quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
Mark;
I think the difference is that it is intended to get people to GO to sea, not as a reward for having BEEN to sea. I know I will struggle a bit to make clear what I mean by that, so bear with me. The difference is that it makes putting another cutter on your current E-resume more attractive. It recognizes a difference between sea time right now and sea time two decades ago.

MC,

Again you are failing to show just how putting another cutter on your e-resume is in reality going to be more attractive then staying ashore so that one will have more opportunity to study. The few points that one would get by going afloat can now be easily made up by scoring a few points higher on the SWE.

You also stated that it was "wives tale" that being afloat has a negative impact on SWE scores and that it has been "disproven" well I sure would like to see some of that proof! As I recall then MCPO-CG Patton coming to our cutter to tell us of these new "sea duty points" and one of the reason he was able to get them approved was that the stats clearly showed that for most ratings those that were ashore had an advantage over those that were afloat! Some ratings such as your former rating QM it was not as big an advantage because there were not that many ashore billets and that rating was almost entirely based on afloat duty. But if you think that there is no "across the board" disadvantage to preparing for a service wide by those that are afloat my experiences differ strongly with that! When I sat for my Chiefs SWE I had several friends that were also taking the same test. I was gone for the 6 weeks immediately prior to the SWE. We returned to home port the day before the test and I had to get the Cutter underway the morning of the test to take it up to a "dog and pony show" at Yorktown. So I took the test at Yorktown. At least 2 of my buddies that took the test that same day had been home every night for those six weeks that I had been gone and they both had taken the two weeks prior to the exam off as leave in order to do nothing but prepare for the test. Tell me was I going into that test with an "even playing field"? How about the group that I took the service wide with that were stationed at Yorktown and who had structured "study group" set up during their work days (which at least in my rating included visits from the RFMC and course writer), were those of us on a cutter really on a "even playing field" with them? Would the few points that one could earn by going back to sea really offset that advantage? How could it?

Marklf

quote:

I think the difference is that it is intended to get people to GO to sea

What does resetting award points have to do with getting people to go to sea? While you are at it go ahead and reset sea pay once you advance too. Didn't that used to be the main incentive, since it isn't viewed that way any more get rid of it all together. Maybe once you advance, you should no longer be authorized to wear the associated ribbon since you didn't earn it in your current pay grade. Leave it in the past with the points. You can buy another Bravo jacket and keep it in your closet and pull it out and to look at all of your old achievements. Seems to me a lot of the individual awards worth points are earned doing rate related work. The experience of doing the work carries with you throughout your career and so should the points.

Mark;
First off thanks for keeping the conversation going in such a civil and professional manner. A lot of lurkers are getting things out of this I think.

I'll try to hunt down some sources on the average numbers between afloat and ashore.

I we were in a mentoring session and you asked me that, I would tell you DO BOTH! Study now and on the Cutter and get the sea time points. I got seven+ years sea time and was able to study for all SWEs, as were all of my folks.

Its a done deal, it's now policy, i know this discussion is for opinions, Q and A, and gripes but come on, 7 pages of it.

Barely anyone is FOR this and alot of us stand to lose alot but like any of us can change it. We all just have to deal with change.

It is however in my opinion convienent that this was from those who don't need to worry about advancements unless they create new paygrades but I don't doubt that there was plenty of research prior to this change.

quote:

It is however in my opinion convienent that this was from those who don't need to worry about advancements unless they create new paygrades but I don't doubt that there was plenty of research prior to this change.

Who would you expect to make new policy? E-4's? That's what leaders are for, isn't it?

quote:

First off thanks for keeping the conversation going in such a civil and professional manner. A lot of lurkers are getting things out of this I think.

And I thank you for putting up with my questions even though this policy will have no impact on me.

quote:

I'll try to hunt down some sources on the average numbers between afloat and ashore.

Of course i have no access to current numbers but I do have clear recollections of certain units (Yorktown leaps to mind)having a very disproportionate number of high test scores during in my rating. In fact there was a running joke that if someone was stationed at Yorktown they should have to score in the top ten percent in order for their test to count.

quote:

I we were in a mentoring session and you asked me that, I would tell you DO BOTH! Study now and on the Cutter and get the sea time points. I got seven+ years sea time and was able to study for all SWEs, as were all of my folks.

I am sorry to say but if asked under this new policy I would have to advise the member to do the minimum sea time needed and to try to stay ashore as long as they can if they are primarily concerned about advancement . I know that would not be what the "party line" is but I always tried to tell my people the truth as I saw it. While I am confident you also would only tell your people the truth as you see it in this case we are just seeing the "truth" differently. While I no longer have a "dog in this fight" (yes being retired is wonderful) I am afraid that a good many people will see the "truth" more from my perspective then from yours. Perception can too often have a greater effect then reality and this policy, it seems to me, can lend itself to some very negative perceptions. I can hear the grumbling now; "The CG cares more about a mistake one makes in there career then about heroics. After all a bad page 7 stays with you for ever but your sea time and awards go away as soon as you advance". Now I realize that may not be entirely accurate but that will be the perception some in the field will take.

Marklf

DC1;
I can surely understand how you feel and respect that. Do you think I would be making this much effort if I didn't care though? Do me a favor, find the nearest three OSs and ask them if I care. I hope and believe they will say yes.

Anyways, part of my job, and all of the RFMCs job, and actually the primary part of our job is to look out for the health of our rating. One of the most significant aspects of that is who advances. We beat this thing do death and looked at it from every light. As with everything, not everyone of us would have written this exactly how it was written, but we all agreed to support the final outcome.

Now, I just got to throw one more point in on that. YOUR RFMC and I served together afloat as E-6s about 17 years ago. You have one of the best advocates of any rating out there, especially for the afloat side.

Now, as for us not having to advance, well you are right about that. That limited a lot of potential of us twisting personal issues into it.

Thank you for the rest of your post, it was well said. I hope everyone takes what is said in here, re-evaluates and reviews how the final multiple is put together and takes all steps needed to show the CG that they are indeed the best candidate for advancement.

Master Chief,

One of the stated goals of the change was to "eventually help to level the playing field for all of our people." But, as onewhl750 pointed out on this board and AET1 Lyman discussed at the All Hands Blog there is and will continue to be a "generation gap" between pre 2010 and post 2010 advancements. Potentially this gap can never be made up.
The only equitable way to close this new "generation gap" is to reset everyone's points. Not reset the points for some and not for others. Resetting all points at once, except those achieved in the current pay grade, also eliminates the "eventually" part of MCPOCG's statement. This would instantly level the playing field.

09;
I see no counter arguement to that point. If I hear or see one, I will let you know.
MC


OK all, this has been fun! Heading out of town TAD tommorow, so I won't be back at this until Monday. Don't want anyone to think I was blowing them off or gave up! Be safe.

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:

quote:

It is however in my opinion convienent that this was from those who don't need to worry about advancements unless they create new paygrades but I don't doubt that there was plenty of research prior to this change.

Who would you expect to make new policy? E-4's? That's what leaders are for, isn't it?

Of course the MCPO-CG is our top enlisted leader, and that alot of other MC's were consulted on this issue, if your trying to be smart guns, try harder. And after hearing from MC B. I now realize that there was in fact lots of research prior to approval and that the effect on others was heavily weighed. Bottom line. IT'S POLICY

I wasn't trying to be smart but your post-

quote:

...those who don't need to worry about advancements ...

-implied that those that worked to develop this might not really care since they were no longer concerned with their own advancement.

Marks go down at sea.
Awards aren't equal for those at sea compared to those ashore.
Not all rates offer the privilege to serve at sea for all in that rate.
EVERYONE can study and advance while at sea.
Write #1 on your test and you are likely to be advanced.
Serving afloat makes better Coasties, and better Chiefs.
There could be those who "hide" at sea for many reasons- money, inability to lead, not happy at home, etc.
Awards are not intended to help advancement. Anyone upset at "loosing" their points with this new policy might want to evaluate what they think about their award.
Lloyd always uses too many big words!
CWO A

quote:

Originally posted by 4101670:
Marks go down at sea. Depends on your performance and superiors

Awards aren't equal for those at sea compared to those ashore. Again depends on performance and chain of command

Not all rates offer the privilege to serve at sea for all in that rate. Which is why there are priorities for transfer

EVERYONE can study and advance while at sea. Unless otherwise occupied by collateral duties to get said awards and marks

Write #1 on your test and you are likely to be advanced. You have a 1 in however many people take the test chance

Serving afloat makes better Coasties, and better Chiefs. Yet another reason for Sea-time to carry over throughout your career

There could be those who "hide" at sea for many reasons- money, inability to lead, not happy at home, etc. Never met someone that hides at sea because they are a bad leader, they dont tend to last very long

Awards are not intended to help advancement. Anyone upset at "losing" their points with this new policy might want to evaluate what they think about their award. If not, then why give them points at all

Lloyd always uses too many big words!
CWO A

I put a comment after each of yours because
I am not sure of your arguement sir, could you please clarify your viewpoint

quote:

There could be those who "hide" at sea for many reasons- money, inability to lead, not happy at home, etc.

Or there could still be a nut job or two like me left, those that actually enjoyed sea duty.

10 years, seven ships. Only shore duty was boot camp and A school.

Gladly.
Marks go down at sea. Depends on your performance and superiors.

Depends ONLY on your superiors and their perception of your performance, not your performance. A supervisor who has 'been there done that' in your rate is better to evaluate your performance and apply better marks. Not all rates are supervised by those who come form their own. I'd have a heck of a time figuring out why repairing a broken widget in forward sewage is worthy of a 7 when a DC type would know that only those engineers who walk on water could fix it.

Awards aren't equal for those at sea compared to those ashore. Again depends on performance and chain of command

See previous point.

Not all rates offer the privilege to serve at sea for all in that rate. Which is why there are priorities for transfer

Not all those seeking afloat billets are afforded them. Those lucky enough to get a ship deservingly so should enjoy their transfer priority (unless of course you are member married to member, then priority goes out the window).

EVERYONE can study and advance while at sea. Unless otherwise occupied by collateral duties to get said awards and marks

An hour a studying day, every day isn't unattainable. Not as fun, but doable.

Write #1 on your test and you are likely to be advanced. You have a 1 in however many people take the test chance

Its all about each person's motivation. Those who wrote # 1 decided to.

Serving afloat makes better Coasties, and better Chiefs. Yet another reason for Sea-time to carry over throughout your career

Experience at sea does carry over. The points gained are the only things lost.

There could be those who "hide" at sea for many reasons- money, inability to lead, not happy at home, etc. Never met someone that hides at sea because they are a bad leader, they dont tend to last very long

Some folks want to remain at sea and some of us wish we could go back. Can't really argue this point other than wonder if some feel safer at sea because it is in their comfort zone, to help with geographic stability, or just plain look forward to time away from the spouse :-)

Awards are not intended to help advancement. Anyone upset at "losing" their points with this new policy might want to evaluate what they think about their award. If not, then why give them points at all

Great question, probably gets to the root of our broken awards system. Awards should be for something worth awarding and the benefit should be only knowing that you were recognized for your actions.

CWO A

As the dog said after swallowing the peach pit..."this too shall pass"

Mr. A, thank you for the timely response, that is definately some food for thought. Just a question i've been meaning to ask someone, but do you think, being in a paygrade where this will effect your men under you but not you directly, that it lessens the impact at all or maybe makes it easier to agree, or disagree for that matter, with this policy?

Mark,

It would stand to reason the training centers staff would have the higher test scores. All they need to do is put in a little effort as they already have access to all the references used for the E-4 PQS.

To achieve 90 percent retention of the material you need to put it to use immediately or teach others. Here's the retention pyramid from a 1960's study.



So, if you created your own study guide, using audio and video, you would be in the very high retention range.

The laws of learning still apply.

I think this sums it up.

quote:

It would stand to reason the training centers staff would have the higher test scores. All they need to do is put in a little effort as they already have access to all the references used for the E-4 PQS.

Not for my rate, it seems the highest scorers are afloat, with the highest marks and awards going to the “instructors”. Reminds me of a quote I hard some time ago, “those that can’t, teach”.