SMART Fundamental Program Change Proposal

[SilverFox22]

I have been reading many of the posts on this forum and found that many of the participants share the same problem of not having engineering design work at their facility. I have not yet seen any proposals to improve the situation, so here’s what I’ve been thinking about. Please let me know your thoughts and how you can help.

SMART Program Major Change Proposal

The Problem:
The majority of SMART participants are working in ACQUISITION Facilities, which do not DESIGN products to be used for defense. As a result, the engineers are not using their engineering skills. This is a problem because government funding is not being maximally utilized. Another problem is that the engineers are losing the skills they learned in school because they are not using them during their commitment to the DoD. As a very rough conservative estimation, SMART funds approximately 600 students a year, at an average cost of $60,000. This amounts to roughly $36 million a year, not counting program overhead costs, and any other costs attached to the program.

Proposed Solutions:
1. Allow SMART participants to work for approved DoD contractors, so they can meet their commitment requirements by working for companies that DESIGN the products. The SMART program itself could create a list of approved contractors, and also create a form for approving requested contractor companies. This would allow engineers’ learned skills to be used, which is what SMART paid for in the first place. This will benefit the government directly, because there will be an influx of highly trained engineers working on the products that the ACQUISITION facilities buy. One thing that the head of the SMART program may say to this is that the Government paid for the students’ tuition, and therefore must be repaid in terms of work. The way to explain this is that SMART could contract out the engineers to contractors, using the money the sponsoring facility would have paid anyway.

2. If this is not possible, create 1 or 2 CENTERS for SMART engineers to be employed. These could be research facilities in which the SMART participants work together, under senior engineers, to tackle many of the current problems. An example would be creating a large team of engineers to come up with and design devices to detect IEDs in Afghanistan, which account for more than half of all NATO troop deaths.

3. Create a network of bases that have contacts in each engineering discipline and are doing design or research work, so that scholars can easily find and locate any existing engineering related to their major at facilities across the country.


Implementation:
1. First, contact the SMART program directly and ask about proposed changes. This action will likely result in SMART leaders considering it, but not having the will or ability to take action themselves, because they are busy keeping the program itself running. Remember, the SMART office is not huge, and the priority is on the students currently receiving funding and maintaining all that goes along with this. Once a SMART scholar has graduated, the program primarily makes sure that the participant completes his/her commitment period, and is less concerned with what they’re doing and how they’re benefitting the DoD.
2. Next, contact as many other SMART scholars who are currently working and would like to see this sort of change. There are over a thousand scholars who have graduated and are serving their commitments to the DoD, and a thousand engineers making noise will get the attention of leaders.
3. Begin to draft LETTERS to members of CONGRESS, as well as governors and other political leaders who make the decisions that control the program.
4. Request of these political leaders that a team of new employees is created whose task is to help engineers find positions at engineering defense firms.
5. Lastly, assure that this process moves QUICKLY so that money can stop being wasted, and current scholars serving their commitment can begin to be used in a proactive way that will truly benefit the wellbeing of our nation and its ability to provide necessary equipment to the war fighter.

NOTE: I am serving my first and last summer internship now and have been in contact with many SMART participants and many have discussed this same problem. I don’t know if these proposals have been made to the SMART leaders. I would assume that the program has received some substantial information that many of its graduates are not using their engineering skills. My best estimation of this is that SMART is not concerned, or cannot afford to be concerned with these changes. But I absolutely think it’s someone’s responsibility to step up and make appropriate changes.

[EngVisitor]

Limiting the facilities that can participate in SMART to those that are engineering research and design facilities is the best bet from a practical standpoint. Not that I'm against working for a private defense contractor, I'm not. I just don't think it's a very easy sell for the parties involved. The government should already own these facilities (hopefully) and should be hiring us to facilities that participate in design and research anyway. From the SMART website,


Who Should Apply?

The SMART Program aims to increase the number of scientists and engineers in the DoD. The program is particularly interested in supporting individuals that demonstrate an aptitude and interest in conducting theoretical and applied research. As such, the program primarily targets "hand-on-the-bench" researchers and engineers. Individuals applying to the program should have a strong interest in working for the DoD as a civilian research scientist or engineer. Applicants must be pursuing an undergraduate or graduate degree in one of the disciplines listed on the About SMART page.


I think most of the problem is that the SMART program organizers and heck, even HR at these facilities don't know the job responsibilities we will have. They see "engineer" in the job title and think that it's relevant to our field of study. It unfortunately doesn't work that way in the government. I say this from my own experience - the interview (phone calls and discussing it at orientation) with the SF HR employees was completely misleading in describing my tentative job responsibilities.

Something needs to change. The whole situation is ridiculous.

[recipient99]

The whole situation is ridiculous.

I agree completely. I am in favor of the proposal. Great job on putting this together. Thanks.

However, one problem with this is that I (as I suspect are many others who would be in favor of this) am late in phase 2 of my commitment. I am putting in a lot of effort with not only the paper-pushing that I am being assigned, but also with trying to keep up my skills on the side so I can be marketable when phase 2 ends.

Because in all likelihood I will not see the benefits of these efforts, since it will take time for them to have effect (if they are successful), I have less motivation for seeing this implemented. So, although I am willing to put forth effort on this, I think it is reasonable to expect students who are still in phase 1 (or early in phase 2) to take the primary initiative on this.

Thanks for sending this out. Something really should be done about this. I am sincerely concerned that the time in phase 2 has done irreparable damage to my career.

[JEP16]

What you wrote (and people's responses) seems to be pretty on par with how the SMART interns I know (know about 5 very well) feel. Especially the comment on "irrepairable damage to my career" part. The point someone made of limiting the facilities permitted to employ SMART recipients is probably correct. I'll tell you - from my experience here, you will never get the government to allow you to work for the contractor or be contracted out to the contractor. Big no-no (at least around here). The SMART "Centers" where there is a collection of recipients working on projects sounds like a consulting firm of sorts. Which would be pretty neat. Except for funding. If someone/some group doesn't have a project everyday of the year, how do they get paid? I kind of like that idea a lot but I'm not sure how the color of money would pan out.

Also, the drafting letters to congress may not be the best avenue. Particularly in an election year. Telling politicians that they have a scape goat for money wasting on an election year might give SMART bad press and eventual shutdown or stipend reduction. Or perhaps a repremand of the bases which are employing the SMART recipients. If the base gets repremanded what would likely happen is that the base would greatly reduce or cut out selection all together to avoid problems. Believe me - my base just had a major bribing issue this year. It invovled 1 person. Things got very bad very quickly. It pretty much ruined it for the other 5000+ people on base. My first instinct is to contact department heads of the bases to get them to point you in the right direction of technical work. After that though, I'm at a loss for ideas. It's difficult to get what you want when you have a large beast - don't want to make him angry and turn on you. Same thing here. Personally, it would be nice if there were more graduate school/research center interaction than what I've seen. Maybe that's the jobs to push to be created. I don't know.

[Guest]

I did an internship at an acquisition facility over the summer. I was kept engaged over the entire 8 weeks and had no problems applying my skill set to the work being done there.

I don't understand why anyone at the beginning of their career would ask to be a contractor instead of government employee. That is a HUGE mistake and I wish it wasn't even posted on this forum.

[JEP16]

I did an internship at an acquisition facility over the summer. I was kept engaged over the entire 8 weeks and had no problems applying my skill set to the work being done there.

I don't understand why anyone at the beginning of their career would ask to be a contractor instead of government employee. That is a HUGE mistake and I wish it wasn't even posted on this forum.

They would ask that because, if you're like me, you hang signs for a living. Or go around collecting computer host names, proof read documents, sit waiting for packages to arrive and then sign for them, and eventually have people come up to you during meetings and offer their condolences after they hear your next assigned task. If you have a graduate degree and are doing things a seventh grader could do, you start to look for a way out.

That being said, yes, I would agree with you that it's favorable to work for the govnerment over a contractor in terms of benefits, security, etc. But I can see why one would dream of the other side.

[Guest]

I have a PhD. Would love to even be invited to a meeting to discuss tasks. As far as I can tell, this facility confused SMART with a gazillion other internship opportunities they're allowed to choose from, and mixed me up with their high school summer interns.

[Greg87]

Wanted to see if there was still an interest in contacting SMART, etc. regarding a change in their Phase II approach. Phase I is great, good pay, no stress, but Phase II was pretty crappy for my career. The only way that I'm staying marketable is I created a start-up engineering consulting company so I build prototypes, etc. for clients in my spare time. If it wasn't for this, I'd have a really hard time in trying to apply for other engineering jobs after I'd quit the job I have now (I work for a Product Manager shop in acquisitions as an "engineer", emphasis on the quotation marks).

[frustSMART]

I think its an interesting idea to propose. Though, I think going the contractor route is the wrong idea (there are plenty of places in the govt that actually do engineering & science). I've also got a grad degree and apprently that means copy editing & excel spreadsheets -_-. Some of the acquisition positions really seem to be a bad fit for SMART interns wanting to do science/engineering.
It's to the point where I doubt I'll be here longer than a year if I can't change the situation, and thus will be paying some money back ("career death" seems like a worse proposition at this point).

I would note to all that if you find yourself sitting around waiting for work, do some independent work to keep yourself fresh (not saying paid consulting or anything, just something to keep your skills fresh).

[guestagain]

It sucks to know so many people have this experience with SMART. I know there are real sponsoring facilities out there that want actual engineers/scientists. I know because I apparently am one of the select few who landed at one. I am in the lab almost every day, we have two patent disclosures and 1 paper submitted and a second being drafted now due to that work and am excited to start working there full time (still in Phase 1). I really think everyone should have this opportunity to find the right fit. Or hell at least use their skills. I agree with the statements about not bringing this to the attention of congress because in case there are many more like myself, but perhaps earlier in their phase 1 commitment, this could seriously hurt their ability to thrive if they see it as an opportunity to cut costs. This program is the best thing that could have happened to me.

What I do agree with is that there needs to be a good bit of homework done before sending students to some of these facilities. They (the program) should be looking into the tasks the facilities have intended for the students/new hires so instances like a PhD becoming intermixed with high school students does not happen in the future. Basically they need to find a way to make sure that the contractor option isn't attractive because us students are actually placed in facilities that want to utilize our skill set. They also should be keeping tabs on the facilities who do screw over Scholars so no more are sent to a facility where the last guy was just signing for packages.

Unfortunately I don't believe it is exactly SMART's fault for all of this, though the only fix will likely require more effort on their part. The intentions are all there, but the facilities seem to fall short in realizing what the SMART program's purpose is. Maybe some fault lies in the ability of SMART to portray its purpose, but we all know how the government works, so I am not surprised the facilities simply don't even pay attention. And possibly even more common are good intentions on the part of the facility, but because the coordinator is usually not of a technical background, they don't know any better that the engineering group won't be engineering with their SMART engineer. I believe that I only enjoy my position because my facility has a great Division Chief who happens to have a successful background in engineering and he picks up SMART students as employees because he looks at the resumes himself. I think they have hired SMART students now every year for about 4-5 years.

[guest_1]

I agree that a big time change needs to be made. The commitment involved in this scholarship program is frightening and the affect it is having on some people's careers is terrible.

I'm not sure if any change could be pushed through, but I would absolutely do what I could to lobby for it. In the mean time I have some advice for newcomers to the program (who will probably visit this forum), and that is to thoroughly investigate you're sponsoring facility before committing. Clearly from comments posted on this forum your experience with this scholarship is highly dependent on the quality of the sponsoring facility, especially for phase II.

You can accept the scholarship in the spring time when decisions come out and there isn't any risk or commitment until you start receiving money (in late August). During the summer months you should be able to set up a visit to the sponsoring facility that will be paid for by the government, and then if you don't like your facility, you can withdraw before you begin receiving money and won't have anything to pay back.

Also a side note for PhD students and any masters students that already have partial or complete tuition coverage through their school - KEEP IT THAT WAY. ASEE will bypass you and go straight to the bursar's office with their intent to pay your tuition. If you let this happen, ASEE will now be paying your tuition and if you withdraw from the program, that's (a lot) more money you'll have to pay back. Contact your school's accounting office or graduate studies office early on and explain the situation to them. If your tuition is being covered by the school (not your advisor) already, they should be understanding and will continue to cover your tuition the same way they already were and not send the bill to ASEE. This will save you a lot of money (that you shouldn't have had to pay back anyways) if you decide to withdraw.

With that out of the way, prior to and during your visit, talk with as many different people as you can and try to get an idea of how the facility operates. Especially try to get contact information for and/or talk with people at the facility who have gone through SMART, as they will be able to give you the best idea of what you are getting yourself into. Also get a feel for the flexibility of the facility in regards to summer internships and employment after graduation. If the facility is flexible and has evidence to back it up (SMART scholars they have sent elsewhere to complete their phase commitment because the facility wasn't a good fit, willing to send you to a different facility for a summer internship to see if a different facility is a better fit) this is a very good thing. It gives you options and demonstrates the facility's commitment to your success.

Also, and this last bit of advice goes for everyone, be strong headed and proactive as you go through the smart scholarship and your career. While things do just magically work out for some people (it drives me insane, don't get me wrong) it won't for most. If you're not happy with the tasks you are doing or your job in general, nobody else is going to take action for you, only you can, and I can guarantee there is SOMETHING you can do about it. If you ruffle some feathers in a professional, calm manner and are persistent, you can probably improve things for yourself. I know that really tough situations exist and sometimes it is next to impossible to help yourself, but if you sit there quietly unhappy nothing will ever get better.

[larry]

As someone on the inside, I'd go one level of indenture further on the comments above: find your future boss and get a job working for them prior to accepting a SMART Scholarship. Free money is worth a lot, but it's not everything. We have a wide range of positions in the DoD research community. Don't assume that because you have been hired with an advance degree that it's with the super cool & exciting group (that you found on the web) at that location. Verify.

Some locations only hire folks who have worked as interns. This "Try before you buy" works to the advantage of the student and the employer.

I'll also emphasize again: don't drop out and think Uncle Sam isn't going to come after you. He maybe slow, but he is persistent and eventually he'll find you.

I've reviewed every posting on this website, and I greatly appreciate the input and the insight.

Larry

[Guest]

In reality, SMART would be better off adopting an SFS-like model.

Partner with targeted STEM universities, offer the scholarship to a number of students based on forecasting models taking into account number of participating SFs, overall anticipated need, etc. Hold off on hiring decisions until the end of a student's schooling period. At which point, those students would need to scour USAJobs, go to a SMART-only career fair, etc. and accept an employment opportunity with a government or FFRDC (usually contractor status) as long as they are presented with a reasonable job offer. As an aside, why SMART doesn't offer students to FFRDCs is a big, gigantic, question mark with the program that most in government and academia can't understand. That green stripe on the CAC is not as big a deal as SMART makes it out to be. A STEM graduate who is helping and serving the government and nation is a STEM graduate who is helping and serving the government. Period.

With the frontend commitment of the current SMART model, too many scholars feel they've been duped after several disappointments into their committment. SFs who are not accustomed to onboarding students through a scholarship commitment cannot participate in the program, because there's no mechanism in place to "commit" themselves to hiring a student 3 years before they have a degree. Base commanders change in that time period, and may decide they won't participate in SMART.

Whereas if the details employment question was held off until the end of schooling or the beginning of each summer internship period, (but a broader employment requirement was still in force) the students would be more free to navigate into the job that suits them, SFs would be more free to "try" before they buy (via non-binding summer internships).

Contrast SFS to the current SMART and you see things like scholarship award notifications delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed. When they finally do show up, the student is given about a week to decide if they want it or not. It all comes down to forcing something that shouldn't be forced, and doesn't necessarily HAVE to be forced (as can be seen by the success of other government scholarship for service programs).

[larry]

I can think of about 10 ways to manage a "Scholarship for Service" program.

The model we are currently using wouldn't have been my first choice (or maybe even in the top three). But, we have a group of committed students in the program, and thus any changes have to be factored against a timeline/phasing plan.

The statute doesn't currently allow FFRDC and as you know Congress makes the law, not the Executive Branch. I don't see FFRDCs having the same challenge of hiring folks that the government labs do, and thus adding them in wouldn't be my first "must change" for SMART.

I do like the NSF Cyber Corp model (which is similar to what you described) and it's one we are aware of, and contemplating.

I know of no service that allows a Base Commander to select employees. Fortunately the people decisions are made at the lowest level of supervision, with approval granted at higher levels. For SMART Scholars this works well - we let the folks in the trenches select their employees, and then we use the "Direct Hire" authority provided by SMART at the Service HQ level to enable their hire.

Best
Larry

[Guest]

base commanders do not select employees, but they are a signature that needs to approve hiring actions in many circumstances.


All it takes is a base commander saying "I don't want to hire ANYONE" and SMART is left on the outside looking in. SMART cannot force ANY DoD organization to hire if that org doesn't want to hire. Then, the SMART scholar is browbeaten with repayment threats when it was no fault of their own that a new colonel showed up and decided SMART scholars are unnecessary.

[larry]

I suppose it's a question of labels...

The Base Commander is a figure head wrt civilian personnel. When someone says the Base CO doesn't want to hire, what they mean is that the central personnel office has a freeze on hiring. And then, the civilian authority chain freezes, or unfreezes hiring and the Base CO looks like he is in charge. Trust me, he's not the enabler or the roadblock. These commitments are made and bound at the pentagon, not in the field. The Base CO is the bearer of good, or bad news...

Larry

[Guest]

makes sense, thanks for taking the time and effort to explain further.

So someone in the pentagon is making decisions to commit to hire a SMART scholar, and then 2 years later when the scholar is ready to graduate either the original person or a new person in that same position decides against hiring a SMART scholar? How often does this scenario happen? I know of a couple instances (one mentioned in another thread that's active today).

[larry]

You nicely articulated what I believe to be the fundamental flaw with SMART. We've created a system that is at odds with how the real world operates. We are trying to / we are working to fix that flaw.

Having said that, each service has committed to hiring the SMART scholars that they elected to sponsor. As always the devil is in the details.

Larry

[dafix]

I just wanted to drop in and make a comment. I'm a 2011 cohort that just moved into Phase II and I have been on the forum at least once a week all the way back to before I even applied to SMART.

I'm really glad to see some representation from SMART on the forum nowadays.

Larry, I wish you had been around when I was in Phase I.The lack of communication prior to you showing up has really given SMART a black eye...I mean, the late/partial payments and on-the-fly policy changes haven't helped either, but the silence! Oy Vey!

If this is the new approach that SMART is taking, i.e. open and regular communication, then I think the program may have turned the corner and might really be starting to improve.

[larry]

The Office of Naval Research was asked 18 months ago by ASDR&E to take on the day-to-day management of the SMART Program. It's taken that long to work through the transition but last month a Navy Program Manager assumed responsibility.

She is doing a fantastic job of laying out where we are, and more importantly where we want to go. She's doing this in concert with OSD and the Services and I am very excited.

When the prior SMART Program Manager mentioned this forum I joined. I was horrified by the silence. I understand why they didn't feel they could communicate, but I didn't agree with it.

You will slowly see the changes, but they are already occurring. For example, I learned yesterday that there are 5 students who have not onboarded post CY 14 graduation. Some are within the 60 day window that SMART promises but I find that way too long. Senior Leaders in each of the Services and the head of OSD ASDR&E are now aware and I believe will quickly lean into to ask why (This is not SMART per se, but rather HR processes). When Tier 2 and Tier 3 SES ask why, things usually get resolved.

ATB
Larry

[readyfortheend]

Larry,

I appreciate the work you do to make the program more transparent. I was wondering if you could push through an adjustment to the change of sponsoring facility when in phase 2. Some of use are engineers assigned to places that have no use for us. However, SMART will not allow us to transfer to a facility that has a need for us. Is it possible to make it easier for transfers, especially when the participant finds and secures their own job.

Thanks,
Ready for the End

[larry]

I find it counter-normal that we hold folks at a SF that the SMART Scholar doesn't want to be at.

If the SMART Scholar can find a new position and both facilities are agreeable than I think it would be natural to approve the change. I can't imagine having an employee that wanted to be elsewhere and not helping get where they want to be.

I talked to the new SMART Program Officer last week and she had similar thoughts.

This is a decision for the individual Service, the facilities and the scholar - not the SMART Program Office.

Larry

[guest_2]

Hi Larry. First of all I want to say that I (and all of us) are very grateful for the information and communication you are providing. This is the kind of thing a program like this needs in order to maximize its effectiveness.

Secondly, on this forum people have posted some horror stories about the damage that SMART has done to their career, but obviously there is some voluntary response bias. From what I can see, I'm counting only about 20 or so people that have posted these awful stories, and SMART sponsors hundreds of students each year. Would you be able to comment on whether or not you think SMART in general is damaging people's careers or enhancing them? And if the horror stories we're seeing on here are only a very small minority?

Lastly I'm glad to hear that program changes are underway. I can't imagine that the people who originally created this program had it in mind to do the kind of damage to promising students' careers as it has to some. Any and all updates as these changes occur will be greatly appreciated. Also maybe its time to think about creating an official smart forum? What you're doing on here is voluntary and greatly appreciated, but it would be very helpful to require more open communication lines to people within the administrative staff of the program for voicing concerns publicly.

[Larry]

IIRC we are going to collect debt on (potentially) as much as 6% of the SMART population.

I think that's way to high, and hope to drive that number to near zero over the next few years. But it's only 6% and something approaching 85% of SMART Scholars stay on after their commitment period. Hopefully those who are unhappy in their SF will work to find new homes at other DOD Labs. I'm always happy to help with that.

Students who manage their careers well do well in SMART. That's not to criticize young folks eager to get their schooling paid for (which is pretty "SMART"), but perhaps they needed to have a more eyes wide open approach. I do fault the sponsoring facilities for not being SMART in how they manage their students, and I'm very critical of the lack of communication from the SMART office.

We'll be fixing things on a number of fronts...
Best
Larry

[CMMMM]

Larry,
How is that retention rate measured, i.e., how long after the commitment ends do you count count a scholar as staying on or not? 85% is much higher that I would have expected if the retention is measured, say, at one year after commitment ends.

I agree with previous comments you made about how potential recipients should try to do an internship before receiving any money from the SMART program, and I think this would help lower the number of students that leave the program early. I certainly had misconceptions about working for the DoD when I applied for and accepted the scholarship. Doing an internship the summer before I started the program would have helped me avoid making a big mistake.