The End of 'Midshipman'?
October 20, 2016 5:11 AM Subscribe
The Navy is jettisoning its complex ratings system to make sailors' jobs more understandable and allow them to more easily transfer occupations. This change represents a significant cultural shift and it is recognized that it will not happen overnight, but will take time to become fully adapted.
The U.S. Navy announced on 29 September 2016 the historic naval rating system will be scuttled. No longer will a sailor be addressed as Boatswain Mate or Electrician. Personnel will be addressed only by pay grade. All entry level personnel (E-1 to E-3) will be referred to as Seaman regardless of their work assignment. Petty Officers (E-4 to E-6) will be addressed as Petty Officer Third Class, Second Class or First Class. Chief Petty Officers (E-7 thru E-9) will be addressed as Chief Petty Officer, Senior Chief Petty Officer and Master Chief Petty Officer. Occupation specialties will be replaced by a Navy Occupational Specialty Code (NOS).
It began in January, when Ray Mabus, the secretary of the Navy, asked for an "update of position titles and descriptions to demonstrate through this language that women are included in these positions." And to "Please review the position titles throughout the Navy and ensure that they are gender-integrated ... removing 'man' from their titles."
While the review began with an eye to gender neutrality, the ranks of "seaman" in the Navy and "midshipman" at the Naval Academy will stay, Schofield said. The terms were allowed to remain, he said, because they are ranks, not job titles.
The Navy’s enlisted classification system was arguably the most dense and difficult to understand of the U.S. services and was rooted in the traditions of the Royal Navy of the 18th century. In both navies it was rare for a sailor to change ships, and knowing what job a sailor performed aboard was the most important identifier.
However, the ratings system became more complicated as the pace of technology quickened, creating churn in the jobs in the service.
Ratings would be created, merge and become obsolete sometimes in the span of only a few years. Quartermaster, yeoman, boatswain's mate, and 88 other enlisted ratings titles now join the ranks of the obsolete.
The U.S. Navy announced on 29 September 2016 the historic naval rating system will be scuttled. No longer will a sailor be addressed as Boatswain Mate or Electrician. Personnel will be addressed only by pay grade. All entry level personnel (E-1 to E-3) will be referred to as Seaman regardless of their work assignment. Petty Officers (E-4 to E-6) will be addressed as Petty Officer Third Class, Second Class or First Class. Chief Petty Officers (E-7 thru E-9) will be addressed as Chief Petty Officer, Senior Chief Petty Officer and Master Chief Petty Officer. Occupation specialties will be replaced by a Navy Occupational Specialty Code (NOS).
It began in January, when Ray Mabus, the secretary of the Navy, asked for an "update of position titles and descriptions to demonstrate through this language that women are included in these positions." And to "Please review the position titles throughout the Navy and ensure that they are gender-integrated ... removing 'man' from their titles."
While the review began with an eye to gender neutrality, the ranks of "seaman" in the Navy and "midshipman" at the Naval Academy will stay, Schofield said. The terms were allowed to remain, he said, because they are ranks, not job titles.
The Navy’s enlisted classification system was arguably the most dense and difficult to understand of the U.S. services and was rooted in the traditions of the Royal Navy of the 18th century. In both navies it was rare for a sailor to change ships, and knowing what job a sailor performed aboard was the most important identifier.
However, the ratings system became more complicated as the pace of technology quickened, creating churn in the jobs in the service.
Ratings would be created, merge and become obsolete sometimes in the span of only a few years. Quartermaster, yeoman, boatswain's mate, and 88 other enlisted ratings titles now join the ranks of the obsolete.
Title: "The End of 'Midshipman'?"
Later: "...the ranks of 'seaman' in the Navy and 'midshipman' at the Naval Academy will stay, Schofield said."
Looks like you answered your own question...
My $0.02 on this is that it was a change that was long overdue, but was bound to be difficult. People get attached to their unique titles because they mistakenly believe it's the title that confers their standing in the world rather than who they are that does.
As you mention, some jobs would appear and disappear in only a few years, and it is incredibly confusing to try and remember all the job titles. Keep in mind, the rank names (Seaman/Petty Officer/Chief) were always there, and could always be used to refer to a person, now it's just been upgraded to the primary reference for the person.
My prediction is, however, that people will still use job titles in many situations that do make sense even if it's no longer a formal title. An officer is going to respond to a fire on ship with "Get a fireman down here," not "Get a petty officer in NOS code 123 down here." I predict yeoman will stay around as well, along with a few others with long histories.
As an aside, I find it interesting to look at the difference between the Navy's system and the other branches. My two grandfathers were in WWII, and I have their burial flags. The inscription on one plaque reads: "Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force." Short, sweet, and clear. The other one reads: "Aviation Machinist Mate 2nd Class, U.S. Navy." I know from my own military service that it means he was a Petty Officer 2nd Class (pay grade E-5), but damn if that isn't confusing (especially given that he spent most of the war in the band rather than on the carrier).
posted by mystyk at 5:36 AM on October 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Later: "...the ranks of 'seaman' in the Navy and 'midshipman' at the Naval Academy will stay, Schofield said."
Looks like you answered your own question...
My $0.02 on this is that it was a change that was long overdue, but was bound to be difficult. People get attached to their unique titles because they mistakenly believe it's the title that confers their standing in the world rather than who they are that does.
As you mention, some jobs would appear and disappear in only a few years, and it is incredibly confusing to try and remember all the job titles. Keep in mind, the rank names (Seaman/Petty Officer/Chief) were always there, and could always be used to refer to a person, now it's just been upgraded to the primary reference for the person.
My prediction is, however, that people will still use job titles in many situations that do make sense even if it's no longer a formal title. An officer is going to respond to a fire on ship with "Get a fireman down here," not "Get a petty officer in NOS code 123 down here." I predict yeoman will stay around as well, along with a few others with long histories.
As an aside, I find it interesting to look at the difference between the Navy's system and the other branches. My two grandfathers were in WWII, and I have their burial flags. The inscription on one plaque reads: "Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force." Short, sweet, and clear. The other one reads: "Aviation Machinist Mate 2nd Class, U.S. Navy." I know from my own military service that it means he was a Petty Officer 2nd Class (pay grade E-5), but damn if that isn't confusing (especially given that he spent most of the war in the band rather than on the carrier).
posted by mystyk at 5:36 AM on October 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
The navy even confuses the other military branches. A friend of mine, when stationed in DC as a USAF Captain - called a restaurant, identified himself as Captain so-and-so, and asked for a table. He may have been a little puzzled by the "Sir, yes SIR" response, as a USAF Captain is only 2 small steps up from a 2nd Lieutenant, the entry rank for a commissioned USAF officer...
When he arrived the restaurant was suitably dismayed that they had given a really great table to someone they assumed was a Navy Captain...
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:38 AM on October 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
When he arrived the restaurant was suitably dismayed that they had given a really great table to someone they assumed was a Navy Captain...
posted by randomkeystrike at 5:38 AM on October 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
Is there a chart somewhere comparing the old/new rankings side-by-side?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:40 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:40 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Joined the Navy, but ended up working for the Joint Staff at the Pentagon for most of my short military career, so translating between services is almost second nature.
This isn't really a change in ranking structure, just what they're called - before the change, a yeoman who was an E-5 would have been called "YN2" or "Yeoman Second Class" or "Petty Officer Second Class." Similarly, a boiler tech would have been "BT2," etc. Now the official line is they're just a "Petty Officer Second Class."
Honestly, my eyebrows raised for a moment when I first saw the post; I have always thought the separation between 'enlisted' and 'officer' was antiquated and smelled of elitist bullshit, and I had hoped to read they were doing away with that.
No such luck.
posted by Mooski at 5:50 AM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
This isn't really a change in ranking structure, just what they're called - before the change, a yeoman who was an E-5 would have been called "YN2" or "Yeoman Second Class" or "Petty Officer Second Class." Similarly, a boiler tech would have been "BT2," etc. Now the official line is they're just a "Petty Officer Second Class."
Honestly, my eyebrows raised for a moment when I first saw the post; I have always thought the separation between 'enlisted' and 'officer' was antiquated and smelled of elitist bullshit, and I had hoped to read they were doing away with that.
No such luck.
posted by Mooski at 5:50 AM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
26 years as a DoD employee, currently sitting on a Navy facility. My big boss is a general in the US Army, he's got a star so I always recognize him. After more than a quarter century I still can't figure out ranks. I mostly call they Navy folks ell tee since most of them are, or I give them a promotion to Captain. These guys are brown shoe Navy, that's Supply Corps and so even weirder. Too bad about Quartermaster, though, that's a real thing.
posted by fixedgear at 5:53 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by fixedgear at 5:53 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Old Rate to New NOS Code Conversion Warning, PDF link. Also, the new NOS codes aren't finalized yet.
posted by zinon at 5:54 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zinon at 5:54 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
>> "I have always thought the separation between 'enlisted' and 'officer' was antiquated and smelled of elitist bullshit..."
I think there's always going to be a degree of that both in feeling and in reality. Typically, only the better-off in society have a reasonable chance of becoming officers (said as an officer myself), which then get paid better and have better benefits, etc., which reinforces the sense of the divide. I agree that a lot of it is B.S., which is why I think the only real defense of it that *can* reasonably be made is that the jobs they're doing are so fundamentally different: NCOs are managing people; officers are managing processes. It may seem counter-intuitive, but separating these roles entirely into different career tracks has a certain level of internal logic that is appropriate for the type of mission the military has. That's not an argument for treating officers as *higher* or their getting higher pay, merely for the separation itself to exist.
posted by mystyk at 6:06 AM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think there's always going to be a degree of that both in feeling and in reality. Typically, only the better-off in society have a reasonable chance of becoming officers (said as an officer myself), which then get paid better and have better benefits, etc., which reinforces the sense of the divide. I agree that a lot of it is B.S., which is why I think the only real defense of it that *can* reasonably be made is that the jobs they're doing are so fundamentally different: NCOs are managing people; officers are managing processes. It may seem counter-intuitive, but separating these roles entirely into different career tracks has a certain level of internal logic that is appropriate for the type of mission the military has. That's not an argument for treating officers as *higher* or their getting higher pay, merely for the separation itself to exist.
posted by mystyk at 6:06 AM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wouldn't "Sailor," be better than "Seaman?" It's gender neutral and doesn't invite cum jokes.
posted by jonmc at 6:13 AM on October 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 6:13 AM on October 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
~The sound of Farragut rolling in his grave.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:22 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 6:22 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
When it comes to job codes, the Navy has historically been confusing as hell with one for pretty much anything you could conceive of. But what I find funniest is that despite that job code fiasco, their actual *ranks* are the easiest of the services (at least for Enlisted; Officers start having weird "junior grade" stuff and the totally confusing status of different *kinds* of Rear Admirals and Commodores).
Think about it: Navy Enlisted is in 3 distinct groups: the Seamen (junior enlisted), the Petty Officers (junior NCO), and the Chiefs (senior NCOs). Each one of those groups has exactly 3 ranks, with a logical pattern for distinguishing between them (recruit/apprentice/full, 3rd/2nd/1st class, and Chief/Senior-Chief/Master-Chief, respectively). That is a system that a person could memorize in about 10 minutes!
By comparison, with the Marines, Army and Air Force it's basically only immediately clear that Sergeants are higher than non-Sergeants, but the specific patterns of words to put to denote different kinds of Sergeants is a mess that has little structure, plus they conflict between the services adding to more confusion.
posted by mystyk at 6:23 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Think about it: Navy Enlisted is in 3 distinct groups: the Seamen (junior enlisted), the Petty Officers (junior NCO), and the Chiefs (senior NCOs). Each one of those groups has exactly 3 ranks, with a logical pattern for distinguishing between them (recruit/apprentice/full, 3rd/2nd/1st class, and Chief/Senior-Chief/Master-Chief, respectively). That is a system that a person could memorize in about 10 minutes!
By comparison, with the Marines, Army and Air Force it's basically only immediately clear that Sergeants are higher than non-Sergeants, but the specific patterns of words to put to denote different kinds of Sergeants is a mess that has little structure, plus they conflict between the services adding to more confusion.
posted by mystyk at 6:23 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also "buy you a drink, seaman?" is weird to say the least.
posted by jonmc at 6:23 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jonmc at 6:23 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is the worst announcement in naval history since Black Tot Day.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:33 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:33 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Former AT2 here.
This is fucking stupid. If the word man is a problem then just fix the problem, rename the rates (which is done all the time already). There no need to tear up 250 years of pride and tradition for your made up reasons. This is fucking stupid.
—Pissed
posted by Confess, Fletch at 6:54 AM on October 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is fucking stupid. If the word man is a problem then just fix the problem, rename the rates (which is done all the time already). There no need to tear up 250 years of pride and tradition for your made up reasons. This is fucking stupid.
—Pissed
posted by Confess, Fletch at 6:54 AM on October 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
I agree that a lot of it is B.S., which is why I think the only real defense of it that *can* reasonably be made is that the jobs they're doing are so fundamentally different: NCOs are managing people; officers are managing processes.
I agree with the distinction, and I'd even add to it that enlisted billets have typically been task oriented where officer billets are project oriented.
I just think the time has long passed for the paths to both management levels to merge, and for the subtle and not so subtle class distinctions to go away.
posted by Mooski at 6:59 AM on October 20, 2016
I agree with the distinction, and I'd even add to it that enlisted billets have typically been task oriented where officer billets are project oriented.
I just think the time has long passed for the paths to both management levels to merge, and for the subtle and not so subtle class distinctions to go away.
posted by Mooski at 6:59 AM on October 20, 2016
This is pretty much just a labeling change, though, and what you're asking for is a wholesale reshuffling of the entire rank and pay grade structure of the armed services. That's not gonna happen any time soon.
The actual pay grade/rank structure isn't affected by this change, unless I'm reading it wrong, and that structure is the same in all services. An Army E5 is the same rank as a Navy E5, e.g. This, coupled with the different rank nomenclature used by the services, is one reason some of my DoD friends often refer to military personal by grade and not by the service's named rank. Noting that so-and-so is an O3 sidesteps the ambiguity that "captain" would leave open.
I still find that kind of hilarious that the same title is used in one service for very senior officers (even most career officers don't make it to O6, ie Colonel/Navy Captain) *and* by the others for folks in their late 20s.
posted by uberchet at 8:12 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
The actual pay grade/rank structure isn't affected by this change, unless I'm reading it wrong, and that structure is the same in all services. An Army E5 is the same rank as a Navy E5, e.g. This, coupled with the different rank nomenclature used by the services, is one reason some of my DoD friends often refer to military personal by grade and not by the service's named rank. Noting that so-and-so is an O3 sidesteps the ambiguity that "captain" would leave open.
I still find that kind of hilarious that the same title is used in one service for very senior officers (even most career officers don't make it to O6, ie Colonel/Navy Captain) *and* by the others for folks in their late 20s.
posted by uberchet at 8:12 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
>> "what you're asking for is a wholesale reshuffling of the entire rank and pay grade structure of the armed services. That's not gonna happen any time soon."
You're right, that is pretty much what Mooski's asking for. And while I agree with you that it isn't going to happen any time soon, he's also not wrong that the way it is now reinforces a class distinction that may not be appropriate in today's society. Officer vs Enlisted is essentially the same thing as White-Collar vs Blue-Collar, and a real problem of it is that the white-collar side has significant barriers to entry that don't apply equally across otherwise qualified applicants.
As I pointed out before, the divide itself has a logical function, so that part is likely to stay, but what if we made the selection and routing process more egalitarian? I believe he's talking more along the lines of, say, having a requirement for a certain number of years of enlisted service before one can go Officer (usually called a Mustang or a Prior), an idea that has a reasonable degree of merit.
posted by mystyk at 8:27 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're right, that is pretty much what Mooski's asking for. And while I agree with you that it isn't going to happen any time soon, he's also not wrong that the way it is now reinforces a class distinction that may not be appropriate in today's society. Officer vs Enlisted is essentially the same thing as White-Collar vs Blue-Collar, and a real problem of it is that the white-collar side has significant barriers to entry that don't apply equally across otherwise qualified applicants.
As I pointed out before, the divide itself has a logical function, so that part is likely to stay, but what if we made the selection and routing process more egalitarian? I believe he's talking more along the lines of, say, having a requirement for a certain number of years of enlisted service before one can go Officer (usually called a Mustang or a Prior), an idea that has a reasonable degree of merit.
posted by mystyk at 8:27 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Also, this is totally drift but might be interesting: Personnel counts by rank in the US Army.
You can clearly see the 'bulge' rank for both enlisted and officers, into which new inductees are apparently quickly promoted, but after which attrition takes hold as folks leave the service for other careers.
The first three enlisted ranks have fairly small populations, because you move through them quickly, but the Army has 108,000 at E4 (corporal/specialist; that's more than the first three ranks combined). Relatively few stay in for the next promotion, though; there are only about 66,000 at E5/Sgt.
The same thing happens in the officer ranks: 6,600 at O1, 12,000 at O2, and then nearly 29,000 at O3 (Captain) -- but only 15,600 at O4/Major. My assumption is that this indicates the point at which non-career officers (ROTC? Non-career service academy grads?) take their leave and enter the private sector.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting.)
posted by uberchet at 8:29 AM on October 20, 2016
You can clearly see the 'bulge' rank for both enlisted and officers, into which new inductees are apparently quickly promoted, but after which attrition takes hold as folks leave the service for other careers.
The first three enlisted ranks have fairly small populations, because you move through them quickly, but the Army has 108,000 at E4 (corporal/specialist; that's more than the first three ranks combined). Relatively few stay in for the next promotion, though; there are only about 66,000 at E5/Sgt.
The same thing happens in the officer ranks: 6,600 at O1, 12,000 at O2, and then nearly 29,000 at O3 (Captain) -- but only 15,600 at O4/Major. My assumption is that this indicates the point at which non-career officers (ROTC? Non-career service academy grads?) take their leave and enter the private sector.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting.)
posted by uberchet at 8:29 AM on October 20, 2016
uberchet: I'm guessing you have the (rather expensive) "premium" account on that service, as I don't see any numbers and it asks me to get a premium account to see them. Something to keep in mind when posting info in public. You might want to post something public, like this instead.
You're right about the glut, and in part about the reason. There's several things going on with the lowest ranks having fewer members. You identified correctly that early ranks (E1-E3 and O1-O2) are moved through quickly. But there are more reasons**:
posted by mystyk at 8:57 AM on October 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
You're right about the glut, and in part about the reason. There's several things going on with the lowest ranks having fewer members. You identified correctly that early ranks (E1-E3 and O1-O2) are moved through quickly. But there are more reasons**:
- There's also the fact that, depending on your specialty, skills and education, you can be direct-promoted as high as E4 and O4 (in practice, direct promotions and commissions rarely go past E3 and O3, though there are a number of enlisted jobs that will have you an E4 by the time you finish military schooling for your job).
- Also, E5 is typically the first rank where you have to have a slot open up in the grade in order to promote to it.
- Further, Officers have an 8-year initial obligation, which almost never places them above O3, so if they decide the military's not for them that's the earliest they can get out.
- Plus, Enlisted who are using it to pay for college will usually do the 4-and-out, where their first 4 years get them the GI Bill, and the last 4 of their obligation are spent in the Inactive Reserve.
- Finally, for Officers, O2 is automatic and O3 has ridiculously high promotion rates (usually well over 90%), but O4 is the first competitive one where the rates go notably down (in part because by then you have a career to be evaluated on), and the Officer promotion system is 2-strikes, so if you get passed over twice in a row you're done and have a few months typically to accomplish separation.
posted by mystyk at 8:57 AM on October 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
I have no account there. No idea why I can see it and you can't; it certainly looked like public data to me. Perhaps their site coding is just bad and is flummoxed by my array of privacy/anti-script/ad-blocking plug-ins?
Interesting information re: direct-promotion; I'm outside that world and so didn't think of it, but it seems obvious. I assume that a person who enters the officer corps right out of (e.g.) law or medical school wouldn't come in as O1.
The "first competitive promotion" aspect makes sense, too -- it's the flip side of the more-or-less automatic promotion through the initial ranks.
posted by uberchet at 9:27 AM on October 20, 2016
Interesting information re: direct-promotion; I'm outside that world and so didn't think of it, but it seems obvious. I assume that a person who enters the officer corps right out of (e.g.) law or medical school wouldn't come in as O1.
The "first competitive promotion" aspect makes sense, too -- it's the flip side of the more-or-less automatic promotion through the initial ranks.
posted by uberchet at 9:27 AM on October 20, 2016
I assume that a person who enters the officer corps right out of (e.g.) law or medical school wouldn't come in as O1.
They're given time-served credit for promotion based on how long the professional school typically takes, so recent law- and divinity-school graduates come in as O2s and are almost immediately promoted to O3 (i.e., where they would be if they'd been serving for those three years). Recent medical- and dental-school graduates come in as O3s (i.e., where they'd be if they'd been serving for those four years).
posted by Etrigan at 9:34 AM on October 20, 2016
They're given time-served credit for promotion based on how long the professional school typically takes, so recent law- and divinity-school graduates come in as O2s and are almost immediately promoted to O3 (i.e., where they would be if they'd been serving for those three years). Recent medical- and dental-school graduates come in as O3s (i.e., where they'd be if they'd been serving for those four years).
posted by Etrigan at 9:34 AM on October 20, 2016
mystyk: "the Officer promotion system is 2-strikes, so if you get passed over twice in a row you're done and have a few months typically to accomplish separation"
What is the theory behind this? Generally you need good middle managers and it would seem to be a mistake to force people to first advance out of their wheelhouse and then turf them when they aren't successful there.
posted by Mitheral at 9:37 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
What is the theory behind this? Generally you need good middle managers and it would seem to be a mistake to force people to first advance out of their wheelhouse and then turf them when they aren't successful there.
posted by Mitheral at 9:37 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess this is what happens when SecNav Mabus says, "I swear to god, if I hear 'If you ain't Ordnance, you ain't shit.' one more time." to Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Stevens.
It must be a real resume enhancer for those two to deep six all ratings, then leave when the Navy's forms, promotions and Regulations, etc. all assume ratings exist, and there's no plan to deal with that. Seriously, what kind of navy doesn't have bosuns mates? Will the young women fresh out of boot camp feel more included not being called Hospital Corpsman or Fireman but rather Seaman?
If Mabus wasn't a Dem. I would consider whether this was an attempt to stir up more hate and discontent over gender neutrality. I know I was proud, humbled and some what intimated when I sewed on my first Hospitalman Apprentice rating badge on. Making Petty Officer didn't mean shit. I guess kids will still get a shot of adrenaline when they hear " Petty Officer Third Class (L500) up! instead of Corpsman up!"
posted by ridgerunner at 9:44 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It must be a real resume enhancer for those two to deep six all ratings, then leave when the Navy's forms, promotions and Regulations, etc. all assume ratings exist, and there's no plan to deal with that. Seriously, what kind of navy doesn't have bosuns mates? Will the young women fresh out of boot camp feel more included not being called Hospital Corpsman or Fireman but rather Seaman?
If Mabus wasn't a Dem. I would consider whether this was an attempt to stir up more hate and discontent over gender neutrality. I know I was proud, humbled and some what intimated when I sewed on my first Hospitalman Apprentice rating badge on. Making Petty Officer didn't mean shit. I guess kids will still get a shot of adrenaline when they hear " Petty Officer Third Class (L500) up! instead of Corpsman up!"
posted by ridgerunner at 9:44 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
So even if they omit the rate and just go by rank, their ranks still don't match the rest of the armed services, so what's the advantage? I was mostly addressed as Petty Officer Negative anyway, so this seems like a solution to a non-problem.
posted by doctor_negative at 9:48 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by doctor_negative at 9:48 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The branches that direct-commission above O1 are pretty much just medical (that includes all the sub-fields of it, such as nursing and veterinary), JAG (lawyers), and Chaplains. A good rule of thumb is that, for those fields in particular, a Master's will often get you O2 with accelerated promotion to O3 (usually it's the latter of 6 months or finishing your branch-specific Officer's course), and a Doctorate will normally get you O3 directly, but it can bounce around even then. That said, many of those fields spend longer as an O3, to the point where at the end of their 8 year obligation they usually still haven't picked up O4. Also, their promotions are done entirely separate from the promotions that the rest of the Officer branches go through, so the percentages I mentioned earlier don't apply.
My understanding is that, at least in theory, any branch could allow direct-commissioning above O1, but in practice it just isn't done.
Direct-commission to O4 is rare, and is usually reserved for special cases. I remember one case where former-President Bush (the younger) was at a rally where he met the father of a recently-deceased junior Officer. He asked the father what he could do to help, and the father (a doctor in private practice) said allow him to serve. Karl Rove can be seen talking with the father right after and scribbling some notes. Fast-forward a few months, and the father was a newly-minted Navy O4 (Lt Cdr.) prepping to deploy.
There's been talk in the past year or so about modifying the law to allow direct-commission as high as O6. I doubt it will happen, but the idea was that you could coax more successful CEOs and experts in high-end fields to serve if you could accelerate them to a more equivalent position, and that by not being able to direct-commission higher we're missing out on that talent. The idea has gotten significant push-back from career Officers who don't like the idea of someone from outside who doesn't really understand the military suddenly becoming a senior military commander.
posted by mystyk at 9:50 AM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
My understanding is that, at least in theory, any branch could allow direct-commissioning above O1, but in practice it just isn't done.
Direct-commission to O4 is rare, and is usually reserved for special cases. I remember one case where former-President Bush (the younger) was at a rally where he met the father of a recently-deceased junior Officer. He asked the father what he could do to help, and the father (a doctor in private practice) said allow him to serve. Karl Rove can be seen talking with the father right after and scribbling some notes. Fast-forward a few months, and the father was a newly-minted Navy O4 (Lt Cdr.) prepping to deploy.
There's been talk in the past year or so about modifying the law to allow direct-commission as high as O6. I doubt it will happen, but the idea was that you could coax more successful CEOs and experts in high-end fields to serve if you could accelerate them to a more equivalent position, and that by not being able to direct-commission higher we're missing out on that talent. The idea has gotten significant push-back from career Officers who don't like the idea of someone from outside who doesn't really understand the military suddenly becoming a senior military commander.
posted by mystyk at 9:50 AM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
mystyk: "the Officer promotion system is 2-strikes, so if you get passed over twice in a row you're done and have a few months typically to accomplish separation"
What is the theory behind this? Generally you need good middle managers and it would seem to be a mistake to force people to first advance out of their wheelhouse and then turf them when they aren't successful there.
The theory behind it is that they don't want to get people jammed up at O3 (or any other rank) because so many O4s are sticking around. The next guy in the position will presumably be just as good a middle manager as the last guy, so you're not losing much. Bear in mind that in the officer ranks, most people stay in a particular job for around two years, so no one really gets into a particular wheelhouse.
There's always a lot of discussion in the services about whether they need to stick with the two-and-out system. It survives largely on inertia and the fact that the people who make those decisions are people who survived the process, so they're naturally if subconsciously attuned to it.
posted by Etrigan at 9:53 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
What is the theory behind this? Generally you need good middle managers and it would seem to be a mistake to force people to first advance out of their wheelhouse and then turf them when they aren't successful there.
The theory behind it is that they don't want to get people jammed up at O3 (or any other rank) because so many O4s are sticking around. The next guy in the position will presumably be just as good a middle manager as the last guy, so you're not losing much. Bear in mind that in the officer ranks, most people stay in a particular job for around two years, so no one really gets into a particular wheelhouse.
There's always a lot of discussion in the services about whether they need to stick with the two-and-out system. It survives largely on inertia and the fact that the people who make those decisions are people who survived the process, so they're naturally if subconsciously attuned to it.
posted by Etrigan at 9:53 AM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Direct-commission to O4 is rare, and is usually reserved for special cases.
O5 happens sometimes too.
posted by Etrigan at 9:54 AM on October 20, 2016
O5 happens sometimes too.
posted by Etrigan at 9:54 AM on October 20, 2016
Mitheral: "What is the theory behind this? Generally you need good middle managers and it would seem to be a mistake to force people to first advance out of their wheelhouse and then turf them when they aren't successful there."
It's basically an up-or-out model. Everyone's expected to grow and show capabilities for enhanced leadership and responsibilities; if you show you're not up to the task, then you're taking a spot somebody else who could do it is filling instead.
In reality, though, I think it acts as a pressure-relief-valve on the problems created by the Peter Principle. The military is *horrible* about promoting people based on how well they did in the last job, rather than on how well they show themselves to be prepared for the next. In particular, there's a huge divide between the responsibilities of an O3 and an O4, and then again between an O5 and an O6, and then one last time between O7 and O8 (the O1-O3 gap is small because everyone's comparatively junior, but the O4-O5, O6-O7, and O8+ gaps are also small in terms of the nature of how your duties and responsibilities shift, being more a change of scale than of actual job). What makes a good Captain (O3-type) may make a *shitty* Major, and I see it all the time. By forcing them to show adequate competence or be booted, it frees up a Major's slot for the next Captain in line to try their hand at. There's also the fact that, in a practical sense, O6 is more about testing the water to see if you'd make a decent flag-Officer than it is about actually being an O6.
posted by mystyk at 10:02 AM on October 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's basically an up-or-out model. Everyone's expected to grow and show capabilities for enhanced leadership and responsibilities; if you show you're not up to the task, then you're taking a spot somebody else who could do it is filling instead.
In reality, though, I think it acts as a pressure-relief-valve on the problems created by the Peter Principle. The military is *horrible* about promoting people based on how well they did in the last job, rather than on how well they show themselves to be prepared for the next. In particular, there's a huge divide between the responsibilities of an O3 and an O4, and then again between an O5 and an O6, and then one last time between O7 and O8 (the O1-O3 gap is small because everyone's comparatively junior, but the O4-O5, O6-O7, and O8+ gaps are also small in terms of the nature of how your duties and responsibilities shift, being more a change of scale than of actual job). What makes a good Captain (O3-type) may make a *shitty* Major, and I see it all the time. By forcing them to show adequate competence or be booted, it frees up a Major's slot for the next Captain in line to try their hand at. There's also the fact that, in a practical sense, O6 is more about testing the water to see if you'd make a decent flag-Officer than it is about actually being an O6.
posted by mystyk at 10:02 AM on October 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wouldn't "Sailor," be better than "Seaman?"
Everyone in the Navy is a sailor, from the greenest boot to the saltiest Master Chief and from the junior Ensign to the Chief of Naval Operations.
posted by ridgerunner at 10:02 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Everyone in the Navy is a sailor, from the greenest boot to the saltiest Master Chief and from the junior Ensign to the Chief of Naval Operations.
posted by ridgerunner at 10:02 AM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
In reality, though, I think it acts as a pressure-relief-valve on the problems created by the Peter Principle.
It seems like it would on one hand be an engine of inadvisable promotions while also providing a mechanism to get rid of the inadvisably promoted. I guess the reason this works is that there's a steady input of candidates?
posted by atoxyl at 12:21 PM on October 20, 2016
It seems like it would on one hand be an engine of inadvisable promotions while also providing a mechanism to get rid of the inadvisably promoted. I guess the reason this works is that there's a steady input of candidates?
posted by atoxyl at 12:21 PM on October 20, 2016
guess this is what happens when SecNav Mabus says, "I swear to god, if I hear 'If you ain't Ordnance, you ain't shit.' one more time." to Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Stevens.
This is the best comment I have heard thus far in any medium on this subject.
posted by corb at 3:17 PM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is the best comment I have heard thus far in any medium on this subject.
posted by corb at 3:17 PM on October 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
The idea has gotten significant push-back from career Officers who don't like the idea of someone from outside who doesn't really understand the military suddenly becoming a senior military commander.
God, we see this a lot with MBA grads and EFOs (National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officers) moving from one fire department to another, and it kind of sucks. I know it's not always right to feel people ought to earn their horns through sweat and labor and the suckitude that is cooking for and cleaning up after a bunch of other adults, but...
I received a lot of backlash when I entered into the fire service down here (having come from a more progressive area) with a B.S. in tow, because then I was a threat (?) or something? It bothered me. Now I'm just grateful I didn't have to work a full-time job while pursuing my bachelor's like many of my coworkers did. I keep saying one day I'll acquire my master's, but that costs money, and at $13 per hour wages I'll probably wait.
Anyway, going to forward this article to my dad, a retired Commander; I think he'd find it interesting.
posted by sara is disenchanted at 4:45 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
God, we see this a lot with MBA grads and EFOs (National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officers) moving from one fire department to another, and it kind of sucks. I know it's not always right to feel people ought to earn their horns through sweat and labor and the suckitude that is cooking for and cleaning up after a bunch of other adults, but...
I received a lot of backlash when I entered into the fire service down here (having come from a more progressive area) with a B.S. in tow, because then I was a threat (?) or something? It bothered me. Now I'm just grateful I didn't have to work a full-time job while pursuing my bachelor's like many of my coworkers did. I keep saying one day I'll acquire my master's, but that costs money, and at $13 per hour wages I'll probably wait.
Anyway, going to forward this article to my dad, a retired Commander; I think he'd find it interesting.
posted by sara is disenchanted at 4:45 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
This whole thing has been a joke. We're going to change our enlisted ratings to NOSes to mirror other services and reduce confusion...but our officers are all going to have special names still. It's going to be easier to market your skills in the civilian sector...except telling someone you were a G000 isn't any more meaningful to a random civilian than telling them you were an HM, so you're still going to have to explain what you actually did. It's going to let you cross train...except it really won't, because there will be manning barriers, and "complimentary skill sets" barriers, and Needs of the Navy barriers, so you won't be able to cross-rate in whatever you want.
It's entirely a force-shaping measure. It's so we can train one sailor to do two sailors' jobs, and then cut the second sailor. Except that won't work out so well, as the recent LCS program manning issues have demonstrated...plus, killing ratings has been a huge blow to morale. All of the enlisted folks I work with have been somewhere between peeved and livid about the issue.
Ah well, that's the Navy for you.
posted by Noms_Tiem at 4:57 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's entirely a force-shaping measure. It's so we can train one sailor to do two sailors' jobs, and then cut the second sailor. Except that won't work out so well, as the recent LCS program manning issues have demonstrated...plus, killing ratings has been a huge blow to morale. All of the enlisted folks I work with have been somewhere between peeved and livid about the issue.
Ah well, that's the Navy for you.
posted by Noms_Tiem at 4:57 PM on October 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's been talk in the past year or so about modifying the law to allow direct-commission as high as O6. I doubt it will happen, but the idea was that you could coax more successful CEOs and experts in high-end fields to serve if you could accelerate them to a more equivalent position, and that by not being able to direct-commission higher we're missing out on that talent. The idea has gotten significant push-back from career Officers who don't like the idea of someone from outside who doesn't really understand the military suddenly becoming a senior military commander.
And all of this is solved by allowing direct hires as DOD civilians at GS-15 and various levels of SES. Sure Colonel or General is a way cooler title than Principle Assistant Responsible for Contracting or Executive Program Manager, or even Deputy Assistant Secretary for X. In terms of what the work and lifestyle are like, the SES is a much better match for high performing civilians. (I mean, that's exactly what it's for). I'm not sure what's accomplished by putting people directly into an O6+ uniform that couldn't be accomplished by hiring them on as a civilian.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 5:37 PM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
And all of this is solved by allowing direct hires as DOD civilians at GS-15 and various levels of SES. Sure Colonel or General is a way cooler title than Principle Assistant Responsible for Contracting or Executive Program Manager, or even Deputy Assistant Secretary for X. In terms of what the work and lifestyle are like, the SES is a much better match for high performing civilians. (I mean, that's exactly what it's for). I'm not sure what's accomplished by putting people directly into an O6+ uniform that couldn't be accomplished by hiring them on as a civilian.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 5:37 PM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Noms_Tiem
Thanks for telling us what you're seeing.
So the Navy's walking away from raising subject matter experts because Bupers thinks managing sailors promoted based on their technical knowledge and experience is too hard? And they think a bunch of people with various certs will be better? Give it three years and you couldn't pay me enough to step on a working flight deck. It was dangerous enough when we could tell each other's minimum skill set just by looking at the uniforms. I'm glad I don't have any friends or family in the Navy right now. G'luck to the Sailors and Marines ordered to make this work.
posted by ridgerunner at 7:48 PM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks for telling us what you're seeing.
So the Navy's walking away from raising subject matter experts because Bupers thinks managing sailors promoted based on their technical knowledge and experience is too hard? And they think a bunch of people with various certs will be better? Give it three years and you couldn't pay me enough to step on a working flight deck. It was dangerous enough when we could tell each other's minimum skill set just by looking at the uniforms. I'm glad I don't have any friends or family in the Navy right now. G'luck to the Sailors and Marines ordered to make this work.
posted by ridgerunner at 7:48 PM on October 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
atoxyl: "It seems like it would on one hand be an engine of inadvisable promotions while also providing a mechanism to get rid of the inadvisably promoted. I guess the reason this works is that there's a steady input of candidates?"
The Peter Principle is a problem that many strict-hierarchical organizations have to deal with. Any time people get promoted based on how they performed in their current job rather than the preparedness they show to perform in the next is an instance of the condition.
The problem the military has is that its unique mission means that the differentiation between job responsibilities is stark enough to make it very difficult to tell how someone ranks on *potential* for the next rank. In other words, past performance becomes the proxy out of necessity, not from desire. In actuality, the military doesn't do a horrible job in promotions, because the detailed rating system (even with its flaws) means that you can make a pretty good guess at one's overall leadership qualities, not merely past performance, and if the overall leadership qualities look good it at least increases the odds that the person will actually have the potential necessary to rise to the occasion of the next rank. But overall leadership is a subjective measurement, and is also not a perfect proxy for potential for the next rank, so mistakes are bound to happen.
That's why I call the up-or-out system a pressure-release valve. The military already has the Peter Principle to deal with no matter what their retention policy is, but if you then couldn't get rid of the under-performers in the new rank simply because they weren't entirely failing (there *are* processes for that) then you'd have two additional problems: ineffective-but-not-atrocious leaders staying around too long, and a bottle-neck preventing future leaders from rising. Forcing people to promote or leave helps with that.
And this is a problem I see time and again. About half of new Majors seems to have no clue what they're doing, because the job of a Major is just so different than that of a Captain. Of those, about half will get their shit together (some learning to excel while others becoming decent but not exceptional) while the other half will fail in predictable ways. Generally speaking, if they get their shit together (or weren't problematic to begin with) they'll make Lieutenant Colonel, but unless they were or became exceptional as a Major they won't be good enough as a Lieutenant Colonel to rise further.
Also, in addition to the up-or-out, there's one additional method available. When the force really needs to down-size, the military sometimes convenes special boards just for retention decisions. These boards tend to target O3 the most, O4 by about half as much (as a percentage of people in the rank), and O5 by about half that. Those boards are specifically aimed at those who've been in the rank long enough to determine if they have their shit together (usually at least 2-3 years), but are cutting the people who overwhelmingly would have been cut through promotions anyway -- it just gets them 1-3 years early.
posted by mystyk at 9:38 AM on October 21, 2016
The Peter Principle is a problem that many strict-hierarchical organizations have to deal with. Any time people get promoted based on how they performed in their current job rather than the preparedness they show to perform in the next is an instance of the condition.
The problem the military has is that its unique mission means that the differentiation between job responsibilities is stark enough to make it very difficult to tell how someone ranks on *potential* for the next rank. In other words, past performance becomes the proxy out of necessity, not from desire. In actuality, the military doesn't do a horrible job in promotions, because the detailed rating system (even with its flaws) means that you can make a pretty good guess at one's overall leadership qualities, not merely past performance, and if the overall leadership qualities look good it at least increases the odds that the person will actually have the potential necessary to rise to the occasion of the next rank. But overall leadership is a subjective measurement, and is also not a perfect proxy for potential for the next rank, so mistakes are bound to happen.
That's why I call the up-or-out system a pressure-release valve. The military already has the Peter Principle to deal with no matter what their retention policy is, but if you then couldn't get rid of the under-performers in the new rank simply because they weren't entirely failing (there *are* processes for that) then you'd have two additional problems: ineffective-but-not-atrocious leaders staying around too long, and a bottle-neck preventing future leaders from rising. Forcing people to promote or leave helps with that.
And this is a problem I see time and again. About half of new Majors seems to have no clue what they're doing, because the job of a Major is just so different than that of a Captain. Of those, about half will get their shit together (some learning to excel while others becoming decent but not exceptional) while the other half will fail in predictable ways. Generally speaking, if they get their shit together (or weren't problematic to begin with) they'll make Lieutenant Colonel, but unless they were or became exceptional as a Major they won't be good enough as a Lieutenant Colonel to rise further.
Also, in addition to the up-or-out, there's one additional method available. When the force really needs to down-size, the military sometimes convenes special boards just for retention decisions. These boards tend to target O3 the most, O4 by about half as much (as a percentage of people in the rank), and O5 by about half that. Those boards are specifically aimed at those who've been in the rank long enough to determine if they have their shit together (usually at least 2-3 years), but are cutting the people who overwhelmingly would have been cut through promotions anyway -- it just gets them 1-3 years early.
posted by mystyk at 9:38 AM on October 21, 2016
How is Seaman more gender-neutral than Gunnie or Boats? And anyway, most of the time you refer to people by the name on their shirt, e.g. "Smith, smoking lamp is OUT! Get your narrow ass up to the Foc'sle and paint something!
posted by spacely_sprocket at 10:01 AM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by spacely_sprocket at 10:01 AM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older The teacher that you always wanted | What in the actual duck Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by briank at 5:33 AM on October 20, 2016 [10 favorites]