This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
X
The work of navies is done at sea. Everything done ashore is auxiliary to that. Hence, small craft, such as those shown on the preceding pages, are important instruments in the training of those seeking naval commissions. The boats shown are in the Severn River off the Naval Academy. Other such craft are used at OCS. Both NROTC and Naval Academy midshipmen spend parts of their summers afloat in the Fleet.
. he education and training of modern naval officers is, today, a career-long process. No more than with anyone else is there a point where today’s ensign, commander, or admiral can state, positively, "I am now educated.” This fact is highlighted by an environment within which education and training is a major mission of the Navy.
Faced with too small a budget and too few people and ships, it is essential that the Navy be innovative in its educational and training activities. Innovations, of course, must take into account organizational requirements, individual teaching and learning capabilities, and policy level commitments which will ensure the Navy has enough high quality officers from commissioning to retirement. Working in a rapidly changing world, the naval officer must be fully prepared to direct the most sophisticated technology the world has ever known and to assume leadership in an entirely volunteer force. Education and training is, therefore, an investment in the future.
The Navy is being innovative. During the past several years, bold actions have been taken to pinpoint organizational accountability for all naval education and training. The major officer accession programs—the Naval Academy, NROTC, and OCS—have been reviewed in order to increase their usefulness. The continued upgrading of the officer corps is a matter which, in recent months, has received attention at the highest level. There exists a vigorous and determined leadership bent on exploring every alternative which promises to improve naval education and training and enhance the product.
Organizational Accountability
Beginning in 1955, several studies had recommended that the widely scattered naval training efforts be consolidated. But it was not until 1971 that action was taken, when Admiral Zumwalt created a board under Rear Admiral Malcolm W. Cagle in order to bring these recommendations to reality.
In August 1971, acting upon recommendations made by the Cagle Board, the CNO ordered the establishment of the Training Command in Pensacola, Florida. Two years later, the command’s added responsibility for education was reflected in the new title, "Naval Education and Training Command.” This, for the first time, pulled together under a single commander training activities ashore for the air, surface, and subsurface communities. Similarly, educational institutions and programs (except for health care and its allied sciences) came under this umbrella for management control. Thus, the Navy has a single command to identify its education and training needs, reconcile priorities, and establish accountability for the results- Under Vice Admiral Cagle, the first Chief of Naval Education and Training, and now under Vice Admiral Wilson, CNET holds status as a major manpower and budget claimant. The holder of that billet reports to CNO in two ways: first as CNET, and second as the Director of Naval Education and Training (DNET) on the OpNav staff.
As the Naval Education and Training Command matures, it will increase the responsiveness and fiscal soundness of the education and training establishment- It also will serve as the Navy’s interface with the civilian education and training communities. This not only provides a source of new ideas for the Navy but also creates new understandings with our counterpart5 in the broader professional community.
Major Officer Acquisition Programs The Naval Academy
Rear Admiral Robert W. McNitt, in Naval Review 1967, sets forth the premise that: "Preparing a young man today for a lifetime career as a naval line office1 is much like getting him ready for a 30-year journey to an unknown destination, along a route which ha5 never been charted.”
Everything that has taken place since then support5 McNitt’s point of view. If he has not since improved himself, the bright young officer who was graduated from the Academy that year, armed with new skill5 and understandings, is already partially obsolete, a victim of the knowledge explosion. Scholars now estimate that the half-life of scientific, engineering, and technical
'iformation is only seven years, rather than the ten years which was hypothesized at the time of McNitt’s Writlng or the twenty-year half-life which prevailed in the early 50s.
This is but one object lesson to support McNitt’s Worry about a midshipman’s curriculum filled with facts for their own sake” as contrasted with "teaching principles, developing the character and personal skills at will be of enduring value, and creating the moti- patlon that will sustain him throughout his career.” or> indeed, the purpose of education goes beyond the j?ext assignment and strives to prepare the new officer .r a career °h service involving the greatest respon- uity which can be imposed, that of ensuring the life and freedom of his country.
Visiting the Academy today, one is struck by the man7 innovations which have been implemented in the Past eight years. For the most part, they have been eneficial to the educational atmosphere, the academic Mature, and the overall professional development of its graduates. They include: the use of modern technology ln rhe instructional program; the continuing search for rec°gnized scholars for the civilian faculty and the Concurrent improvement in the naval and military half cke faculty; and the student’s option of selecting rnajor within a Navy-oriented curriculum. All these , ave contributed to the Academy’s ability to attract ^ gn quality students and, thus, to remain the light- °Use institution for the education of officers for the C'aval Service.
The Academy is attracting outstanding young men. ndardized test scores and subjective evaluations of „ individual's motivation toward becoming the eal” naval officer support this view. These young mcn have a dedication to academic excellence, to the naval Service, and to the nation—qualities which are e foundation of a professional career. Furthermore, e Academy has carried on a vigorous search for high SUality minority group representation. Increased minority group representation in the corps of midshipmen lcates the Navy’s determination to develop a bal- anccd officer corps.
The key to the Academy’s success is its ability to ruit outstanding candidates and to select from r ng them those most highly motivated and best ed for a professional naval career. Admittedly, no is CCtl0n Process 's perfect. Also, the Naval Academy SeCxPehencing strong competition from the other rv*ee academies, and civilian institutions for young Pe°ple with high intellectual capabilities. The fact n^Uains that nearly all of the young men selected for ^ e Academy today can achieve success, assuming they ave the necessary motivation, determination, and aPUtude toward naval service and leadership.
With this in mind, the Academy is developing flexibility within existing attrition policies. Any midshipman doing poorly in a subject who, in the combined judgment of the professional naval officer and academician, has both the intellectual ability and the motivation to be a successful naval officer, may now use his leave period in a summer school program to improve his academic standing. He may take validated overloads as his academic standing improves. In some rare cases, a fifth year may be granted to complete his program. Each of these alternatives represents an investment of time and effort on his part as well as on the part of the institution. Collectively, these alternatives promise continued reductions in the rate of academic dismissal.
A point should be made to answer those who argue that this is a lowering of standards. Faculty evaluations become lenient when the result of academic failure is the dismissal of an otherwise professionally attractive candidate. The number of "borderline passes” will likely be greater in a system of "one failure and you’re out” than with the new system. These options which fall short of ending a young person’s career will produce greater objectivity in grading and ultimately will contribute to an improvement in both academic standards and the aggregate competency of our graduates.
The issue of approved majors for Academy students generates a great deal of attention, both inside and outside the Academy. Some suggest this diminishes the number of officers adequately trained in the technical fields. The consensus, however, is that the program is good, both for the students and the institution.
This intellectual diversity has brought academic luster to the Academy. Yet for every approved course of study, there remains a solid academic core (38 per cent of total hours) of mathematics, the hard sciences, and engineering. Of the 26 majors available, 16 are in or related to engineering and the hard-core sciences. Beginning with the class of 1975, 70 per cent of the graduates of the Academy will come from these disciplines.
Up till the class of 1977, those majoring in management were required to take nine additional hours in engineering and science above the core work required for all Academy graduates. Beginning with that class, this has been increased to 18 hours. Combined with the core, this represents 50 per cent of the program of studies dedicated to engineering and the hard sciences for the midshipmen pursuing a management major.
Nevertheless, the argument persists that this is not enough. This has led to recent efforts to force the Academy to produce larger numbers of graduates in the technical and scientific fields. In an effort to accomplish this goal, increased emphasis has been placed upon
138 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Naval Review 1975
personnel screening and career counseling. In cooperation with the Naval Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, academic officials are seeking better to identify young men who have both an interest in and an aptitude for technical fields. The "Strong Vocational Interest Inventory” is being administered to midshipmen upon their entry into the Academy. Those who score high on the technically related scales are encouraged to pursue these curricula. This should substantially increase the numbers majoring in these areas while, at the same time, preserving curriculum breadth
which will appeal to a broader array of potentially finC naval officers.
In an additional effort to increase technical output a new policy requires 80 per cent of the graduates of the class of 1978 to pursue a hard sciences or technic^ program of studies. This policy is not universally applauded. In the opinion of some dedicated military and academic personnel, it will lead to lack of retention, increased academic failure, and could be demotivating to some midshipmen.
On the other hand, there is great concern that the Navy’s technical requirements are not being adequately met. In the view of equally dedicated persons, anything less than policy requiring a greater percentage of graduates in technical fields will be blatantly unfa>r to the Navy and to the individual in terms of career enhancement.
Whatever the policy on the percentage of those i11 technical majors at the Academy or at NROTC institutions, there is a need to explore other ways to acquit officers with technical educations. Additional options might include contractual arrangements or specif scholarship programs with selected institutions. These institutions should be well recognized for their undergraduate (and graduate) competences in the technic^ fields. Dr. Bruce Davidson, the Academy’s AcadenHc Dean, has suggested this alternative as one approach to increase the number of officers with a first rate technical education, which would have the added benefit of expanding the base from which to draw office15 for nuclear training.
In any case, several additional factors need to considered when thinking about the curriculum Annapolis. First, it is unlikely any institution become a center of excellence in the advanced tech' nologies without graduate programs to attract hig*1 quality, research-oriented faculties. Secondly, the basic role of the Academy is to prepare young men for 3 life of continuous learning and ever-increasing expertise as professional naval officers. Few would argue tha[’ in itself, an Academy education is sufficient for a nav^ officer beyond his early years of service. In short, 3 baccalaureate degree, whether technical or nontechnical is no more than the entry point to a lifetime of learn ing. The newly commissioned officer should proceed with full realization of the short half-life of much his knowledge base and the responsibility incumber^ upon him to avoid professional and technical obsoleS' cence. The issue for the Academy—and any oth£f undergraduate professional school—is whether it lS getting its share of the brightest and best qualified students available and whether it is developing in this group a spirit of inquiry, intellectual curiosity, an^ professional commitment. These would-be officers af£
lead
toward their development into this type of widely-
all-
D,
,Ust beginning to learn what they will need to know t0 run the technologically advanced Navy of the future.
in peacetime, the military preparedness of the nation fests to a great extent on the ability of Service leaders remain a part of the mainstream of American life. aval officers must exemplify the will, the determi- natlon, and the faith in one’s self and in the nation t0 continue the struggle toward the ideals of democ- They must strive to keep abreast of patterns of mencan thought and not become isolated. Only then Can rhcy hope to influence those patterns so that in '''artime the people will close ranks behind them as they did in 1861, in 1917, and in 1941.
he Academy, as a major source of the Navy’s flag . cers in both peace and war, must be the lighthouse ltlstitution for this type of initial professional development- It must continually attract young people who Possess the characteristics which will most probably
Shifted leader. The current diversity of the Academy’s etings contributes to the heterogeneity of its student Population. The Navy should strive to broaden the Population base from which prospective midshipmen o selected. By doing so, the Academy will better be e to attract and develop the high quality people our avy rnust have.
Unlike many public and private institutions today, e Academy is faced with neither an operating deficit "!°r a facilities crisis. To Dean Davidson, therefore, the oademy’s future rests with the strength of its accredited .^0grams and the credibility and prestige of its faculty n cbe eyes of their academic peers.
The quality of instruction at the Academy is gener- JY Cxcellent and relevant to the mission. However, ean Davidson has been a strong advocate of the 10r Officer Readiness Review Exam which is in- er>ded as an instrument for curriculum review as well a uaeasurement of the competency levels of graduates, k C lnsists that the Academy must strike a balance CtWeen the agreed upon objective of producing high Quality naval officers and the freedom of faculty mem- ers to teach how, and what, they please.
, . here is some in-house controversy over just what ls balance is, as well as the degree and areas of faculty S°vernance of—and accountability for—the curriculum, ^ faculty and student performance. This suggests that e Academy’s vitality as a first class institution will °nt'nue. Outsiders should remember that, in academic ,lrc|es, once dissent is gone, you can be certain the nstitution has fallen into mediocrity, or worse.
The Academy’s administration has also taken firm tands on faculty recruitment and on promotions and tenure for civilian faculty members. It maintains that a<-ademic promotions should be linked to advanced study and that tenure eligibility should be substantiated by performance evaluations which academic departments are willing to stand behind. Furthermore, the administration believes that greater professional involvement by the faculty than is now shown is necessary through writing for publication, the seeking of leadership responsibilities in their fields, attendance at meetings of professional associations, and individual research efforts. These standards generally apply in high quality civilian institutions.
Only candidates with doctorates are sought for the civilian faculty. A doctorate, in the administration’s view, reflects the fact that a person has exhibited a keen interest in obtaining an in-depth knowledge in his chosen area of expertise. The Academy’s leadership also advocates faculty exchange programs with civilian and military institutions as a means of revitalizing academic personnel and acquainting the world with the quality of the Academy’s program and faculty. Exchange programs can have not only a stimulating effect on the present members of the faculty but they should also be appealing to prospective members of the caliber the Academy wants to attract.
When McNitt wrote about the Academy on the brink of change some eight years ago, he emphasized that innovations were mixed with old traditions. These traditions contributed to an atmosphere of dedication and moral and ethical behavior. But new ideas, new programs, and new symbols will emerge to become traditions for the future. The Department of Defense’s Human Goals program is an articulation of basic values around which the Academy has sought to build a tradition of commitment. Vice Admiral William P. Mack, Superintendent of the Academy, set out to design programs which will, hopefully, accentuate and reinforce the high ethical and moral behavior implicit in these goals. One innovation is the curiously titled Professional Officer and Human Person program. It consists of weekly seminars which include midshipmen in discussions of hypothetical situations centered on human problems and goals. They are designed to make midshipmen examine their own values and ethical standards in terms of the behavior they would propose in a given situation.
Several members of the Academy’s Academic Advisory Board have raised questions about the teaching of moral and ethical values in this manner. These members share the persuasion that values of personal excellence, dedication to duty, fairness, consistency, and the like, emerge as part of one’s total experience rather than through classroom exercises. But this leaves a great deal to chance if we want to insure, to the best of our ability, that our young officers exhibit these high values in their day-to-day behavior. In all probability,
140 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Naval Review 1975
we can isolate behavioral characteristics associated with particular values or ethical standards of performance and deal with them in the abstract in such a way as to enhance transferability to the concrete performance of the individual. The fact that the Academy is attempting to find new ways to do so in a creative manner makes one optimistic about the outcome.
In summary, there is strength in the Academy’s leadership and in the quality and diversity of its student body. Its program of study is well conceived to provide tomorrow’s naval officers with the basic knowledge to enter the Service as employable ensigns, and to embark upon a career-long process of continuing their professional education and development. But most important, the Academy’s vitality persists in a climate which encourages debate, self-examination, and responsiveness to the needs of a changing Navy, a changing nation, and a changing environment.
The Academy, however, is not driven by a desire mainly to change; it is driven by a desire to improve itself and to provide a better education to its midshipmen. The Academy is aware its uniqueness rests in its ability to maintain an atmosphere exemplary of the performance it expects from its graduates. It recognizes that if its graduates are to behave as dedicated, intellectually curious, and morally strong individuals, it must demonstrate these values in its day-to-day activity.
NROTC
In 1967, Admiral McNitt outlined the development of the NROTC program since its inception in 1926; he laid particular emphasis on the post-World War II innovations, whose major architect was Vice Admiral James L. Holloway, Jr., father of the present Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Holloway addressed the broad goals of the new program in the U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings of November 1947. He stated that:
"Those who evolve this plan believe that the integration of the best type of college and university man from outstanding institutions associated with the NROTC will be of positive benefit to the Navy; benefit in that there will be associated, in the permanent and career officers, outstanding young college men of diverse and superior educational background representing a wide and catholic range of interest. ...”
Essentially the program envisoned by Holloway remains intact. A major change was the introduction of a two-year program in the mid 60s.
The present NROTC program is composed of the Scholarship Program and the College Program.
The Scholarship Program provides four years of education, with the Navy paying for tuition and books and $100 per month living allowance. The student signs a contract that, upon completion of his studies, he will accept a regular Navy commission and serve four years on active duty. Students are selected carefully on the basis of examination scores, high school records, leadership potential, extracurricular activities, physical fitness, and an interview which seeks to determine that motivation for a career as a naval officer. Such a student may attend any one of the 58 participating institutions as long as he meets the entrance requirements of the school of his choice. Students also participate in three summer training periods similar to those experienced by their Naval Academy counterparts.
The College Program is open to students not selected for the Scholarship Program or who desire 1 commission in the Naval Reserve rather than in the regular Navy. Students take the same naval science courses but finance their own first two years at on£ of the host institutions. They receive free uniforms During the last two years of study, those accepted int0 the advanced program receive $100 per month and participate in one summer training cruise. Upon gradu' ation, they are commissioned in the Naval Reserve and spend three years on active duty.
By 1964, new trends in higher education resulted in the Two-Year Program. At the beginning of his last two years of college, a student enters NROTC through a six-week summer screening program. At the summer'5 end, he enters at the junior year level either the scholarship or the college program, depending upon his desire5 and the decision of a selection board.
This change in the higher education structure 15 accelerating as educational costs increase and, as larger numbers of students from less affluent families elect r° pursue education through this more economical route-
There are differences among Navy leaders about the need for, and the appropriateness of, the two-year pr°- gram. What is clear is that few within the Education and Training Command are satisfied with present retention and attrition rates for the overall NROTC pr°- gram. Few are certain as to the strength of ROTC appe^ in the all-volunteer force environment. Fewer still ate willing to give up another option whereby technically trained young people can enter the officer corps.
A new development is the establishment of two-y^ programs at community colleges with strong general education curricula which match the quality and the diversity of those at most four-year institutions. Placing initial two-year programs in these institutions, with the option to enter advanced programs as transfer students, will allow young people, who elect the communit) college route for economic or other reasons, to partie1- pate in the full four years of ROTC. These program5 can be expected to develop a community-based awareness of, and to stimulate interest in, military careers-
, Another recent change in NROTC has been in the mission of qualified young women. Today, 155 or ree per cent Qf total enrollment in NROTC are
women.
the late 1960s, campus unrest frequently focused P°n Rotc as a symbol of the military and an un- Pular war. This resulted in the withdrawal of eight Portant institutions from the Navy’s program, in-
dud:
ate
n Edition, they will allow for the longer period of Professional development, the absence of which has een a bothersome aspect of the present two-year
experience.
Economic conditions may well reverse what has een. for several years, a declining first year college enrollment. A tighter employment market may cause erwise turned off young people to reappraise the arrractiveness of a commission and three to four years acfive duty. But trends are far from clear. Regardless our personal feelings about how nice it would be t0 deal only with those brightest high school graduates, ready to make an unwavering career choice beginning ln the first year of a distinguished four year institution, ess certain climate prevails. The two-year program 1 temain as an alternative because of the community k e8es’ impact upon the educational structure and ^cause of uncertainties which surround the actions of college population in an unsettled economic cli- lng Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia. They
f*C not Ekely to find their way back into the NROTC
mdy in the foreseeable future, even if they wanted to Tr ’
j ' 1 he austere environment in which we find ourselves
n°t given to program additions. But this is most
°t>ably a secondary issue. Speculation on the part of
Indicated columnists notwithstanding, there is little
^‘dence that these particular institutions are anxious
^establish ROTC units. None has applied. None
t^erns bothered by the House Armed Services Commit-
unctions which restrict officers from pursuing grad-
j. e studies on these campuses unless it can be estab-
to C<* a ProSram at one °E them is unique and necessary
tEe Service. In short, we need not look for them
^ return to our doorstep with "a full and contrite
art ” Economic incentives are not that great.
. Some would argue good riddance. A number of fine
nst>tutions were—and are—waiting in the wings. At the time of their withdrawal, we were already into an expansion program which brought about an overall increase in the number of host institutions. Today there are 58 in all, eight of which are predominately black schools.
Still, this break was unfortunate. It leaves us with an undercurrent of conflict in some segments of the academic and military communities. This tends to spill over into other areas of the military perception of college faculties and the faculties’ perception of us. Regardless of how minor this may be, it is not good for a nation which is dependent upon widespread vigorous support for the all-volunteer force.
Several factors concern CNET as the NROTC program seeks to maintain its viability in an all-volunteer era. While campus confrontations with the military have subsided, few participating institutions are providing program incentives to young people who otherwise might explore a naval career by way of NROTC basic courses. Student bodies generally are not anti-military today, but they are apathetic toward a military or naval life. A generation of professors who, for the most part, participated in, or supported, military and naval service in World War II and Korea is now giving way to
a new group vastly different by experience. Strong university administrative support will be increasingly hard to come by. Administrators are preoccupied with reduced budgets. The issues of the division of power and the collective bargaining process currently are matters of concern to them. To expect them to confront faculty senates on the program virtues of (or course credit for) ROTC, or to defend the academic qualifications of professors of naval science, is not in the cards.
Uncertainties about the age composition of the population from which we must attract qualified candidates for the NROTC program is another matter of concern. The United States has a declining birthrate, so increasingly young people will be in short supply. Competition for the very best students will increase. Career choices frequently shift among college students, as manifested by the high percentage of students who change their program majors throughout the four-year period. Added to this is a growing number from across the entire economic spectrum who elect not to go immediately from secondary to higher education. Thus, these young people postpone their career choices by temporarily dropping out of the formal educational system. The phenomenon is spreading even to the generally bright children of moderate to relatively high income families which have in the past been the primary source of naval officers.
It was against the backdrop of these uncertainties that CNET supported an NROTC study group to look into all aspects of officer education in the university environment from 1975 to 1985. The group was charged to take an "in-depth look at the existing NROTC program and develop appropriate recommendations and alternative courses of action regarding the future education of naval officers in a university environment and in a society which is experiencing accelerated change.”
In December 1973, the study group began its deliberations with an organization which included a pilot committee made up of professors of naval science members of the Association of NROTC Colleges, and the CNET staff. The working groups enjoyed supp°ft from knowledgeable reserve officers on their two-week training duty. Others involved included representatives from the Chief of Naval Personnel, the Recruiting Command, and the Marine Corps.
The final report of the study group was published early in 1975. While it is too early to assess its impact fully, an overview of its deliberations and broad recofl1' mendations suggests that good ideas were generated and that these will find their way into new and innovJ' five policy.
The four major areas of concern which emerged were: the aptitude and motivation of midshipmen- their baccalaureate and professional preparation, the organization and management of the NROTC program- and the quality and effectiveness of the NROTC unit* and their students.
The first area, that of aptitude and motivation, repte' sents the main concern of the study. It is here the group identified problems of recruiting and retention. It ab° recognized the role the professor of naval science and his staff must play as encouragers and advisers to futuf£ naval officers. The study emphasizes the importance o* finding ways to attract greater numbers to the College and the Two-Year Program, to enhance quality, and to reduce program attrition.
Furthermore, the early identification of students with technical interests and aptitudes is becoming increaS' ingly important to the Navy. As with the Naval Acad' emy, the NROTC program has been required to provide a greater number of technical majors among its scholar ship student population.
Of regular ROTC graduates on active duty commb' sioned between 1950 and I960, 76 per cent held degree5 in engineering or the sciences, with the figure reach' ing 79 per cent in the I960 commissioned group. Buf there was a shift in society in the late 1960s toward
r e humanities and social sciences, and a general acceptance of this phenomenon by the NROTC program man- a|ers in the Bureau of Naval Personnel. As a result, ° those commissioned in 1974, only 38 per cent had c8rees in engineering and the sciences.
Those involved in the program management of the °TC today are optimistic about reaching a 60 per cent goal for scholarship program graduates in tech- n'cal fields. Most agree that requiring 80 per cent of ese students to complete a course in calculus and P ysics would be window dressing rather than a retable indicator of present potential for, or future |nterest in, pursuing technical studies. They maintain, °wever, that with a high recruiting priority and Pr°per selection criteria, we can attract into the NROTC Pr°gram enough young people with an interest in, atld the capability for, technical and scientific study.
h should be noted, also, that the NROTC Associa- ^l0n> comprised of academic representatives from our host institutions, is not sympathetic with the Navy’s 0rts to place new restrictions on majors. They have n° objection to our prescribing considerable knowledge ln particular areas, but they believe restricting academic ^ajors will work against the overriding concept of the . °TC: getting people with differing backgrounds and nterests into the naval officer corps.
There is an additional factor bearing on the technical °utput capability of the NROTC. As we lost institutions Which, for the most part, have strong technical pro- 8rarns, we have added institutions which, for the most F*art> do not. Overall we wanted institutions who '''anted us, irrespective of their program strengths in e hard sciences. Political and fiscal realities do not P°int to any major changes in the number or composi- !l0n of participating institutions. Perhaps with the shift ln ernphasis, we will find our present institutions can f^oduce the required numbers and the quality of technically trained people. If not, we will most likely need 'ntroduce innovations into the existing NROTC
structure or go outside that structure entirely.
Toward this eventuality, the NROTC study examined a number of choices. For example, an economist serving with the study group as a reserve officer wrote a paper on financial incentive alternatives to NROTC. He proposed a loan/grant plan. Loan/grants would be offered primarily to those students who have made "mature career decisions” and would be in an amount to cover a four-year course of study. The student would have his loan forgiven if he completed an officer’s accession program such as OCS, accepted a commission, and fulfilled an obligated period of active naval service. On the other hand, should the person choose some employment other than the Navy, the
144 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Naval Review 1975
loan would be paid back over a period of time at the going rate for federally established loan programs.
A number of states, as well as the federal government, have made use of this type of "scholarship” over the years to meet critical manpower shortages. These programs have enjoyed moderate success. If necessary, this approach might become one way of attracting technically trained people from a broader institutional base than the NROTC schools now represent.
The study recognized concerns which surround the academic credentials, the teaching ability, and the indoctrination of officers assigned to the campus as NROTC instructors. University faculties and administrators strongly believe that officer instructors should have advanced degrees. This issue undoubtedly has affected the ability of some units to achieve a better deal on the amount of credit for military or naval science courses. Certainly, the professors of naval science should hold an advanced degree with that slot appropriately P-coded. Instructors should come with an eye toward off-duty graduate study. These officers should also be considered for subsequent reassignment in a PNS billet.
Greater attention is being given to the kinds of new knowledge to which a professor of naval science and his staff should be exposed before going to the campus. In the view of the study group there must be a well planned transition from the naval to the academic environment.
Such aspects of university life as academic freedom, collective bargaining, faculty senate functions, governance through shared authority, participative decision making, and student freedom in their own affairs are but a few examples often misunderstood by the outsider.
For some time, the Education and Training Command has been exploring means for improving the indoctrination of those being assigned to NROTC billets. These include expanded summer seminars, selected reading lists, and a series of multi-media selfstudy materials. The study group’s work has reinforced this effort.
As to baccalaureate and professional preparation, the study report ranges over subjects from the development of professional competency objectives to the expansion and monitoring of summer cruise programs. Of particular importance to CNET is the interface between the Academy and the NROTC program in the development and validation of a professional competency examination. This would require our commissioned officer candidates to demonstrate that they have, indeed, acquired the basic knowledge to be competent naval officers.
Under the categories of organization and management and quality and efficiency, equally imaginative proposals have been advanced to improve the NROTC program.
What policies emerge as a result of the many ideas generated by this study are yet to be decided. But a great deal of thinking has gone into this effort' It is the kind of thinking which will help us meet the challenges posed today as surely as the Holloway Plan served the Navy in the era after World War B
Officer Candidate School
Since its establishment at Newport, Rhode Island in 1951, the Officer Candidate School (OCS) program has always been intended to "fill the slack.” When 3 large number of new officers was needed quickly, 35 during the Korean and Southeast Asia conflicts, this program provided the necessary training in basic naval subjects. More than 72,000 young people received their commissions through this means. Recently, the officer accession rate from OCS has dropped markedly. This has been by design, because of the end of the wan
Until the NROTC was opened to them, the Women Officers School (WOS), also in Newport, was the sol* source of women officers of the line and supply corps' This school graduated about 200 to 250 officers per year. It was located with, but completely independent of, OCS. During 1973, the women’s and men’s pr°‘ grams were combined.
The number of officers commissioned from OCS in FY 1974 was 652, of which 201 were women. This contrasts with the 2,149 men and 174 women comrni®' sioned in FY 1970 and the 1,438 men and 148 women in FY 1971.
Some officers have held the opinion that the profc®' sional level of the graduates from the OCS program ha5 not been in keeping with the "immediately employable ensign” concept, nor, in their opinion, were the people sufficiently career motivated to make OCS cost effective' Captain Robert L. Scott, the architect of the combing women’s and men’s officer preparation program, an<l now chief of naval education and training support disagrees. From his experience as commanding office1 of the Naval Education and Training Center, he maintains that career motivation is directly related to the acceptance of these young people as first class citizen® in our Navy community and the kinds of assignment® that they receive after being commissioned. They ate the only ones who have prepared for a career at their own expense, looked seriously at the employment marketplace, and have made a considered decision to begin their career in the Navy.
The Navy must give these new Reserve officers 3 wider choice of initial career-enhancing billets, Captain Scott says. With this kind of support, he adds, thCf
skills
needed in the Navy.
°ward N. Kay, echoes Captain Scott’s concern. In ■non, Captain Kay states there is a reservoir of talent
WlU start seriously to consider the Navy as a potential CffiCer s*lort> he argues that these new Reserve eers are real volunteers and we should welcome 0se who come to us in this manner.
This point is particularly enlightening in view of e Navy’s continuing need for highly competent Pe°ple in the technical fields. For example, the Nuclear °wer Officer Candidate (NUPOC) program is a new Pr°ject run in conjunction with OCS. Upon applying 0r the nuclear program but before going to OCS, a accalaureate level graduate is screened for nuclear Gaining, If accepted, he is designated a nuclear power cer candidate and receives his commission upon Cornpleting the regular OCS program. He then precedes nuclear power school. Thus, OCS broadens the base 0rn which to attract people with the professional
The present commanding officer of the Naval Edu-
atl°n and Training Center in Newport, Captain *10*" ' ~
add:
, oiaiv-j IIIUV io a ivmivu
, cated above the baccalaureate degree who are com- n§ to us through this avenue. He believes this number 0Nd be increased, to the benefit of the Navy.
furthermore, Captain Kay suggests that the present .CS ptogram has "blazed the trail” of fully coeduca- , nal officer preparation. "We have learned much °ut how to achieve an atmosphere of mutual trust respect which will be valuable to the Navy as nien comprise a larger proportion of the officer 0rPs, ’ he added.
Th .
ne ocs, then, is a major source from which to draw
k P e- If it is to remain viable, however, it cannot viewed as a second-class program, producing sec- an C*ass cit'zcns- We must help it shed its image as . expansion factory or as a "90-day wonder” acquisi- ab)11 ProSram- The Navy must recognize OCS as a value means of entry by which we initially prepare a but elite, group of young officers who can then sib-ed to their next level of learning and respon-
na'a^'0n ®Jficer Candidate/Naval Flight Candidate
he Aviation Officer and Naval Flight Officer proms remain the largest direct sources of officers for ^ a aviation. Upon completion of their baccalaureate 11^‘8me, young people accepted for one or the other of q Se programs, enter the Naval Aviation Schools j 0rnrnand, at Pensacola, for sixteen weeks of preflight ruction. They then proceed through basic flight and pvanced flight or flight officer training. Commis- tb^ning as Ensign, USNR, comes at the completion of lr initial sixteen weeks.
The AOC program runs from sixteen to eighteen months of training and four and one-half years obligated service upon being designated an aviator. Naval flight officers, who may specialize as navigator, radar intercept operator, electronic countermeasures evaluator, and so on, have approximately eleven months of training. After designation as an NFO, they have a three and one-half year active duty obligation.
During 1974, 1,177 young people were commissioned through these programs. Of the 636 aviators in this group, six were women, the first in the history of naval aviation.
In addition to the major programs outlined above, more than fifty others are available to young people with specific talents and skills who wish to enter the naval officer corps. They include the Naval Enlisted Scientific Education Program (NESEP), the healing arts, the Chaplain Corps, law, meteorology, the Civil Engineer Corps, and so on.
During fiscal years 1977 through 1979, the Navy anticipates commissioning 4,750 young people per year. Of these, approximately 1,400 will come from the NROTC, 750 from AOC/NFOC, 750 from the Academy, 600 from OCS, and the remainder from the special programs.
The Continuing Education of Naval Officers
Since the 1920s, the Navy has shown increased awareness of the need for the continuing education and training of its officers. But renewed attention by the Department of Defense and Congress have brought into bold relief Navy ambivalences and inconsistencies concerning officer professional development. In a letter written in June 1974, the president of the Naval War College emphasized this point. He maintained that "There has long existed an institutional bias against education in the Navy. Naval officers have been assigned, usually grudgingly, to educational tours as they could be spared from operational billets rather than in response to a deeply held commitment that a planned, sequential pattern of education was vital to every officer’s development. . . . Somehow we must today achieve a balance between education and training.”
By the summer of 1973, the need to develop such a balance and to provide a rationale for education and training as an integral part of an officer’s career had become a major concern of top level policy makers. As a result of that concern, the Chief of Naval Operations authorized a naval officer professional development study, and on 1 February 1974, Vice Admiral Bayne, commandant of the National War College, was named director and senior member of a board to
study "all requirements for officer professional development in the Navy, except those of the healing arts community.”
The study group concluded that the Navy required a total integrated management system for continuing officer professional education and training; that the Navy’s warfare and service specialty and subspecialty training, professional military education, and professional graduate education must be more specifically derived and forecast from requirements than in the past; and that curricula must be more carefully designed and implemented than before to support present and future requirements.
Within this framework, the group determined that there are three major parts to the professional development of naval officers: training, professional military education, and professional graduate education.
Officer Training
The Bayne study group stated that training provide an officer with the skills and competence required b) his warfare specialty or service community. It prepafC> him better to carry out a current assignment or to fulfil the requirements of the next tour of duty. The benefit are tangible and to some extent measurable in tern1* of the officer’s readiness and performance.
The group found that training fits the specific nCC^ of user communities and establishes high standards i°( completion. It provides an essential element in df professional development of an officer throughout h1! career, particularly in the basic and intermediate phas^
In 1974, approximately 550 courses of instructio(1 of various lengths, including 151 courses of six duration or longer, were available to cover function training for naval officers. These courses play a sign*^ cant role in fleet readiness, the Bayne board report^’ and consequently command a high degree of fleet Jt tention and confidence.
In general, the group concluded that the Navy do^ its best job in officer training. However, the BaynC study group had a number of suggestions for impr0' ing the administration of the program. These include^ better identification of training requirements; m fleet inputs into, and better validation and priot|[' listing of, these requirements; better management aa“ training to meet these requirements; and closer att#1’ tion to costs.
Professional Military Education
In its discussion of Service college education, ^ Bayne study group stated that the mission of profc5' sional military education, provided by such institution as the Naval War College and the National War lege, is to take operationally effective naval officers a*1 prepare them for broader leadership roles. It supp^ officers of executive potential with educational exp^1 ences uniquely applicable to the military’s role 1,1 society.
The study group concluded the Navy has not shofl|1 a commitment to the importance of professional n1^1
tnove forthwith to invest in the professional
ary education of its future leaders.
Profe.
°Ur
attend an intermediate level service school
tarX education. Two pieces of evidence confirm this: n° assignments requiring this broadening professional exposure had been established; and officers selected for ls education had not always met the "most promote criteria. In fact, the Bayne report noted that the statistics on National War College graduates showed j!n 0verall Navy selection rate of only 16 per cent to a8 tank during the 20-year period, 1947 to 1967, while e Attny figure was 51 per cent for the same period hme. ^ava^ War College graduates fared less well. eir record of selection to flag rank was about six Per cent.
Since operational tours have been at least equally ective in getting promoted to flag rank, many junior Cers have begun to view a Service college education anything but career enhancing, he Bayne study recognized that heavy operating ^niitments, mainly as a result of the Southeast Asia n Korean wars, have eroded this facet of an officer’s ^feer development. But, the Board pointed out, the avy needs senior executives who are skilled in na- nal, military, and economic planning, and in policy strategy, as well as in the traditional areas of naval ^Perations. In the judgment of the Board, the Navy
tnilit;
. specifically, the Board recommended that the Navy .lna for about ten per cent of the career span of promis- g officers to be dedicated to advanced professional t1 ltary (and professional graduate) education; that is, CV t0 t^ree Years- The Board also suggested that the e* of Naval Operations assert the importance of ssional military education in the development of g most promotable officers. He should establish a of3 t^at> as a minimum, 30 per cent to 35 per cent cose officers in the rank of captain should be Service ege graduates and that 50 per cent of the "most otable” unrestricted line lieutenant commanders
should
c°Urse
o n Edition, the board recommended that equivalent ^Portunities for professional military education should p^o^^hshed through greater use of nontraditional for ^farns' This would permit those officers not selected pletresic^ent education at the Service colleges to come these programs by other means.
°hing ahead, professional military education prof be on a Par wtth> and have a place alongside, CQ]1 essi°nal graduate education. The senior Service St^ges will enhance their academic respectability by prQln8 course accreditation. Then, through cooperative can^ramS degree-granting institutions, students
achieve recognized academic credentials wholly Patible with the goals of professional military edu
cation. Already civilian institutions are responding favorably to validated Service college credit leading toward advanced degree programs in recognized academic disciplines.
An advanced degree is understood by all sectors of the society. It reflects intellectual attainment and personal motivation. It indicates expertise in a body of knowledge. A degree in an appropriate area bolsters the quality and performance of the naval officer. The Navy needs to gain national recognition for professional military education and, in partnership with civilian universities, phase it into the mainstream of recognized attainment.
Professional Graduate Education
In its review of graduate education, the study group documented the argument that the national values which have been ascribed to graduate education are applicable to the military as well as to civilians. It determined that this broadening experience is undoubtedly of benefit to the officer and to the Navy.
In contrast to attendance at the Service colleges, selection board statistics support the view that professional graduate education in an appropriate area is career and promotion enhancing. Forty-six per cent and 43 per cent of the line flag officers and captains, respectively, on active duty in 1972, had master’s degrees or better. Of the 27 line officers selected for flag rank in 1974, 17 hold advanced degrees, including nine from the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey.
The board recommended that the Navy should continue its strong support of professional graduate education for naval officers because "fully funded graduate programs in the Navy are directly responsive to minimum validated manpower requirements. These requirements are keyed to specific technical and scientific organizational needs.”
Throughout its deliberations, the board maintained that the political, technological, economic, and sociological complexities of today’s society—and most assuredly tomorrow’s as well—demand a person who can do more than carry out the function of a warfare specialist.
In this vein, the board recommended that the Chief of Naval Operations should promulgate educational policy and objectives supporting current SecNav policy and reflecting long-range Navy needs, that the Navy should adopt a clear policy which ensures that officer education remains on a par with that of executives and professionals in society at large, and that CNET should continue to stress high technical education goals and monitor progress toward these goals.
The group set forth two specific principles which should be followed in determining graduate education
148 U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Naval Review 1975
requirements. The first of these is that fully funded graduate programs should be used only for Navy requirements, and not for individual desires (although these are not mutually exclusive). A corollary to this principle is that, with certain assumptions, minimum Navy requirements can be determined by the present validation process. The other principle is that the Navy, insofar as possible, must not deprive its people of educational opportunities which they might expect to have as citizens in the society.
Keeping these principles in mind, let us examine the two major components of the professional graduate education system of the Navy, fully funded and tuition-aided voluntary graduate education.
In the fully funded component, the flagship institution is the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS, or "PG” School) in Monterey, California. This school is an accredited, graduate degree-granting institution. The Navy has justified it on the grounds that it fulfills military requirements which cannot be filled in civilian schools. Not surprisingly, a high proportion of the graduate education needs of the Navy are provided by this institution.
Because, as the board put it, "there are insufficient numbers of educationally qualified officers who can immediately enter technical courses at the graduate level,” it believed it essential, at this time, to identify officers who, because of their interest in, and aptitude toward, technical fields, can be prepared academically to pursue appropriate graduate study. The board recognized that the engineering and science preparatory curriculum at the PG School was helping to compensate for the current shortage of graduate engineering candidates and recommended that this course should continue for the present. Upon the successful completion of this program, a student enters regular graduate level study in the appropriate technical field at that school.
For the long run, the board recommended that "every effort be made to identify and assign to PG education only those officers who have the academic qualifications to undertake this advanced education.” The number of officers with these qualifications should increase with the return to greater emphasis on technical preparation at the undergraduate level.
The board found that all postgraduate curricula at the school have courses unique to Navy requirements. But the test of uniqueness must be in terms of the total curricula a student pursues. The entire program should be so designed toward Navy requirements that it cannot otherwise be acquired at civilian institutions. The board believed the Navy’s policy-makers should guard against an erosion of this concept. Programs of study at NPS should have no purpose other than to develop knowledge, skills, and understanding directly related to, and immediately employable within, ^ naval environment. To ensure the integrity of ^ position, the board recommended that "CNET eng^ an independent agency to review curricula at NP$' This recommendation is being studied by the Chief0 Naval Education and Training.
Some fully funded professional graduate educate11 to meet the minimum needs of the Navy, is also pr° vided at civilian institutions. The programs of stub cover specialized staff officer and selected line offic£l requirements.
The report recommends that a subspecialty requite. ments board be established under the sponsorship 0 CNO and DCNO (Manpower). This board would b headed by a flag officer and would be comprised senior representatives of all primary consultants ^ designator advisors. Its responsibilities would incln studying, assessing, and validating the professional ^ cational requirements of the various subspecialty c°n' munides.
The second part of the Navy’s professional gradu3:: education system consists of the tuition-aided volunW1) off-duty programs where officers pursue a gradual education while performing their regular assignment The problem has been that, in many cases, the ofacC< have not been able, in their off-duty hours, to compb11 the requirements for a graduate degree before be*n' reassigned. .
The Bayne board recommended that CNET, 'v*1' support from the Chief of Naval Personnel, study alt£( native degree completion programs at the gradual level. Officers would be encouraged to use tuiti°jj assistance or GI Bill benefits. The board recommend^ that CNET should study the full spectrum of alternate programs, from those which support validated requbf ments to those that satisfy the personal aspirations0 officers; and from those that can be completed in s1' months to those which could only be completed o'6 several years.
This is an action item on the CNET agenda.
Nontraditional Education
The Bayne study stressed the importance of usinjj new educational technology and off-campus education opportunities as a means of meeting our goals $ providing all naval personnel with the opportunity 'l upgrading continuously their own skills and kno'' edge. The board cited the Navy Campus for Achk' ment (NCFA), a CNET management system current used to coordinate an array of learning opportunity At the time of the study, NCFA emphasized undc< graduate degree and certificate completion progG11 j and was designed primarily for enlisted men women. Building upon the NCFA system, the bo^
'n the
opinion of the board, has resulted in the under-
encouraged the further development and use of nona nional programs for professional military and grad- Uatc education in full partnership with the traditionally accepted forms.
The study group pointed out that of the 15,000 ^ayal officers holding advanced degrees, more than half e earned them through off-duty programs. Yet, ess the officer makes a formal request, no automatic eedure exists to match this personal achievement u the subspecialty requirements of the Navy. This,
kjjC| (T officers with these qualifications in subspecialty
The board recommended that CNET review the vol- ^ location programs of the Services, including Se aspects which will allow for a more liberal policy stUcly during "duty time” at shore stations.
^ n this context, the Naval Education and Training Us^mand has been exploring the "core time” concept ky a number of industries. In this program, all l5P°yees are required to be at work from 1000 to jn ^ day. Otherwise, there is personal flexibility w °ne meets the time requirements of the normal until ^°r exampffi> coming at 0700 and staying fie seyeral times a week). With this kind of
achi *lt^’ U *S llkel7 tkat officer assigned ashore could det ^ most PossiWe educational benefits without de ffi°m their military responsibilities. Three
p a es of returning GIs who worked full time while umg advanced education have shown that this can
tvork.
Af L
^ ffie board’s recommendation, CNET is studying . t0 expand the development of nonresident profes- plet.a military education courses, how to equate com- *°n of nonresident professional graduate and mili- J^cation courses to resident courses or programs, hi u t0 motivate officers to prepare themselves for r . ,er level schools and responsibilities through non- theCnt study- and how to record the completion of era C V°luntary educational programs to ensure consid- °n of the appropriate officers for selection and for
ass*gnment.
or>^e ^oard recommended that CNET investigate co- lve degree programs for officers assigned to the ^ayal War College. However, many argue against per- j lr*S an officer to pursue a university graduate Ce at the same time his full efforts should be Co C<a toward professional military education. But T^UrSe w°rk at the War College has been accredited. prQcredit would be applicable to advanced degree thr^raniS *n sevend related disciplines. A person could, CQ °ugh additional pre- or post-War College study, for ° CtC 3 P^anncd program fulfilling all requirements a graduate degree. This could be through traditional or nontraditional methods. CNET is pursuing this possibility with the Naval War College, the NPS, and civilian institutions.
It should be emphasized that the board stressed throughout its conclusions and recommendations the importance of developing and implementing a more systematic management effort for naval officer professional development. In the judgment of the group, this system should focus on a series of board-recommended career professional development plans for officers with different specialties. To implement this management system for officer career development, policy makers, officer detailers, commanding officers, requirement managers, budget makers, manpower managers, educators and trainers, and, most important, the officer himself must all play a role in the planning cycle. Each must be held accountable for his part to make the system work successfully.
In cooperation with the Chief of Naval Reserve, CNET is developing a similar management subsystem for Reserve officers. This includes a career development plan.
The point of this essay is that the top policy makers in the Navy have sought creative ideas to shape the future. Throughout the entire spectrum of officer development, there exists a spirit of inquiry, a climate of openness, a willingness to change, and a determination to define and deal with the major issues. From this climate has come debate, and from debate we are developing a new consensus. The innovative professional education and training programs developed from this new consensus will fashion the naval officers of the 1980s and the 1990s. These officers will be sailor- scholars: people whose proven operational skills are equally matched by their understanding and appreciation for the world in which they will operate the fleets of their time.
°T
aSt
Ui. L. \y~)