<p>USNA69 - not to be a stickler, but I said “baloney” not BS. I’m a bull major though, so maybe I need to “read a few books and write a couple of papers” to be sure - I know attention to detail is more the province of the engineering types… :)</p>
<p>I completely respect the passion of your argument, but all you’ve done is prove my point: – engineers “know” they’re smarter than non-engineers. </p>
<p>“As an aviator, and post maintenance functional check pilot, I know I was better prepared to discuss systems and their workings than was a humanities major.”</p>
<p>I’m not opining that anyone is smarter than anyone else in my original post; I just don’t believe that success as a military officer is absolutely tied to being an engineer.</p>
<p>Ask a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant of Marines stationed in Iraq whether he would get more mileage from superior knowledge of Fluid Dynamics or the ability to speak Arabic – those aren’t mutually exclusive, I realize – but I think the answer is obvious. You’re not likely to see a lot of engineers in Arabic class at USNA, are you? In fact, foreign languages are not even required for engineers at USNA. Kind of a shame, and just furthers the opinion that Americans are a bunch of isolationists who don’t care about anything outside of our borders.</p>
<p>As we all learned in those sticky summer days at USNA:</p>
<p>Qualifications of a Naval Officer – John Paul Jones</p>
<p>"It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor…etc. ’Nuff said? 
</p>
<p>I’m not sure how you have drawn the conclusion that I don’t support USNA or the mission, but maybe I don’t have any of that “scientific reasoning” stuff you mention in your post. ;)</p>