Abstract
The hypothesis that engineering graduates are best suited for junior officer positions aboard increasingly sophisticated surface and submarine warships is tested empirically for a subset of 1,560 U.S. Naval Academy graduates from the classes 1976-80. Following the guidelines set by Admiral Rickover, policymakers presume the best preparation for leadership positions is provided by college majors that emphasize mathematics, sciences, and (especially) engineering. The results of the study, based on advanced multivariate regression techniques, fail to support this common notion. For the subset of USNA graduates, neither academic major selection nor achievement within defined academic class groupings is found to be statistically related to performance and retention of junior officers at the completion of their initial tour of duty. The results are applicable to both the conventional surface and nuclear navies for the subset of academy graduates. The study suggests the approach be applied to the Officer Candidate School and the Reserve Officers' Training Corps commissioned officers for a more general test of the Rickover hypothesis.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
