Do Engineers Make Better Naval Officers?

Abstract

The hypothesis that engineering graduates are best suited for junior officer positions aboard increasingly sophisticated surface and submarine warships is tested empirically for a subset of 1,560 U.S. Naval Academy graduates from the classes 1976-80. Following the guidelines set by Admiral Rickover, policymakers presume the best preparation for leadership positions is provided by college majors that emphasize mathematics, sciences, and (especially) engineering. The results of the study, based on advanced multivariate regression techniques, fail to support this common notion. For the subset of USNA graduates, neither academic major selection nor achievement within defined academic class groupings is found to be statistically related to performance and retention of junior officers at the completion of their initial tour of duty. The results are applicable to both the conventional surface and nuclear navies for the subset of academy graduates. The study suggests the approach be applied to the Officer Candidate School and the Reserve Officers' Training Corps commissioned officers for a more general test of the Rickover hypothesis.