Going to College(Engineering) vs Enlisting Navy Nuke

[sllon1]

I am interested in entering the nuclear/power industry, and I just wanted to ask a question for those working in the industry right now. If you had to do it all over again, what path would you take? Would you enlist into the Navy Nuke program straight out of high school to get the experience to leverage yourself into the industry, or would you just go straight to college to major in mechanical/electrical engineering and then enter the industry (or possible obtain a commission to be a Navy Nuke Officer)? I have been reading/searching in the forums lately, but I just want to see some opinions of what people would do differently if they were fresh out of high school again. It seems that some people liked/hated the Navy so I want to know what would be the ideal path to take.

[UncaBuffalo]

I am interested in entering the nuclear/power industry, and I just wanted to ask a question for those working in the industry right now. If you had to do it all over again, what path would you take? Would you enlist into the Navy Nuke program straight out of high school to get the experience to leverage yourself into the industry, or would you just go straight to college to major in mechanical/electrical engineering and then enter the industry (or possible obtain a commission to be a Navy Nuke Officer)? I have been reading/searching in the forums lately, but I just want to see some opinions of what people would do differently if they were fresh out of high school again. It seems that some people liked/hated the Navy so I want to know what would be the ideal path to take.

Go to school.


JMO

Full disclosure:  Was not in navy, but worked in shipyard and wasn't impressed with the way the navy treated it's personnel.
Also, six years is a REALLY long time!

[MMM]

I am in the navy, have been for 19 years. Here's my advice: Go to school, get the degree. If you still want to join the navy for experience you'll have more doors open (i.e. officer program) right away. This is assuming you have the drive to do well. Personally, I was somewhat lazy and undisciplined throughout high school, so would not have done well if I had tried college right away (I also couldn't afford it or get scholarships).

[hamsamich]

MMM and Unca are both right.  You may get treated like crap, but if you aren't ready 4 school, it will be a waste of time, so the navy may be the way to go.  It all depends on you.  I might still be lazing on the couch waiting for "it", if it weren't for the Navy.

[Content1]

I am interested in entering the nuclear/power industry, and I just wanted to ask a question for those working in the industry right now. If you had to do it all over again, what path would you take? Would you enlist into the Navy Nuke program straight out of high school to get the experience to leverage yourself into the industry, or would you just go straight to college to major in mechanical/electrical engineering and then enter the industry (or possible obtain a commission to be a Navy Nuke Officer)? I have been reading/searching in the forums lately, but I just want to see some opinions of what people would do differently if they were fresh out of high school again. It seems that some people liked/hated the Navy so I want to know what would be the ideal path to take.

Sign above Boot Camp:"Abandon all hope all ye who enter herein."

      Call the recruiter, tell them you are going to college.  Go there.  I made my life do by choosing the Navy; however, I still regret to this day to not going to college first.  It is only now, at age 57, after being a real estate salesman, paralegal, teacher (special education), etc., I am finally now doing what I want to at near the end of my life.  Unless you have a patriotic vein that can only be expressed by going into the Navy, be an engineer.

[Gamecock]

  Unless you have a patriotic vein that can only be expressed by going into the Navy, be an engineer.

Or, if you are undisciplined and need to gain some life skills in order to succeed later (that in turn will allow you to pay for school later....), you should consider the navy.

I am glad I did not go to college right out of high school.

[spekkio]

OP, your question is difficult to answer without amplifying information. In the end, it's a personal decision so here are some things you should think about:

Career goals:

Enlisting in the Navy, for most ratings even non-nukes, are technician jobs. As a nuke you are committing to being a technician on a nuclear propulsion plant for 4-6 years, depending if you STAR reenlinst. MM/EM/ET will just vary the equipment you maintain and amount of maintenance that you have to do. It has little to no engineering that you are probably thinking about. Additionally, the majority of your time will be spent standing watch (where you take logs, either roving or sitting at a panel) and cleaning.

If you enlist, you are on the Seaman to Master-Chief program. Yea, there are some good perks you can use when you get out, the most notable being the 9/11 GI bill, but the Navy is going to groom you to become a CPO until the day you separate. Basically, when you leave the Navy you are going to have to undergo a career transition. What you do in and after the Navy will depend on how extensive that transition is, but it will be there regardless.

Joining the Navy is the "long way around" to your ultimate goal of working at a civilian nuclear power plant and your experience as a nuclear technician on one, while valuable, may not give you the experience that you are looking for. You are looking at a minimum 10 years until you can enter the workforce for what you actually want to be doing.

Educational Benefits:

What is your plan to pay for college? If your plan includes the GI bill, bear in mind that enlisting in the military in any job brings the same educational benefits. If nuclear power really is your passion, then be a nuke. But if you are joining the military to pay for school or get some "real world' experience, you can get that in almost any job and I encourage you to find one that you would enjoy. Then, when everyone else is getting stoned or drinking themselves silly in college, take half of that time and go do some internships/make connections in your new chosen career, which you'll have to do even if you're a nuke.

On top of that, a buddy of mine is applying to schools and it is blatantly obvious that graduate universities don't know or care what the nuclear power program entails, and I would bet that undergraduate universities behave the same way. They will generally view you in the same light as any other military servicemember.

Family life:

The Navy is going to take away a lot of your time, particularly if you are a nuke. What are your goals for family life? If you get married and have a child while in the Navy, it will be very difficult for you to finance attending college even with the GI bill. Avoiding both until after college puts you at a minimum of 28 years old. Does that jive with you?

Discipline:

How motivated/mature are you? Do you see yourself as someone who can get distracted if you have a few roommates who drink every night and only go to class to take tests, or can you stay focused and make your education wortwhile? The Navy will provide you with a lot of structure. If you're someone who needs it, that's a good thing. If not, you'll feel like you're being treated like a 12-year-old and it will get old, fast.

[sllon1]

I appreciate the quick feedback, and the general consensus not only from you guys, but from others that I have asked as well said just go to college first, if I think I can do well. Here is the little bind that I am in though.

I do have the drive to do well in an engineering program as I have always had an aptitude/interest in math and science (as well as mechanical/electrical aptitude, I'm a big car guy). I always got As in high school math/science classes, as well as some of the classes I took at a junior college (got an A in calculus). But, with that being said, financial issues are my biggest concern as of now, and here is why.

If I go to college right away, not only will I not be making money, I will be paying a lot of money to go to school. I do understand the payoffs are a lot bigger down the road, but it is something that has been bothering me. Why not enlist as a navy-nuke, and get paid to learn a trade in the nuke industry (from what I have read, much easier said than done)? Then I have the option to go to school via GI Bill and/or enter the nuke industry right away. I guess my confusion is, how valuable/transferable is the experienced gained as a navy nuke as opposed to just finishing school first then getting experience? It seems that you can make a lot of money in operations, but being a navy-nuke may allow me to only do that afterwards, as opposed to getting an engineering degree and having more versatility as far as job choices. I've also read about how hard being a navy-nuke is on family life and your own life in general. It would suck to suffer for 6 years doing something I may hate doing (although I am interested in math and science), and end up going into a completely different field. Are the job prospects and money in the nuke industry worth it in being a navy nuke?

Also, from my understanding, having an engineering degree is a little bit overkill to work in operations. Am I right? For those with engineering degrees, which department(engineering, operations, maintenance etc) do you work in and why?

Given this, what do you guys think? I have also been thinking about joining the guard or reserves of any of the armed forces branch to help finance my education as well so does anyone here have any experience with that?

[spekkio]

So let me get this straight...

You are someone who:

-Gets good grades in all high schol courses, and since you do well in math/science you want to pursue a technical career field.
-Worried about the financial burden of college, but can find an alternate plan without the GI bill.

Therefore, you will probably be able to attend a decent/good university, and if you stay focused will probably find gainful employment in whatever field you may choose.

So...

1) In terms of enhancing your value to potential employers looking to hire someone with an engineering undergrad degree, the Navy is not going to be "valuable" to you at all, since you are someone who can be competitive in the job market without it. As stated above, all Naval service will do is delay your entry into your actual desired career by 6 years, nuke or not, and good luck going back to college calculus after 6 years of barely doing math.

A few years of doing things like taking hourly log readings on meters, hooking multi-meters up to 1980s electronic equipment (ET), diving into the SSMG to clean carbon dust off the commutators for 6-8 hours every other week and fixing the laundry drier because people can't empty their damn pockets (EM), or clean/inspecting a radiological filter (MM), all of which are very closely monitored by officers and outside entities, do not substitute for a college engineering degree.

The Navy might have advertised that it will "accelerate your life" not too long ago, but it is not a vocational civilian job training program. If you go in with the expectation that 4-6 years of Navy service will net you an instant 6-figure job coming out without having to go to college, prepare to be very disappointed. It takes, on average, 5 years for a prior servicemember to earn a salary that equals their military pay and benefits when they left.

2) In terms of serving your country, providing some "real life" experience, and getting you some semblance of financial independence, the Navy is extremely valuable. All rates. But you don't mention any of these in your posts as motivation for enlisting.

3) In terms of building a disciplined work ethic, responsibility, and working with some of the brightest the Navy has to offer, nuke is very valuable, but so are some other rates. You will get discipline regardless of rate but the "bright" part not necessarily.

4) In terms of helping you pay for school, the Navy is somewhat valuable to you as you have an alternate plan. If you are worried about the quality of life as a nuke, you can do a myriad of technician jobs that don't require as many hours as nuke. Have you also looked into USNA, NROTC scholarships, or the NUPOC program? From a purely financial perspective they are better than enlisting.

Your posts make it sound like #1 is the most important factor to you, followed closely by number 4, with almost no mention of #2 or 3.

From your previous posts, it sounds like you don't actually know what people really do in any of these fields, it's just something you're going after because you're good at. I really think the next step is you need to do some research on jobs available to one with an engineering undergraduate degree, in addition to everything that's available to you in the military. It sounds like your decision is tough because you don't really know what you want to do or what any of these jobs actually entail, you're just defaulting to your comfort zone.

[GLW]

.....It takes, on average, 5 years for a prior servicemember to earn a salary that equals their military pay and benefits when they left...

Things have mightily changed,...

I trumped my E6 over 8, sub pay, nuke pro pay, sea pay, BAQ, etc., in the first six months after EAOS,...

circa 1988,...

[spekkio]

Yea, well, in 1988 you could grad high school, go to full-time work and make enough to support a family in about 5-10 years. Not so anymore barring some kind of exceptional circumstance. Also, military pay and benefits have risen considerably in the last 20-30 years while civilian pay has decreased on average when adjusted for inflation.

If you compare the pay and benefits for someone with a comparable level of education, military compensation is higher.

[Content1]

Yea, well, in 1988 you could grad high school, go to full-time work and make enough to support a family in about 5-10 years. Not so anymore barring some kind of exceptional circumstance. Also, military pay and benefits have risen considerably in the last 20-30 years while civilian pay has decreased on average when adjusted for inflation.

If you compare the pay and benefits for someone with a comparable level of education, military compensation is higher.

You will make more then you would post-high school in the Navy.  But at what cost!  You don't know the freedom you lose in the Navy.  If you are married it gets worse.  You sacrifice the best years of your life for a guaranteed paycheck.  You can't get them back later.  I spent the rest of my life playing "Catch up" trying to make up for lost time.  I ended up having to work full time and go to school full time, even with the GI bill.  Life becomes a blur and you never have time to be thorough at anything.  It was not until 8 years ago I was able to start doing what I wish I was doing at 20.  I find I was continually in the pursuit of jobs and money verses what I really wanted to do.  I am even stuck as an RP; I carefully now use my off time to better myself and I am close to producing a second income stream.  If I had gone to college an finished I would have spent years doing something I enjoyed.  The Navy is not a shortcut to anything, just a diversion unless you love the place.

[hamsamich]

I have looked into the lives of some of the guys I graduated with in HS.  Alot of them tried college.  A few succeeded, but most aren't doing too good it seems.  Don't discount the military, not for everyone, but watch out for people who try to give you advice based on their experiences and opinions solely.  There are two sides to this no matter what some people say (pros and cons).  I am very happy with my life today and it was my Navy education and experience that got me here.  I didn't like most of my Navy time though.  I went to college at a later date and got way way more out of it than I would have when I was 19.  Anytime someone has fully polarized themselves they usually have a hard time realizing the true pros and cons of any situation.  Our own U.S. Congress is a great example of this.  There are quite a few posters on this forum that do that as well.

[cheme09]

If you compare the pay and benefits for someone with a comparable level of education, military compensation is higher.

Might be true on an per annum rate.  How about if you take into account actual hours worked?

[cheme09]

1) In terms of enhancing your value to potential employers looking to hire someone with an engineering undergrad degree, the Navy is not going to be "valuable" to you at all, since you are someone who can be competitive in the job market without it. As stated above, all Naval service will do is delay your entry into your actual desired career by 6 years, nuke or not, and good luck going back to college calculus after 6 years of barely doing math.

Not so fast.  First of all, just because you get good grades in HS does not mean you will get good grades in college.  I got good grades in high school and my first 1 year of college was one big party.  It was so good that I "decided" to repeat that year...you get my drift.

Second, I do agree that it seems as though the OP would be able to find gainful employment in whatever they choose, however saying that being in the Navy will add no value to the OP's resume coming straight out of college is incorrect.  If an individual can demonstrate that has has spent 6 years in the Navy (or any job), displayed good work ethic, leadership skills, motivation, self-improvment, etc. and then separates from the Navy (quit any job) to go to college and successfully completes an undergraduate engineering curriculum, then I don't see how that individual has wasted any time.  Nor do I see how that individual has added zero value in terms of being competitive for a career after college. 

A few years of doing things like taking hourly log readings on meters, hooking multi-meters up to 1980s electronic ... do not substitute for a college engineering degree.

True.  It does not substitute, but it most certainly does supplement a college degree.  Because of the market, employers can be picky with applicants.  A college student with good grades and zero work experience could be passed over for a job in favor of a student with good grades and some real world work experience and/or leadership experience.  I understand that if the OP decides to enlist then go to college, he would be looking at a job market upon graduation which could be vastly different than the current job market, but the same lesson still applies.

Also, from my understanding, having an engineering degree is a little bit overkill to work in operations. Am I right?

I wouldn't say overkill.  The ACAD says you really only need a high school degree, but the standard practice now is that they are hiring people with Navy ops experience, people with college degrees, or people who have had plant experience in other depts.

For those with engineering degrees, which department(engineering, operations, maintenance etc) do you work in and why?

I work in engineering because I wanted to put my engineering degree to use, which is ironic because I don't really use either of my degrees.  But unless you're in design engineering or reactor engineering you won't be using much of what you did in school anyway.  At nuclear power plants, engineers generally are utilized for their analytical thinking more so than for how well they can solve the Navier-Stokes equation.  Granted, we are expected to know how to solve equations and stuff - thats what the engineering degree tells the company - but it's all about making sure that any evaluations we do are technically rigorous and we're adhering to our licensing commitments.

I eventually want earn a spot in a license class and after my time in ops, it's really up in the air as to which dept I end up in, I suppose.

Personally, if I were in the OP's position, I would enlist.  I was definitely not mature enough or disciplined enough for college right after high school.  I had a lot of fun and made some life long friends during my early college years, but that time certainly did not help my career progression at all.

[spekkio]

Might be true on an per annum rate.  How about if you take into account actual hours worked?

You make on average triple of what a high school graduate median income is as a nuke E5/E6. You don't work 120 hours a week (cue someone trying to convince me that time spent sleeping/burning flicks on the boat is 'work'); depending on the boat's schedule and what's broken, it's typically somewhere between 60-80 hours of actual work on an SSN, including watchstanding, and on a SSBN or CVN I'd imagine it's better hours than that. Let's also count that you got paid as an E-4 to attend a year and a half of training in order to do this job that makes 3x the median civilian salary of a high school graduate.

I am not saying it's undeserved compensation, I'm saying it's much higher than someone with only a high school education and no job experience whatsoever would earn.

Not so fast.  First of all, just because you get good grades in HS does not mean you will get good grades in college.  I got good grades in high school and my first 1 year of college was one big party.  It was so good that I "decided" to repeat that year...you get my drift.

Are you trying to disagree just to disagree? I mentioned the discipline/self-control aspect in both of my previous posts as reasons in favor of joining the military.

Additionally, the biggest indicator of future college performance is grades in high school. It is not a perfect correlation, but it is a strong one. Suffice to say, people like you are the minority and blanket pushing someone to enlist because of your discipline problems is not good. I did not tell OP to go one way or the other, I merely provided points to consider as good and bad reasons to join the Navy. I also tried to keep it neutral and keep out some of the more cynical facts, like port/stbd inport SRO in a 3-section duty rotation or 4am Friday morning field days so the boat looks spiffy for an Admiral. The decision is up to him and is a personal one.

If an individual can demonstrate that has has spent 6 years in the Navy (or any job),[/u] displayed good work ethic, leadership skills, motivation, self-improvment, etc. and then separates from the Navy (quit any job) to go to college and successfully completes an undergraduate engineering curriculum, then I don't see how that individual has wasted any time.  Nor do I see how that individual has added zero value in terms of being competitive for a career after college.  

Emphasis added and the basis of why I said the Navy is of little value to him in terms of future employment. He can get that experience from anywhere. Let me be clear: for a person like OP to join the Navy for the PRIMARY PURPOSE of gaining job experience to BOOST A CAREER IN ENGINEERING, his enlistment has little value.

Additionally, even if the Navy could offer him a job reference that could not possibly be obtained elsewhere while attending college, why go nuke? Why not be an STG, try to get on a DDG, work on more advanced components than the nuke plant, complain when the ship goes 6-section duty, and enjoy more port calls?

I recognize that you work in an industry which has historically taken a lot of its employees from former Navy enlisted nukes, so naturally to you nuke = post-Navy gainful employment. But venturing outside of nuclear power, there are many employers who don't know or care to know what a nuke does. A former Sailor is a former Sailor. And I'm not quite sold on OP's heart being in nuclear power.

Because of the market, employers can be picky with applicants.  A college student with good grades and zero work experience could be passed over for a job in favor of a student with good grades and some real world work experience and/or leadership experience.  I understand that if the OP decides to enlist then go to college, he would be looking at a job market upon graduation which could be vastly different than the current job market, but the same lesson still applies.

 I'm not advocating that OP spend is off-time in college getting high/drunk. He can certainly find something more useful to fill his time with. It's just that he doesn't need to put college off for 4-6 years to commit to the Navy in order to receive the boost.

[GLW]

Yea, well, in 1988 you could grad high school, go to full-time work and make enough to support a family in about 5-10 years......

Not true,...

No more then as now,...

In 1988 nuke plants and oil rigs you could work hard and be there in 5 to 10 years,...

Grocery stores and retail work,...not so much,...

In 2013 nuke plants and oil rigs you can work hard and be there in 5 to 10 years,...

Grocery stores and retail work,...not so much,...

Plenty of roustabouts and roughnecks making large coin in Dakota these days,...

McDonald's "Fries with that sir?",...not so much,...never was,...

[spekkio]

Plenty of roustabouts and roughnecks making large coin in Dakota these days,...

Your example is an exception that proves the rule. I agree that one can make larger sums of cash if he is willing to make concessions like living in the middle of nowhere vice a more desirable location where employers have a much wider choice of applicants.

[cheme09]

Additionally, the biggest indicator of future college performance is grades in high  Let me be clear: for a person like OP to join the Navy for the PRIMARY PURPOSE of gaining job experience to BOOST A CAREER IN ENGINEERING, his enlistment has little value.

I totally agree.  But your previous statement didn't say "for the primary purpose of..."  You said, "In terms of enhancing your value to potential employers looking to hire someone with an engineering undergrad degree, the Navy is not going to be 'valuable' to you at all."  That is an incorrect statement; technical experience does add value to an undergraduate engineering degree.

Additionally, even if the Navy could offer him a job reference that could not possibly be obtained elsewhere while attending college, why go nuke? Why not be an STG, try to get on a DDG, work on more advanced components than the nuke plant, complain when the ship goes 6-section duty, and enjoy more port calls?

I agree with you about ratings as well.  Technical experience can be acquired in non-nuclear ratings and on other platforms and 3-section duty on a sub doesn't sound ideal, nor does being stuck 8 levels below deck on a carrier in the engineering or reactor spaces, being first on/last off, or restricted to certain ports.  But hey, some people just want to go nuclear.  Like you said all we can do is point out some areas to think about.

[sllon1]

From a self-discipline/motivational point of view I really don't have much of an issue, but I can imagine I would definitely gain something after being through a rigorous 6 year enlistment. I know I failed to mention this, but I have been looking for some more life experience to have a different/better prospective on things as well as camaraderie, since life has been I guess "boring". I guess one question I would have to ask is: how valuable is it to learn the nuke trade? I've heard the technology you learn is old, but the payoffs when you get out are huge (but not necessarily in engineering right?). I know I may be told to "search" but what exactly is in store for the future in nuclear power? Also, would I be better of joining the reserves vs active duty, and just go to college while drilling?

[Gamecock]

At nuclear power plants, engineers generally are utilized for their analytical thinking more so than for how well they can solve the Navier-Stokes equation. 

Good points, but there are no stable solutions to Navier-Stokes   

[cedugger]

I guess one question I would have to ask is: how valuable is it to learn the nuke trade? I've heard the technology you learn is old, but the payoffs when you get out are huge (but not necessarily in engineering right?).

I'll be nice and say that the technology you'll learn is "time tested"...with a LOT of time! Some of the equipment and technology you'll deal with is aged, but the fundamentals are solid and forever (my opinion). I spent 11 years in, been out for 9 years now, and the fundamentals I learned are still with me, just being applied in a different way. It wasn't that I was bored with nuclear power, just that I accidentally stumbled on a different application of radiation safety and got hooked. I work around radiation safety personnel from different backgrounds (Army, Air Force & civilian medical), and I really feel as though I have the most solid foundation.

You have a wealth of good advice here on your thread. Unfortunately, it's not all in agreement, which leaves you with some decisions to make. The difference between engineer and technician has been spelled out and the path you choose will put you on one side or another. That doesn't mean that you're stuck on that path forever. My opinion...you can spend 6 years in the Navy as an enlisted Nuke, and decide whether to pursue the engineering degree either while in or shortly after separating. I cannot, however, see those 6 years as holding you back from anything in any way. What you learn as an operator may not directly apply to what you decide to do in your post-Navy life, but it doesn't mean that you won't benefit from the many lessons learned. I haven't directly applied my skills as a nuclear operator in years, but those fundamentals, problem solving skills and questioning attitude are with me every day.

Best of success to you!

[spekkio]

I totally agree.  But your previous statement didn't say "for the primary purpose of..."  You said, "In terms of enhancing your value to potential employers looking to hire someone with an engineering undergrad degree, the Navy is not going to be 'valuable' to you at all."  That is an incorrect statement; technical experience does add value to an undergraduate engineering degree.

I think you didn't understand what I meant and I didn't state it clearly enough. But we understand each other now. My speaking of usefulness was in terms of whether or not you could obtain that experience elsewhere without delaying college.

I guess one question I would have to ask is: how valuable is it to learn the nuke trade?

You've asked this question like 3 times and it's been answered even more. I'll assume for now it's because you're not getting the answer you are looking for rather than just ignoring people.

Unfortunately, there is no quantitative number you're going to get out of this, and it all depends on your life priorities and goals (which come across as ambiguous, and rightfully so at your age). Also, consider your audience: You are asking a bunch of people who committed their careers to working in nuclear power if experience as a Navy nuke is valuable. The prior nukes will tell you yes because they view the experience as one of many that lead them to their success. The guys who never did Naval service will tell you not to bother because they got to their positions without it. Additionally, there seems to be varied consensus on this board regarding the quality of a former nuke; some will say it wasn't what it used to be, some think they do okay, some think they generally suck.

Ask the same question to a board of people who decided to go into a different career path post Navy nuke, and you will probably hear a general consensus that their experience helped them grow personally and helped them pay for college, but did not significantly increase their professional earning potential.

I'm telling you that there are many ways to skin a cat and if you make good use of your time in college, you don't need to be an enlisted nuke to succeed in whatever it is you do. It won't make you a special superman where employers grovel to hire you. It's "career neutral" in lieu of other possible experience. As stated before, though, there are other benefits and drawbacks to enlisting that you need to consider. What really matters in your decision is how those other factors weigh. One thing that is blatantly missing from any of your posts is any sense of patriotic duty or service; you seem entirely interested in the Navy for your civilian employment benefit and without some motivation to serve your country you will have no job satisfaction to extract from the long hours and time at sea.

I have been looking for some more life experience to have a different/better prospective on things as well as camaraderie, since life has been I guess "boring".

If you are looking for excitement don't enlist as a nuke and I dare say don't enlist in the Navy. We aren't involved in full-scale engagements and outside of a select few rates your day-to-day job underway will be to rove around and take logs on gauges or sit at one of various panels/workstations. As a nuke you will only know what is going on tactically when the JO standing EOOW fills you in (the days of nukes going to control on a sub to maintain the time/freq and fusion plots are gone with modern combat systems). The most exciting thing you will do as a nuke is react to something that breaks, which will subsequently result in you getting very little sleep as you figure out how to fix it. Even if you go a tactical rate, you will be too junior during most if not all of your initial commitment to be on a battlestations/GQ watch that one would consider exciting, IF you are even on a unit that happens to lob TLAMs at someone. Finally, as a nuke you will have less liberty in foreign ports than your peers, and if you are on an SSBN you will not leave the US, so the 'adventure' outside of your duties is diminished.

As you are probably 16-18 years old and haven't really investigated what you want to do, you need to do your research OR take a path that leaves you with as many options as possible. You are probably bored because high school is easy for you and school is all you know. There is life beyond that, even in the civilian world. If you really are into nuclear power/nuclear maintenance and know that's where you want to go, then enlist or look at NUPOC for some experience and don't look back. But if this is something that you are considering among a myriad of other possibilities, a college education will keep your options open. You can always enlist (or commission) after college.

Also, would I be better of joining the reserves vs active duty, and just go to college while drilling?

Again, have you looked into USNA, NROTC scholarships, or NUPOC?

I know I may be told to "search" but...

Yes, because a good part of being a successful Navy nuke is being able to research the correct answer. That is the #1 useful life skill that being a sub officer has taught me. I even beat the IRS with it when they tried to charge me $1950 in taxes that I didn't owe, and I didn't need to pay hundreds for an accountant to do it. Part of making an educated decision is researching all of your options and what they entail. All it takes is typing a few words into Google, so there's no excuse.

[Content1]

From a self-discipline/motivational point of view I really don't have much of an issue, but I can imagine I would definitely gain something after being through a rigorous 6 year enlistment. I know I failed to mention this, but I have been looking for some more life experience to have a different/better prospective on things as well as camaraderie, since life has been I guess "boring". I guess one question I would have to ask is: how valuable is it to learn the nuke trade? I've heard the technology you learn is old, but the payoffs when you get out are huge (but not necessarily in engineering right?). I know I may be told to "search" but what exactly is in store for the future in nuclear power? Also, would I be better of joining the reserves vs active duty, and just go to college while drilling?

     While working as a nuke prior to the invention of computers or Internet I would go on weeklong exercises and longer and take with me entire subjects from the local library. I had so much time on my hands along with speed-reading I read the entire subjects. I had decided I wished to be an investment real estate salesman when I got out. The only comment of the Broker who hired me was, "You have a thorough knowledge of the subject except your knowledge seems to end about six months ago, can you explain?" I explained it takes a little time for current books to be published.
     In addition, following up with the boredom factor, I nearly completed a course in electronics engineering on my own. It was these factors that led me into other jobs and careers after I got out. With the exception of simply getting more experience in drills, taking logs, and repairing things, my training in the Navy ended effectively a year after arriving at my sub.  The Navy experience on a resume helped me get my first rad con job but, in reality, it was only a tiny portion of my accumulated knowledge at that time.  If I had a chance to do it all over I would have still joined the Navy, but taking a program where I can get out in two years versus six.

[sllon1]

And I'm not quite sold on OP's heart being in nuclear power.

I am not going to lie, one of the main reasons I was looking into enlisting nuke was because of the money. It seems that working in operations is very stable on top of a great hourly wage plus OT. As I've read you can make more being an operator vs an engineer (although I have been planning on being an engineer for awhile now) because of the OT that is offered to work. I come from a middle class family with aspirations to make a high 5 figure/6 figure salary eventually, so money is important to me as well as job satisfaction (working in a technical math/science field).

Ideally, who's is better shape for gettin a job in operations. A 6 and outer nuke, or an engineering degree holder? Additionally, What career progression is offered to those with engineering degrees vs those with navy ops/technician experience?

[retired nuke]

I am not going to lie, one of the main reasons I was looking into enlisting nuke was because of the money. It seems that working in operations is very stable on top of a great hourly wage plus OT. As I've read you can make more being an operator vs an engineer (although I have been planning on being an engineer for awhile now) because of the OT that is offered to work. I come from a middle class family with aspirations to make a high 5 figure/6 figure salary eventually, so money is important to me as well as job satisfaction (working in a technical math/science field).

Ideally, who's is better shape for gettin a job in operations. A 6 and outer nuke, or an engineering degree holder? Additionally, What career progression is offered to those with engineering degrees vs those with navy ops/technician experience?

OK, this is an opinion from an experienced (30+ yrs) non-operator, non-navy nuke.
Engineering degree and Navnuke training are barely comparable. Navy teaches you to do what you are told the way they tell you how to do it.. Engineering helps you learn how and why you are doing this, and how to improve it.
I have seen many ex-navy (all flavors, incl the vaunted ELT) - they point at something wrong and report it. When they suggest an improvement, it usually involves less work for them (and often more work for others)
I have worked with many engineers - they see something wrong and start making notes on ideas to fix it.
Officers behave more like engineers (that's what they are).
There are exceptions.
Engineers that start as engineers, then go to OPS, go to SRO. They may not "know" where all the valves are, but often have a better understanding of the big picture than AOs going to RO to SRO.
The progression time for each is similar - but a 6 and outer will be AO - RO - SRO - about 8-10 yrs if you have people skills.
Engineer - system engineer - engineering projects - SRO - same 8-10 yrs, except most of it is M-F days, with weekends off.

Good luck.

[GLW]

.....I come from a middle class family with aspirations to make a high 5 figure/6 figure salary eventually, so money is important to me as well as job satisfaction (working in a technical math/science field).....

If a high five figure breaking into six figures is your aspiration either path will get you there in nuclear or nuclear related work,...

The typical six and out into ops as an NLO can be pretty steady and predictable,...and limiting,...

If you want to settle down into a good job with good benefits and pretty much stay at home for 30 years and raise 2.3 kids with a stepford mom plus a better than average chance of a decent retirement that's not a bad route,...

You can even get your college paid for should you elect to squeeze that engineering degree in later and expand your horizons a bit,...

All that and be pretty sure you will enjoy the idealized American middle class dream of a nice home, two car garage, pontoon party barge for the summer holidays, sending the kids on to higher education, and a change of life muscle car under a tarp parked in the add-on carport,...

An engineering degree (and those have their own hierarchy, starting somewhere at civil and topping out somewhere at chemical) can get you all of the above with a significantly greater commitment on your part:

• the Navy will force you to succeed or punish you; the engineering school could not care less if you fail out
  
• Navy Nuclear Power Pipeline is intently focused on a condensed syllabus and specific curriculum of theoretical knowledge and practical application; the engineering school is, in simple speak, a lot broader and a lot more involved both in syllabus and curriculum

So, it is really up to you, you have to balance how much you want to invest and what you want your options to be as life moves on,...

If you six and out you will most likely achieve that lifestyle description you mentioned earlier without all that great an investment on your part,...

If you go through an engineering discipline you will achieve the same with a greater personal and financial commitment, plus the greater likelihood of failure while incurring those financial commitments which will remain even after your failure,...

Should you succeed in gaining an engineering degree you future prospects will be enhanced,.... statistically,...

Many if not most, of the highest paid people you may ever get to know do not acquire hard degrees while in university, some of them do not even possess higher education degrees of any sort, other than their honorary ones...

The people with the hard degrees tend to work for the most highly paid people,...

Then again, those hard degrees will help you fall back on a government job should all else fail,...

You never know when "they" may pull a Kewaunee, Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, Crystal River, et al on ya',...

I am interested in entering the nuclear/power industry, and I just wanted to ask a question for those working in the industry right now. If you had to do it all over again, what path would you take?....

To answer your original question,...

The NNPP is the most likely success path to get into the nuclear reactor generated, electricity to the grid business,...

You get trained, you get paid while you get trained, it's pretty easy to earn the NEC, you will demonstrate the ability to earn and keep a security clearance, the ability to perform in an applied engineering environment, and the ability to follow policies, protocols and procedures,...

The engineering degree will demonstrate you are smart and capable, it does not demonstrate the ability to earn and keep a security clearance, the ability to perform in an applied engineering environment, and the ability to follow policies, protocols and procedures,...

If it did, those two PhD's would not have blown out their own eyeballs working within the government laser lab while knowingly violating all posted and proscribed safety rules for working with said laser(s),...

Ergo, commercial nuclear power reactors are not research labs, you get credit for being smart enough, you do not get extra credit for being extra smart,...

[GLW]

Your example is an exception that proves the rule.....

So is yours, which was the point,...

Yea, well, in 1988 you could grad high school, go to full-time work and make enough to support a family in about 5-10 years.....

Unless you were supporting a family* on a single wage earner, unsubsidized income, with nothing more than a high school diploma in 1993 to 1998, in any but a few exceptional workplaces, your counter retort is unfounded,...

It also smacks of being conspicuously contexted in it's specious slant spekkio,...

Heads up here, yours' is not the first generation to deal with less than stellar economic conditions,...

I suspect that at one point or another they all do,...

All in all, we thank you for your service, and that is sincere,...

* family defined as two parents and > 2.3 children

[spekkio]

Unless you were supporting a family* on a single wage earner, unsubsidized income, with nothing more than a high school diploma in 1993 to 1998, in any but a few exceptional workplaces, your counter retort is unfounded,...

It's not unfounded at all.

Growing up among my friends (I graduated high school in '01), only one of us had a parent with a 4-year degree (ironically the only one who was an only child). The rest of our fathers had high school education and that's it. Some of our mothers had two year degrees (e.g. nursing), but not many. My father supported 4 children and put my mom through graduate school. He started in construction before the Italian mafia figured out illegal Latinos were cheaper employees and moved to law enforcement for a steady paycheck and medical benefits for 4 children. If you want his job now, you need at least an associate's and some precincts require a bachelor's. One of my friend's dad managed a diner and supported 3 children after he immigrated from Greece (wife maintained the home) -- good luck getting that job now without some flowery restaurant management degree. Another was a bus driver (his wife was the nurse). Another worked at the post office. My wife's dad was a mechanic without any college education. Showed up with a willingness to turn a wrench and learn from the boss, no connections, no associate's in 'automotive technology.' Try to get a job like that today and you will get laughed out of the shop. This trend of requiring employees to have more education than they required 20-30 years ago is on the rise, not just in law enforcement or management, but in all careers. Times change.

Dual income was fairly common. I wasn't saying the person had to be a single earner, but the employment outlook for someone with a high school education is conserably worse than it was in the late 80s/early 90s. I'm a bit lazy to look up the exact numbers but I think we can both agree that significantly fewer people entering the work force had four year degrees 20-30 years ago.

Additionally, real income has fallen dramatically in the last 20 years while housing costs have risen. I could not imagine supporting four children on $40k/year on Long Island like my father did. He bought his first house for $180k in 1992. He sold it at $330k 11 years later.

Finally, in the early-mid 90's we didn't have cable, high speed internet, family cell phone plans, etc. Some people had basic cable but it was not the norm. I grew up in a fairly typical middle class suburbia, too. All our families had the ability to buy sports equipment for us, enroll us in leagues, pay for whatever lessons, etc. despite not having college educations. Families pay for a lot more subscription services that either weren't available or weren't popular in the 90's.

Put this all together and you'd be hard pressed to support a family in 2013, even dual income, with two people who are only high school/vocational school educated. You don't have to take my anecdotal evidence for it -- look up real income today vs. 1988-1995 for people with high school degrees. A recent survey finds that the average suburban home owner thinks they need to make $60k/year to make ends meet. That means you need to have two wage earners if you make the median income with a 4-year degree (~$38k/year).

But hey, I must've made all that up because it's unfounded. Also, you can dig rocks up in a quarry in North Dakota, so forget college.

[MacGyver]

Finally, in the early-mid 90's we didn't have cable, high speed internet, family cell phone plans, etc. Some people had basic cable but it was not the norm. I grew up in a fairly typical middle class suburbia, too. All our families had the ability to buy sports equipment for us, enroll us in leagues, pay for whatever lessons, etc. despite not having college educations. Families pay for a lot more subscription services that either weren't available or weren't popular in the 90's.

Put this all together and you'd be hard pressed to support a family in 2013, even dual income, with two people who are only high school/vocational school educated. You don't have to take my anecdotal evidence for it -- look up real income today vs. 1988-1995 for people with high school degrees. A recent survey finds that the average suburban home owner thinks they need to make $60k/year to make ends meet. That means you need to have two wage earners if you make the median income with a 4-year degree (~$38k/year).

But hey, I must've made all that up because it's unfounded. Also, you can dig rocks up in a quarry in North Dakota, so forget college.

I guess hard work is dead?  What's wrong with working in a quarry (or the like)?

For a Sub Officer you don't listen very well.  Or for that matter speak with authority on any subject I've read.

Personally I expect better from you, even more as an O'ganger.

My dad and his brothers (all five of them) learned a trade.  As tradesmen they made enough to prosper, all with at least four children each, as single providers with stay at home wife.  This time span would have been 70's thru late 90's.  So you are wrong.

These men had zero college (except my dad had an A.S.).  I guess hard work and a skill do just fine then,,, and now.

My brothers all have an A.S. and a high tech skill.  None of them have a wife that works.  None of there kids go without. 

The rest of my cousins, the same.  High School educated and doing just fine on one income.

I guess some traditions are doing just fine here in the south.

You have zero civilian work experience, do I have that correct?  If so maybe you should tone down your uneducated advice.

Thanks in advance.

Mac

[GLW]

Where to start

....Growing up among my friends (I graduated high school in '01),.....

Most kids graduate high school around 18 years of age,...

If you were the first and oldest, and if your parents started their family a couple of years after they graduated high school that would put your father in the graduating class of 1980,...

Your father did not do this,...

 

Yea, well, in 1988 you could grad high school, go to full-time work and make enough to support a family in about 5-10 years......

By 1988 your father was well into his 5 to 10 years, the 5 to 10 from your post is essentially a decade later, 1993 to 1998,...

....He started in construction before the Italian mafia figured out illegal Latinos were cheaper employees and moved to law enforcement for a steady paycheck and medical benefits for 4 children. If you want his job now, you need at least an associate's and some precincts require a bachelor's. One of my friend's dad managed a diner and supported 3 children after he immigrated from Greece (wife maintained the home) -- good luck getting that job now without some flowery restaurant management degree. Another was a bus driver (his wife was the nurse). Another worked at the post office. My wife's dad was a mechanic without any college education. Showed up with a willingness to turn a wrench and learn from the boss, no connections, no associate's in 'automotive technology.' Try to get a job like that today and you will get laughed out of the shop....

All these dads whose children were contemporaries of yours were entering the workplace in the late seventies to early eighties, your time frame for change is after these dads were in the workplace and established,...

....This trend of requiring employees to have more education than they required 20-30 years ago is on the rise, not just in law enforcement or management, but in all careers. Times change.....

20-30 years ago would be 1983 to 1993,...

....Additionally, real income has fallen dramatically in the last 20 years while housing costs have risen. I could not imagine supporting four children on $40k/year on Long Island like my father did. He bought his first house for $180k in 1992.....

Interesting, I was working on Long Island in 1992, unionized construction workers and cops on Long Island were among the highest paid in the nation in the 1990's. Then again, many things were among the highest in the nation on Long Island in 1992. I do not doubt your father was only earning 40K per year at some point, but to qualify for a $180,000 home in 1992 before the CRA revamp of 1995 would have required better than a 40K per annum level of compensation, I know because I bought a home in 1992.

...Finally, in the early-mid 90's we didn't have cable, high speed internet, family cell phone plans, etc. Some people had basic cable but it was not the norm....

Cable with all the bells and whistles available has been the norm since about 1985, and definitely on Long Island circa early - mid 90's, at least out in Wading River and Riverhead,...

....That means you need to have two wage earners if you make the median income with a 4-year degree (~$38k/year).

But hey, I must've made all that up because it's unfounded. Also, you can dig rocks up in a quarry in North Dakota, so forget college.

Well hey, the no experience median wage for a North Dakota oil rig laborer is $33,280 without any college loans to pay back,...

With experience that wage grows to $41,600 per year with the best paid getting $51,090 per year...

All before overtime,...

And your ~$38K/year is biased low to support your retort, the census bureau places the median at $44,676/year for all degrees, and the mean at $65,403/year; the tens of thousands of basket weavers working at Starbucks, and the several thousand chemical engineers working at Dow, the large majority of all of them stuck with paying back student loans,...

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01_001.htm

No one here advised the OP to forget college, but there may be smarter ways to pay for it than to hang yourself on the student loan cross and then claim martyrdom afterwards,...

The OP stated an interest in working at a nuclear power station, not designing one,...

Just because you are 22 years old with a brand new degree and $40,000 in student loan debt does not mean you are worth $40,000/year,...

Perhaps if we're talking MIT, RPI, CIT, U of M or another top 50, otherwise,...

Maybe, after you show me something, in four or five years,...

Back in the day, a college education was special,...

Well, if everybody has one, it kinda tarnishes the whole "special" aspect,...

[spekkio]

For a Sub Officer you don't listen very well.  Or for that matter speak with authority on any subject I've read.

My dad and his brothers (all five of them) learned a trade.  As tradesmen they made enough to prosper, all with at least four children each, as single providers with stay at home wife.  This time span would have been 70's thru late 90's.  So you are wrong.

These men had zero college (except my dad had an A.S.).  I guess hard work and a skill do just fine then,,, and now.

. Well, you don't read very well since your statement abot your father and his brothers learning a trade is exactly the same is what I posted before you. I don't know how you could say "I am wrong" when you are detailing people getting well-paying jobs without college degrees in the same time period I am.

I also had quite a bit of civilian employment experience pre-Navy -- I did not commission straight out of college. But I will say that my career outlook with a BS in biology certainly influenced my decision.

By 1988 your father was well into his 5 to 10 years, the 5 to 10 from your post is essentially a decade later, 1993 to 1998,...

Well, if you must really know... at one point he was my "step" father and in 1983 to 1988 he was working on a boat as a mate and doing drugs in his spare time until he "shaped up" and started dating my mom.

All these dads whose children were contemporaries of yours were entering the workplace in the late seventies to early eighties, your time frame for change is after these dads were in the workplace and established,...

Are you implying there was a step-change in employment trend and % of people with 4-year degrees in the mid-80s. If so, what year was it? '85? '86? '87? Your original post said someone who graduated high school in 1988... is there really a big difference between someone who was looking for work in the early 80s vice late 80s?

I contend the shift to such a large portion of people having a 4 year degree happened somewhere around 10 years after 1988.

20-30 years ago would be 1983 to 1993,...

Yep, the original time period you posted +/- five years.

Interesting, I was working on Long Island in 1992, unionized construction workers and cops on Long Island were among the highest paid in the nation in the 1990's. Then again, many things were among the highest in the nation on Long Island in 1992. I do not doubt your father was only earning 40K per year at some point, but to qualify for a $180,000 home in 1992 before the CRA revamp of 1995 would have required better than a 40K per annum level of compensation, I know because I bought a home in 1992.

First, he wasn't in a unionized construction company. Second, dual income. Third, borrowed money from grandparents in order to make down payment high enough to get the mortgage. Mother quit her job in nursing when my dad went into law enforcement in 1994 because they couldn't both be at work on holidays. But yes, when my mom quit her job to go back to school my dad's salary was the $40-50k range after OT/night diff.

I believe that is among the highest in the nation then, as it still is now (he makes over $120k/yr as a sgt now), but that's not the point. The point is that at $40-50k/year, it would be difficult for me to support a family of 6 on LI considering the property values/taxes in 2013. The point is also that one could not get employment doing what he does now without some college education.

Cable with all the bells and whistles available has been the norm since about 1985, and definitely on Long Island circa early - mid 90's, at least out in Wading River and Riverhead,...

It's been around, but not the norm. Look up the numbers. It also depends on where on LI you are talking about...south shore Nassau, not very common until mid-late 90s. And even if it was more popular than I claim (which it wasn't), it doesn't refute the point that Americans subscribe to more monthly services in 2013 than they did in 1988 or 1993.

And your ~$38K/year is biased low to support your retort, the census bureau places the median at $44,676/year for all degrees, and the mean at $65,403/year; the tens of thousands of basket weavers working at Starbucks, and the several thousand chemical engineers working at Dow, the large majority of all of them stuck with paying back student loans,...

We're not talking about all degrees; we're talking about high school vs. 2 year vs. 4 year. Like above with your shift from 1988 to suddenly the mid 90s, you are trying to change the topic to still be right. Your numbers are biased high because the median includes Master's and PHDs. Additionally, you can't use the average because really high wage earners (e.g. doctor's, small business owners) bias that number high.

[hamsamich]

Talked to a couple managers and an engineer at a plant I was recently at.  Seems like some of the engineer jobs aren't as "plum" as they used to be.  Starting to get used and abused MORE since they are exempt, working 60 hour weeks without OT pay in some cases.  The only way to shield yourself from the "more with less" attitude at some plants is to stay in a job with a high hourly wage non-exempt.

Anyway, getting a nuclear engineering degree is probably a good idea, but not nesc. being an engineer proper at a nuclear plant.  Probably depends on the plant.

It is usually a trade off with different pros and cons. Shift work (ops) vs 9-5 (eng) is one example, but is the 9-5 truly 9-5?  There really are no easy answers, and some things change faster than others, plus the TYPE of shiftwork changes things also.  So as far as "Ideal Path", much different depending on plant/job.

[GLW]

....We're not talking about all degrees; we're talking about high school vs. 2 year vs. 4 year. Like above with your shift from 1988 to suddenly the mid 90s, you are trying to change the topic to still be right. Your numbers are biased high because the median includes Master's and PHDs. Additionally, you can't use the average because really high wage earners (e.g. doctor's, small business owners) bias that number high.

the census bureau numbers in the referenced link are for four year degrees,...

my "all degrees" was bounded and defined by the statement "the tens of thousands of basket weavers working at Starbucks, and the several thousand chemical engineers working at Dow", which implies four year degrees as they have been the ongoing topic of conversation, you inferred doctors and others as it buttresses your paradigm shift while alleviating yourself the accountability of researching the footnotes per se,...

I'm a bit lazy to look up the exact numbers,...

so it would seem,...

.....Like above with your shift from 1988 to suddenly the mid 90s, you are trying to change the topic to still be right......

that would be you pal,...

it's been fun, but it's time to move on,...

just like me and the Navy,...

[HydroDave63]

If you were the first and oldest, and if your parents started their family a couple of years after they graduated high school that would put your father in the graduating class of 1980,...

it's been fun, but it's time to move on,...

just like me and the Navy,...

[/youtube]

[GLW]

[/youtube]

Nice, but 1980 was the year I enlisted,...

I EAOS'd in '88, that DD-214 was about the most irresistible thing I put my eyes on that year,...

This ran a close second, maybe third, in 1988,...

[HydroDave63]

I guess some traditions are doing just fine here in the south.

On-topic: There are a lot of good points made here. Having been rejected for jobs solely due to lack of a degree in the past, I'd recommend Navy Nuke enlisted, get out and GI Bill a degree as soon as you can. However, reply #22 by spekkio does have some counterpoints to consider.

[hamsamich]

Hydro's last comment and spekkio#22 are in my opinion the way to go.  Easy answer is Hydro, if you want to do your research and take the time to figure out what's best for you, go spek#22.  I don't think I would have gotten much out of the college experience at age 20.

[spekkio]

I'm a bit lazy to look up the exact numbers,...

so it would seem,...

Way to take it out of context, since those "numbers" I was referring to were % of job seekers with 4 year degrees in 1980 vs. 1988 vs. 2013. As far as median income level, I have researched those numbers and yours are biased high. But let's go with your median of $44k/year for a 4 year degree...it only reinforces the fact that people with 4 year degrees make significantly more than those without. You are only strengthening my position but quibbling over the details of why my position is what it is.

And I do like how you decided not to answer my very direct question on when you think the shift to an emphasis on employees having a 4 year degree occurred, since you seemed to imply that it occurred prior to 1988 but after 1980 when you dismissed my generation's parents experiences with finding employment and supporting families as if doing so in 1980 was a world apart from 1988.

So to recap...

-We both think the GI Bill can be a good alternative to help pay for college.
-We both think that one's employment outlook and earning potential is better with a 4 year degree than no degree, albeit with some exceptions.
-We both think that one needs more experience, whether Navy or otherwise, than just a diploma to earn good money, albeit with some exceptions.
-We both think the employment environment is different today than it was in 1993, 1988, or 1980.

We will simply have to agree to disagree about agreeing it seems.

And MacGyver will be happy to know that I actually enjoyed a couple of brews tonight (unlike last night) and managed to post without spelling errors. I'm sure he'll find something to negative rep for me over, though, because that really matters in life.

As GC says, cheers.

[sllon1]

As far as just working in operations goes, what is more valuable: an engineering degree or being a 6 and outer nuke? From this thread, its obvious that an engineering degree opens up more doors, but does the typical hiring manager look for those who were ex-navy more so than those who are engineering degree holders? I am definitely leaning towards school more than enlisting, because I know I can apply myself and do well, and on top of that I've read some not-so-great things about the present navy nuclear power school and the fleet.

[hamsamich]

If you are truly ready for college I would go that route....might want to hedge your bet and minor in petroleum engineering?  Is that even posssible?