MrCoffee said:
- I'm highy educated which does count for a lot
that's what I have to bring to the table
and when I say I'm not hands on I don't mean I'm afraid to work hard or get involved it means there's people that probably have more aptitude for working with their hands than I do and my talents lie in using my brain to solve problems
Thank you for taking my question seriously.
As has been said, NCMs aren't ignorant, and you seem to be putting a great deal of stock into these multiple degrees of yours.
You consider yourself more of an intellectual than a hands-on person, but I don't think you're really grasping the roles and responsibilities that we're talking about.
You seem hung up on your education more than it merits. My cousin was an EME officer. She studied computer engineering and became responsible for a shop full of vehicle and weapons technicians. She wasn't grappling with great technological paradigms, and she relied on senior NCMs for far more than grunt work. I've known an off-the-street Sig O who was hired with an art history degree. He was taught what he needed to know about the trade on his courses.
You will be a cog in the machine, fulfilling a function. A book I was reading as a tangent from a university course (that the army offered me as a corporal) described the German professional military system as "organized mediocrity", whereby the system could rely on tasks being completed to standard. The individual genius might not be able to flourish as he might where he can just improvise, but staff could effectively plan. Cogs of known minimum capabilities able to accomplish tasks to standard, as components completing higher level tasks are stronger at accomplishing larger goals. That's the sort of place where modern military professionals fit in. You are trained, indoctrinated in how things are done within your role, and you try to excel within the model. You don't forsake innovation within your lanes, but you don't for example redevelop communications security amongst the troops you're leading.
I remember a SigO trying to explain a fault using digital logic in post ex once. He failed to understand how his explanations were ineffective in their intent. I could see where he was going with it, but there was a more effective (and not dumbed down) means of going about it, which was carried out by a sergeant.
Your education isn't worthless, but it isn't important in the way that you think that it is. Likewise, the image that you seem to give of the officer's role is a bit off.
My suggestion would be to identify a means of meeting with officers (preferably trades that you want) and discussing the nature and specifics of their experiences. Ask a handful of questions, but mostly listen and learn.
