Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   Hey man, sometimes you have to cheat on a test. In the Navy. To run a nuclear reactor   (newser.com) divider line 59
    More: Scary, navies, nuclear reactors, understatement  
•       •       •

3426 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2014 at 4:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 12:32:07 AM  
Sorry, meant 26 WEEKS for the ET portion, NOT months.
 
2014-02-06 01:07:54 AM  

WhiteCrane: I was an electronics tech/Reactor operator on subs.  Went through training starting in 1986.
[...]   Looking back on it, I frequently wish I'd followed the guy who said heck with it, told them he quit, got busted in rank and became a Photographer's Mate instead.  At that point, he actually started to enjoy his time in the Navy. I, on the other hand, was stuck spending over 80 hours a week on the submarine while it was in port.  He got to follow the brass around to take pictures.


That's about when I was a MM/Nuc.  If I had to do it all over again, I'd have been a sonar tech. Pull in, flip a switch, hit the bars.
 
2014-02-06 01:30:38 AM  
Former EM nuke on the 626 here

I miss the days of inviting over the instructors and strippers for partys
 
2014-02-06 07:47:36 AM  
Oh the humanity!

Seriously. Every nuke cheats. Somehow they manage to keep the boats going despite of this. Who cares?

/Ex nuke
//E-div
 
2014-02-06 08:43:34 AM  

WhiteCrane: I, on the other hand, was stuck spending over 80 hours a week on the submarine while it was in port. He got to follow the brass around to take pictures.


You never question which one was of more value, do you?
 
2014-02-06 11:44:13 AM  
I've worked with seamen, uh, submariners, and the way they explained the system was rigged was thus:

The higher-ups won't allow the instructors to make the exams "too easy", such that all of the students pass all the time.

Additionally, they don't get enough students in the class to assume that their next 6-month voyage would be fully crewed if a small percentage of the students fail. So not passing enough students seriously screws up the entire seaworthiness schedule, and there will be hell to pay.

So... students are kicked out if they consistently fail a sequence of tests, though. But the tests must be difficult enough so a certain percentage always fail.

Solution: the instructors are forced to artificially "rotate" through the students who fail the tests, so enough of them fail enough times to show the exam is difficult, but so that the same student doesn't fail subsequent exams so many times that they're deemed unseaworthy and fark up the entire crew schedule.
 
2014-02-06 11:53:17 AM  
 "at least 30 instructors at a South Carolina training facility are suspected of cheating on written exams"

1: Those who can't do, teach.

2: They were probably officers, who just act like they're in charge. NCO's are the actual operators.
 
2014-02-06 10:06:05 PM  
Ok, after waiting a day or so, I finally decided to comment here... I went through Prototype training at New York (MARF) back in the early 90's, and even was an instructor at the Charleston Prototype (on the MTS-635, from 97-2001), so I'd like to say I have some intelligent thoughts on this...

What someone else made a comment on is also relevant to the civilian reactor side, that if the test writers decided to try and "one up" each other as to whom could write a harder set of questions to the exam, I can understand the allegations of cheating... If they stopped making the tests about if the testee knows the system and how to run them and into more of a trivial style of test question (Like my first CO, who had questions about how they came up with certain alarm setpoints, when he was there when they came up with how they did it), then I can see why they did it...

Consider this: While I was there, we had a higher up, Admiral type, who told us that ships were out there, at that moment, who would not be able to get underway because they didn't have enough people to run their reactors, so we HAD to pass them all to make sure that those ships could go out to sea, and that the USA could continue to be defended... So that, for example, the tests that I had taken when I was a young student, the grades that I got then for a barely passing score (a 2.5, by their scoring system) was now a 2.8,or an 75% would now be an 85% easily... Also known as making the tests a bit easier, but not changing the tests that we, as "staff" took would change, other than getting harder... My Power School average was just under a 3.6, so that it would have been a 3.8 easily....

Now, flash forward a few years, after typical navy policy had taken hold, and I can easily see something like this...

I am not condoning this behavior by any means, since my integrity was, and still is, absolute... If I deliver evidence on something, it is as absolute as anything, but the program that I was part of has seemingly lost it's way... This WILL be ugly for all involved, and it will have repercussions throughout the fleet... I don't look forward to the outcome other than being completely glad that I am out of the navy and no longer held by it's policies and mannerisms...
 
2014-02-06 11:14:18 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

www.metalsucks.net

www.followingyourfears.com
 
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report