quote:

Originally posted by onewhl750:
This change will not encourage people to go to sea. It will actually discourage it I believe. For E6 and below the average is one advancement per tour. Following that the most someone could beat me by would be 9 points, 6 sea time points and 3 award points if the get a commendation medal. I can make up 9 points on the test. Why go to sea?

The people who really get the shaft in all this are the current E7's. I will use I for the sake of making the point. I compete for and advance to E8. All of my points reset to zero. Any current E8 gets to keep all of theirs. I am now around 20 points behind as most (if not all) have 10 award points, and a fair amount of sea time. Until they make E9 or retire I am stuck at the E8 level. Well, once we all get stuck at E8, then we have people stuck at E7 etc. There is a good chance this will lock up many of the rates, especially ones that had quick advancements to the E8 and E9 level.

Knowing the answers on a test do not make someone the most qualified candidate. The minutia that is found on these tests has nothing to do with making someone a good technician, ship driver, or navigator. Removal of these points has placed additional emphasis on the test, and that will be what decides advancement. Someone who instead of working on equipment, or driving boats, or working moboards, was reading the pub and has no practical experience to back up the theory.

To your last point, the questions on the test are derived from the practical factors for each rate, its not some trivial knowledge that no one knows, everyone should know the same information. So basically the test is what should decide advancement. Becoming a good technician, ship driver, or navigator is done by OJT, and it also comes with taking the time to learn your job and a lot of information for certain rates is contained in a manual or publication is some form or fashion, thats why on the practical factors there are references to certain manuals.
Sea Points/Surf Points/Award Points and all the other hoopla should have no bearing on advancement period.

quote:

There is a good chance this will lock up many of the rates, especially ones that had quick advancements to the E8 and E9 level.

Sorry shipmate, but that is an absurd supposition! It may change WHO gets advanced, but it will in no way change how many get advanced. Further, there will still be all of the other factors in the final multiple. TIS/TIG/EVALS, etc are still part of the final multiple and all of those have components different than basic book knowledge.

I will grant you on one part of your post and that has to do with the 'transition' period. Obviously, the person that advances this December will have an advantage over the person who advances on Jan 1 in regards to how many sea/surf/award points they get on the test for their next advancement. This advantage may be a factor for five or more years. No too sure what else could have been done. Given that this is happening, how would you suggest lessening the impact of that advantage?

Experience and wisdom within the rate has always spoken for itself. Many call them dinosaurs, but you have to respect the fact that the majority of them know their job better than most. Putting more emphasis on whether or not someone has enough down time to find obscure questions is asinine. How many servicewides are actually based on knowledge that you need to do your job on a day to day basis? For most, in order to efficiently do your job, you simply need to know where to look to find the answer to something you don't know. I personnally am torn about this whole deal. I earned my sea-time regardless of when it took place. While others were at home with their families most or every weekend, I was underway missing mine. How can someone just take that away. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Another thing I don't understand since this is going to take place regardless of how much I complain is when the points go back to zero. If Joe Bloe takes the E-7 test and all the points are locked as of 01 FEB but he doesn't advance until the next spring, what happens to all of the points accrued in the interem. Are they also wiped to zero since everything gets zeroed the date of advancement, or is the Coast Guard going to "back-date" to ensure that personnel get every opportunity to excel and gain points towards their next advancement? I can tell you, being in that situation, that I will be highly upset if hypothetically the points I accrue over the next almost year don't count for anything.

Honis;
Once you advance on or after Jan 1st, the next time you compete, you will only gets points (sea/surf/award) that you got in your current paygrade. Testing for E-6, you only get to count your E-5 points, and they will be figured same way as they are now. (Sea time up until the Jan or Jul that you can first advance and all other points established in your record by Feb or Aug 1st).

That makes a little more sense, thank you

To elaborate on how trivializing past years of dedicated sea service will be counterproductive to encouraging future sea time I offer the following.

Currently, some of the incentives that young CG members have in going to sea early in their career include:

- the experience of being a well rounded/traveled CG member.

- many members with family aspirations feel going to sea early (before having spouses/children) is better than going to sea later.

- it makes you more competitive for advancement throughout your career.

This decision effectively removes that last incentive. Why go to sea early on when I can wait untill I reach that glass ceiling and still be as competitive as the suckers who did go to sea early on and have had those points stripped away for the horrid crime of advancing?

For my rate and my personal situation this actually DOES discourage future sea time. When I do feel too old for independent afloat duty and decide to advance out of it, I will not want to go back to sea to be competitve with other members who have far less sea time than I do. Instead I will simply begin the application process for the ACET program, a program which will mean very little, if any, sea time for the rest of my career when accepted. I test very well so I'm not too worried about getting in.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:

quote:

There is a good chance this will lock up many of the rates, especially ones that had quick advancements to the E8 and E9 level.

Sorry shipmate, but that is an absurd supposition! It may change WHO gets advanced, but it will in no way change how many get advanced. Further, there will still be all of the other factors in the final multiple. TIS/TIG/EVALS, etc are still part of the final multiple and all of those have components different than basic book knowledge.

I will grant you on one part of your post and that has to do with the 'transition' period. Obviously, the person that advances this December will have an advantage over the person who advances on Jan 1 in regards to how many sea/surf/award points they get on the test for their next advancement. This advantage may be a factor for five or more years. No too sure what else could have been done. Given that this is happening, how would you suggest lessening the impact of that advantage?

I guess I put it wrong MC. You are correct in that the same number of advancements will occur, but anyone on the expedited advancement plan will find themselves sitting and waiting for others to move up or out with little to no chance of beating them as they carry large points.

Off the top of my head, there really is no way to lessen the impact without removing everyone's points as was done in 96 or so. With E9 test scores hovering around 100 the odds of me beating anyone are slim. I will use my current points, hopefully make 8 and then put the CG behind me. No point in sucking up a billet when the chance for advancment is so slim.

quote:

Originally posted by mainesk:
To your last point, the questions on the test are derived from the practical factors for each rate, its not some trivial knowledge that no one knows, everyone should know the same information. So basically the test is what should decide advancement.

Really? As an FT the question "What goes in block 16 of a DD1250-1? was on the servicewide. Sure filling out a 1250-1 was a practical factor but what information is in block 16 is critical to advancement? Or this one, "When shooting the M9PDW BPMC the proper handgrip is?" Oh yea, that wasn't on the pracs.

quote:

Originally posted by onewhl750:

quote:

Originally posted by mainesk:
To your last point, the questions on the test are derived from the practical factors for each rate, its not some trivial knowledge that no one knows, everyone should know the same information. So basically the test is what should decide advancement.

Really? As an FT the question "What goes in block 16 of a DD1250-1? was on the servicewide. Sure filling out a 1250-1 was a practical factor but what information is in block 16 is critical to advancement? Or this one, "When shooting the M9PDW BPMC the proper handgrip is?" Oh yea, that wasn't on the pracs.

Since filling out the form is on the practical factors for your rate then anything theoretically involved with that form is testable.
Yeah I know there are ridiculous questions on the tests, I dont even want to venture into "M9PDW BPMC" as I have no clue what that is. The SK1 SWE that I just took had some weird questions on it, but i'd say about 97% of the questions related to the practical factors in some form or fashion.
But I dont want to get involved in an arguement about this, all I am trying to say is that by getting rid of extra points it would make it an even playing field for everyone going for the next higher paygrade and I think the SEA/SURF/AWARD Point Reset is a step in the right direction.

My 2 pennies,

If one E-6 wrote a 108 on the E7 SWE with 9 years service, 9 sea points, 4 award points, marks multiple of 40 and has been an E-6 for only 2 years going up against another E-6 who wrote 80, 15 years service, 8 award points, 9 sea points, marks of 40 and has been an E-6 for 4 years.

Most likely the E-6 with more time in who has competed for several years even with a lower score but equal in other areas would advance first. So is it a system of just wait and you'll earn it or "prove" that you're ready thru your marks and your score ? It's showing that even though some people aren't good test takers that if you just wait long enough, collect sea points etc. that will make up for not being able to write better on the SWE.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm going to lose alot of points as well after I make chief BUT I'm glad that if someone who has been in longer won't have an automatic advantage. Time, the SWE, marks and points as an E-7 will make it a competition for E-8.

By NO means does just a TEST determine the most qualified persons to advance BUT neither does who has been in longer.
Maybe the CG should SELECT the most qualified for advancement.

quote:

Originally posted by mainesk:

quote:

Originally posted by onewhl750:

quote:

Originally posted by mainesk:
To your last point, the questions on the test are derived from the practical factors for each rate, its not some trivial knowledge that no one knows, everyone should know the same information. So basically the test is what should decide advancement.

Really? As an FT the question "What goes in block 16 of a DD1250-1? was on the servicewide. Sure filling out a 1250-1 was a practical factor but what information is in block 16 is critical to advancement? Or this one, "When shooting the M9PDW BPMC the proper handgrip is?" Oh yea, that wasn't on the pracs.

Since filling out the form is on the practical factors for your rate then anything theoretically involved with that form is testable.
Yeah I know there are ridiculous questions on the tests, I dont even want to venture into "M9PDW BPMC" as I have no clue what that is. The SK1 SWE that I just took had some weird questions on it, but i'd say about 97% of the questions related to the practical factors in some form or fashion.
But I dont want to get involved in an arguement about this, all I am trying to say is that by getting rid of extra points it would make it an even playing field for everyone going for the next higher paygrade and I think the SEA/SURF/AWARD Point Reset is a step in the right direction.

OK now you have peaked my curiosity! Just why do you think there should be "an even playing field for everyone going for the next higher pay grade"?? If an "even playing field" is what is desired why not just place the names of those eligible for advancement in a hat and pick out the names of those that will advance! If however the goal is to select the "best qualified" then it takes more then just how one places on a test to determine that. A test does NOT show how well one can apply the book knowledge they have in the "real world". A test does not show or measure a persons dedication, work ethic, or ability to work in more arduous conditions, such as aboard a cutter. Things like willingness to perform extra duties, collateral assignments and performance "above and beyond the call" are also not measured by a SWE. Are you seriously arguing that those things should not be included in the selection process for advancement? When it comes to advancement the desire for an "even playing field" is contrary to the idea of advancing the "best qualified". In fact the points for sea service were originally created to "even the playing field" for those that went to sea and therefore had less time to dedicate to studying for a SWE.

Marklf

Its not always about who has been in longer. Sea time is Sea time. I earned it bouncing around in the Bearing. Being gone for 200 days a year. I wear my cuttermans pin with pride. All the while the desk jockeys get to spend time at home. Lets reward the Sand Peeps for making sure the homefront is well gaurded. I should have strived for a Boatforces pin instead. This is crap

quote:

Originally posted by MarkLF:

quote:

Originally posted by mainesk:

quote:

Originally posted by onewhl750:

quote:

Originally posted by mainesk:
To your last point, the questions on the test are derived from the practical factors for each rate, its not some trivial knowledge that no one knows, everyone should know the same information. So basically the test is what should decide advancement.

Really? As an FT the question "What goes in block 16 of a DD1250-1? was on the servicewide. Sure filling out a 1250-1 was a practical factor but what information is in block 16 is critical to advancement? Or this one, "When shooting the M9PDW BPMC the proper handgrip is?" Oh yea, that wasn't on the pracs.

Since filling out the form is on the practical factors for your rate then anything theoretically involved with that form is testable.
Yeah I know there are ridiculous questions on the tests, I dont even want to venture into "M9PDW BPMC" as I have no clue what that is. The SK1 SWE that I just took had some weird questions on it, but i'd say about 97% of the questions related to the practical factors in some form or fashion.
But I dont want to get involved in an arguement about this, all I am trying to say is that by getting rid of extra points it would make it an even playing field for everyone going for the next higher paygrade and I think the SEA/SURF/AWARD Point Reset is a step in the right direction.

OK now you have peaked my curiosity! Just why do you think there should be "an even playing field for everyone going for the next higher pay grade"?? If an "even playing field" is what is desired why not just place the names of those eligible for advancement in a hat and pick out the names of those that will advance! If however the goal is to select the "best qualified" then it takes more then just how one places on a test to determine that. A test does NOT show how well one can apply the book knowledge they have in the "real world". A test does not show or measure a persons dedication, work ethic, or ability to work in more arduous conditions, such as aboard a cutter. Things like willingness to perform extra duties, collateral assignments and performance "above and beyond the call" are also not measured by a SWE. Are you seriously arguing that those things should not be included in the selection process for advancement? When it comes to advancement the desire for an "even playing field" is contrary to the idea of advancing the "best qualified". In fact the points for sea service were originally created to "even the playing field" for those that went to sea and therefore had less time to dedicate to studying for a SWE.

Marklf

Ok, here is my arguement, if the current advancement system is so great then why are there plenty of people out there who dont have all the stuff you listed (dedication, good work ethic, going above and beyond) getting advanced???
The test, is based off of the knowledge required to perform the jobs of not only the paygrade you are going for but of those below you. Obviously if you have the knowledge you are going to be performing the jobs in the real world. So what if someones been on a boat or not, does that make them any better than someone who isn't? No it doesnt, they shouldnt have an advantage over someone who hasnt gotten to go afloat. I think if we want to find the best qualified people for the job then we should maybe start looking into some other advancement system. perhaps a board, I just think that the system isnt as good as it should be.

quote:

Originally posted by 15813265:
Its not always about who has been in longer. Sea time is Sea time. I earned it bouncing around in the Bearing. Being gone for 200 days a year. I wear my cuttermans pin with pride. All the while the desk jockeys get to spend time at home. Lets reward the Sand Peeps for making sure the homefront is well gaurded. I should have strived for a Boatforces pin instead. This is crap

I understand, I've been on 2 cutters one of which I was UW 200 + days BUT, does being stationed (something really out of your control) on a cutter really make you more deserving of being advanced ? should I now, since I am riding a desk for once instead of a cutter deserve less bacause of where the detailer sent me ?

Sea duty is rewarded with sea pay
Haz duty is rewarded with haz pay

I would suggest that depending on the rating there are some strong points to the experience one can gain at sea. A GM at sea will learn more and gain more overall experience with ALL the CG's weapons then one that is stationed ashore. I worked with GM 1's that had minimal sea time.....and they did not know the weapons anywhere near as well as I did as a 3rd class that had served on 5 white ones.

Of course things have changed a great deal over the years. Just compare the number of WHEC's today to when I was in in the 70's. 12......vs 30.

The CG is nowhere near as much of a sea going service as it used to be, but that does not mean that for some ratings sea time doesn't also add experience that cannot be gained in many of the shore billets.

quote:

I understand, I've been on 2 cutters one of which I was UW 200 + days BUT, does being stationed (something really out of your control) on a cutter really make you more deserving of being advanced ? should I now, since I am riding a desk for once instead of a cutter deserve less bacause of where the detailer sent me ?

Sea duty is rewarded with sea pay
Haz duty is rewarded with haz pay

The experience and knowledge you gained while at sea will not only help you in making chief but in being a chief.

Had you been at a land billet you would have earned a different set of experience and knowledge, also helpful in making and being chief.

According to the stated intent of this policy; getting more members out to sea. the CG seems to place greater importance on the experience and knowledge of sea time.

Will your experience and knowledge earned at sea evaporate as soon as you make chief?

Should the CG be so willing to dismiss prior knowledge and experience once you make chief?

as far as the sea pay goes...

most E-5's and all E-4's will earn more net take home pay from a unit where they receive BAS than a unit where they receive Sea pay (provided they do not have the 3 consecutive year kicker)

more pay and more time at home? where do I sign up to get refunded the 4 years of extra liberty and extra pay I've missed out on?

Guess it was silly of me and my own fault for actually wanting to go to sea in the first place.

I know that may be an extreme of sarcasm but this decision to so readily negate sea time will have a negative effect on members' attitudes towards going to sea, therefore the implementation runs contrary to the intent.

It is about time the Coast Guard started rewarding people for having the intellectual and political acumen to avoid service at sea.

quote:

Ok, here is my arguement, if the current advancement system is so great then why are there plenty of people out there who dont have all the stuff you listed (dedication, good work ethic, going above and beyond) getting advanced???

First of all I am not sure that there are plenty" of people getting advanced that don't have that "stuff"! But I will concede for the sake of discussion that some people that get advanced are lacking in those qualities, so your solution is to make it even easier for them???

quote:

The test, is based off of the knowledge required to perform the jobs of not only the paygrade you are going for but of those below you. Obviously if you have the knowledge you are going to be performing the jobs in the real world. So what if someones been on a boat or not, does that make them any better than someone who isn't? No it doesnt, they shouldnt have an advantage over someone who hasnt gotten to go afloat.

No it IS NOT obvious that just because one can take a multiple guess test that means they are "going to be performing the jobs in the real world"!!!! You can learn about driving a ship or a boat from a book BUT that will NOT make you a ship or boat driver! If the only thing needed to show that one was capable of performing the duties expected of them was to take a test then why even have a service wide? After all before one can take a service wide they all ready took and passed their end of course test! Why not just put all the names of those that passed their end of course tests into a hat and pull out the names of those that will be advanced?
The Coast Guard is a "sea going" service so to answer your question...YES a person that has served afloat is "better" then one that has not!!! They have a better understanding of the missions, hardships and lifestyle that is part of being a "Coastie"! With that knowledge(which one cannot adequately get from reading a book) they will also be able to gain a better understanding of their role and job in the Coast Guard!

Marklf

Now that Coast Guardsmen are volunteering to go to sea, the Coast Guard figures it could reduce the potency of sea points. This type of mentality is what screwed over the state of Maryland recently where lawmakers raised the taxes on the wealthy and 1/3 of those wealthy families left the state. Nice going Maryland. Nice going Coast Guard.

Compared to taking a shore job and two weeks of leave to study day and night, two sea points per year is of a much lesser value. Not that I went to sea for that reason to begin with but now that I know how little the Coast Guard and hence the country values my sea service, I will strongly think hard about it before I volunteer to go to sea again. After all, I could spend that that time going to college, lining up a nice GS position for after retirement, spending time with my family, or simply engaging in recreational activities. After all, asking your teenage son to mow the lawn is analogous to ordering out a fire team isn't it?