gpa a factor after graduation?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:40:56 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

There was an old saying in the military, "if the minimum weren't good
enough, it wouldn't be the minimum." I'll confess, reluctantly, to
graduating from college with a 2.01 GPA (2.00 required for
graduation.) All I needed was an undergrad degree to get a commission
and got to USAF pilot training. (That was when there were a lot of
requirements and a low number of qualified candidates--the situation
is reversed today.)

I'll add, however, that once given the opportunity to compete, then
job performance becomes a big factor. When I got the chance, unlikely
as it might have seemed based on my undergrad performance, to go to
graduate school, I got serious. 4.0 for first MS, 3.95 for second.

Pilots, despite what engineer Tarver says, are inherently systems
managers, not blue collar equipment operators.

In fact, under the law, pilots are equipment operators. An operator, as
legislated by the International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers.

I'm sorry, but neither military nor commercial aviators are members of
the IBOE. The membership may choose to call pilots whatever they wish,
but the IBOE doesn't make any "law" that describes nomeclature for
pilot skills.

While I was at
Northrop, the ex-mil aviators on the payroll where definitely "white
collar".

A delusion only, as militry pilots are inherently blue collar and in the
times Ed pretends to recall were a majority physical education majors.
Definately neither educated as "white collar", or skilled as managers.

What the hell do you mean by "the times Ed pretends to recall"?

In the sixties, when I went to USAF pilot training and flew my first
combat tour, the "majority" of pilot candidates were graduates of
USAFA (fully one third of my training class came from AFA). All,
regardless of commission source were full four year college bachelor
degree, and most were engineering specialities.

In the seventies when I was directing the Air Training Command
Undergraduate Rated Assignments office, we kept stats on input,
success rates, causes of failures and output. More than 80% during
that decade were graduate engineers and nearly 30% already had
graduate degrees on UPT entry.

In the eighties when military pilot training input was drastically
reduced. By that time the engineering/physical science (that's not PE,
but phyics, chem, etc.) grads were approaching 100%. More candidates
than slots, means higher selectivity and arguably irrelevant selection
criteria.

Let me suggest that operating a $30 million dollar weapons system by
yourself, controlling not only the vehicle but the sensors,
communications, defensive systems, navigation, electronic
countermeasures, etc, all requiring total situational awareness and
split-second decision-making is indeed an exercise in management.

The engineers were more rumpled polyester double-knit, plaids
and stripes sort of Goodwill eclectic. Maybe it was because the SME
("Subject Matter Expert") category of employee got paid better than
the engineers.

I go with levis and a Pendelton, most of the time.

As to the subject matter expert, the cocktail aviation circuit is pretty
well dead today. Although Keithie did comment to me on several ocasions
where Northrop, or the governemnt, had promoted a secretary to such a
position; based mostly on her ability to tie a knot in a cherry stem with
her tongue. The project manager for B-1 flight test was of that extraction.


Your final comment is ridiculous and irrelevant. The aerospace
industry is competitive and very capital intensive. Research expenses
and development costs place it well beyond "cocktail aviation
circuits".

SMEs are the link between the industry and the customer. That's the
place where requirements are developed and operational solutions are
defined.

You want to go back, John, and describe your qualifications again?