Navy enlistment questions

"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.

(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? :-)

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.

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.

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.

"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

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

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

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.

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 =---