I could not agree more! With a few exceptions for technical fields that make use of graduate level work, even the PG School was a couple of years vacation for the vast majority of line officers. And I have yet to see a war-winning application of anything anybody learned at the Kennedy School.
It was 10 years after my undergrad days before I opted to go to grad school. I'm not seeing a downside to having a bunch of life experience in addition to pursuing higher education. Our author raises an excellent question in why should the Military invest in someone who has not yet shown anything?
I agree grad school is wasted on anyone who doesn't really have any idea of how "things" work.
At least in any degree that is useful in the real world.
(And to be fair, I will say that certain things, like theoretical math never really get out of lala land so fine. And a few, very few, things like being an MD and ...surprisingly, chemistry...need grad work before you are up to speed with the basic knowledge to function. But none of those really affect warfighting.)
As it turns out, the majority of USNA grads that go immediately to graduate school study engineering (nuclear, aerospace, mechanical, etc.). Those same graduates then go on to become submarine officers, pilots, and SWOs with a more fundamental understanding of their discipline. While going to graduate school 6-9 years after commissioning certainly has its benefits, one significant detractor is that it takes a while to get "spun up" on the material again. Allowing ~30 graduates who are at their academic "prime" go straight to graduate school to sharpen their skills at world-class institutions is hardly fraud/waste/abuse.
I'm not aware of any of the officers I served with in the Submarine Force having more than a bachelor's degree. They, for the most part, did just fine. The lights stayed on, the screw turned, and the weapons fired.
I don't necessarily think it makes them better pilots, surface, or submarine officers, but I agree that picking up again after many years is very difficult. I think people that show real talent and may even transition to EDO and program management over time are worthwhile investments.
I still look down my nose at Bull majors, though…bunch of lightweights…😂…I laced up my cleats and majored in Aero. Graduated with Honors, too. Not bad for a kid from Milton, FL where they didn’t have HS Calculus. 😉
I picked my major by asking "what's the hardest?" I didn't really care; at the time I just wanted to be a naval officer.
The EE degree paid off somewhat in the end, although it was a bit challenging. Probably would have been easier if I played less cards and studied more.
Yeah, there were times where I had second thoughts about choosing Aero. Certainly would have had more time to take advantage of some fun things like sailing.
When I presented the results of my First Class year Aero Design project to the board (Dept Chair and 6 profs), when asked, “What did you learn?”, I smart-assedly replied, “I learned I’d rather fly ‘em than design ‘em.” That was met with 7 unsmiling faces. My next thought was, “Is it hot in here, or is it just me?” 😂😂
Not if you consider the degree to which the Academy has emphasized social equity lately. The other half of the issue of the Navy paying for graduate school has to be the topics these officers are allowed to study while on the tax payers’ dime. Look at the study areas Sal writes about.
In the FY79 cycle, to be selected for grad school (only NPGS or MIT at that point in time), I had to select from the narrow spectrum of available majors available. The Navy got 14 years of active duty and another 28 years of support work out of my education in naval architecture.
My last job was with MITRE Corporation, as an advisor to Navy PMs. We had a separate funding line in the budget, allowing us to be professionally, but brutally (if necessary) honest in disagreeing with our clients. That was the most liberating position I ever had. Can you match that?
"be professionally, but brutally (if necessary) honest"
My father had a dream consulting job once. He was doing some software on the cheap for my mother who was an HR VP in the 90s at a small company. One time when she wanted something, he said "no." She said "but that's what I want" and he said "only an asshole or idiot would want that."
My wife (1100) went to NPS and they told her she would major in communications engineering. She didn't really want that but I think her detailer said or scuttlebutt was that you could change majors after you got there.
After she got there she found out you could go from soft to hard major, but not the reverse. Worked out and she was the first female to get an engineering masters from NPS.
I am but a humble helo pilot, but I never really saw the benefit of the Masters to service. Of course, it has introduced the business terminology to the business of warfighting - though that's not a positive in my book. I would much rather see the Navy send its best and brightest to learn the operational art of war fresh off of their first sea tours. Let them hone their skills further, and prepare them for the next level of warfare.
A good point about the "introduction of business terminology to the business of warfighting" In my opinion the intro of "business into warfighting has had a serious deleterious impact on our military - the Commanding Officer (ships Captain) is NOT the CEO but the Commander!
I was a 1 term enlisted and have little understanding of what sr officer educational requirements should be but it appears that once you get away from logistics (OR) and the engineering/hard science disciplines there doesn't appear to be a lot of utility in most other graduate (or undergraduate) programs. At the very least the intellectual rigor of any course of study should be sufficiently difficult and real world grounded as to weed out magical thinking and high verbal bullshit artists.
How about (if we have to keep the failed military academy concept at all) we get away from anything but directly military-related topics as 'majors' in undergrad, and only allow officers get a government paid graduate degree in military-related topics.
More math? Physics? Engineering? Computer Sci? Sure, why not. Logistics management? Industrial engineering? Materials science? You bet.
"Masters in Public Policy with a focus on, “Queer military studies, a topic largely unexplored in academia, is the forefront of her interests. … exploring how queer service members influence military policy at large.“"
I understand the importance of a graduate degree, never got one myself, but I think it is important to understand that your role in the Navy is to be a Naval Officer and go to sea. Get your sea legs and then further your education, but in an area that benefits both your career and the Navy!
I'll never forget a being in a packed wardroom full of JOs as CNAF and their Aviation Detailers made their annual drive-by and some intrepid JO got up and asked the Air Boss about the importance of getting a graduate degree - his response was "The navy places great value on having a master's degree....(insert a small smirk) but I do not have a master's degree."
Sir, you mention the Pacific… spans from China, North Korea… Japan to my area Indonesia and… touches on Australia, New Zealand, most important Singapore! Malaysia is critical too! Different “Culture”!
Be a Naval Officer, be a credit to your Command! Gain a little insight, about three to five years. Then think… what… and how!
Professional Student, no!
A fast talking “Ken-Doll” Bobble Head, no!
The Commanding Officer is very busy; however, Sports and Physical Fitness improve health and morale. While in this “After Duty” mode, the Commanding Officer can observe “traits and skills”!
On board ship, the Commanding Officer must totally rely on the competency of every Officer all the way down to the “Dimmest sailor”. What brightens that persons eyes and face? Praise for a job well done. Along the way, one or the other might show an aptitude for this or that. Department Heads can suggest and recommend, Commanders and Captains can definitely steer and observe for “Contact”! Then send that Officer onto his “School”. Send that Enlisted person to whatever he or she asks for. Then sit back and pat yourself on your own back for a job well done! Nurse Jane lights the way forward!
Does the 1 from USNA affect the other 20 in post-grad world and how they view the world, or do the 20 affect the 1 from USNA? Inquiring minds want to know.
I applied to USNA but was rejected. 1460 SAT, class Valedictorian, never made a B, student council, yearbook photographer, basketball. Not good enough. I went to a public university and ended with a Masters of Science in Ocean Engineering and 6 published papers in professional journals. Years later as flag aide at NavSea Mr. USNA came to visit NavSea OO, and I met him in the outer office with a cup of coffee. He inquired about my education and why wasn't I at NPGS? I told him my story and ended with "I'm not a fan of the Navy's selection process". He drank his coffee with no comment.
I'm thinking Canoe U needs to focus on warfighting.
"I'm thinking Canoe U needs to focus on warfighting."
Well it certainly does today.
Though I will say even in may day over 4 decades ago, now, it wasn't all that cut and dried our future was to go and kill the nations foes. Haze gray and underway, yes. Which, for a navy, is the first part of the battle.
I knew one smart cookie who ended up going to AFIT in Dayton after getting commissioned from NROTC (Aerospace Engineering), and selected for Naval Aviator 20 years ago. Of course, that was so he could do something productive while awaiting a slot in Pensacola.
He made sense.
But many active duty officers I’ve known got to go to NPS and get a MBA. I’m not sure that’s much real use for the fleet. There are also a lot of post DIVO guys in the Reserves who are using the GI Bill to get a Masters. Maybe I should consider using my remaining benefits for one…
"But many active duty officers I’ve known got to go to NPS and get a MBA. I’m not sure that’s much real use for the fleet"
Army here. top 5% fellowship at commissioning Regular Army Combat Arms
Army policy in the late 70's was all RA officers (even AG types) served at least one year in a combat arm, while the combat types did a full three. Then some of us went to grad school. The in-state school granted me an MBA, but my assignments officer carried me on his books as an ORSA secondary specialty. My 12 core classes were standard MBA stuff, but my 11 electives were all quant and CS. I commanded combat arms and did a couple of ORSA tours (teaching Calc and wargaming at the Center for Army Analysis)
What do you think of NPS? Like you, I got my masters on active duty back in the 90’s. But I took the good deal and went to NPS for a masters after two shipboard divo tours. Then off to dept head school. All the degrees offered were relevant to the Navy, even if not everyone directly applied them later. Not sure how woke NPS is today, but it seems like a better path if the degree is free.
My second CO on the Courtney had a Masters in "Underwater Physics" from NPS. He used to bug the fire out of the SONAR types.
Always sounded a lot like the "Underwater Basket Weaving" degree cited by a 2nd class Radarman we had on board. He was somewhat cynical about "higher" education.
to be fair, "underwater basket weaving" was legitimate compared with "trams feminist underwater basket weaving power structures in a post-capitalist society."
TBF that cyber policy and response thing in '21 seems sensible enough.
In fact, the "[...]how structural influences can perpetuate the infliction[...]" in the '23 scholarship screams critical BS studies to me, that verbiage has a tangible air of blue hair about it.
The only humanities degree that should be acceptable at the academy is history. Otherwise the degrees need to be technical. There is no reason for a naval officer to be getting an English degree at the Naval Academy.
Though there should be a solid underpinning in literature (of the sea...as there used to be) as well as the ability to write and speak clearly and with distinction, and at least a modicum of understanding of global cultures (because they aren't all like us).
Long gone are the days where the captain of a warship will negotiate a treaty with some odd, far off, land. But having polished officers in the branch that still does more informal diplomacy and flag showing than the others is a good thing.
Generally I agree. There used to be (150 years ago) completely separate paths between engineering (technical) and seamanship, and literature and philosophy may have been as good an undergrad course of study as any.
As all of our propulsion, navigation, armament, and defenses have become more technical, there is less room for naval tactical genius to be competent in command without a solid technical understanding.
Literature and philosophy as individual courses is fine and even can be relevant, but definitely not as degrees. A degree from the Naval Academy needs to directly relate to the military career and then the cadets need to go directly to the fleet, whether Navy or Marines, once they graduate and not to graduate school or some other stop along the way.
I would argue that the majority of an officer's time is spent communicating in the English language. That is how plans, appendices, briefs, and orders are all written. Someone who has mastered that art certainly brings value to the organization. No undergraduate degree teaches "warfighting." Reading (in the course of an English degree) the great classics of Western (and non-western) literature exposes the students to the human experience in warfare across millennium.
I say this not as a bleeding heart "liberal education" proponent, but as a pilot and engineer who has witnessed the operational consequences of poor writing by countless "warfighters."
Being able to write should be a requirement for any undergraduate degree, heck it was a requirement for a high school diploma when I graduated. In my undergraduate and master’s programs I had to right detailed and well researched papers repeatedly and be able to communicate the information, and both were technical degrees. So those abilities do not require an English degree. But a degree in project management, engineering, IT, math, chemistry, or other technical field will pay dividends for the military later.
"the great classics of Western (and non-western) literature exposes the students to the human experience in warfare across millennium. "
More likely to get that particular exposure by watching movies than in reading Jane Austen, etc. And if someone cannot write clearly by the end of sophomore year in any area of study they shouldn't be in college.
Most people benefit from entering the real world after high school graduation before attending college, and the college would benefit since the person is not so wide-eyed as to swallow whatever the professors try to force-feed students without critical analysis or at least skepticism.
I believe that military service personnel would benefit from performing AD service for a few years before attending postgraduate school.
I tend to think for most technical degrees, going straight into college is better. That said, we have oodles of people going to college to get degrees (undergrad) they are never going to use, and for those people, they would be better served embracing life before further academic pursuit, as you say.
I don't think college is for most people, but we have conditioned everyone to believe that they need to attend college to succeed. Completing High school, if they can functionally read and write, should be a standard, but not college. I believe that even STEM students would benefit from spending a few years in the world before attending college. I went to college after leaving the service, so my perspective is likely skewed.
I agree for most disciplines, although for really advanced kids I think getting right to it is important. An awful lot of fundamental advances in physics and mathematics come from people under 30, whereas implementation tends to emerge from bright people in their 30s and 40s
I went to Navy-funded grad school after three tours, two of which were sea duty (total of 6 years). I am eternally grateful for this opportunity, it was about as good as it gets getting a PSU MBA on full LT salary. I was thanked by most professors and plenty of students for bringing a real-world perspective to class. I did a lot of mentoring and coaching on the side to to my classmates that went straight to grad school from undergrad. I highly recommend to others not to do that.
My brother was a RIO on the Forrestal and the Carl Vinson late 80’s-early 90’s. He’s been in San Diego ever since, but will always be a diehard Steelers Fan!
In tech I would recommend grad school as soon as possible. My son asked me about it and I told him it was the best time to go as he had no family or professional responsibilities, and so no distractions. He took the advice and stayed in school and got an MSEE and has not regretted it.
I could not agree more! With a few exceptions for technical fields that make use of graduate level work, even the PG School was a couple of years vacation for the vast majority of line officers. And I have yet to see a war-winning application of anything anybody learned at the Kennedy School.
Concur. I was looking at a dual EE/Business-Equivalent at NPS but decided to get out when it was obvious Clinton was getting elected again.
It was 10 years after my undergrad days before I opted to go to grad school. I'm not seeing a downside to having a bunch of life experience in addition to pursuing higher education. Our author raises an excellent question in why should the Military invest in someone who has not yet shown anything?
I agree grad school is wasted on anyone who doesn't really have any idea of how "things" work.
At least in any degree that is useful in the real world.
(And to be fair, I will say that certain things, like theoretical math never really get out of lala land so fine. And a few, very few, things like being an MD and ...surprisingly, chemistry...need grad work before you are up to speed with the basic knowledge to function. But none of those really affect warfighting.)
Concur, although I'd put most of the hard engineering fields there with chemistry.
As it turns out, the majority of USNA grads that go immediately to graduate school study engineering (nuclear, aerospace, mechanical, etc.). Those same graduates then go on to become submarine officers, pilots, and SWOs with a more fundamental understanding of their discipline. While going to graduate school 6-9 years after commissioning certainly has its benefits, one significant detractor is that it takes a while to get "spun up" on the material again. Allowing ~30 graduates who are at their academic "prime" go straight to graduate school to sharpen their skills at world-class institutions is hardly fraud/waste/abuse.
I'm not aware of any of the officers I served with in the Submarine Force having more than a bachelor's degree. They, for the most part, did just fine. The lights stayed on, the screw turned, and the weapons fired.
I don't necessarily think it makes them better pilots, surface, or submarine officers, but I agree that picking up again after many years is very difficult. I think people that show real talent and may even transition to EDO and program management over time are worthwhile investments.
Man...back in the day, the first 80% of the class had to be engineers! A lot of English and PolySci majors represented there...surprising.
I still look down my nose at Bull majors, though…bunch of lightweights…😂…I laced up my cleats and majored in Aero. Graduated with Honors, too. Not bad for a kid from Milton, FL where they didn’t have HS Calculus. 😉
I picked my major by asking "what's the hardest?" I didn't really care; at the time I just wanted to be a naval officer.
The EE degree paid off somewhat in the end, although it was a bit challenging. Probably would have been easier if I played less cards and studied more.
Yeah, there were times where I had second thoughts about choosing Aero. Certainly would have had more time to take advantage of some fun things like sailing.
When I presented the results of my First Class year Aero Design project to the board (Dept Chair and 6 profs), when asked, “What did you learn?”, I smart-assedly replied, “I learned I’d rather fly ‘em than design ‘em.” That was met with 7 unsmiling faces. My next thought was, “Is it hot in here, or is it just me?” 😂😂
LOL:)
Not if you consider the degree to which the Academy has emphasized social equity lately. The other half of the issue of the Navy paying for graduate school has to be the topics these officers are allowed to study while on the tax payers’ dime. Look at the study areas Sal writes about.
In the FY79 cycle, to be selected for grad school (only NPGS or MIT at that point in time), I had to select from the narrow spectrum of available majors available. The Navy got 14 years of active duty and another 28 years of support work out of my education in naval architecture.
Don't suppose you're looking for a job? I hear NavArchs who have a clue are needed.
My last job was with MITRE Corporation, as an advisor to Navy PMs. We had a separate funding line in the budget, allowing us to be professionally, but brutally (if necessary) honest in disagreeing with our clients. That was the most liberating position I ever had. Can you match that?
"be professionally, but brutally (if necessary) honest"
My father had a dream consulting job once. He was doing some software on the cheap for my mother who was an HR VP in the 90s at a small company. One time when she wanted something, he said "no." She said "but that's what I want" and he said "only an asshole or idiot would want that."
Good for consulting, bad for dinner, lol.
How long did he sleep on the couch?
Dinner was chilly but they were cool by lights out:)
OrwellWasRight: I'm too too candid to consult for anyone, anymore. I'd get fired by the end of the first meeting.
My wife (1100) went to NPS and they told her she would major in communications engineering. She didn't really want that but I think her detailer said or scuttlebutt was that you could change majors after you got there.
After she got there she found out you could go from soft to hard major, but not the reverse. Worked out and she was the first female to get an engineering masters from NPS.
I am but a humble helo pilot, but I never really saw the benefit of the Masters to service. Of course, it has introduced the business terminology to the business of warfighting - though that's not a positive in my book. I would much rather see the Navy send its best and brightest to learn the operational art of war fresh off of their first sea tours. Let them hone their skills further, and prepare them for the next level of warfare.
A good point about the "introduction of business terminology to the business of warfighting" In my opinion the intro of "business into warfighting has had a serious deleterious impact on our military - the Commanding Officer (ships Captain) is NOT the CEO but the Commander!
I was a 1 term enlisted and have little understanding of what sr officer educational requirements should be but it appears that once you get away from logistics (OR) and the engineering/hard science disciplines there doesn't appear to be a lot of utility in most other graduate (or undergraduate) programs. At the very least the intellectual rigor of any course of study should be sufficiently difficult and real world grounded as to weed out magical thinking and high verbal bullshit artists.
How about (if we have to keep the failed military academy concept at all) we get away from anything but directly military-related topics as 'majors' in undergrad, and only allow officers get a government paid graduate degree in military-related topics.
More math? Physics? Engineering? Computer Sci? Sure, why not. Logistics management? Industrial engineering? Materials science? You bet.
"Masters in Public Policy with a focus on, “Queer military studies, a topic largely unexplored in academia, is the forefront of her interests. … exploring how queer service members influence military policy at large.“"
YGBSM.
Well...... she might actually believe the Great Khan about "clasping their (the enemy's) wives and daughters to your chest"....
"Queer military studies"
Yeah, Yikes!
I understand the importance of a graduate degree, never got one myself, but I think it is important to understand that your role in the Navy is to be a Naval Officer and go to sea. Get your sea legs and then further your education, but in an area that benefits both your career and the Navy!
I'll never forget a being in a packed wardroom full of JOs as CNAF and their Aviation Detailers made their annual drive-by and some intrepid JO got up and asked the Air Boss about the importance of getting a graduate degree - his response was "The navy places great value on having a master's degree....(insert a small smirk) but I do not have a master's degree."
Sir, you mention the Pacific… spans from China, North Korea… Japan to my area Indonesia and… touches on Australia, New Zealand, most important Singapore! Malaysia is critical too! Different “Culture”!
Be a Naval Officer, be a credit to your Command! Gain a little insight, about three to five years. Then think… what… and how!
Professional Student, no!
A fast talking “Ken-Doll” Bobble Head, no!
The Commanding Officer is very busy; however, Sports and Physical Fitness improve health and morale. While in this “After Duty” mode, the Commanding Officer can observe “traits and skills”!
On board ship, the Commanding Officer must totally rely on the competency of every Officer all the way down to the “Dimmest sailor”. What brightens that persons eyes and face? Praise for a job well done. Along the way, one or the other might show an aptitude for this or that. Department Heads can suggest and recommend, Commanders and Captains can definitely steer and observe for “Contact”! Then send that Officer onto his “School”. Send that Enlisted person to whatever he or she asks for. Then sit back and pat yourself on your own back for a job well done! Nurse Jane lights the way forward!
Does the 1 from USNA affect the other 20 in post-grad world and how they view the world, or do the 20 affect the 1 from USNA? Inquiring minds want to know.
I applied to USNA but was rejected. 1460 SAT, class Valedictorian, never made a B, student council, yearbook photographer, basketball. Not good enough. I went to a public university and ended with a Masters of Science in Ocean Engineering and 6 published papers in professional journals. Years later as flag aide at NavSea Mr. USNA came to visit NavSea OO, and I met him in the outer office with a cup of coffee. He inquired about my education and why wasn't I at NPGS? I told him my story and ended with "I'm not a fan of the Navy's selection process". He drank his coffee with no comment.
I'm thinking Canoe U needs to focus on warfighting.
"I'm thinking Canoe U needs to focus on warfighting."
Well it certainly does today.
Though I will say even in may day over 4 decades ago, now, it wasn't all that cut and dried our future was to go and kill the nations foes. Haze gray and underway, yes. Which, for a navy, is the first part of the battle.
I knew one smart cookie who ended up going to AFIT in Dayton after getting commissioned from NROTC (Aerospace Engineering), and selected for Naval Aviator 20 years ago. Of course, that was so he could do something productive while awaiting a slot in Pensacola.
He made sense.
But many active duty officers I’ve known got to go to NPS and get a MBA. I’m not sure that’s much real use for the fleet. There are also a lot of post DIVO guys in the Reserves who are using the GI Bill to get a Masters. Maybe I should consider using my remaining benefits for one…
"But many active duty officers I’ve known got to go to NPS and get a MBA. I’m not sure that’s much real use for the fleet"
Army here. top 5% fellowship at commissioning Regular Army Combat Arms
Army policy in the late 70's was all RA officers (even AG types) served at least one year in a combat arm, while the combat types did a full three. Then some of us went to grad school. The in-state school granted me an MBA, but my assignments officer carried me on his books as an ORSA secondary specialty. My 12 core classes were standard MBA stuff, but my 11 electives were all quant and CS. I commanded combat arms and did a couple of ORSA tours (teaching Calc and wargaming at the Center for Army Analysis)
A lot of states still have "free school for war-time veterans" for any state school
What do you think of NPS? Like you, I got my masters on active duty back in the 90’s. But I took the good deal and went to NPS for a masters after two shipboard divo tours. Then off to dept head school. All the degrees offered were relevant to the Navy, even if not everyone directly applied them later. Not sure how woke NPS is today, but it seems like a better path if the degree is free.
My second CO on the Courtney had a Masters in "Underwater Physics" from NPS. He used to bug the fire out of the SONAR types.
Always sounded a lot like the "Underwater Basket Weaving" degree cited by a 2nd class Radarman we had on board. He was somewhat cynical about "higher" education.
to be fair, "underwater basket weaving" was legitimate compared with "trams feminist underwater basket weaving power structures in a post-capitalist society."
TBF that cyber policy and response thing in '21 seems sensible enough.
In fact, the "[...]how structural influences can perpetuate the infliction[...]" in the '23 scholarship screams critical BS studies to me, that verbiage has a tangible air of blue hair about it.
I have to agree that it's even particularly relevant to the future conflict in the Pacific given the Chinese fondness for cyber warfare.
The only humanities degree that should be acceptable at the academy is history. Otherwise the degrees need to be technical. There is no reason for a naval officer to be getting an English degree at the Naval Academy.
I don't disagree.
Though there should be a solid underpinning in literature (of the sea...as there used to be) as well as the ability to write and speak clearly and with distinction, and at least a modicum of understanding of global cultures (because they aren't all like us).
Long gone are the days where the captain of a warship will negotiate a treaty with some odd, far off, land. But having polished officers in the branch that still does more informal diplomacy and flag showing than the others is a good thing.
Generally I agree. There used to be (150 years ago) completely separate paths between engineering (technical) and seamanship, and literature and philosophy may have been as good an undergrad course of study as any.
As all of our propulsion, navigation, armament, and defenses have become more technical, there is less room for naval tactical genius to be competent in command without a solid technical understanding.
Literature and philosophy as individual courses is fine and even can be relevant, but definitely not as degrees. A degree from the Naval Academy needs to directly relate to the military career and then the cadets need to go directly to the fleet, whether Navy or Marines, once they graduate and not to graduate school or some other stop along the way.
I would argue that the majority of an officer's time is spent communicating in the English language. That is how plans, appendices, briefs, and orders are all written. Someone who has mastered that art certainly brings value to the organization. No undergraduate degree teaches "warfighting." Reading (in the course of an English degree) the great classics of Western (and non-western) literature exposes the students to the human experience in warfare across millennium.
I say this not as a bleeding heart "liberal education" proponent, but as a pilot and engineer who has witnessed the operational consequences of poor writing by countless "warfighters."
Being able to write should be a requirement for any undergraduate degree, heck it was a requirement for a high school diploma when I graduated. In my undergraduate and master’s programs I had to right detailed and well researched papers repeatedly and be able to communicate the information, and both were technical degrees. So those abilities do not require an English degree. But a degree in project management, engineering, IT, math, chemistry, or other technical field will pay dividends for the military later.
"the great classics of Western (and non-western) literature exposes the students to the human experience in warfare across millennium. "
More likely to get that particular exposure by watching movies than in reading Jane Austen, etc. And if someone cannot write clearly by the end of sophomore year in any area of study they shouldn't be in college.
That's exactly where Canoe U should focus!!👍🇺🇲⚓️
Sure hope service commitment clock is not running while on these excursions
I think it does.
Most people benefit from entering the real world after high school graduation before attending college, and the college would benefit since the person is not so wide-eyed as to swallow whatever the professors try to force-feed students without critical analysis or at least skepticism.
I believe that military service personnel would benefit from performing AD service for a few years before attending postgraduate school.
I tend to think for most technical degrees, going straight into college is better. That said, we have oodles of people going to college to get degrees (undergrad) they are never going to use, and for those people, they would be better served embracing life before further academic pursuit, as you say.
I don't think college is for most people, but we have conditioned everyone to believe that they need to attend college to succeed. Completing High school, if they can functionally read and write, should be a standard, but not college. I believe that even STEM students would benefit from spending a few years in the world before attending college. I went to college after leaving the service, so my perspective is likely skewed.
I agree for most disciplines, although for really advanced kids I think getting right to it is important. An awful lot of fundamental advances in physics and mathematics come from people under 30, whereas implementation tends to emerge from bright people in their 30s and 40s
For highly or exceptionally gifted kids, or anyone who exhibits the ability of a Richard Feynman.
:)
I went to Navy-funded grad school after three tours, two of which were sea duty (total of 6 years). I am eternally grateful for this opportunity, it was about as good as it gets getting a PSU MBA on full LT salary. I was thanked by most professors and plenty of students for bringing a real-world perspective to class. I did a lot of mentoring and coaching on the side to to my classmates that went straight to grad school from undergrad. I highly recommend to others not to do that.
I have to ask- are you a fellow Pittsburgher? Unfortunately I live
In CT now- I sure do miss the Burgh
I am definitely a Pittsburgher residing in NoVa for the past 24 years.
My brother was a RIO on the Forrestal and the Carl Vinson late 80’s-early 90’s. He’s been in San Diego ever since, but will always be a diehard Steelers Fan!
In tech I would recommend grad school as soon as possible. My son asked me about it and I told him it was the best time to go as he had no family or professional responsibilities, and so no distractions. He took the advice and stayed in school and got an MSEE and has not regretted it.