Originally posted by cuttersk4life: if you just took a swe for first class, you should already know this info without having to find out from fredsplace.
I agree with you 100%. It's sad though to see how many people are taking the SWE for E6 and E7 that have no idea how the process actually works. I think it's because of the ridiculously fast promotions the CG has had over the past 7-8 years or so. When I look at some of the BMs at my unit making E6, it makes me cringe. I've always said that the CG would be better off putting a stellar E6 into a certain position than promoting a lousy E5 (that only got promoted because they cleared the list), and having him fill that position.
I really think it is beacuse alot of rates do not have to take a swe until they are testing for e-6 and even e-7. I don't belive its totally the members fault, but also the organization. We place members on a list and they make it because they finished there pracs first. I belive everyone should have to take a swe. This would take care of some of the problems. But if members would take the time to also research this subject so they could pass the info onto there younger guys when they have to take the test it would also help and make you a better supervisor. But some rates just don't deal with this topic until later in there enlistment.
Back in May, members at A/S TVC saw raw scores within 8 days of the test. I think the final list came out in June (5-6 weeks after the test).
If it were my Coast Guard, I'd make the SWE mandatory to advance and if you didn't score at least 50% (raw score of 75 out of 150) your test was thrown out.
"If it were my Coast Guard, I'd make the SWE mandatory to advance and if you didn't score at least 50% (raw score of 75 out of 150) your test was thrown out."
Seems a little extreme. I agree people should test to advance but raw score of 75? If you look at the statistics from May 09 there are a bunch of ranks in which the average score was in the 60's... That's the "average". I do agree there should be some type of cut-off. There are some rates that clear the list every time. So theoretically if a person sits down and writes his name on the test he will be advanced. Pointless.....
I had a BM3 come to me and ask me to sign off some of her EPME tasks. One was doing a Procurement request. She demonstrated perfectly how to do it so I signed it off. After she left the room, her BM1 flipped out on me because I signed it off. He was mad because now she could take her BM2 test and since they keep clearing the list, she would be making BM2 but nobody in her chain of command thinks she should be a BM2. Why is that my fault I asked. They do her marks. If you have someone that obviously is not ready for the next paygrade, say so on their marks. There is a little box on there that asks if they are recommended for advancement, USE it. If someone comes to me and can perform an EPME task, I'm gonna sign it off. If one of my guys isn't ready for the next paygrade, I'm gonna put an "N" in the block for not recommended. Seems that too many supervisors and Chiefs are afraid to put anything but an "R" in that block
I too agree that is a little harsh.. I personally think the commands should really look at wether or not some one should even be rec. for advancement a bit more closely! In my opinion doing the bare minimum to get back does not constitute for advancement. But on the other hand, just because someone is really good with books, does not mean that they know how to do there job! Or that they are a leader! I mean this when I say, the worst leaders I have worked for in the CG to date were fast advancing book geeks. I think we should bring frocking back into play. Born leaders should be leading the way, that's not always the case.
I agree, but its our responsibility as supervisors and LPO's to prepare our junior folks and if they are LOUSY you need to put that NR in there evals, that stops the lousy E5 from making E6.My 2 cents
In the BM3's case, this scenerio would not apply. But, one thing that supervisors have to look at, BEFORE putting a "N" in the advancement recommendation is (1) is the member going to sit for the NEXT servicewide? If so, and you (as the supervisor) do not believe that they are ready, then yes, use it. If they are not taking the exam, then when is the member going to sit for the exam, and off that exam when will they advance? If it's going to be at least 1-2 years, then why waste your time, and during the couseling, the counselor can tell them, "If you don't get your act together, then you will not be recommended for advancement." You just need to make sure you document EVERYTHING.
If it's going to be at least 1-2 years, then why waste your time
Seriously? Don't waste your time? So because a terrible BM3 won't be advanced for 1-2 years you should just put an R in the "recommended for advancement" block? This is what I'm talking about. Then that BM3 thinks they can act like a whiney little 5 year old, while doing zero work and think that it's alright because hey, they did horribly this past six months but still got recommended for advancement. And to top it all off, there is no SWE for BM2. Take the EOCT and wait a couple months and bam, super stellar BM2 that acts like a 5 year old, complete with temper tantrums. Marks don't even matter without a SWE.
A supervisor can put "not recommended" all they want, but if the marking or approving official think differently then you can have a headache on your hands. in larger commands, this could potentially be a problem since the higher officials in the marking process might not work with the subordinate day in and day out. in the end, i think it's a crap shoot if you as a supervisor are to give a subordinate average marks with a not recommended next to their name, and for your input as a supervisor to actually stick.
I've put "not recommended" twice.(if I did marks for some of the BMs, that number would be higher.) Yes it was a hassle and it meant having to explain to the department head and Xo why but it gave me piece of mind. I had supporting documentation so I wasn't that bad. They got average marks in the categories where they deserved them but much lower marks in other categories. yeah, writing the comments and meeting with the XO to explain why was a hassle but in my opinion, there are too many people getting promoted that shouldn't be. I know I'm not perfect but some of what I see is mind blowing so if I can atleast slow it down and make a dent, that's what I'm gonna do.
I like the 50% pass for swe. how often do we promote to fast? i know alot of chiefs who do use the NR but its not 100% of the people. (as shown in this thred). which means you get people that score very low and with some rates they clear or cut deep. so if you score less that 50% on your test you can pass? last i checked we dont give our kids ice cream for an F.
With the way commands are now, it is difficult for them to understand not everyone deserves a trophy. Some personnel should not be recommended right away. Maybe it would help if we went back to the previous requirement that you actually had to have a passing score on the SWE to be on the list.
I really disagree with the SWE. I mean seriously what would you really rather have? Awesome performer, great Coastie, Born Leader? Or a book worm? We all see it EVERYDAY!
Originally posted by muliefever: I really disagree with the SWE. I mean seriously what would you really rather have? Awesome performer, great Coastie, Born Leader? Or a book worm? We all see it EVERYDAY!
I agree with the spirit of your post but I think you mean "great Guardian".
Originally posted by muliefever: I really disagree with the SWE. I mean seriously what would you really rather have? Awesome performer, great Coastie, Born Leader? Or a book worm? We all see it EVERYDAY!
Seriously? That is crazy! Not everyone who scored well on a SWE is a book worm. It just means they put the time in to learn more about their rate. I'm guessing you may be one of those people who cant score as well as others. I mean no disrespect to you but the SWE is a great tool to determine who will advance and who wont. I think every rank should have a SWE in every rate.
