I have a bit of an issue with NCOs in ST world. I can't see any reason why a fresh Ensign like Nog would outrank a seasoned and experienced engineer like O'Brien. Given ST is about equality and all that type of stuff, I find it strange they persisted with an archaic military hierarchy that was based on a class system.
Non-commissioned officers in ST world
- Thread starter jonds91
- Start date
I think that Nog only technically outranked O'Brien. In terms of actual functionality, Chief O'Brien was Chief of Operations, whereas Ensign Nog was assigned to station maintenance. So while Nog might have technically outranked O'Brien on paper, the Chief was still his boss in terms of his job on the station.
Starfleet also recognized O'Brien's experience and broad knowledge by offering him a position as a professor at Starfleet Academy - By no means a small honor, as most other professors that we've seen in uniform wore the rank of Commander or higher.
Starfleet also recognized O'Brien's experience and broad knowledge by offering him a position as a professor at Starfleet Academy - By no means a small honor, as most other professors that we've seen in uniform wore the rank of Commander or higher.
They shouldn't have made O'Brien an NCO.
I would assume that ranks are based on education and experience.
Not necessarily. There was that crewman on Voyager who had five advanced degrees in cosmology who had signed on to Voyager's crew as a requirement for applying to the Institute of Cosmology on Orion I.
For a guy with five degrees, he's not that smart. He could have wrangled a commission. I guess he didn't have the time to become an officer. Maybe it was the the Institute of Cosmetology?
Why not?
I think the difference between officers and "enlisted" crewpeople in Starfleet is that officers all attend Starfleet Academy, whereas enlisted crew may come from other career paths, such as was the case with Mortimer Harren. If one wishes to become a Starfleet officer, my interpretation is that attending Starfleet Academy is a pre-requisite for that career path, no matter the degree of experience an individual may personally have.
An officer/enlisted divide is pretty much a necessity for a ship with a crew of hundreds, to be simplistic about it, you need the enlisted to do the work, and the officers to supervise. You say Nog should not outrank O'Brien, but that is exactly how it goes in the real world. Ensigns outrank Chief Petty Officers in navies all the time, just as Second Lieutenant's outrank Sergeants in armies.
Granted, there is etiquette to follow, and junior officers worth their salt will realize they have just as much to learn from the enlisted men who technically they technically outrank as they do from their commanders and whatever, but at the end of the day those officers do outrank them and the Chiefs or Sergeants or whatever are required to salute them and call them "Sir."
Now I will agree how enlisted personnel are depicted in Starfleet is very sloppy, and O'Brien definitely represents that sloppiness to the point of being the face of it. Part of the problem is that O'Brien wasn't even intended to be enlisted at first, he was addressed as "Lieutenant" by Riker in the second season and wore Lieutenant's pips throughout most of his TNG appearances. The first time he was actually addressed as a "Chief Petty Officer" was in Family, and despite their apparent desire to make him enlisted, he was treated as an officer for much of his time on TNG and DS9. He was the replacement tactical officer on the bridge when Worf left in Redemption, and his position on DS9 really should have gone to an officer, to say nothing of the fact that the early seasons of DS9 had him ordering Lieutenants around, which he shouldn't be able to do since Ensigns outrank him. Not to mention, he does later admit that Lieutenants outrank him, it's the whole source of drama between him and Bashir in Hippocratic Oath.
Still, I guess we should give them an E for Effort when it came to making O'Brien an enlisted. It's more than the rest of the franchise has done.
Why oh why can't I give @The Wormhole a dozen "likes"?? Yes, everything you said is spot on. Especially the part about a smart junior officer finding a senior enlisted to be a mentor.
I agree that the officer/enlisted divide should be much different than we tend to picture today. The division is based on the idea that people born in a certain social class are leaders, the others are followers, and the two shouldn't mix. In the 20th century, education basically took the place of social class, especially in the US, but that's how the division originated.
A hundred years ago, the vast bulk of armed forces were unskilled or semi-skilled labor, and it was common for a private first class or able seamen to have twenty years service. Today, of course, it's vastly different. Associate degrees are very common, with many colleges giving credit for military school training, and it is increasingly common for E-7 and above to have bachelor and even post-grad degrees. The education requirements will only go up as technology advances. What will "enlisted personnel" be like after another couple hundred years? Well, who knows, but my guess is the division will be much more blurry.
Certainly, the complexity and cost of space travel, initially, will require small crews of highly skilled individuals. In that sense, the service would probably evolve more like an air force than a navy, with fewer high skilled positions for "flight" operations, more but still highly skilled "ground" jobs, and a few less-skilled still in training. And as the technology advances, qualification level goes up, numbers go down. I've used the example of the early USAF: A B-29 had a crew of four officers and seven enlisted, ten years later a much more powerful B-52 had five officers and one enlisted. And as the youngest US service, the USAF has the most "casual" officer-enlisted relationships and their enlisted personnel live less-regimented lives than those in the older services.
Another factor is physical separation. On a battleship, cruiser or carrier there was enough space for the officers, warrant officers, chief petty officers etc. to keep to their own turf. On a destroyer or a submarine, not so easy. Familiarity breaks down social barriers. In a small-crewed spaceship, a person's rank wouldn't be as important as his/her job and performance.
As space ships get into the hundreds of crew members, one can imagine a lot of the former "ground" jobs being absorbed into "flight." Also, in a ship with a scientific mission, many of the additional crew will probably be there for scientific/academic qualifications, the descendants of NASA mission specialists. But I think by that time, much of the old social separation would have broken down. There would be more of a continuum of highly skilled "non-commissioned/petty officers" and and highly skilled but more managerial and leadership-oriented "commissioned officers." Moving from "non-com" to "commissioned" would be common, based on performance and ability. I put those terms in quotes because those distinctions may well be abandoned by that time.
And that's not even addressing the implications of the ideas of the Federation as an egalitarian Utopian society, or of Starfleet being non- ... well, I won't say it.
I also agree that the enlisted portion of Starfleet was not really given much thought in any of the series. From what we see, though, the visible and social distinctions are minor (except for the retrograde WOK enlisted uniforms, which were a money-saving way to use jumpsuits left over from TMP).
A hundred years ago, the vast bulk of armed forces were unskilled or semi-skilled labor, and it was common for a private first class or able seamen to have twenty years service. Today, of course, it's vastly different. Associate degrees are very common, with many colleges giving credit for military school training, and it is increasingly common for E-7 and above to have bachelor and even post-grad degrees. The education requirements will only go up as technology advances. What will "enlisted personnel" be like after another couple hundred years? Well, who knows, but my guess is the division will be much more blurry.
Certainly, the complexity and cost of space travel, initially, will require small crews of highly skilled individuals. In that sense, the service would probably evolve more like an air force than a navy, with fewer high skilled positions for "flight" operations, more but still highly skilled "ground" jobs, and a few less-skilled still in training. And as the technology advances, qualification level goes up, numbers go down. I've used the example of the early USAF: A B-29 had a crew of four officers and seven enlisted, ten years later a much more powerful B-52 had five officers and one enlisted. And as the youngest US service, the USAF has the most "casual" officer-enlisted relationships and their enlisted personnel live less-regimented lives than those in the older services.
Another factor is physical separation. On a battleship, cruiser or carrier there was enough space for the officers, warrant officers, chief petty officers etc. to keep to their own turf. On a destroyer or a submarine, not so easy. Familiarity breaks down social barriers. In a small-crewed spaceship, a person's rank wouldn't be as important as his/her job and performance.
As space ships get into the hundreds of crew members, one can imagine a lot of the former "ground" jobs being absorbed into "flight." Also, in a ship with a scientific mission, many of the additional crew will probably be there for scientific/academic qualifications, the descendants of NASA mission specialists. But I think by that time, much of the old social separation would have broken down. There would be more of a continuum of highly skilled "non-commissioned/petty officers" and and highly skilled but more managerial and leadership-oriented "commissioned officers." Moving from "non-com" to "commissioned" would be common, based on performance and ability. I put those terms in quotes because those distinctions may well be abandoned by that time.
And that's not even addressing the implications of the ideas of the Federation as an egalitarian Utopian society, or of Starfleet being non- ... well, I won't say it.
I also agree that the enlisted portion of Starfleet was not really given much thought in any of the series. From what we see, though, the visible and social distinctions are minor (except for the retrograde WOK enlisted uniforms, which were a money-saving way to use jumpsuits left over from TMP).
You have summed up what I was thinking very nicely. Thanks.
Anyone can go to Starfleet Academy - or any real life military academy- provided they meet the entry requirements, there is nothing "class system" about it, although as J.T.B. correctly points it had its origins there, but today everything is based on education.
Besides, in the civilian world it is often not really all that different, even if less formal. In research, someone fresh from University with a Masters Degree, or a PhD will generally "out rank" the lab technicians, an MD straight from medical school outranks the nurses etc. Basically the same as with Officers/enlisted.
I have worked with / for Lieutenants who weren't even born yet before I went to Basic Training. No big deal.
In today's military, there are several ways to become an officer. There is Academy (West Point / Annapolis / Colorado Springs), of course. There is Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC). There are private military academies, such as Virginia Military Institute (VMI). In all of these, the person becomes a commissioned officer upon graduation. There is also the Officer Candidate School (OCS) or Officer Training School (OTS), aka the "Ninety-Day Wonder school" for those who have a four-year college degree, whether being civilian or enlisted "going mustang". And finally, there are direct-commissioning programs (usually for doctors and lawyers) with just a two-week or four-week course (to teach them how to wear the uniform and how to salute). There may be other ways, but short of a battle-field commission the above should cover 99+% of today's officer corps.
In today's military, there are several ways to become an officer. There is Academy (West Point / Annapolis / Colorado Springs), of course. There is Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC). There are private military academies, such as Virginia Military Institute (VMI). In all of these, the person becomes a commissioned officer upon graduation. There is also the Officer Candidate School (OCS) or Officer Training School (OTS), aka the "Ninety-Day Wonder school" for those who have a four-year college degree, whether being civilian or enlisted "going mustang". And finally, there are direct-commissioning programs (usually for doctors and lawyers) with just a two-week or four-week course (to teach them how to wear the uniform and how to salute). There may be other ways, but short of a battle-field commission the above should cover 99+% of today's officer corps.
My understanding, majority of officers above lieutenent are more management. And in reality the NCO's are the ones running the ships and bases.
Geordi crawling through jefferies tubes and hands-on fixing things always gave my uncle a good laugh.
I've never been in the military and even I know that was bogus (Scotty was at least as guilty of this). Trip gets a pass IMO as - given that he almost certainly helped build NX-01 he knows the ship far better than his techs.
IMO, anyone who signs up for Starfleet service, regardless of social status may progress to commissioned officer if they meet the academic and psychological requirements. However, I think it's likely that many - if not most - candidates wouldn't want the responsiblity and other demands of being an officer but just want to be out there 'doing something' and therefore become 'crewman' rather than 'officers'.
Simon Tarses is, per dialogue, an example of this:
ANNOTATION: (Picard is pouring tea)
PICARD: There you are, Mister Tarses. Would you care for some lemon?
TARSES: No, thank you, sir. This is fine.
PICARD: Well, tell me a little about yourself, Crewman. I know you were born on Mars Colony.
TARSES: Yes, sir. All my life I wanted to be in Starfleet. I went to the Academy's training programme for enlisted personnel. I took training as a medical technician and I served at several outposts. The day that I was posted to the Enterprise was the happiest day of my life.
PICARD: Did you ever consider applying to the Academy, going the whole route, apply to become an officer?
TARSES: My parents wanted me to. And then I thought about it. I used to sit under this big tree near the parade grounds
PICARD: An elm tree with a circular bench?
TARSES: Yes, that's the one.
PICARD: I spent many an hour there. It was my favourite spot to study.
TARSES: I used to sit under that tree and watch the drills, picture myself an officer. I know that it would have made my mother very happy, but.
PICARD: You didn't do it.
TARSES: No. I was eighteen, and eager. The last thing I wanted to do was spend four years sitting in classrooms. I wanted to be out there, travelling the stars. I didn't want to wait for anything. And now it's done, isn't it? My career in Starfleet is finished.
PICARD: Not if you aren't guilty, Simon.
TARSES: It doesn't matter. I lied on my application, and that mistake will be with me for the rest of my life.
The fact that he has "served on several outposts" prior to being assigned the E-D suggests to me that he is in at least he has been in at least 5 years or as much as 10 depending on how long medical technician training is (at least the 26-28 week pipeline for a USN HM initially, but something like an Associates Degree seems likely by 5-10 year mark (which would probably rate him as a equivalent of a PO1 (typically attained with six years) rather the SN (E3) often assumed by fans).
At six years, more likely a PO2. By reg, the minimum time to PO1 is 5 years, and the historical average time to make it is 11-14 years.
According to my source, E1-E3 in the USN is a minimum of 18 months, E-4 requires another 6 months and "rating", E-5 may be attained 12 months after that, and e-6 three years after that. By my calculations, that's 72 months or six years. However, even if my figures are off a bit, I still can't see how the narrative above is compatible with Crewman 1st Class being E-3. Can you?
Similar threads
