<p>Anyone have experience, perspective on this major? What’s the ‘rap’, scuttlebutt on it on campus? </p>
<p>Are there any particular majors w/in engineering or sciences that seem to make greater “sense” for officers?</p>
<p>USNA is ranked no. 1 in the nation for the Systems Engineering degree.</p>
<p>Everything you wanted to know about Systems Engineering but were afraid to ask:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Be prepared to study your a$$ off. That’s no bull major you’re looking at.</p>
<p>There seem to be very few Systems Engineering programs. Penn, UVA, RIT, Cornell, a few others. In fact ABET doesn’t even list it as one of its accredited specialty areas. Would it be listed under other name(s) at other institutions? More graduate programs, it seems.</p>
<p>And what’s the scuttlebutt relative to EE, ME?</p>
<p>Unless things have changed, EE has always been the real killer. ME has always been known as tough because of having had to ride the Rocket in thermo. If Rocket Ried is no longer there, then things just got easier.</p>
<p>If I had a choice, I’d study Systems Engineering over EE, simply because it seems that SE is more application-based than EE.</p>
<p>As to whether SE is tougher or easier than EE, I honestly couldn’t tell you, but I rarely heard SE being called a killer like EE.</p>
<p>WP: Systems Engineering would typically be found under Industrial and Systems Engineering “ISYE” or Industrial Engineering “IE” programs at other institutions. The big difference is at USNA it is “Weapons and Systems Engineering”, hence a focus on weapons and control systems. Industrial Engineering Systems, more in line with optimization and logistics is taught in Division II - Mathematics and Sciences - under Operations Analysis. USNA is the best program for the weapons and control systems, Georgia Tech probably the best program for logistics, manufacturing systems and Operations Research.</p>
<p>Now that makes sense to me. As we’ve looked @ curricula in various programs, many tend to be highly mathematical model focused.</p>
<p>And I do understand the IE. Many purists tend to look down their ivy covered noses at the IE thing, at least for undergrads, suggesting they ought to get grounded in one of the so-called disciplines … EE, ME, etc.</p>
<p>“Many purists tend…”
Those would be the folks that referred to Industrial Engineering as “Imaginary Engineering” for undergrads or even the “easy” engineering curriculum. Little did/do they realize that it is probably one of the most mathematical based and least “cookbook” based of the engineering disciplines. It just doesn’t happen to be one of those “classical fields of study." If you look at most of the major public universities with engineering, most offer undergraduate degrees in ISYE/IE. </p>
<p>You take a degree in Weapons and Systems Engineering, with a minor or electives from Operations Analysis and you are set for many career paths.</p>
<p>Yea, you always have to wonder some when you hear that. Wikpedia discusses this some.</p>
<p>I can vouch for what Profmom is saying. I have my BS in General Engineering from Canoe U, but my MS is in Industrial Engineering from the University of Miami.</p>
<p>It’s amazing just how much you can shoehorn IE into just about anything, sometimes without even thinking about it.</p>
<p>so for all you engineering folks- what about naval archectiture? where does that fit in to the whole scheme of engineering things?</p>
<p>Naval Architecture is a difficult major. In my class, there were 10 of us who completed this major. Most of the mids who originally selected Naval Architecture eventually dropped to General Engineering.</p>
<p>General Engineers: The Few, The Proud. The STILL NOT BULL MAJORS! :D</p>
<p>You could always spot the General Engineers when they walked around with their little IC-chip pinboard computer sets for EE. We carried them as a badge of honor. :D</p>
<p>Naval Architecture is no joke. It’s serious engineering.</p>
<p>Look, folks, the bottom line is that any Group 1 major is a bear, and most Group 2 majors are only marginally easier. The biggest difference is the Thermo, Wires/Cables, Ships/Boats difference.</p>
<p>We won’t get started on Group 3 majors. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As we liked to say, Poly Sci, QPR high!</p>
<p>Seriously, you should major in something you think you’ll “enjoy.” There’s enough misery – I mean opportunities to excel – at USNA that your coursework shouldn’t be a drag. If you enjoy something, you can better deal with the fact that it’s hard. However, if you don’t really like the major – and it’s really hard – it’s just going to add to a misery factor.</p>
<p>Good counsel. Still, this whole thing IS about education, and it’s valuable to get insight from those who are there. You can help to lend some light to those academic experiences, and their merit and direction for both service as a naval officer AND a civilian …</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing about these rather than merely pooh-poohing them as ancillary to a USNA education. I confess to being somewhat intriqued by the lack of discussion about the academics, which Smallwood emphasizes … is a very critical issue once there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>GreatAmerican-</p>
<p>Can you share more about the program? Presuming your Navy days are behind you, what did you do with that in the civilian world? </p>
<p>Also- was it a highly selective major, meaning, was there a particular GPA you needed in order to follow that track at the end of plebe year? What other info can you share with candidates and plebes with a budding interest in the field? Would love to pass your insights along - Thanks!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No joke. Very, very true.</p>
<p>Navy2010, I am unaware of any GPA requirement to enroll in a particular major (aside from that new Arab Studies one). Unless they changed things, you pick your major sometime around March of your Plebe Year, and away you go.</p>
<p>Z-Man … my understanding is that the Arabic language major is one of the few? that the Acad identifies plebes as majors right out of the box. Yes?</p>
<p>peskemom would know. Her dd is among that select group, I believe?</p>
<p>navy2010,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, I think we need a little history lesson on the academy and the degree programs. Back in the old days (when ships were made of wood and men were made of iron) 
the Naval Academy didn’t have majors. The academy was essentailly a trade school that cranked out division officers for the Navy and platoon leaders for the Marine Corps. Everybody graduated with a BS (Bachelor of Science not Barbara Streisand) degree.</p>
<p>With the advent of Admiral Rickover’s nuclear power program, changes were needed in the quality of officers graduating from the academy. The “Godfather” needed a pool of qualified officers to enter the nuclear power program. Hence, the academic curriculum was revamped during the 1960’s to include 26 majors of which seven were accredited engineering degrees. The Marine Engineering major is no longer offered at the academy. The Marine Engineering major was a nuclear engineering curriculum. That’s why the academy has a subcritical reactor in Rickover Hall. Also, we had numerous foreign language majors to choose from (i.e., Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, etc.). The foreign language majors were deleted somewhere along the line but are now being reinstated for obvious reasons. (The pendulum is swinging back.)</p>
<p>Thirty years ago, each class was required to have approximately 80 percent majoring in an engineering / technical degree and approximately 20 percent majoring in the humanities (“Bull” majors). All midshipmen are required to take core engineering courses even if they are “Bull” majors. This ensures that, theoretically, all academy graduates should be qualified to enter into the nuclear power program.</p>
<p>The Navy used to say: “We need technicians not poets.”</p>
<p>Also, during my time, majors were selected during plebe summer. There were no GPA criteria associated with majors.</p>
<p>At this point I would like to mention, that the “Godfather” convinced the CNO to conduct a nuclear power draft for the Class of 1980. This was a fiasco that resulted in midshipmen being assigned to sevice selections they didn’t want.</p>
<p>I have a lot of good Admiral Rickover stories that I can share. Rickover was very powerful and was feared by many in the Navy. Even John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy, knew that he couldn’t fire Rickover. He had to get President Reagan to do the deed. Rickover’s response: “Mr. President, this young pisant doesn’t know a damn thing about the Navy.” :D</p>
<p>To be continued…</p>