difficult to offshore). It happens that I like sea, I
like (to learn about, at least) navy, ships, ship's weaponry, naval
history. I would like to try something different, new and manly like a
military service. Clock is ticking. In 4 years (I'm 30 y.o. now), I'll
not have a military option. So, I am considering enlisting to navy.
Local recruiters are not making their quotas, I was forgiven my 10
extra pounds. I think I'll be able to pass physical. I have the right
attitude to get through a boot camp too. Also, I am a permanent
resident i.e. an officer school is not an option (I am not sure if I
would be allowed to enter an officer school in such a ripe age,
anyway).

My questions:

1) Is 30 y.o. is too old to be a sailor? I know navy is OK with 30y.o.
sailors, but….will I look like a freak among early 20th crowd?
2) Have you ever seen a Ph.D. enlisting as a sailor? Do you think it
will be better for me not to mention my Ph.D. at all: a) to avoid
future pecking along the line "let's see how smart you really are" b)
not to be an unofficial poster child for a loser. How thoroughly
background check is done? Will such an omission be counted against me
if discovered?
3) What is the most challenging electronics field in navy? What is its
rate? Is it open for non citizens (Hopefully, I'll be a citizen in 2
years or so)? Ideally, I would like something involving little bit of
design (I hope to pass PE exam in the future, and I need a design
experience to be registered as a professional engineer).
4) Assuming that I will like the service, will be good at it, will get
my citizenship and will decide to become an officer: a) what is max
age for applicants to an officer school? b) will I be required to
fulfill my enlistment obligations prior to applying to a school?
5) Are those with earned college degrees qualified for the Navy
college funds?
6) In army, enlisted college graduates fresh out of a boot camp get
higher rank than HS graduates do. Does anything like that exist in
navy?

Thanks to anyone who'll bother to reply.

[Vaughn]

"Atcrossroad" > wrote in message
om...
>
> 1) Is 30 y.o. is too old to be a sailor? I know navy is OK with 30y.o.
> sailors, but..will I look like a freak among early 20th crowd?
> 2) Have you ever seen a Ph.D. enlisting as a sailor?

Don't even think of it. You will be the proverbial square peg in the round
hole, you will be trapped, miserable, and still working for peanuts.

> 3) What is the most challenging electronics field in navy? What is its
> rate? Is it open for non citizens (Hopefully, I'll be a citizen in 2
> years or so)? Ideally, I would like something involving little bit of
> design

There is no design work that I have ever heard about in the Navy, perhaps
in Buships somewhere. Mosty, your job is to keep things working.

>(I hope to pass PE exam in the future, and I need a design
> experience to be registered as a professional engineer).

Do that! Look for a job in the public sector. They are out there. For
example: You could be in charge of the traffic signal shop for a large county
and move your way right up if you wanted to. I knew a guy just like you who
worked for South Florida Flood control happily in charge of a bunch of
electronics technicians who designed his own microwave control circuits for the
big water gates.


> 4) Assuming that I will like the service, will be good at it, will get
> my citizenship and will decide to become an officer: a) what is max
> age for applicants to an officer school? b) will I be required to
> fulfill my enlistment obligations prior to applying to a school?

A) Don't know
B) Typically, no

I also once joined the Navy with the idea of "working my way up to officer"
It was increadibly niave for me (but I was young then) it would be stupid for
you for a range of reasons.

Good Luck
Vaughn

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 9/16/04 3:29 AM, in article
, "Atcrossroad"
> wrote:

> My questions:
>
> 1) Is 30 y.o. is too old to be a sailor? I know navy is OK with 30y.o.
> sailors, but….will I look like a freak among early 20th crowd?

I know a few 30 year old E-3's--not so square peg as you might think.

> 2) Have you ever seen a Ph.D. enlisting as a sailor? Do you think it
> will be better for me not to mention my Ph.D. at all: a) to avoid
> future pecking along the line "let's see how smart you really are" b)
> not to be an unofficial poster child for a loser. How thoroughly
> background check is done? Will such an omission be counted against me
> if discovered?

I know of no Ph.D.'s, but on the order of 25% of enlistees have 4-year
degrees. You will have to account for your history, so you'd better mention
your degree and all post-doc jobs. If you don't, you could be canned for
fraudulent enlistment later on. I'd use it sparingly amongst my buddies on
the ship though for the reasons you mentioned.

> 3) What is the most challenging electronics field in navy? What is its
> rate? Is it open for non citizens (Hopefully, I'll be a citizen in 2
> years or so)? Ideally, I would like something involving little bit of
> design (I hope to pass PE exam in the future, and I need a design
> experience to be registered as a professional engineer).

Avionics Technician or Electronics Technician, I'd guess--although there are
probably a few out there that I know nothing of--here's the kicker though:
All of the rates (at least in aviation) that work with electronics (like AT
or ET), also require a security clearance, and hence, U.S. citizenship.
Your best bet would be nuke power... Also requires a clearance.

> 4) Assuming that I will like the service, will be good at it, will get
> my citizenship and will decide to become an officer: a) what is max
> age for applicants to an officer school? b) will I be required to
> fulfill my enlistment obligations prior to applying to a school?

Your plan is flawed. You will not find happiness in the Navy--especially as
an enlisted man because:

a. You won't get into a rate that is challenging enough for you because you
won't be able to get the clearance (non-U.S. Citizen), so you'll be stuck in
a more "blue collar" rate.

b. You're over-qualified. Remember this, you'll spend about the first year
of your enlistment--even after A-school--cleaning heads, cleaning berthing,
emptying trash, scouring pots in the scullery etc... If you're unhappy with
your post-doc jobs, what makes you think you'll enjoy taking grief from some
Second Class Petty Officer who's 8 years younger than you about how lousy
you are at scrubbing pots and pans?

> 5) Are those with earned college degrees qualified for the Navy
> college funds?

Yes, but not in arrears--i.e. You're on your own for the education you've
purchased already. Do you really need MORE education?

> 6) In army, enlisted college graduates fresh out of a boot camp get
> higher rank than HS graduates do. Does anything like that exist in
> navy?

Has everything to do with your performance through boot camp and then in
your follow-on technical training (A-school). Some small top percentage
come out as E-3's.

> Thanks to anyone who'll bother to reply.

Look, your best bet is NOT to enlist. Get your citizenship first and either
jump into the Navy or Air Force as an officer OR go to someplace like Eglin
AFB, NAS Pax River, MD, or NAWS China Lake, CA and get a challenging
technical job as a civilian engineer (civil servant). The pay will be
decent, and the satisfaction is great because you'll be working with cutting
edge weapons systems--hands on--an engineer's dream.

I know the China Lake folks are usually looking for engineers because they
can't find enough people who want to live there.

--Woody

[Nice Guy]

If you can't find an acceptable in engineering with a PHD, don't bother
trying to make "it" in the Navy. Try the Airforce.


"Atcrossroad" > wrote in message
om...
> It's quite loser's story but, hell, I'll not fall lower by telling it.
>
>
> I've made a big mistake in my life, namely, I've got a Ph.D. in
> engineering from a second tier graduate program. Since graduation, I
> had a string of sh*t pay, no benefits, long hours, dead-end postdocs
> ("permanently" temporary research slave jobs for 50% of the fresh (and
> not so fresh) Ph.D.s who cannot find a real job). Well, me (and many,
> many others) had/have no other options. During postdocing (brain
> numbing, overall pointless, BS peddling to cheat a buck from Uncle Sam
> kind of a job), I have developed a strong aversion to the (academic)
> research trade. I cannot stand it (even in an exchange for a
> theoretical lofty paycheck). Had I liked it, I would have roughed
> through everything, but...research is for the single-minded zombies
> with talents of a used car salesman. And it's not me.
> I really like engineering, but with my degree and experience, entry
> level engineering jobs are reliably out of my reach. I am
> overqualified for entry-level jobs (too old also), and I am
> unqualified for experience-only jobs. >1 year of unsuccessful applying
> for all kinds of engineering jobs is enough to realize that there is
> nothing for me in the "real world". Do not get me wrong, I have good
> GPAs (3.9 both in undergrad and grad schools), I have 10 or so
> publications in the premiere science journals, I have a good research
> resume and good recommendations. But all that is not enough to land an
> engineering job these days.
>
> What to do?
>
> I do not have a formal degree in EE, but I do like electronics and I
> do know a lot about it. It's my true passion. I'd like to pursue a
> career in electronics (desirably engineering, but technician jobs are
> OK too - more difficult to offshore). It happens that I like sea, I
> like (to learn about, at least) navy, ships, ship's weaponry, naval
> history. I would like to try something different, new and manly like a
> military service. Clock is ticking. In 4 years (I'm 30 y.o. now), I'll
> not have a military option. So, I am considering enlisting to navy.
> Local recruiters are not making their quotas, I was forgiven my 10
> extra pounds. I think I'll be able to pass physical. I have the right
> attitude to get through a boot camp too. Also, I am a permanent
> resident i.e. an officer school is not an option (I am not sure if I
> would be allowed to enter an officer school in such a ripe age,
> anyway).
>
> My questions:
>
> 1) Is 30 y.o. is too old to be a sailor? I know navy is OK with 30y.o.
> sailors, but..will I look like a freak among early 20th crowd?
> 2) Have you ever seen a Ph.D. enlisting as a sailor? Do you think it
> will be better for me not to mention my Ph.D. at all: a) to avoid
> future pecking along the line "let's see how smart you really are" b)
> not to be an unofficial poster child for a loser. How thoroughly
> background check is done? Will such an omission be counted against me
> if discovered?
> 3) What is the most challenging electronics field in navy? What is its
> rate? Is it open for non citizens (Hopefully, I'll be a citizen in 2
> years or so)? Ideally, I would like something involving little bit of
> design (I hope to pass PE exam in the future, and I need a design
> experience to be registered as a professional engineer).
> 4) Assuming that I will like the service, will be good at it, will get
> my citizenship and will decide to become an officer: a) what is max
> age for applicants to an officer school? b) will I be required to
> fulfill my enlistment obligations prior to applying to a school?
> 5) Are those with earned college degrees qualified for the Navy
> college funds?
> 6) In army, enlisted college graduates fresh out of a boot camp get
> higher rank than HS graduates do. Does anything like that exist in
> navy?
>
> Thanks to anyone who'll bother to reply.

[nafod40]

Atcrossroad wrote:
> It's quite loser's story but, hell, I'll not fall lower by telling it.
>
>
> I've made a big mistake in my life, namely, I've got a Ph.D. in
> engineering from a second tier graduate program.
>
> What to do?
>
> I do not have a formal degree in EE, but I do like electronics and I
> do know a lot about it. It's my true passion. I'd like to pursue a
> career in electronics (desirably engineering, but technician jobs are
> OK too – more difficult to offshore). It happens that I like sea, I
> like (to learn about, at least) navy, ships, ship's weaponry, naval
> history. I would like to try something different, new and manly like a
> military service. Clock is ticking. In 4 years (I'm 30 y.o. now), I'll
> not have a military option. So, I am considering enlisting to navy.
> Local recruiters are not making their quotas, I was forgiven my 10
> extra pounds. I think I'll be able to pass physical. I have the right
> attitude to get through a boot camp too. Also, I am a permanent
> resident i.e. an officer school is not an option (I am not sure if I
> would be allowed to enter an officer school in such a ripe age,
> anyway).
>
> My questions:
>
> 1) Is 30 y.o. is too old to be a sailor? I know navy is OK with 30y.o.
> sailors, but….will I look like a freak among early 20th crowd?

In the reserves, we get a lot of 30-somethings coming into the ranks, as
they wrestle with exactly the same issues your are. Including more than
one with a PhD.

> 2) Have you ever seen a Ph.D. enlisting as a sailor?

Yes, in the reserves. On active duty we had a Chief who had earned his
PhD at some point in his career.

> Do you think it
> will be better for me not to mention my Ph.D. at all: a) to avoid
> future pecking along the line "let's see how smart you really are" b)
> not to be an unofficial poster child for a loser. How thoroughly
> background check is done? Will such an omission be counted against me
> if discovered?

No need to hide it. Be proud but not arrogant.

> 3) What is the most challenging electronics field in navy? What is its
> rate?

Nuke power.

> Is it open for non citizens (Hopefully, I'll be a citizen in 2
> years or so)?

Probably not.

> Ideally, I would like something involving little bit of
> design (I hope to pass PE exam in the future, and I need a design
> experience to be registered as a professional engineer).

Design? Maybe the "McGyver" sort. But I am a firm believer than
designers who have used the equipment are better than those who haven't.

> 4) Assuming that I will like the service, will be good at it, will get
> my citizenship and will decide to become an officer: a) what is max
> age for applicants to an officer school? b) will I be required to
> fulfill my enlistment obligations prior to applying to a school?

Not sure on max age. You will not need to fulfill your enlisted
requirement prior.

> 5) Are those with earned college degrees qualified for the Navy
> college funds?

Yes. I used my GI Bill to fund my PhD. You could use it to fund getting
your pilot's license or A&P license also. Attend school for Real Estate
license. Go to Divinity School. etc. Certain restrictions apply.


> 6) In army, enlisted college graduates fresh out of a boot camp get
> higher rank than HS graduates do. Does anything like that exist in
> navy?

Yes, talk to recruiter.

The Navy Reserve is a great way to jump in. you'll find a real
smorgasbord of folks civilian career-wise in there. In my unit we have
college students (Officer), cops (Es)wall street stock brokers (Petty
Officer) and small business owners (Chiefs) all working together.
Fantastic way to network. you can segue into active duty. Come in at an
advanced rate. Give it a look.

Sounds like you're not married. I'd cut your past loose and jump in both
feet and sign up for something risky and dangerous, to take you out of
your comfort zone. Full steam ahead, adrenaline, all that stuff. You can
sit in a chair and let your ass get fat later. Do the hard thing, cause
its the most fun!

[T Bird]

With your qualifcations , An Officer in the SeaBee,s . Go for it . Great
Career .

[John R Weiss]

"Atcrossroad" > wrote...
>
> 1) Is 30 y.o. is too old to be a sailor? I know navy is OK with 30y.o.
> sailors, but..will I look like a freak among early 20th crowd?

Nope. You won't be the first or the last...


> 2) Have you ever seen a Ph.D. enlisting as a sailor? Do you think it
> will be better for me not to mention my Ph.D. at all: a) to avoid
> future pecking along the line "let's see how smart you really are" b)
> not to be an unofficial poster child for a loser. How thoroughly
> background check is done? Will such an omission be counted against me
> if discovered?

I've known a few officers who had PhD's prior to signing up, and several
enlisted guys with Masters' degrees, but no enlisted PhD's.

Don't lie or omit any relevant facts -- it will haunt you forever.


> 3) What is the most challenging electronics field in navy? What is its
> rate? Is it open for non citizens (Hopefully, I'll be a citizen in 2
> years or so)? Ideally, I would like something involving little bit of
> design (I hope to pass PE exam in the future, and I need a design
> experience to be registered as a professional engineer).

If you want to get into design, I think the Air Force is the better choice.
They have dedicated Science and Engineering corps in their officer ranks, but
the Navy does not. The biggest problem would be citizenship -- most or all of
them require security clearances that are not available to non-citizens. Even
the enlisted jobs that deal with electronics require security clearances...


> 4) Assuming that I will like the service, will be good at it, will get
> my citizenship and will decide to become an officer: a) what is max
> age for applicants to an officer school? b) will I be required to
> fulfill my enlistment obligations prior to applying to a school?

I would not recommend you enlist for a job that does not require a security
clearance. You'll likely be less happy than you are now. Wait until you get
your citizenship.


> 5) Are those with earned college degrees qualified for the Navy
> college funds?
> 6) In army, enlisted college graduates fresh out of a boot camp get
> higher rank than HS graduates do. Does anything like that exist in
> navy?

Check with a local recruiter for actual options available to you now.
Requirements change often...

Also talk specifically with an Officer Programs recruiter. The regular
recruiters will often not talk up the officer programs because of the quotas you
already mentioned...

[scott s.]

(Atcrossroad) wrote in
om:

>
> I do not have a formal degree in EE, but I do like electronics and I
> do know a lot about it. It's my true passion. I'd like to pursue a
> career in electronics (desirably engineering, but technician jobs are
> OK too – more difficult to offshore). It happens that I like sea, I
> like (to learn about, at least) navy, ships, ship's weaponry, naval
> history. I would like to try something different, new and manly like a
> military service.

I have worked for and at several Navy labs, including Naval Surface
Warfare Center Philadelphia, Dahlgren, and Port Hueneme. Assuming
you can get a clearance, you could get a job that would have zero
chance of off-shoring.

As far as enlisted, I had about a dozen working for me at Pt Hueneme --
these were all Fire Control Technicians who had completed their
"prescribed sea tours" (need to check but IIRC around 4 years these
days), except for the chiefs of course. While they weren't there
primarily to do design, they did work in some design areas, especially
in maintainability and useability. In other words, in system engineering
tasks. One of my guys (an FC2) got selected for enlisted commissioning
program. He had already completed 2 yrs via tuition aid, and completed
his degree at U Minn and then got commissioned.

scott s.
..

[BlackBeard]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...



> Look, your best bet is NOT to enlist. Get your citizenship first and either
> jump into the Navy or Air Force as an officer OR go to someplace like Eglin
> AFB, NAS Pax River, MD, or NAWS China Lake, CA and get a challenging
> technical job as a civilian engineer (civil servant). The pay will be
> decent, and the satisfaction is great because you'll be working with cutting
> edge weapons systems--hands on--an engineer's dream.

The best advice so far, but....

With the exception that his story was just vague enough to raise
flags. PhD in what? He stated electronics was just a hobby and he
doesn't have the degree in it. So is he an ME? AE? Choo-Choo
engineer? Sanitation Engineer?
Second tier program? How so? We have lots of S&E's from all sorts
of schools and that is rarely the most important criteria for getting
a decent job if you are competent in your field. Obviously he can't
be talking about only looking for the best jobs out there or I
wouldn't think enlistment in the Mil would fit any of his desires...
Pay? Job challenge? Environment? Opportunity?

Sorry, the story is so vague and downright strange I would pass on
it if I was in a hiring position. I apologize in advance to the
author, but my initial impression of the post was that it was bait for
an upcoming troll or a fabrication from a very young (naive) person
creating a scenario for whatever reason.
I've worked with far too many PhD's and advanced degree Engineers to
believe he can't get a job in his 'field' (yet undefined). It's
certainly plausible he can't find the job he _wants_, but that's
something different. Enlisting in the Navy would be as far from a
rational solution as digging a hole and sitting in it because you
issed your bus. Bizarre.



>
> I know the China Lake folks are usually looking for engineers because they
> can't find enough people who want to live there.
>
> --Woody

Yep, they just can't stand all the green fields and the huge lake
and perfect weather. Fishing, sailing, skiiing et al. on the lake,
that's the pamphlet I saw ...


;)

BB

[Greasy Rider]

On 16 Sep 2004 14:37:30 -0700, (BlackBeard)
proclaimed:

> Sorry, the story is so vague and downright strange I would pass on
>it if I was in a hiring position.


When I was doing a college recruiting assignment for Big Blue I will
never forget one sentence on an applicants resume:

"I know now more than I ever have."

I passed on him.

[salt.shaker]

22yrs in the Navy. Go for it.You will enjoy it. Try the SeaBees.:D



http://www.v1rotate.com
View this thread: http://www.v1rotate.com/portal/forums/showthread.php?threadid=90627

[Arved Sandstrom]

"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
om...
> "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Look, your best bet is NOT to enlist. Get your citizenship first and
either
> > jump into the Navy or Air Force as an officer OR go to someplace like
Eglin
> > AFB, NAS Pax River, MD, or NAWS China Lake, CA and get a challenging
> > technical job as a civilian engineer (civil servant). The pay will be
> > decent, and the satisfaction is great because you'll be working with
cutting
> > edge weapons systems--hands on--an engineer's dream.
>
> The best advice so far, but....
>
[ SNIP ]
> Sorry, the story is so vague and downright strange I would pass on
> it if I was in a hiring position. I apologize in advance to the
> author, but my initial impression of the post was that it was bait for
> an upcoming troll or a fabrication from a very young (naive) person
> creating a scenario for whatever reason.
[ SNIP ]

I actually thought so too, but then I figured it was whacked enough to be
true, because I've known people who did the tour all the way through postdoc
in sciences and engineering, and then they realized that they didn't like at
all the career path they had chosen.

I'd just hire on the basis of demonstrated electronics knowledge if that's
what trips his trigger.

AHS

[Diamond Jim]

"Atcrossroad" > wrote in message
om...
> It's quite loser's story but, hell, I'll not fall lower by telling it.
>
snip-----snip-----snip-----snip-----snip-----snip-----snip-----

A guy I used to see fishing on the beach at Cape Hatteras NC had an advanced
degree in engineering (masters I believe) and was in the Coast Guard.He had
a similar story, school, several jobs he didn't like. He joined the Coast
Guard at about 30 years of age I believe. He was in the Aviation Maintenance
field. The last I heard of him he was a Chief Warrant Officer. The Coast
Guard is small enough that the senior enlisted are often given small
commands, etc. You could be a big fish there, even if it is a small pond.

I put my 22½ years in the Marines and don't regret it. But the only other
service I would consider would be the Coast Guard.

[Atcrossroad]

(BlackBeard) wrote in message >...
> "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> > Look, your best bet is NOT to enlist. Get your citizenship first and either
> > jump into the Navy or Air Force as an officer OR go to someplace like Eglin
> > AFB, NAS Pax River, MD, or NAWS China Lake, CA and get a challenging
> > technical job as a civilian engineer (civil servant). The pay will be
> > decent, and the satisfaction is great because you'll be working with cutting
> > edge weapons systems--hands on--an engineer's dream.
>
> The best advice so far, but....
>
> With the exception that his story was just vague enough to raise
> flags. PhD in what? He stated electronics was just a hobby and he
> doesn't have the degree in it. So is he an ME? AE? Choo-Choo
> engineer? Sanitation Engineer?

Well, story is indeed strange. That's what one gets for getting into a
2nd tier schools. I have a Ph.D. in systems engineering. Catch, I have
only a vague clue about systems engineering. All my research was in
materials science/metallurgy/manufacturing. Engineering school awarded
systems engineering Ph.D.s to everybody enrolled in its Ph.D. programs
even though school of engineering had 3 quite different departments
(Mechanical engineering (my department), electrical systems, computer
science). After I've left, school started a Ph.D. program in
mechanical engineering which would suit my research/thesis much
better. You see, I have a Ph.D. in systems engineering but all my
experience is in materials science/metallurgy. When I apply for mat
science jobs, my sys eng. degree raises flags. I have a B.S. in
metallurgical engineering, not really a high demand/growth field too.
Preemptive remark, school/my Ph.D. program were ABET accredited.

> Second tier program? How so? We have lots of S&E's from all sorts
> of schools and that is rarely the most important criteria for getting
> a decent job if you are competent in your field.

There is a significant Ph.D. glut in the labor market. Ph.D. from a
good school is not an advantage (in most of the cases) in the real
world (outside of narrow research fields). Ph.D. from a second tier is
simply a burden on one's neck. I think I am quite competent in my
field. However, my research was not really industry oriented. And no
matter what you say about competence, resume screeners are looking not
for competent folks but for those whose resume matches job description
the most (I've exhausted all my network connections while looking for
an engineering spot). As I've told, I am looking for engineering
position not for a research position. Well, a Ph.D. applying for
entry/near entry engineering positions would raise your flags too (
Life's so "sweet" in the Ph.D. world. Why would anyone want to
switch?). In the "real world", there are many misconceptions about
Ph.D.s, which really hurt those trying to jump the research boat.

Obviously he can't
> be talking about only looking for the best jobs out there or I
> wouldn't think enlistment in the Mil would fit any of his desires...
> Pay? Job challenge? Environment? Opportunity?

Well, nobody could scare a postdoc with ****ty pay, long hours, and so
on. I am looking just for an engineering job (pay, etc. is not an
issue) to stick my leg into an engineering field. I know engineering
is not sugar, I know I will not last long (due to the age
discrimination), but I just like to do something I like and good at (I
can claim that, I've designed/built several moderately complicated
experimental devices.)
>
> Sorry, the story is so vague and downright strange I would pass on
> it if I was in a hiring position. I apologize in advance to the
> author, but my initial impression of the post was that it was bait for
> an upcoming troll or a fabrication from a very young (naive) person
> creating a scenario for whatever reason.

I wish you were correct and I would be just a young naive troll.

> I've worked with far too many PhD's and advanced degree Engineers to
> believe he can't get a job in his 'field' (yet undefined). It's
> certainly plausible he can't find the job he _wants_, but that's
> something different. Enlisting in the Navy would be as far from a
> rational solution as digging a hole and sitting in it because you
> issed your bus. Bizarre.

Well, Ideally I would want a job in design of materials
testing/laboratory.... equipment or design of process control systems.
That's why adding a formal electronics credentials would be a plus. I
could do some "menial"/odd jobs in the civil life while getting those
credentials or I could do something electronics related in navy while
getting them. Postdocing is way too life/time demanding to do anything
else than slaving. I had quite a few EE classes, it should not take
that long. Another thing is that getting EE credentials will leave a
gigantic gap in my resume=good bye everything, good morning Wal-Mart.
I'm trapped. I think you have some misconceptions, a Ph.D. is rarely a
plus when one wants an engineering job in mat. sci./metallurgy. Maybe
in some other fields, but in mat. sci. Ph.D.s are doomed to be lab or
paper writing rats. I'd rather be on shop's floor.

yes, I can find another postdoc in not time at all. Bad side, I hate
it and it's a way nowhere. I would hate being an assistant professor
even more.


> > I know the China Lake folks are usually looking for engineers because they
> > can't find enough people who want to live there.
> >
> > --Woody
>
> Yep, they just can't stand all the green fields and the huge lake
> and perfect weather. Fishing, sailing, skiiing et al. on the lake,
> that's the pamphlet I saw ...
>
>
> ;)
>
> BB

[ZZBunker]

(Atcrossroad) wrote in message >...
> (BlackBeard) wrote in message >...
> > "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> > > Look, your best bet is NOT to enlist. Get your citizenship first and either
> > > jump into the Navy or Air Force as an officer OR go to someplace like Eglin
> > > AFB, NAS Pax River, MD, or NAWS China Lake, CA and get a challenging
> > > technical job as a civilian engineer (civil servant). The pay will be
> > > decent, and the satisfaction is great because you'll be working with cutting
> > > edge weapons systems--hands on--an engineer's dream.
> >
> > The best advice so far, but....
> >
> > With the exception that his story was just vague enough to raise
> > flags. PhD in what? He stated electronics was just a hobby and he
> > doesn't have the degree in it. So is he an ME? AE? Choo-Choo
> > engineer? Sanitation Engineer?
>
> Well, story is indeed strange. That's what one gets for getting into a
> 2nd tier schools. I have a Ph.D. in systems engineering. Catch, I have
> only a vague clue about systems engineering.

That's only because systems engineers
don't even have a clue what systems
engineers is, other than it's it's a
job title engineering schools made up,
to make Philosophers feel like they're
actually doing engineering work.
Because they are systematic.

All my research was in
> materials science/metallurgy/manufacturing. Engineering school awarded
> systems engineering Ph.D.s to everybody enrolled in its Ph.D. programs
> even though school of engineering had 3 quite different departments
> (Mechanical engineering (my department), electrical systems, computer
> science). After I've left, school started a Ph.D. program in
> mechanical engineering which would suit my research/thesis much
> better. You see, I have a Ph.D. in systems engineering but all my
> experience is in materials science/metallurgy. When I apply for mat
> science jobs, my sys eng. degree raises flags. I have a B.S. in
> metallurgical engineering, not really a high demand/growth field too.
> Preemptive remark, school/my Ph.D. program were ABET accredited.
>
> > Second tier program? How so? We have lots of S&E's from all sorts
> > of schools and that is rarely the most important criteria for getting
> > a decent job if you are competent in your field.
>
> There is a significant Ph.D. glut in the labor market. Ph.D. from a
> good school is not an advantage (in most of the cases) in the real
> world (outside of narrow research fields). Ph.D. from a second tier is
> simply a burden on one's neck. I think I am quite competent in my
> field. However, my research was not really industry oriented. And no
> matter what you say about competence, resume screeners are looking not
> for competent folks but for those whose resume matches job description
> the most (I've exhausted all my network connections while looking for
> an engineering spot). As I've told, I am looking for engineering
> position not for a research position. Well, a Ph.D. applying for
> entry/near entry engineering positions would raise your flags too (
> Life's so "sweet" in the Ph.D. world. Why would anyone want to
> switch?). In the "real world", there are many misconceptions about
> Ph.D.s, which really hurt those trying to jump the research boat.

A phd is not even an advantage in mathematics,
so it's impossible that it could be an advantage in
engineering.





> Obviously he can't
> > be talking about only looking for the best jobs out there or I
> > wouldn't think enlistment in the Mil would fit any of his desires...
> > Pay? Job challenge? Environment? Opportunity?
>
> Well, nobody could scare a postdoc with ****ty pay, long hours, and so
> on. I am looking just for an engineering job (pay, etc. is not an
> issue) to stick my leg into an engineering field. I know engineering
> is not sugar, I know I will not last long (due to the age
> discrimination), but I just like to do something I like and good at (I
> can claim that, I've designed/built several moderately complicated
> experimental devices.)
> >
> > Sorry, the story is so vague and downright strange I would pass on
> > it if I was in a hiring position. I apologize in advance to the
> > author, but my initial impression of the post was that it was bait for
> > an upcoming troll or a fabrication from a very young (naive) person
> > creating a scenario for whatever reason.
>
> I wish you were correct and I would be just a young naive troll.
>
> > I've worked with far too many PhD's and advanced degree Engineers to
> > believe he can't get a job in his 'field' (yet undefined). It's
> > certainly plausible he can't find the job he _wants_, but that's
> > something different. Enlisting in the Navy would be as far from a
> > rational solution as digging a hole and sitting in it because you
> > issed your bus. Bizarre.
>
> Well, Ideally I would want a job in design of materials
> testing/laboratory.... equipment or design of process control systems.
> That's why adding a formal electronics credentials would be a plus. I
> could do some "menial"/odd jobs in the civil life while getting those
> credentials or I could do something electronics related in navy while
> getting them. Postdocing is way too life/time demanding to do anything
> else than slaving. I had quite a few EE classes, it should not take
> that long. Another thing is that getting EE credentials will leave a
> gigantic gap in my resume=good bye everything, good morning Wal-Mart.
> I'm trapped. I think you have some misconceptions, a Ph.D. is rarely a
> plus when one wants an engineering job in mat. sci./metallurgy. Maybe
> in some other fields, but in mat. sci. Ph.D.s are doomed to be lab or
> paper writing rats. I'd rather be on shop's floor.

But, that's because Engineers have to constantly
tell mat.sci people that metallurgy is not a science.

It's what physicists are doomed to do with resumes.

[Red Rider]

"Atcrossroad" > wrote in message
om...
> It's quite loser's story but, hell, I'll not fall lower by telling it.
>
>
> I've made a big mistake in my life, namely, I've got a Ph.D. in
> engineering from a second tier graduate program. Since graduation, I
> had a string of sh*t pay, no benefits, long hours, dead-end postdocs
> ("permanently" temporary research slave jobs for 50% of the fresh (and
> not so fresh) Ph.D.s who cannot find a real job). Well, me (and many,
> many others) had/have no other options. During postdocing (brain
> numbing, overall pointless, BS peddling to cheat a buck from Uncle Sam
> kind of a job), I have developed a strong aversion to the (academic)
> research trade. I cannot stand it (even in an exchange for a
> theoretical lofty paycheck). Had I liked it, I would have roughed
> through everything, but...research is for the single-minded zombies
> with talents of a used car salesman. And it's not me.
> I really like engineering, but with my degree and experience, entry
> level engineering jobs are reliably out of my reach. I am
> overqualified for entry-level jobs (too old also), and I am
> unqualified for experience-only jobs. >1 year of unsuccessful applying
> for all kinds of engineering jobs is enough to realize that there is
> nothing for me in the "real world". Do not get me wrong, I have good
> GPAs (3.9 both in undergrad and grad schools), I have 10 or so
> publications in the premiere science journals, I have a good research
> resume and good recommendations. But all that is not enough to land an
> engineering job these days.
>
> What to do?
>
> I do not have a formal degree in EE, but I do like electronics and I
> do know a lot about it. It's my true passion. I'd like to pursue a
> career in electronics (desirably engineering, but technician jobs are
> OK too - more difficult to offshore). It happens that I like sea, I
> like (to learn about, at least) navy, ships, ship's weaponry, naval
> history. I would like to try something different, new and manly like a
> military service. Clock is ticking. In 4 years (I'm 30 y.o. now), I'll
> not have a military option. So, I am considering enlisting to navy.
> Local recruiters are not making their quotas, I was forgiven my 10
> extra pounds. I think I'll be able to pass physical. I have the right
> attitude to get through a boot camp too. Also, I am a permanent
> resident i.e. an officer school is not an option (I am not sure if I
> would be allowed to enter an officer school in such a ripe age,
> anyway).
>
> My questions:
>
> 1) Is 30 y.o. is too old to be a sailor? I know navy is OK with 30y.o.
> sailors, but..will I look like a freak among early 20th crowd?
> 2) Have you ever seen a Ph.D. enlisting as a sailor? Do you think it
> will be better for me not to mention my Ph.D. at all: a) to avoid
> future pecking along the line "let's see how smart you really are" b)
> not to be an unofficial poster child for a loser. How thoroughly
> background check is done? Will such an omission be counted against me
> if discovered?
> 3) What is the most challenging electronics field in navy? What is its
> rate? Is it open for non citizens (Hopefully, I'll be a citizen in 2
> years or so)? Ideally, I would like something involving little bit of
> design (I hope to pass PE exam in the future, and I need a design
> experience to be registered as a professional engineer).
> 4) Assuming that I will like the service, will be good at it, will get
> my citizenship and will decide to become an officer: a) what is max
> age for applicants to an officer school? b) will I be required to
> fulfill my enlistment obligations prior to applying to a school?
> 5) Are those with earned college degrees qualified for the Navy
> college funds?
> 6) In army, enlisted college graduates fresh out of a boot camp get
> higher rank than HS graduates do. Does anything like that exist in
> navy?
>
> Thanks to anyone who'll bother to reply.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but it sounds like about the only thing
you are really qualified for is to do what most of the others with a PhD in
engineering do. Get out of the field (like I did) and do something else.
Either that, start your own business, or go academic.

I never really worked directly in the engineering field, the BS was to keep
my dad happy and off my back, but my main goal was to get into NAVCAD. The
advance engineering degree's I got later were just something to do while I
spent a few years in the Durham NC VA hospital which is next to Duke. Heck I
have met more people that work in something other than what they got their
degree in than those that do.

Red

[nafod40]

Atcrossroad wrote:
> (BlackBeard)...
>
>>"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"...
>>
>>>Look, your best bet is NOT to enlist. Get your citizenship first and either
>>>jump into the Navy or Air Force as an officer OR go to someplace like Eglin
>>>AFB, NAS Pax River, MD, or NAWS China Lake, CA and get a challenging
>>>technical job as a civilian engineer (civil servant). The pay will be
>>>decent, and the satisfaction is great because you'll be working with cutting
>>>edge weapons systems--hands on--an engineer's dream.
>>
>>The best advice so far, but....
>>
>> With the exception that his story was just vague enough to raise
>>flags. PhD in what? He stated electronics was just a hobby and he
>>doesn't have the degree in it. So is he an ME? AE? Choo-Choo
>>engineer? Sanitation Engineer?
>
>
> 2nd tier schools...Ph.D. in systems engineering...only a vague clue about systems engineering...all my
> experience is in materials science/metallurgy...degree raises flags. I have a B.S. in
> metallurgical engineering, not really a high demand/growth field too.
>
> There is a significant Ph.D. glut in the labor market. Ph.D. from a
> good school is not an advantage (in most of the cases) in the real
> world (outside of narrow research fields). Ph.D. from a second tier is
> simply a burden on one's neck.

Waaa, waaa, waaaa, $%^&-ing waaa.

Dude, get over your whining. Life sucks, it's tough out there. Saying
having a PhD is somehow a burden and holds you back is a steaming load
of horse manure. If it holds you back, it's because you let it. Do you
think resumes have the slightest impact in getting a job? HA! They are
screening forms, allowing people to throw you into a circular file.

No wonder you're underemployed. you spend all your effort making
excuses. Join the Navy, so you can be further disappointed with life's
slings and arrows, and how the system hasn't recognized and taken
advantage of your now overeducated abilities.

Buying an education is like buying a box of tools. Yours are sitting on
the shelf unused. That's your fault. Go buy a falling apart house and
use your engineering skills to restore it and sell it for a profit. Take
broken radios and fix them. Fix TVs. Want to work on electronics? Just
do it! Do great at it, and people will come knocking on your door,
instead of you knocking on theirs. Talent is always rewarded. All you
have is potential.

Or do you really want a Dilbert job where someone hand feeds you?

Go out and buy a copy of "What Color is Your Parachute" by a Mr. Bolles.
Your local bookstore will have it. study it, complete it, follow it.
You'll get what you want that way.

[nafod40]

John A. Stovall wrote:
>
> "What Color is Your Parachute" is the most useless job search book
> ever written. He would to better to spend the money it costs on a
> coffee and networking in Starbucks.
>
> You get the job you want by contacts and networks not a book.

Have you read the book? That's exactly what it has you do. And it helps
you figure out how to do it.

Duh.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Red Rider" > wrote in message
om...
>
[ SNIP ]
> I never really worked directly in the engineering field, the BS was to
keep
> my dad happy and off my back, but my main goal was to get into NAVCAD.
The
> advance engineering degree's I got later were just something to do while I
> spent a few years in the Durham NC VA hospital which is next to Duke. Heck
I
> have met more people that work in something other than what they got their
> degree in than those that do.

Probably a third to a half of the programmers I know actually got their
degrees in something other than CS. In some cases, things like English or
history. They frequently turn out to be better software developers than the
formally trained people. I know a nurse who abruptly changed careers in her
late '30's, and is now an ocean kayaking and rockclimbing guide. Not to
mention quite a few more who have made similar radical shifts.

Hell, at the age of thirty you still have all the options open to you. I
wouldn't enlist in the Navy, but if you're having problems establishing an
enjoyable career at that age you're doing something wrong.

AHS

[DB]

What about the Merchant Marine? I'm not up and up on their requirements,
but it could be a good choice.

Damian

[Fred J. McCall]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote:

:I know the China Lake folks are usually looking for engineers because they
:can't find enough people who want to live there.

And if you like 'outdoors' types of activities, the Lake really isn't
that bad a place to live at all. If you're a city type and want to go
clubbing and such, you'd probably be very unhappy there.

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

[Fred J. McCall]

(BlackBeard) wrote:

: Yep, they just can't stand all the green fields and the huge lake
:and perfect weather. Fishing, sailing, skiiing et al. on the lake,
:that's the pamphlet I saw ...

Geez, I'd think that would scare a bubblehead off! What do you guys
know about sunlight, after all? :-)

[Atcrossroad]

nafod40 > wrote in message >...
> Atcrossroad wrote:
> > (BlackBeard)...
> >
> >>"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"...
> >>
> >>>Look, your best bet is NOT to enlist. Get your citizenship first and either
> >>>jump into the Navy or Air Force as an officer OR go to someplace like Eglin
> >>>AFB, NAS Pax River, MD, or NAWS China Lake, CA and get a challenging
> >>>technical job as a civilian engineer (civil servant). The pay will be
> >>>decent, and the satisfaction is great because you'll be working with cutting
> >>>edge weapons systems--hands on--an engineer's dream.
> >>
> >>The best advice so far, but....
> >>
> >> With the exception that his story was just vague enough to raise
> >>flags. PhD in what? He stated electronics was just a hobby and he
> >>doesn't have the degree in it. So is he an ME? AE? Choo-Choo
> >>engineer? Sanitation Engineer?
> >
> >
> > 2nd tier schools...Ph.D. in systems engineering...only a vague clue about systems engineering...all my
> > experience is in materials science/metallurgy...degree raises flags. I have a B.S. in
> > metallurgical engineering, not really a high demand/growth field too.
> >
> > There is a significant Ph.D. glut in the labor market. Ph.D. from a
> > good school is not an advantage (in most of the cases) in the real
> > world (outside of narrow research fields). Ph.D. from a second tier is
> > simply a burden on one's neck.
>
> Waaa, waaa, waaaa, $%^&-ing waaa.
>
> Dude, get over your whining. Life sucks, it's tough out there. Saying
> having a PhD is somehow a burden and holds you back is a steaming load
> of horse manure. If it holds you back, it's because you let it. Do you
> think resumes have the slightest impact in getting a job? HA! They are
> screening forms, allowing people to throw you into a circular file.
>
> No wonder you're underemployed. you spend all your effort making
> excuses. Join the Navy, so you can be further disappointed with life's
> slings and arrows, and how the system hasn't recognized and taken
> advantage of your now overeducated abilities.
>
> Buying an education is like buying a box of tools. Yours are sitting on
> the shelf unused. That's your fault. Go buy a falling apart house and
> use your engineering skills to restore it and sell it for a profit. Take
> broken radios and fix them. Fix TVs. Want to work on electronics? Just
> do it! Do great at it, and people will come knocking on your door,
> instead of you knocking on theirs. Talent is always rewarded. All you
> have is potential.
>
> Or do you really want a Dilbert job where someone hand feeds you?
>
> Go out and buy a copy of "What Color is Your Parachute" by a Mr. Bolles.
> Your local bookstore will have it. study it, complete it, follow it.

Well, my Dear. I do not really see where was I whining. Making excuses
to whom? To strangers? What's point of whining by posting messages to
google groups and then making excuses? I am not a masochist. I do know
that life is a jungle and it sucks most of the time. I did not write
"I have a Ph.D. they should hand me a job, pay big bucks and so on". I
have just stated how things really are, you may like it or not. Sober
look is a first step. And most certainly, I am looking for ways to
"employ" my potential. Sorry, reading "what's color of your...." BS
will help no one.

> You'll get what you want that way.

[nafod40]

Atcrossroad wrote:
>
> Well, my Dear. I do not really see where was I whining. Making excuses
> to whom? To strangers? What's point of whining by posting messages to
> google groups and then making excuses? I am not a masochist. I do know
> that life is a jungle and it sucks most of the time. I did not write
> "I have a Ph.D. they should hand me a job, pay big bucks and so on". I
> have just stated how things really are, you may like it or not.

I felt you were making excuses to yourself. Second tier school, wrong
degree title, wrong field, wrong experience, etc. You did provide a
quite extensive list of reasons why your PhD interferes with your job
hunting.

As a PhD holder in engineering myself I disagreed with all of them,
based on my experience looking for jobs and on my experience hiring
people who do or don't have them. A lot of year's experience. I know
exactly how things are.

> Sorry, reading "what's color of your...." BS
> will help no one.

Oh it will. Backing off of my aggressive tone, I do highly recommend the
book. Next time you visit Barnes & Noble, thumb through it. It's got
stuff in there that every grad needs to know. It's what colleges should
teach their graduates, but don't. Web page...
http://www.jobhuntersbible.com/index.html

Another great way to learn some useful life skills is to take a Dale
Carnegie class. How to meet people, network, etc. We are all salesmen,
selling at a minimum ourselves. Go back and read your post. Would you
hire yourself? The word "can't" appears way too often.

[Fred J. McCall]

R. David Steele /OMEGA> wrote:

:The Navy seems to under use its enlisted. Officers do things
:that an Army NCO would do normally.

What planet is THAT on? What would those tasks be?

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> R. David Steele /OMEGA> wrote:
>
> :The Navy seems to under use its enlisted. Officers do things
> :that an Army NCO would do normally.
>
> What planet is THAT on? What would those tasks be?

Yes, unless things have radically changed in the 12 years that I've been
out, I'd have to agree with Fred's sentiments. Having spent many years of my
precious life either afloat or on Army bases (since I didn't get to see
where I lived in the squadbay very much), I never noticed a real difference
between the Navy or the Army in terms of delegation of responsibility. In
fact, I'd give the USN an overall edge in that regard, not the other way
around.

It's easy to draw a conclusion from relatively few observations,
particularly if it's of a certain occupational specialty. But extrapolation
is dangerous. And seeing officers occasionally do things which seem to be
the purview of junior enlisted or senior enlisted is not grounds for
assuming that that is how the normal state of affairs is. I've seen junior
USN officers on gators pitch in sometimes to help with really long-duration
intensive UNREPS/VERTREPS, when they see that the Marines and sailors are
getting exhausted. And, although it's stretching the example some, you can
have a tent team leader who is a PFC (in Arctic warfare), and he can tell
his lieutenant or major what to do with respect to his duties on the tent
team...doesn't mean that 95% of the time the major isn't in complete charge.

I have a formal course in combat intelligence from the Canadian Forces, not
to mention my gunner's, FDC, FOO Tech, and radio communicator courses, and
in the USMC, I have my 0811 and 0861 MOS courses, plus NGFS and amphibious
warfare schools. In theory (not that I could do it now, but I'm talking of
back when) I could have done what an officer was supposed to do, and
frequently did just that. Vice versa, officers should generally know how to
do what their people are supposed to do, and will occasionally be observed
doing just that. I like knowing that it's not just the junior guys at the
battery CP that know how to operate the ballistics computer, and I like
knowing that the 2nd Lt FO who I am backing up actually knows how to operate
a laser designator and call in NGF SEAD (because, after all, I might get
killed before he does), and given the limited number of officers, I am sure
*they* like knowing that I am fully conversant with Regt FSCC/SACC/DASC
operations, because that gives them a few extra hours of sleep.

If you happen to observe me doing something that an officer normally does a
few times, and don't see the officer doing something that I normally do, you
may draw the conclusion that enlisted are empowered. If OTOH it's the
opposite, you'll start thinking that the service is like the fUSSR.

As I say, I agree with Fred. I never got that impression about that
difference between the Army and the Navy.

AHS

[Fred J. McCall]

R. David Steele /OMEGA> wrote:

:But even at an infantry platoon level, the NCOs take on decision
:making that it seems in the Navy is done by the division officer.
:The Chiefs may supervise but are just not the leaders that Army
:NCOs are.

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 9/19/04 8:44 AM, in article ,
"R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote:
>
> The biggest area is the MI analyst and counter intelligence
> agent. Both are officer functions in the Navy. The Army uses CI
> NCOs and Warrants, in NIS is almost all officers. The same for
> Army CID work.
>
> But even at an infantry platoon level, the NCOs take on decision
> making that it seems in the Navy is done by the division officer.
> The Chiefs may supervise but are just not the leaders that Army
> NCOs are.
>

I don't know what your background is, but you obviously haven't seen CPO's
in action.

Navy Chiefs are some of the most empowered decision makers in all of the
armed services. Naval officers RELY on their chiefs... Those that don't are
bound to fail.

--Woody

[Greasy Rider]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:40:35 -0800, Mark R. >
proclaimed:

>Part of the problem is the Navy's culture of leadership, or lack
>thereof. As I understand it, other services begin training people in
>leadership at the E-3 level. In the Navy, leadership training barely
>starts at the E-4 level. Until a Sailor makes E-5, they get very
>little formal leadership training. Sailors are not taught to command
>or make decisions.

Understand that I am from way back in the 50's and what you say was
true in those days. I was an E-5 for two years and made E-6 with just
two months to go before I ever received anything that resembled
"leadership training" and by then it was too late. I was on the way
out. The only difference E-5 and E-6 made in those days was pay and
sleeping accommodations.

[Mark R.]

It depends on what part of the Navy you are dealing with. In this day
and age, USN Chiefs tend to be micromanaged and second guessed on a
daily basis. This is especially true in submarines and on some
surface ships where nuclear-trained officers are present. In my mind,
the Chief Petty Officer in the USN is no longer a leader. They are
expected to be Enforcers and Managers for the wardroom. In my ten
years of active service, I have seen more and more JOs who simply
refuse to listen to the Chief, and still do well in the eyes of the
senior officers. In the Navy I was told about when I was young, and
in the one I joined in '93, the CPO was greatly respected up and down
the chain of command. Not any more.

Part of the problem is the Navy's culture of leadership, or lack
thereof. As I understand it, other services begin training people in
leadership at the E-3 level. In the Navy, leadership training barely
starts at the E-4 level. Until a Sailor makes E-5, they get very
little formal leadership training. Sailors are not taught to command
or make decisions. They are taught to simply read the tech manual/PMS
card/work package and obey it. Learning is by rote memorization of
facts and figures. So now we have a whole generation of Sailors -
people going up for the Chief's board - who don't even know how to
make a simple decision without referring to documentation. Those who
know how to make decisions are afraid to for fear of reprisals from
above.

Don't get me wrong. I'm second generation Navy. My dad is a retired
BMC. I have an enormous amount of respect for many of my chiefs. I
feel their pain, and despise those who have sold out to the wardroom.
Those who try to uphold loyalty and respect up and down the chain of
command, tell the truth, and be apolitical are quickly given bad evals
and sent into retirement. Those who kiss ass are quickly sent up the
ranks. Welcome to the age of the zero-defects mentality, courtesy of
the Nuclear Navy. The ghost of Admiral Rickover lives on...

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:48:07 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>On 9/19/04 8:44 AM, in article ,
>"R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote:
>>
>> The biggest area is the MI analyst and counter intelligence
>> agent. Both are officer functions in the Navy. The Army uses CI
>> NCOs and Warrants, in NIS is almost all officers. The same for
>> Army CID work.
>>
>> But even at an infantry platoon level, the NCOs take on decision
>> making that it seems in the Navy is done by the division officer.
>> The Chiefs may supervise but are just not the leaders that Army
>> NCOs are.
>>
>
>I don't know what your background is, but you obviously haven't seen CPO's
>in action.
>
>Navy Chiefs are some of the most empowered decision makers in all of the
>armed services. Naval officers RELY on their chiefs... Those that don't are
>bound to fail.
>
>--Woody



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Steven James Forsberg]

: Part of the problem is the Navy's culture of leadership, or lack
: thereof. As I understand it, other services begin training people in
: leadership at the E-3 level. In the Navy, leadership training barely
: starts at the E-4 level. Until a Sailor makes E-5, they get very
: little formal leadership training. Sailors are not taught to command
: or make decisions. They are taught to simply read the tech manual/PMS
: card/work package and obey it. Learning is by rote memorization of
: facts and figures. So now we have a whole generation of Sailors -
: people going up for the Chief's board - who don't even know how to
: make a simple decision without referring to documentation. Those who
: know how to make decisions are afraid to for fear of reprisals from
: above.

It seems that part of this stems from the very "specialness" of
the CPO itself, as viewed by the enlisted community. In my experience, a
PO was PO was PO. There were only really two types of enlisted people,
Chiefs, and everyone else. Thus, as pointed out, from E4 to E6 really
wasn't much more than a payraise. Indeed, going from seaman to PO was
really no more than a payraise plus a 2-day "petty officer indoctrination".
I would contrast this with, say the Marine Corps, where in my
experience the difference between an E4 and E5, let alone E6, could be
night and day. In terms of job responsibility, accountability, treatment,
etc. etc. In the navy, other than people looking to punch you on the
shoulder, getting a promotion often meant absolutely nothing to the command
nor how you were treated.
I'd also point out that this is a problem with the "professionaliztion"
path the CPO community took. The idea that Chiefs are 'managers' divorced
from "technical" detail has hurt. In my field, too many Chiefs wanted
administrative duties and did not keep up with --or even in touch with --
the changes in their fields. This was compounded by "zero detailing" where
background and NEC didn't matter. A lot of this, however, was a backhanded
effort to correct sea/shore imbalances and has hopefully been rationalized
over the last several years.
The same general theme seemed to extend to warrant officers. Most
navy warrant officers seemed to be strictly administrative types, very
few "techs" or operators. The Army, on the other hand, had a community of
warrant officers who were at that rank precisely because of their technical
expertise and operations skills ( helo pilots is another example ). As
a result, we navy types were usually trained by civilian, while our
army counterparts were often trained by warrants and SFCs.

Of course, I would argue that probably the biggest single effect
has been the "diamond" rank structure replacing the "pyramid" one. In
the modern US navy, recruits are often an oddity outside of bootcamp, and
even nonrates are in short supply. When most of your people are found in
paygrade E5 -- halfway up the rank structure -- it's little wonder that
they don't have experience leading. In effect, "middle management" has
taken over. I would suggest that a lot of this has been in an effort to
aid retention. Unable to get paygrade increases, the navy has responded
by simply promoting people faster into higher grades.

regards,
----------------------------------------------------------------

[Mark R.]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:57:27 +0000 (UTC), Steven James Forsberg
> wrote:

<snip well written response>

>Unable to get paygrade increases, the navy has responded
>by simply promoting people faster into higher grades.

And drastically watering down what it means to be a Petty Officer.

Mark


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Steven James Forsberg]

:>Unable to get paygrade increases, the navy has responded
:>by simply promoting people faster into higher grades.

: And drastically watering down what it means to be a Petty Officer.

Indeed. When I was in the term for someone coming right out of
a school was 'IPO' - Instant Petty Officer. But it was becoming the
norm. The normal response, upon seeing a non-rate in the field, was
"what did you do to get busted?" I recall listening to a Master Chief
who described making PO3 after 3 years in (I made E5 in almost 3 years
to the day, from E1). He was in a new berthing area that day, and
instantly became the 'first line' supervisor for a dozen non-rates. He
wrote evals (rarely changed) as an E5, so on and so on. Of course that
was in contrast to our (then) current structure. As an E5 I never even
had input on evals (heck, many times our PO1 had to bitch just to get to
write an eval or two for "practice").
But we were overloaded with CPOs. And PO1s, etc. which I guess
is the point. Nothing like dividing up one good job 3 or 4 ways to mess
things up. I'm not familiar with current manning practices, but this
may be true at sea now, as well. (at least as far as EW/CT is concerned).

regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Jim McCartan]

I was an enlisted man in the 60s. In the Aviation Community there
seemed, to me, to be increasing responsibility with my promotions.
Retention was a big issue in the technical field so rate came fast for
those who scored well on the tests. I made E4 in one year and E5 in
under 2 years. After making E4 I went to a week long school called
POIS (petty officer indoctrination school) that began the training for
decision making and leadership. After being advanced to E5 I was sent
to a petty officer leadership school that I think was also a week
long.

As an E4 I was responsible for some of the E3s in the shop as well as
other collateral duties. As an E5 I was a communications shop
supervisor. When I reported abord ship I was the night supervisor in
the ECM shop. The same held true for others I knew in the AT field.
I can't speak for other ratings but I was fortunate.

Also - In my day the Chief was supreme. There were those who were
idiots and sluggards BUT for the most part the Chief ran the part of
the Navy that I lived in.

Too bad that changed.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> R. David Steele /OMEGA> wrote:
>
> :But even at an infantry platoon level, the NCOs take on decision
> :making that it seems in the Navy is done by the division officer.
> :The Chiefs may supervise but are just not the leaders that Army
> :NCOs are.
>
> You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Whenever I was on a gator, and had to go into CPO country, and knocked on
the door of their mess to request permission to come in to deliver a
message, I sure as hell didn't think they were "supervising". In fact, they
were God, and I quaked in fear before them. One time I forgot to knock and
ask for permission to enter, and just opened the hatch and strolled in, on
one amphib - BAD mistake. Very BAD mistake.

Even petty officers in the USN have significant leadership responsibilities.
I never noticed that any of the PO's I knew were not charged with duties and
decision-making that was not comparable to equal ranks in other services.

AHS

[Greasy Rider]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:37:50 -0300, "Arved Sandstrom"
> proclaimed:

>Even petty officers in the USN have significant leadership responsibilities.
>I never noticed that any of the PO's I knew were not charged with duties and
>decision-making that was not comparable to equal ranks in other services.

What time frame?
That was definitely not the picture in the late 50's in Nav-Air.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Steven James Forsberg" > wrote in message
...
> : Part of the problem is the Navy's culture of leadership, or lack
> : thereof. As I understand it, other services begin training people in
> : leadership at the E-3 level. In the Navy, leadership training barely
> : starts at the E-4 level. Until a Sailor makes E-5, they get very
> : little formal leadership training. Sailors are not taught to command
> : or make decisions. They are taught to simply read the tech manual/PMS
> : card/work package and obey it. Learning is by rote memorization of
> : facts and figures. So now we have a whole generation of Sailors -
> : people going up for the Chief's board - who don't even know how to
> : make a simple decision without referring to documentation. Those who
> : know how to make decisions are afraid to for fear of reprisals from
> : above.
>
> It seems that part of this stems from the very "specialness" of
> the CPO itself, as viewed by the enlisted community. In my experience, a
> PO was PO was PO. There were only really two types of enlisted people,
> Chiefs, and everyone else. Thus, as pointed out, from E4 to E6 really
> wasn't much more than a payraise. Indeed, going from seaman to PO was
> really no more than a payraise plus a 2-day "petty officer
indoctrination".
> I would contrast this with, say the Marine Corps, where in my
> experience the difference between an E4 and E5, let alone E6, could be
> night and day. In terms of job responsibility, accountability, treatment,
> etc. etc. In the navy, other than people looking to punch you on the
> shoulder, getting a promotion often meant absolutely nothing to the
command
> nor how you were treated.
[ SNIP ]

In the Marine Corps, a PFC or Lance Corporal (E-2 or E-3) is already
considered to be a leader. By the time you become a corporal or sergeant you
will likely have formal junior NCO training. As a staff NCO, you certainly
will have formal schools.And yes, you're quite right, the difference between
every rank in the Marine Corps is large. In one sense, though, it's not,
because every Marine is taught to be a leader right from the start. If your
gunnery sergeant goes down, the corporal is expected to be able to manage
the situation.

AHS

[George Shirley]

Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>R. David Steele /OMEGA> wrote:
>>
>>:But even at an infantry platoon level, the NCOs take on decision
>>:making that it seems in the Navy is done by the division officer.
>>:The Chiefs may supervise but are just not the leaders that Army
>>:NCOs are.
>>
>>You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
>
>
> Whenever I was on a gator, and had to go into CPO country, and knocked on
> the door of their mess to request permission to come in to deliver a
> message, I sure as hell didn't think they were "supervising". In fact, they
> were God, and I quaked in fear before them. One time I forgot to knock and
> ask for permission to enter, and just opened the hatch and strolled in, on
> one amphib - BAD mistake. Very BAD mistake.
>
> Even petty officers in the USN have significant leadership responsibilities.
> I never noticed that any of the PO's I knew were not charged with duties and
> decision-making that was not comparable to equal ranks in other services.
>
> AHS
>
>
I've been reading this thread with interest. I was on active and reserve
duty in the USN from June 1957 to July 1963, started on active duty
kiddie cruise at 17 yo. At 18 I was a PO3 and at 19 a PO2. Guaranteed I
had responsibility when I supervised men and material and if I screwed
up it was on me. Don't know about the modern Navy but, as Arved says,
Chiefs sat on the right hand of God and were listened to by officer and
enlisted back then. The best officers I ever served under were mustangs
that had been long service chiefs. They knew their stuff and knew more
about supervising men than most ring knockers ever did. Just one old
swab's thoughts on this subject.

George

[BlackBeard]

(Atcrossroad) wrote in message


.. I think you have some misconceptions, a Ph.D. is rarely a
> plus when one wants an engineering job in mat. sci./metallurgy. Maybe
> in some other fields, but in mat. sci. Ph.D.s are doomed to be lab or
> paper writing rats. I'd rather be on shop's floor.
>

If you would have included the pertinent information in your
original post it is unlikely I would have responded as I have never
worked with anyone with your specific situation. I have spent 20
years working with scientists and engineers in the EE, ME, AeroE, and
Physics fields. I have worked with a few Systems Engineers but have
not noticed the problems you state. I stand by my statement that in
your case, enlisting in the Navy would be a bizarre solution.

BB

[Mark Test]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/19/04 8:44 AM, in article ,
> "R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote:
> >
> > The biggest area is the MI analyst and counter intelligence
> > agent. Both are officer functions in the Navy. The Army uses CI
> > NCOs and Warrants, in NIS is almost all officers. The same for
> > Army CID work.
> >
> > But even at an infantry platoon level, the NCOs take on decision
> > making that it seems in the Navy is done by the division officer.
> > The Chiefs may supervise but are just not the leaders that Army
> > NCOs are.
> >
>
> I don't know what your background is, but you obviously haven't seen CPO's
> in action.
>
> Navy Chiefs are some of the most empowered decision makers in all of the
> armed services. Naval officers RELY on their chiefs... Those that don't
are
> bound to fail.
>
> --Woody

Hmmm depends on where you're at. I've seen CPO messes that ran the ship's
routine, from writing the watch bills, assigning PQS, deciding who the next
helmsman will be, the next OSL, etc., Additionally, making on the spot
decisions regarding discipline matters.

Howerver, the chain of command is not always there to back up and
support the CPO(s). This is part of the problem. Trust me until I screw
up, then second guess me. Wardrooms tend to second guess and question
right off the bat. I handle it by doing the job my way, apparently I now
have
to "earn" the trust of some "Ensign", but if I do it right, he'll see that
he can
always trust, and depend on the Chief, so when he moves on he'll
hopefully listen to his next Chief.

(stepping off soap box now)

HAFND,

Mark

[Dave LaCourse]

George Shirley writes:

>Don't know about the modern Navy but, as Arved says,
>Chiefs sat on the right hand of God and were listened to by officer and
>enlisted back then. The best officers I ever served under were mustangs
>that had been long service chiefs. They knew their stuff and knew more
>about supervising men than most ring knockers ever did. Just one old
>swab's thoughts on this subject.
>

And good thouoghts they are, George.

This old Chief made 3rd class in a year, 2nd in 2 1/2, and 1st in a little over
five. I made Chief in 8 years, six months. In each of my petty officer ranks,
I had leadership responsibilities. As the rank increased, so did the
responsibilities. As a Chief, I was a Division Chief, Acting Division Officer,
Department Chief, head instructor. I was a mentor and, when necessary, a
tormentor. Officers, especially junior ones, have great respect for Chiefs.
But, I am sure that it is the same in all services for a senior nco.

I served with both the Air Force (about two years) and the Army (6 years) and
must say that I saw nothing but top notch NCOs, just like the Navy turned out.


Dave
http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Dave LaCourse]

Mark Test writes:

>Howerver, the chain of command is not always there to back up and
>support the CPO(s). This is part of the problem. Trust me until I screw
>up, then second guess me. Wardrooms tend to second guess and question
>right off the bat. I handle it by doing the job my way, apparently I now
>have
>to "earn" the trust of some "Ensign", but if I do it right, he'll see that
>he can
>always trust, and depend on the Chief, so when he moves on he'll
>hopefully listen to his next Chief.
>
>(stepping off soap box now)
>
>HAFND,
>
>Mark
>

All the Ensigns that were not Mustangs were indoctrinated as to what a chief
is. I had an Ensign for a Div Officer and he came to me constantly for advice.


A Chief in the Navy is unique in many ways (separate mess, separate clubs,
different uniform than other enlisted men/woman), but there is little
difference in his responsibilities than those senior ncos in the AF or Army.
Dave
http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Vaughn]

"Mark R." > wrote in message
...
> It depends on what part of the Navy you are dealing with.

Perhaps so, but in the part of the Navy I was in (the submarine part)
Chiefs were very important and respected people. Most departments have an
officer who is nominally in charge and does the paperwork, and a Chief who
actually gets his hands dirty and pushes the troops to get things done. Also,
subs have a unique and traditional position called "Chief of the Boat" (COB).
In function, (if not the legal chain of command) the "COB" ranks just under the
XO. Of course, things may have changed in the last quarter century or so.
Perhaps someone with more recent submarine experience can chime in here.

Vaughn

[Derek Lyons]

"Vaughn" > wrote:

>
>"Mark R." > wrote in message
...
>> It depends on what part of the Navy you are dealing with.
>
> Perhaps so, but in the part of the Navy I was in (the submarine part)
>Chiefs were very important and respected people. Most departments have an
>officer who is nominally in charge and does the paperwork, and a Chief who
>actually gets his hands dirty and pushes the troops to get things done. Also,
>subs have a unique and traditional position called "Chief of the Boat" (COB).
>In function, (if not the legal chain of command) the "COB" ranks just under the
>XO. Of course, things may have changed in the last quarter century or so.
>Perhaps someone with more recent submarine experience can chime in here.

At least around Squadron 16/Group 6, it was an article of faith that
the O-gang and the E-6's and above could be taken off the boat, and it
would proceed with nary a bobble.

Let the PO2's be taken off however...

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

[Nice Guy]

Having been both a CPO and an officer I can say from experience, CPOs are
the JOs mentors.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/19/04 8:44 AM, in article ,
> "R. David Steele" /OMEGA> wrote:
> >
> > The biggest area is the MI analyst and counter intelligence
> > agent. Both are officer functions in the Navy. The Army uses CI
> > NCOs and Warrants, in NIS is almost all officers. The same for
> > Army CID work.
> >
> > But even at an infantry platoon level, the NCOs take on decision
> > making that it seems in the Navy is done by the division officer.
> > The Chiefs may supervise but are just not the leaders that Army
> > NCOs are.
> >
>
> I don't know what your background is, but you obviously haven't seen CPO's
> in action.
>
> Navy Chiefs are some of the most empowered decision makers in all of the
> armed services. Naval officers RELY on their chiefs... Those that don't
are
> bound to fail.
>
> --Woody
>

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Nice Guy" > wrote in message
...
> Having been both a CPO and an officer I can say from experience, CPOs are
> the JOs mentors.

As of 12 years ago, Marine NCO's and staff NCO's filled the same role. We
simply knew more about our MOS than the JO could ever possibly hope to
understand. Plus the JO's swapped roles a lot, so we'd only have a guy as a
FOO for a short period of time, before he might end up on the gunline or
graduate to battery XO finally. The officers were more important in
leadership positions, but when it came to technical advice or actually
deciding on use of the guns, you stuck with the enlisted folks.

It may be different in the Navy. But in the Corps, the enlisted are the
specialists. Officers are the generalists.

AHS

[Fred J. McCall]

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:

:It may be different in the Navy.

It's not. Remember, a typical officer tour is only 2-3 years and they
may be changing slots inside the command during that time period.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Steven James Forsberg]

:> Having been both a CPO and an officer I can say from experience, CPOs are
:> the JOs mentors.

: As of 12 years ago, Marine NCO's and staff NCO's filled the same role. We
: simply knew more about our MOS than the JO could ever possibly hope to
: understand. Plus the JO's swapped roles a lot, so we'd only have a guy as a
: FOO for a short period of time, before he might end up on the gunline or
: graduate to battery XO finally. The officers were more important in
: leadership positions, but when it came to technical advice or actually
: deciding on use of the guns, you stuck with the enlisted folks.

: It may be different in the Navy. But in the Corps, the enlisted are the
: specialists. Officers are the generalists.

In a "fast moving" world, however, there is where the CPO community
was slipping up. A Chief Boatswain's mate, for example, could serve on
one type of ship for years, learn to tie knots, learn how to moor pierside,
etc. and most of that information was just as relevant at CPO as it had
been at Seaman. The basic technology/technique changed slowly, so by
simply working a career you gained vast *cumulative* knowledge.
In crypto, however, things changed so fast that doing one tour
(i.e. recruiter) out of your speciality could mean becoming lost forever.
A lot of knowledge was NOT cumulative -- instead you were constantly learning
from the ground up all over again. What the CPO had gained first hand
experience with as a PO3 or PO2, was now just in the history books. The new
technology/techniques were so radically different that they were, in effect,
whole new systems.
The CPO community had a mantra that "Chiefs don't touch keyboards",
at least for anything other than admin work. That made it almost impossible
for them to keep up with rapidly changing software. Likewise, the idea that
"tech training stops at Chief" meant that a 'fast runner' could make CPO in
9 years and then by the time they were at 20, be 11 years behind the times.
Imagine being 11 years behind the times in computer technology!
Thus, in my neck of the woods CPOs were usually the *last* people
you would approach with any kind of technical or "practical" problem, other
than administrative. The leave chit hadn't changed in decades. But the days
of typing decks of Hollerith cards to IPL a mainframe -- it made for
good stories but didn't help ops much. Now, in many fields this wasn't so.
For example, a Gunners Mate could work on the same basic 76mm gun system
throughout his career, and as a CPO have a vast base of knowledge. In 6 years
I went from being trained on "dumb" Delta Data terminals (60s style curved
plastic case, 80 column green characters) to Zenith PC "smart terminals"
complete with DOS and interface systems to Sun SparcStation workstations.
Most of my CPOs had never even used (let alone learned) the Delta Data,
by 6 years later they were certainly lost regarding Sparcstations. Guys
who never learned DOS had a hard time with windows, forget UNIX, when their
culture told them they should never sit down and use the stuff.
There were Chiefs who tried to buck the trend -- they typically got
hammered for it. The fast changing technology also made me feel very strongly
about how a person should be trained. The "traditional" (and CPOs were
very traditional) learning method was hands on and get experience, and over
time you'd learn what you needed to know. But with fast changing technology,
you could never get enough experience fast enough as the tech/methods
turned over. Instead, I felt that "RTFM" was the preferred method. You need
to be able to use the documentation in order to have a chance. Thus, when
a relative bitches about not being able to use their VCR, I'm the oddball
who asks "Where is the manual?" It may be written in pidgin Korean, but
it beats randomly pushing buttons on the screen.

It is possible that the rate of change has slowed. As standardization
has been applied (particularly in the computer end) it may be more possible
to acquire long-term useful knowledge. Perhaps the days of CPOs endlessly
roaming the halls with tales of long abandoned systems ( "I was a FlexCop
guru!" ) has changed.

In the officer ranks there was a virtual civil war over the issue
of "technical knowledge." In our project, officers were *administrators*
and not really managers nor leaders. They made no significant operational
decisions, and were often so 'technically' inept they made the CPOs look
like true gurus. For better or for worse, they were supposed to handle
security paperwork and the office budget, make sure people sometimes wore
uniforms to work, etc. and that's about it. Indeed, when a trained or
experienced officer happened to land in a DivO billet, for example, they'd
often pretend they were ignorant to avoid the cutting criticism "technician".
We once had an Ensign, brand new E-Engineer who just happened to
have helped design one of our systems while in college, step in and help
the tech reps when a newly installed component failed hard and bought
operations to a screeching halt. The tech reps were impressed, in theory
Washington was pleased the problem got fixed. The ensign was verbally
admonished for "forgetting his role" and taking part in a 'technical' matter.
Silly us, we thought the whole purpose behind his education was to allow
him to make key saves like that.

regards,
----------------------------------------------

[Joe Osman]

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven James Forsberg" > wrote in message
> ...
> > : Part of the problem is the Navy's culture of leadership, or lack
> > : thereof. As I understand it, other services begin training people in
> > : leadership at the E-3 level. In the Navy, leadership training barely
> > : starts at the E-4 level. Until a Sailor makes E-5, they get very
> > : little formal leadership training. Sailors are not taught to command
> > : or make decisions. They are taught to simply read the tech manual/PMS
> > : card/work package and obey it. Learning is by rote memorization of
> > : facts and figures. So now we have a whole generation of Sailors -
> > : people going up for the Chief's board - who don't even know how to
> > : make a simple decision without referring to documentation. Those who
> > : know how to make decisions are afraid to for fear of reprisals from
> > : above.
> >
> > It seems that part of this stems from the very "specialness" of
> > the CPO itself, as viewed by the enlisted community. In my experience, a
> > PO was PO was PO. There were only really two types of enlisted people,
> > Chiefs, and everyone else. Thus, as pointed out, from E4 to E6 really
> > wasn't much more than a payraise. Indeed, going from seaman to PO was
> > really no more than a payraise plus a 2-day "petty officer
> indoctrination".
> > I would contrast this with, say the Marine Corps, where in my
> > experience the difference between an E4 and E5, let alone E6, could be
> > night and day. In terms of job responsibility, accountability,
treatment,
> > etc. etc. In the navy, other than people looking to punch you on the
> > shoulder, getting a promotion often meant absolutely nothing to the
> command
> > nor how you were treated.
> [ SNIP ]
>
> In the Marine Corps, a PFC or Lance Corporal (E-2 or E-3) is already
> considered to be a leader. By the time you become a corporal or sergeant
you
> will likely have formal junior NCO training. As a staff NCO, you certainly
> will have formal schools.And yes, you're quite right, the difference
between
> every rank in the Marine Corps is large. In one sense, though, it's not,
> because every Marine is taught to be a leader right from the start. If
your
> gunnery sergeant goes down, the corporal is expected to be able to manage
> the situation.
>
> AHS
>
>

This goes way back. The Marine battalion that fought at Honey Hill in 1864
started the battle with a 1st Lt. as Battalion Commander. He was the only
officer in the battalion. All the Company Commanders and other battalion
"officers" were sergeants.

Joe




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Steven James Forsberg" > wrote in message
...
[ SNIP ]

> In the officer ranks there was a virtual civil war over the issue
> of "technical knowledge." In our project, officers were *administrators*
> and not really managers nor leaders. They made no significant operational
> decisions, and were often so 'technically' inept they made the CPOs look
> like true gurus. For better or for worse, they were supposed to handle
> security paperwork and the office budget, make sure people sometimes wore
> uniforms to work, etc. and that's about it. Indeed, when a trained or
> experienced officer happened to land in a DivO billet, for example, they'd
> often pretend they were ignorant to avoid the cutting criticism
"technician".
> We once had an Ensign, brand new E-Engineer who just happened to
> have helped design one of our systems while in college, step in and help
> the tech reps when a newly installed component failed hard and bought
> operations to a screeching halt. The tech reps were impressed, in theory
> Washington was pleased the problem got fixed. The ensign was verbally
> admonished for "forgetting his role" and taking part in a 'technical'
matter.
> Silly us, we thought the whole purpose behind his education was to allow
> him to make key saves like that.

I don't doubt what you say, at least in the specific field you cite. I'm
sure you could winkle out some occupational specialties or units in the
Marine Corps where the attitudes approach the above, but there wouldn't be
many. In combat arms, probably the only "administrative" enlisted slots are
the admin track at E-8 and E-9; i.e. 1st Sgt and Sgt Maj. And even they are
actually using a great deal of leadership, even if it is primarily related
to paperwork, welfare of the people, disciplinary matters, and advising the
CO. Sometimes the latter two positions would be filled by people who didn't
have formal schooling or much experience in that combat arm, but they were e
xpected to self-educate to a certain proficiency level, or perhaps a
familiarity level is more accurate. Certainly all of the other enlisted
ranks, include the technical track at E-8 and E-9 (Master Sgt and Master
Gunnery Sgt), were very definitely leaders but also expected to be
technically proficient.

As far as officers go (in the Corps), they just skip around in various jobs
more. But at least in combat arms, they are most definitely leaders too.
Again, I'm sure you could locate MOS's, units or specific billets where that
isn't so, but I don't think you'd find a circumstance of either officers or
senior enlisted being discouraged from technical details. I could be
mistaken, but I think the USMC is the least officer top-heavy of any of the
armed services. An obvious result of that is that enlisted and officers both
have more shared responsibilities, both technically and in terms of
leadership. I've seem majors in charge of only twenty-odd Marines (an
officer of that rank is common for an artillery regimental liaison section),
and warrant officers or staff sergeants in charge of three times that many,
and second lieutenants in charge of perhaps 2 or 3. In GW1, I was a corporal
and in charge of 12 people, and equally, you wouldn't think twice about
having a PFC or Lance Cpl take charge of a platoon - you'd expect him to be
able to do it.

I believe there are just a lot of variables, different service ethoses
(correct plural?), and so forth.

AHS

[Joe Osman]

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven James Forsberg" > wrote in message
> ...
> [ SNIP ]
>
> > In the officer ranks there was a virtual civil war over the issue
> > of "technical knowledge." In our project, officers were
*administrators*
> > and not really managers nor leaders. They made no significant
operational
> > decisions, and were often so 'technically' inept they made the CPOs look
> > like true gurus. For better or for worse, they were supposed to handle
> > security paperwork and the office budget, make sure people sometimes
wore
> > uniforms to work, etc. and that's about it. Indeed, when a trained or
> > experienced officer happened to land in a DivO billet, for example,
they'd
> > often pretend they were ignorant to avoid the cutting criticism
> "technician".
> > We once had an Ensign, brand new E-Engineer who just happened to
> > have helped design one of our systems while in college, step in and help
> > the tech reps when a newly installed component failed hard and bought
> > operations to a screeching halt. The tech reps were impressed, in
theory
> > Washington was pleased the problem got fixed. The ensign was verbally
> > admonished for "forgetting his role" and taking part in a 'technical'
> matter.
> > Silly us, we thought the whole purpose behind his education was to allow
> > him to make key saves like that.
>
> I don't doubt what you say, at least in the specific field you cite. I'm
> sure you could winkle out some occupational specialties or units in the
> Marine Corps where the attitudes approach the above, but there wouldn't be
> many. In combat arms, probably the only "administrative" enlisted slots
are
> the admin track at E-8 and E-9; i.e. 1st Sgt and Sgt Maj. And even they
are
> actually using a great deal of leadership, even if it is primarily related
> to paperwork, welfare of the people, disciplinary matters, and advising
the
> CO. Sometimes the latter two positions would be filled by people who
didn't
> have formal schooling or much experience in that combat arm, but they were
e
> xpected to self-educate to a certain proficiency level, or perhaps a
> familiarity level is more accurate. Certainly all of the other enlisted
> ranks, include the technical track at E-8 and E-9 (Master Sgt and Master
> Gunnery Sgt), were very definitely leaders but also expected to be
> technically proficient.
>
> As far as officers go (in the Corps), they just skip around in various
jobs
> more. But at least in combat arms, they are most definitely leaders too.
> Again, I'm sure you could locate MOS's, units or specific billets where
that
> isn't so, but I don't think you'd find a circumstance of either officers
or
> senior enlisted being discouraged from technical details. I could be
> mistaken, but I think the USMC is the least officer top-heavy of any of
the
> armed services. An obvious result of that is that enlisted and officers
both
> have more shared responsibilities, both technically and in terms of
> leadership. I've seem majors in charge of only twenty-odd Marines (an
> officer of that rank is common for an artillery regimental liaison
section),
> and warrant officers or staff sergeants in charge of three times that
many,
> and second lieutenants in charge of perhaps 2 or 3. In GW1, I was a
corporal
> and in charge of 12 people, and equally, you wouldn't think twice about
> having a PFC or Lance Cpl take charge of a platoon - you'd expect him to
be
> able to do it.
>
> I believe there are just a lot of variables, different service ethoses
> (correct plural?), and so forth.
>
> AHS
>

When I was in the Medical Rehabilitation Platoon in USMC boot camp in 1970 I
was "guarding" a parking lot one day and overheard two officers talking
about how much harder it was going to be to properly instill leadership in
Lance Corporals (E-3s) now that the Viet Nam war was winding down and they
weren't going to have any with combat experience.

Joe




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Derek Lyons]

Steven James Forsberg > wrote:
> The CPO community had a mantra that "Chiefs don't touch keyboards",
>at least for anything other than admin work. That made it almost impossible
>for them to keep up with rapidly changing software. Likewise, the idea that
>"tech training stops at Chief" meant that a 'fast runner' could make CPO in
>9 years and then by the time they were at 20, be 11 years behind the times.
>Imagine being 11 years behind the times in computer technology!

<nods> That was sometimes a problem in the C4 Backfit world, most of
the senior guys were conversions. While their background was helpful
in the admin and general concepts, nothing substitutes for a few
patrols in the hot seat.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

[Arved Sandstrom]

"Joe Osman" > wrote in message
...
[ SNIP ]
> When I was in the Medical Rehabilitation Platoon in USMC boot camp in 1970
I
> was "guarding" a parking lot one day and overheard two officers talking
> about how much harder it was going to be to properly instill leadership in
> Lance Corporals (E-3s) now that the Viet Nam war was winding down and they
> weren't going to have any with combat experience.

I think perhaps they were misusing the term "leadership", since that doesn't
equate to combat experience. I suspect it was the latter they meant, and
just used the wrong word. If they actually did mean exactly what they said,
I don't agree with them, because combat experience doesn't teach leadership
anymore than being in a peacetime garrison environment. Leaders can be
either trained and/or just naturally have the gift, but you don't need
combat to bring it out. In some ways you had to be a better leader as an NCO
or Staff NCO, especially when the Corps still had squadbays, in garrison,
then you did on floats or out in the field. People would go absolutely nuts
in the squadbay environment sometimes, and the only officer you'd ever
occasionally see after hours would be the duty officer. It was pretty much
up to the live-in junior NCO's to step up to the plate and make stuff happen
or not happen. On field day nights, who do you think was supervising? Junior
NCO's, that's who...and you can get some disgruntled people when it's coming
on midnight and you're still scrubbing shower walls and moving wall lockers.
Taking care of 0530 reveille, especially when you have some intoxicated
lads, can be a challenge too.

As I say, if those two officers thought that combat experience is required
to develop leadership skills, they were sadly mistaken. I had a much easier
time in GW1 being a NGLO and leading 12 people than in some of the squadbay
situations. And most of the lance corporals were top-notch - they were
bucking for corporal. I helped a lot of them study for meritorious boards.

AHS

[ZZBunker]

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote in message >...
> "Nice Guy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Having been both a CPO and an officer I can say from experience, CPOs are
> > the JOs mentors.
>
> As of 12 years ago, Marine NCO's and staff NCO's filled the same role. We
> simply knew more about our MOS than the JO could ever possibly hope to
> understand. Plus the JO's swapped roles a lot, so we'd only have a guy as a
> FOO for a short period of time, before he might end up on the gunline or
> graduate to battery XO finally. The officers were more important in
> leadership positions, but when it came to technical advice or actually
> deciding on use of the guns, you stuck with the enlisted folks.
>
> It may be different in the Navy. But in the Corps, the enlisted are the
> specialists. Officers are the generalists.

It's infinitely worse in the navy. The navy invented
and is still the world's leader in the over-specialist.

Since if the navy was dumb enough to fund Internet,
its seems obvious to most Engineers in the
US that the navy must also have been dumb enough to
fund a lot of other vessels on the bottom.










>
> AHS