Home » Politics & Society » U.S. Navy » PARS for the course?

PARS for the course?

© Andrew Willis

I took the Navy-wide exam for Chief Petty Officer yesterday, the same as I have every January for too many Januaries than I care to remember. Such is life. As the last few tests have, this one included a questionnaire at the end. The Naval Education and Training command likes to throw these in there, basically asking for the opinions of the test takers, who can then be ignored because the results aren’t what the Navy was looking for.

This one caught my eye, though, because they were asking about how the general military knowledge portion of the test, and how it should be administered.

First, a little background.

Many years ago, in the BDC era (before desktop computers), the Navy had an enlisted advancement system that actually required sailors to prove that they could function at the next higher level before they were even recommended for advancement to the next higher level. A quaint idea that disappeared after the advent of ubiquitous computing.

PARS, or Personnel Advancement Requirements were a check off list of job skills and functions that a sailor had to complete before he or she could take the test. Rate Training Manuals (RTMs) and Military Requirements Courses had to be completed. These items proved, in writing, that the sailor had the minimum knowledge that he or she needed to have to operate at the next level. The rationale that the Navy used to do away with this requirement was that Personnel Qualification Standards covered much of the same territory, and that PARS were redundant. This was not so, though, as PARS covered not only watch stations, but also other tasks and skills that are never used on watch. By lowering the advancement standards, the Navy guaranteed that they received sub-par petty officers.

Now, could the wunderkind down in Pensacola have seen the light, albeit ten years too late? It’s possible. If you couldn’t tell, I do sincerely and fervently hope that the Navy makes PARS, rate training manuals and military requirements mandatory again. Saying, “Well, we know that even if we drop the requirement that some people will still complete the courses. This will set them apart from the rest who don’t do them,” shows a stunning lack of practical thought. Yes, human nature tends to take the easy way, like water flowing downhill, but separating the committed from the merely involved wasn’t worth the decline in ability and productivity that resulted from these moves.

The copyright of the article PARS for the course? in U.S. Navy is owned by . Permission to republish PARS for the course? in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.