PDA

View Full Version : QNS Letters have started going out


scoutpilot
11th February 2012, 02:57 PM
Just an update for those on the NWL, from our Admissions RC:

"First, we have begun sending “Qualified, not selected” (QNS) letters to candidates on the national waiting list. We are doing this much earlier this year so to allow candidates to move on to further options. We based our decisions after thoroughly scrubbing the national waiting list. Still, is there a chance that someone sent a QNS letter could receive an offer further down the road? Yes, if a candidate that we have offered, or plan to offer an appointment declines the appointment. For the majority (>95%) of candidates, though, the QNS letter is a final decision. I apologize that I didn’t get this notice to you sooner as I have started to get inquiries from the field force about individual candidates."

If you receive a letter, time for Plan B, whatever that may be for you.

BenjaminZ
11th February 2012, 03:21 PM
Hm... this makes me worried.

Saluki
11th February 2012, 03:57 PM
[QUOTE=scoutpilot;233581]Just an update for those on the NWL, from our Admissions RC:

"First, we have begun sending “Qualified, not selected” (QNS) letters to candidates on the national waiting list. We are doing this much earlier this year so to allow candidates to move on to further options. We based our decisions after thoroughly scrubbing the national waiting list. Still, is there a chance that someone sent a QNS letter could receive an offer further down the road? Yes, if a candidate that we have offered, or plan to offer an appointment declines the appointment. For the majority (>95%) of candidates, though, the QNS letter is a final decision. I apologize that I didn’t get this notice to you sooner as I have started to get inquiries from the field force about individual candidates."

If you receive a letter, time for Plan B, whatever that may be for you.[/QUOTE

While very much appreciated also very afraid to open the mailbox today! Do you have any idea of how many was sent out?

scoutpilot
11th February 2012, 04:08 PM
While very much appreciated also very afraid to open the mailbox today! Do you have any idea of how many was sent out?

No, but the acceptances off the NWL will be low this year.

buff81
11th February 2012, 04:46 PM
Looking for the silver lining-
If a QNS is inevitable for a candidate anyway, better to know now than weeks from now. The 'waiting' angst just gets worse and worse as the days and weeks pass. Been there - done that.

This earlier than usual notification gives the candidates plenty of time to focus on Plan B - including thoughts about re-applying next year.
If you do decide that you will re-apply, get with your MALO/FFR or shoot the RC an email and ask where your file could be improved.
This gives you a leg up over first time applicants because you will know exactly what you need to do to make your file more competitive. :thumb:

509Blackknight
11th February 2012, 06:47 PM
Spoke with our FFR last night regarding the NWL and he said it was unlikely that our DS would receive an offer of appointment. He based that assessment on having been informed that only 50-60 candidates would taken from the NWL and that the cut-off line being used was an average SAT of 720 plus.

This may have been posted elsewhere, but he said that WP is currently over its max enrollment by law and that the next two-three classes were going to be in the 1150+/- range. Also, said that WP is going to start slowing its early offer process down - way down - like almost eliminating it.

Anyway - thanks to all who have posted information and thank you to the mods. I have been trolling the site for weeks and the information has been invaluable.

RLTW
11th February 2012, 07:17 PM
Looking for the silver lining-If a QNS is inevitable for a candidate anyway, better to know now than weeks from now. ... This earlier than usual notification gives the candidates plenty of time to focus on Plan B :

Spot on. DS was in that spot a year ago (QNS), had 10 colleges including some highly recognizable ones accept him, chose a year of SAP/ECP at MMI, now a plebe (class of '15) at USMA doing super well, and he said the year of ROTC/MMI absolutely prepared him better for USMA and now he's glad he did it that way. The early time of notification definitely gave him ample time to consider his best Plan B option.

If this encouragement helps, jump on it :thumb:

Hooah1775
11th February 2012, 08:00 PM
Spoke with our FFR last night regarding the NWL ...and that the cut-off line being used was an average SAT of 720 plus.

I am confused on what this means? "Average SAT of 720 plus"? Do you mean each section for Math(720+) and Crit. Reading(720+) or a total of 1440+?

Please clarify. Thanks.

katydid817
11th February 2012, 08:06 PM
Well, I joined Service Academy Forums in May 2010 and have been reading, reading, reading . . . this is my first post. And I am so sad to say it is because we received the letter today. Our DS has not been accepted for class of 2016. Yes, he has a plan B in place . . . but it's a shadow of what he had hoped for at West Point. He thinks he will reapply. The hard thing about that is I think once you start your freshman year at a college and an ROTC program you want to settle in, make friends and find a sense of belonging, not wait for the year to pass so you can go somewhere else. I guess we will see what the future brings. But I am heartbroken for him. Of course I (and everyone at his school, in our town and everyone who meets him) thought that he was perfect for West Point and would be accepted. I know in my heart that he belongs there. The senator and congressman who nominated him and everyone on their panel were so impressed by everything about him. But there you have it.

509Blackknight
11th February 2012, 08:17 PM
I am confused on what this means? "Average SAT of 720 plus"? Do you mean each section for Math(720+) and Crit. Reading(720+) or a total of 1440+?

Please clarify. Thanks.

Hooah - 720 average for reading and math or 1440 going up. I do not believe they are looking at a 680 math + 760 reading as an example. The math score is most critical.

I am just repeating what I was told.

Good Luck!

kinnem
11th February 2012, 08:18 PM
Well, I joined Service Academy Forums in May 2010 and have been reading, reading, reading . . . this is my first post. And I am so sad to say it is because we received the letter today. Our DS has not been accepted for class of 2016. Yes, he has a plan B in place . . . but it's a shadow of what he had hoped for at West Point. He thinks he will reapply. The hard thing about that is I think once you start your freshman year at a college and an ROTC program you want to settle in, make friends and find a sense of belonging, not wait for the year to pass so you can go somewhere else. I guess we will see what the future brings. But I am heartbroken for him. Of course I (and everyone at his school, in our town and everyone who meets him) thought that he was perfect for West Point and would be accepted. I know in my heart that he belongs there. The senator and congressman who nominated him and everyone on their panel were so impressed by everything about him. But there you have it.

Sorry to hear that. But along the lines of a silver lining, ROTC should help him get better prepared for the Academy. Remind him to try to mimic the courses he would have taken had he gone to WP. Just from what I read on the forum, it helps, and it certainly wouldn't hurt if he decides to stay with the ROTC unit. He might actually find he likes the fit better with ROTC. Best wishes in all his endeavors.

RLTW
11th February 2012, 08:21 PM
The hard thing about that is I think once you start your freshman year at a college and an ROTC program you want to settle in, make friends and find a sense of belonging, not wait for the year to pass so you can go somewhere else.

Understood, DS also realized that he had to decide how much he wanted USMA when he was choosing his Plan B. His experience though is that several of his buddies from the ROTC program are again with him this year also at USMA, so it actually does not have to seem like a spent year with no future benefit in terms of either making friends and finding a sense of belonging. He also knows that those who remained in ROTC will still be his colleagues when he is past USMA and they remain in contact. It's an opportunity to make the most of, and in his experience USMA looked favorably on his persistence the second time around.

Hope this helps.

katydid817
11th February 2012, 08:29 PM
It does help. Thank you both for your replies. It means a lot that people are out there and we are not alone in this pursuit!

katydid817
11th February 2012, 09:00 PM
Thought I would add that DS received his NWL letter in early January. Additionally, there is nothing changed on his portal. I just thought to mention these things since they are questions I know would be wondering about myself.

Receiving this TWE so early like this seems especially disheartening. But, then again, there are so many "mysteries" to this process!

gocubsgo
12th February 2012, 04:03 PM
This has stressed me out.

Spoke with our FFR last night regarding the NWL and he said ...that the cut-off line being used was an average SAT of 720 plus.


1.) I have not gotten my official SAT scores back yet (they arrive in four days) but during a practice test I scored a 770 in math and a 650 in reading. These are commensurate with my ACT scores (34m, 34 e, 31s, 26 r) it looks like, from what your FFR said, if I don't get the primary or the selection from my slate (from a very competitive area) then that's the end?



Spoke with our FFR last night... he said that WP is going to start slowing its early offer process down - way down - like almost eliminating it.


2.) also I went to an admission activity for USMA and the speaker stressed (at least a dozen times) to GET EVERYTHING done EARLY. If USMA is not doing LOAs- then it is my understanding that the admissions team cant pick from the congressman/senator's slate until all ten of the MOCs nominations have their completed applications done-so what would be the hurry?

cb7893
12th February 2012, 06:11 PM
I guess we will see what the future brings. But I am heartbroken for him.

Katy, based on the encouragement and support your son received during this "mysterious" process, I would bet anyone on this forum dollars to donuts that his future will be fulfilling and make his family proud.

I know that means nothing in the here and now to ease the disappointment.

I have seen this quote attributed to everyone from John Wooden to Winston Churchill, "Success isn't final, failure isn't fatal: it's the courage to continue that counts".

John Wooden did say, "It's not so important who starts the game but who finishes it." And I would add, how he finishes it.

Best wishes and best of luck!

kinnem
12th February 2012, 07:04 PM
Well, I joined Service Academy Forums in May 2010 and have been reading, reading, reading . . . this is my first post. And I am so sad to say it is because we received the letter today. Our DS has not been accepted for class of 2016. Yes, he has a plan B in place . . . but it's a shadow of what he had hoped for at West Point. He thinks he will reapply. The hard thing about that is I think once you start your freshman year at a college and an ROTC program you want to settle in, make friends and find a sense of belonging, not wait for the year to pass so you can go somewhere else. I guess we will see what the future brings. But I am heartbroken for him. Of course I (and everyone at his school, in our town and everyone who meets him) thought that he was perfect for West Point and would be accepted. I know in my heart that he belongs there. The senator and congressman who nominated him and everyone on their panel were so impressed by everything about him. But there you have it.

I know I responded earlier and I certainly understand your heartbreak for your son. But I have to add there is something about your comment
but it's a shadow of what he had hoped for at West Point that still sort of rubs me the wrong way. Did George Marshall go to WP? Hell no! Did Colin Powell go to WP? Hell no! His future will be whatever he makes of it and he can still have a rewarding and excellent career in the Army if he chooses to do that, WP or no. Also, since your son is impressive to everyone he may actually make out better if he stays where he goes his freshman year while doing AROTC. Big fish in a small pond theory! I know I don't need to tell you this, but don't discourage him from the path he goes down as being the lesser path. That wouldn't be good for anyone. (Yes, I know Im preaching to the choir... just felt the need to get on my soapbox for a moment).:thumb:

katydid817
13th February 2012, 12:05 AM
cb7893 and kinnem, you both state valid thoughts. And with 24 hours to let this sink in I am also getting in sync with that very thought process myself. DS is an outstanding young man and he will make an excellent officer even without West Point. We are extremely proud of him. He is amazing and he can excel in whatever he puts his mind to. He has it all – the grades, abilities, athleticism and desire to serve our country – he doesn’t need a certain school to become what he wants to be. It is NOT the thing that will define him - it is himself.
Youth is a wonderful thing. DS is already re-routing his energy toward his plan B with determination to make it the best experience of his life. He has a full ROTC scholarship to the most senior military college. He knows this is a defining moment for him, and he is prepared to move on and jump into plan B with both feet. How’s that for an about face? Forward march!

I just needed my moment to wallow. Thanks for your support!

cb7893
13th February 2012, 12:16 AM
parents are entitled to do a little wallowing...out of sight of our kids.

Plan B sounds pretty good.

kinnem
13th February 2012, 12:30 AM
cb7893 and kinnem, you both state valid thoughts. And with 24 hours to let this sink in I am also getting in sync with that very thought process myself. DS is an outstanding young man and he will make an excellent officer even without West Point. We are extremely proud of him. He is amazing and he can excel in whatever he puts his mind to. He has it all – the grades, abilities, athleticism and desire to serve our country – he doesn’t need a certain school to become what he wants to be. It is NOT the thing that will define him - it is himself.
Youth is a wonderful thing. DS is already re-routing his energy toward his plan B with determination to make it the best experience of his life. He has a full ROTC scholarship to the most senior military college. He knows this is a defining moment for him, and he is prepared to move on and jump into plan B with both feet. How’s that for an about face? Forward march!

I just needed my moment to wallow. Thanks for your support!

Good for your son. I have no doubt he will do well. And I appreciate the need to wallow. I would have too. That's part of what we're here for! :thumb:

FlyBoy1993
13th February 2012, 12:46 AM
parents are entitled to do a little wallowing...out of sight of our kids.

Plan B sounds pretty good.

i have actually found myself to have become a little bitter towards the selection process and NWL.

The notion of"Go to your college for a year and reapply to USMA..." certainly rubs me the wrong way.

Loyalty is a vital part of leadership. If our DS is not offered an appointment to West Point, you can rest assured he will not be reapplying a year later. He will take the route presented to him and run with it. His goal is to become an officer in the US Armed Forces. He will do it with or without West Point- with a school that recognizes his value.

Sorry to vent, but it's a bit ridiculous to act as if USMA is the only way he can get to where he wants to go. That piece has been a bit of a turn-off in this 2 year vetting process. West Point is a fine institution, but not the only one.

kinnem
13th February 2012, 01:57 AM
i have actually found myself to have become a little bitter towards the selection process and NWL.

The notion of"Go to your college for a year and reapply to USMA..." certainly rubs me the wrong way.

Loyalty is a vital part of leadership. If our DS is not offered an appointment to West Point, you can rest assured he will not be reapplying a year later. He will take the route presented to him and run with it. His goal is to become an officer in the US Armed Forces. He will do it with or without West Point- with a school that recognizes his value.

Sorry to vent, but it's a bit ridiculous to act as if USMA is the only way he can get to where he wants to go. That piece has been a bit of a turn-off in this 2 year vetting process. West Point is a fine institution, but not the only one.

I wholeheartedly agreeFly Boy. For the Marine Corps the percentage of officers commissioned by source is as follows:

Enlisted to Officer - 10%
Academy - 16%
NROTC - 16%
Platoon Leaders Course - 35%
Officer Candidate schoole - 25%

The Army numbers for 1999 show that only about 19% of officers graduated from WP. The rest come from AROTC, Direct Commissioning and OCS. I doubt its much different today.

cb7893
13th February 2012, 02:00 AM
I wholeheartedly agreeFly Boy. For the Marine Corps the percentage of officers commissioned by source is as follows:

Enlisted to Officer - 10%
Academy - 16%
NROTC - 16%
Platoon Leaders Course - 35%
Officer Candidate schoole - 25%

The Army numbers for 1999 show that only about 19% of officers graduated from WP. The rest come from AROTC, Direct Commissioning and OCS. I doubt its much different today.

It's not how you start, it's how you finish.

Dixieland
13th February 2012, 03:05 AM
Where is scoutpilot when you need him........

fball100
13th February 2012, 04:38 AM
Where is scoutpilot when you need him........

????????

BigNick
13th February 2012, 05:07 AM
I understand your issues with the Admissions process. Unfortunately there are over a 1,000 GREAT candidates EACH year who do not get an offer. There are simply a limited number of slots. It is not that WP does not see value in your son - it is just a very, very competitive process. This is true in every top-tier college.
There are many great officers from a variety of commission sources. However, if your son really wants West Point I would advise considering applying again next year. The extra year of training and maturity will be valuable to him if he enters WP next year. My son is in the Class of 2015 and both his roommates had a year of college before they entered WP and they both said it was time well spent.

scoutpilot
13th February 2012, 07:00 AM
Sorry, Scoutpilot was flying.

There sure are a lot of sour grapes in here. Did someone get a letter from West Point that read "Your kid is worthless and you can take this application and cram it in your cramhole?" I didn't think so. So grow up a bit, huh? No one is suggesting your kid is anything but great. He or she just didn't come out on top of the heap. That's not condemnation. Life is a competition and losing teaches us just as much as winning.

While some folks feel like lecturing on leadership, they should note that while loyalty is a leadership trait, so is perseverance. Why someone would be upset at West Point for saying they could try again is beyond me. Maybe you'd prefer to be told to cram it and to never think of USMA again? I guess so.

Of course every parent thinks their kid is the best. I'm sure they're all great, but West Point has a finite number of slots. Just like Harvard or Yale or MIT or Bumschmuck College of Dental Hygiene. Not everyone can get in. It would be nice if every qualified applicant could get in and become a general. It would also be great if my dogs would feed themselves and manage my IRA, but alas we live in the stark, cold world of reality.

Attending West Point is like any other goal. If you want it, go for it. Fight as hard for it as it's worth to you. If you're happy with Plan B, good. USMA fulfilled their mission of choosing the candidates who looked the best. The process has proven its worth for 210 years. Do great candidates get left out? Sure. They do at every top institution. It's the luxury of having a great pool of applicants. Control what you can control...your packet, your patience, and what you do with the outcome.

Let's try to show a little maturity about this subject. Statements like "He will do it with or without West Point-with a school that recognizes his value" are baseless, childish, and make me wonder more than a little about whose pride was hurt more.

buff81
13th February 2012, 09:30 AM
Sorry, Scoutpilot was flying.

There sure are a lot of sour grapes in here. Did someone get a letter from West Point that read "Your kid is worthless and you can take this application and cram it in your cramhole?" I didn't think so. So grow up a bit, huh? No one is suggesting your kid is anything but great. He or she just didn't come out on top of the heap. That's not condemnation. Life is a competition and losing teaches us just as much as winning.

While some folks feel like lecturing on leadership, they should note that while loyalty is a leadership trait, so is perseverance. Why someone would be upset at West Point for saying they could try again is beyond me. Maybe you'd prefer to be told to cram it and to never think of USMA again? I guess so.

Of course every parent thinks their kid is the best. I'm sure they're all great, but West Point has a finite number of slots. Just like Harvard or Yale or MIT or Bumschmuck College of Dental Hygiene. Not everyone can get in. It would be nice if every qualified applicant could get in and become a general. It would also be great if my dogs would feed themselves and manage my IRA, but alas we live in the stark, cold world of reality.

Attending West Point is like any other goal. If you want it, go for it. Fight as hard for it as it's worth to you. If you're happy with Plan B, good. USMA fulfilled their mission of choosing the candidates who looked the best. The process has proven its worth for 210 years. Do great candidates get left out? Sure. They do at every top institution. It's the luxury of having a great pool of applicants. Control what you can control...your packet, your patience, and what you do with the outcome.

Let's try to show a little maturity about this subject. Statements like "He will do it with or without West Point-with a school that recognizes his value" are baseless, childish, and make me wonder more than a little about whose pride was hurt more.


I wish there was a 'clap' smilie.

May I add that WP's hands are tied, to an extent, in who they offer appts to by Title X of the US Code.

They HAVE to admit a P-Nom if qualified -no matter if there is a higher WCS anywhere else on the list. So before too many fingers are pointed at big bad WP, don't forget that the Federal Gov't and the MOC's play a role in who gets an appt.
Even on a competitive slate, WP just doesn't pick the vacancy winner willy-nilly.
It's no secret how it is done.
The candidate with the highest WCS wins.
Who is responsible for their WCS - the candidate.
That is not meant to be snotty but please don't blame WP if your WCS is one point below the vacancy winner. Who knows if one more point on the ACT, or an A in X class instead of a B, or completing your Eagle Scout etc etc etc would have made the difference.

The admissions folks at WP are wonderful people. They are human. They do not enjoy telling any candidate that they will not be receiving an appt. But there is not much they can do with a candidate without a nom. or with this small class, a non-vacancy winner.
There's that Title X again - the Corps size is to be 4400. Low attrition has made it a challenge to keep the Corps that size. But low attrition also tells me that the Admissions Dept knows what they are doing.

MemberLG
13th February 2012, 01:02 PM
. . . It's no secret how it is done.
The candidate with the highest WCS wins . . .


I respectfully disagree. I will say in most cases the candidate with the highest WCS wins but not 100%.

I don't sit on the admissions committee, but the admissions database provides enough information to make an educated estimate.

I know my sample size is small, but since I worked with many candidates from my state I feel strong that two candidates, IN MY OPINION, probably did not have the higest WCS within their category to win their appointments.

Dixieland
13th February 2012, 01:29 PM
Love our FFRs!

scottgd
13th February 2012, 01:33 PM
Son hasn't received anything from WP beyond "send us your 7th semester." No NWL letter, no nothing. Saw on the forum another candidate got accepted from our congressional district.

Good news or bad news coming?

T's gds

Luigi59
13th February 2012, 02:20 PM
That is not meant to be snotty but please don't blame WP if your WCS is one point below the vacancy winner.

This is not meant to be snotty either, but who do you blame when the WCS is 50 points higher than the vacancy winner, only to find out that race/ethnicity/diversity goals played a part in the selection?

MemberLG
13th February 2012, 02:44 PM
Son hasn't received anything from WP beyond "send us your 7th semester." No NWL letter, no nothing. Saw on the forum another candidate got accepted from our congressional district.

Good news or bad news coming?

T's gds

not enough information.

Another candidate could have gotten accepted with other nomination (i.e. senatorial, service connected, and etc). If so, it could be a good news for your DS as one less qualified competitor in his congressional district.

MemberLG
13th February 2012, 02:52 PM
This is not meant to be snotty either, but who do you blame when the WCS is 50 points higher than the vacancy winner, only to find out that race/ethnicity/diversity goals played a part in the selection?

Congress

scoutpilot
13th February 2012, 02:52 PM
This is not meant to be snotty either, but who do you blame when the WCS is 50 points higher than the vacancy winner, only to find out that race/ethnicity/diversity goals played a part in the selection?

The liberal establishment for ingraining the idea of diversity as endstate.

Next question.

VonFritz
13th February 2012, 03:07 PM
Again, in a perfect world there would be an easy explanation for the NWL selection process. I have had first hand experience - my son applied last year to the USMA, made it all the way to April and was then informed that he was QNS! Did it sting? ABSOLUTELY!!! Last year my sons file was very strong - in fact, he obtained 3 nominations (1 from each MOC). The last MOC even commented to my son that it was very uncommon for them to award a nomination to a candidate that already obtained 2 nominations, but they wanted to give my son the best chance of obtaining an appointment.
When he was notified that he was QNS, a representative from each MOC contacted him to let him know how stunned they were that he did not receive an appointment. As parents, we couldn't understand how this could have happened. We then spoke with a friend, formerly in the military, and knowledgable about the process. We discovered that in some cases, the NWL was used balance out the class! The USMA wants to keep certain percentages of women, minorities, athletes.... at West Point, so they sometimes choose candidates with lower WCS scores to obtain those acceptable percentages.
With everything I have heard about this years class being smaller, the situation we experienced last year is bound to occur again this year to many qualified candidates. There is no 100% perfect solution. Just remember, if your DS/DD gets notified that they are placed on the NWL and then are notified they are QNS, the candidates receiving appointments are also good candidates! They would not have made it that far in the process if they were not!
We, like many, are now waiting - hoping that West Point selects our perfect son! :thumb:

BillSL
13th February 2012, 03:20 PM
This is not meant to be snotty either, but who do you blame when the WCS is 50 points higher than the vacancy winner, only to find out that race/ethnicity/diversity goals played a part in the selection?

1st, you blame God because he made different people with different life experiences and perspectives;

2nd, you blame WP because they see diversity as an advantage in the Officer Corps.

buff81
13th February 2012, 03:54 PM
This is not meant to be snotty either, but who do you blame when the WCS is 50 points higher than the vacancy winner, only to find out that race/ethnicity/diversity goals played a part in the selection?

It's hard to say unless you can divulge the details of a specific case where that happened off a competitive slate.

Could definitely happen off a P-nom slate.

buff81
13th February 2012, 04:10 PM
I respectfully disagree. I will say in most cases the candidate with the highest WCS wins but not 100%.

I don't sit on the admissions committee, but the admissions database provides enough information to make an educated estimate.

I know my sample size is small, but since I worked with many candidates from my state I feel strong that two candidates, IN MY OPINION, probably did not have the higest WCS within their category to win their appointments.

I think it's hard to determine who has the highest WCS based on the info that we are given on the database. We don't how many points are given for each specific item. There are bonus points given for certain things and those may very well skew who we think has the highest WCS.

Call me naive - but I believe in the process and if WP says the highest WCS wins the vacancy off a competitive slate, then i believe that the highest WCS wins.

Maybe BigNick can chime in here since he has served on the Admissions Committee.

CandidateDad16
13th February 2012, 04:17 PM
[QUOTE=buff81;233899]I wish there was a 'clap' smilie.


The candidate with the highest WCS wins.
Who is responsible for their WCS - the candidate.


Does geography play in the decision? In other words, all things being equal (ratios filled etc.), would they choose multiple candidates from same district if their WCS is highest?

marciemi
13th February 2012, 04:19 PM
First of all, I think that the opportunity to apply a second year to any academy, and have a much stronger chance of getting in, is a great positive. My oldest son had wanted USAFA pretty much forever, and his Plan B was strictly in place as a way to reach that goal, no matter what, even if it took an extra year. Luckily it didn't, but his mindset was that he'd apply until he was too old. In the meantime, my youngest son has always wanted MIT. One of the most frustrating things in the process was that optimism is definitely NOT the case for MIT. While for an academy you hear constantly that if you reapply, take classes to parallel plebe year, etc. that you'll have a much better chance the next year, at MIT your only option is to reapply the following year as a transfer student, the odds of which are much lower than getting in as a freshman. Meaning if you applied to get in as a freshman and didn't, you're not getting in as a transfer unless you won a Nobel prize or something in the interim. Most transfer students who are accepted had stellar records and just didn't apply straight from HS. So I find the academies' mindset on this to be much more accommodating if it's what you really want!!

Back to the OP - Buff/MemberLG - have you been told the same on the QNS letters? This hasn't come down in our region yet (and we've gotten a LOT of email and FB updates in the last week or two) so I'm wondering if it's a regional thing or across the board? Just curious so when my outstanding candidates start asking, I know if them not having heard yet is more of a positive or when they would expect to hear.

buff81
13th February 2012, 04:39 PM
Marciemi - I'll reply on FB.

buff81
13th February 2012, 04:58 PM
[QUOTE=buff81;233899]I wish there was a 'clap' smilie.


The candidate with the highest WCS wins.
Who is responsible for their WCS - the candidate.


Does geography play in the decision? In other words, all things being equal (ratios filled etc.), would they choose multiple candidates from same district if their WCS is highest?

I was referring to choosing the vacancy winner off a competitive slate.
I think you are referring to choosing someone off the NWL. Once on the NWL, candidates are ranked according to WCS. Geography does not come into play. So multiple candidates can and do come from the same district.

katydid817
13th February 2012, 05:21 PM
Scoutpilot – not sure who you think you are other than someone rude and condescending…

“Let's try to show a little maturity about this subject. Statements like "He will do it with or without West Point-with a school that recognizes his value" are baseless, childish, and make me wonder more than a little about whose pride was hurt more.”

Sorry, not baseless or childish and my maturity level is fine . . .

“It would also be great if my dogs would feed themselves and manage my IRA, but alas we live in the stark, cold world of reality.”

What about yours?

CandidateDad16
13th February 2012, 05:44 PM
[QUOTE=CandidateDad16;233927]

I was referring to choosing the vacancy winner off a competitive slate.
I think you are referring to choosing someone off the NWL. Once on the NWL, candidates are ranked according to WCS. Geography does not come into play. So multiple candidates can and do come from the same district.


Thanks for the continued information

cb7893
13th February 2012, 07:05 PM
i have actually found myself to have become a little bitter towards the selection process and NWL.

The notion of"Go to your college for a year and reapply to USMA..." certainly rubs me the wrong way.

Loyalty is a vital part of leadership. If our DS is not offered an appointment to West Point, you can rest assured he will not be reapplying a year later. He will take the route presented to him and run with it. His goal is to become an officer in the US Armed Forces. He will do it with or without West Point- with a school that recognizes his value.

Sorry to vent, but it's a bit ridiculous to act as if USMA is the only way he can get to where he wants to go. That piece has been a bit of a turn-off in this 2 year vetting process. West Point is a fine institution, but not the only one.

Katy, Scout doesn't need me carrying his water, but I believe he was referring to Flyboy, not you.

scoutpilot
13th February 2012, 07:10 PM
Scoutpilot – not sure who you think you are other than someone rude and condescending…

“Let's try to show a little maturity about this subject. Statements like "He will do it with or without West Point-with a school that recognizes his value" are baseless, childish, and make me wonder more than a little about whose pride was hurt more.”

Sorry, not baseless or childish and my maturity level is fine . . .

“It would also be great if my dogs would feed themselves and manage my IRA, but alas we live in the stark, cold world of reality.”

What about yours?

I think I'm someone who...

1. Applied to USMA and therefore understands the anxieties and realities of the process.

2. Graduated from USMA out of a class that started with 1169 new cadets (or what folks now think of as a "small class" which was actually the norm for years).

3. Still serves as an officer on active duty.

4. Volunteers his time as a Field Force Representative and helps dozens of qualified candidates every year, some of whom are not admitted despite being stellar young scholar-athletes.

5. Lives in the real world of the military, where we deal everyday with limited opportunities for a large number of great candidates. There are a lot of great folks who miss out on their dreams.

6. Doesn't take kindly to folks who want to point fingers and besmirch the good name of West Point because their young Johnny or Suzy wasn't admitted, claiming that West Point sees no value in their child.

That's who I am.

FlyBoy1993
13th February 2012, 07:24 PM
Let's try to show a little maturity about this subject. Statements like "He will do it with or without West Point-with a school that recognizes his value" are baseless, childish, and make me wonder more than a little about whose pride was hurt more.

Was my post immature?

I find the stance that " Oh he can apply again next year" to be the problematic outlook. I scoff at the assumption that everyone will put their lives on hold while USMA finds room for them.

scoutpilot
13th February 2012, 07:29 PM
Was my post immature?

I find the stance that " Oh he can apply again next year" to be the problematic outlook. I scoff at the assumption that everyone will put their lives on hold while USMA finds room for them.

I am troubled by the assumption that attending USMA is some form of right for anyone who applies, and that USMA is under some obligation to make room for anyone. Secondly, I scoff at the assumption that USMA is assuming that folks would put their lives on hold. They're saying "if this is all that will make you happy, the door isn't closed." If you'd prefer the door be closed, you can do that yourself. Many other schools won't even afford you the courtesy of encouraging you to try again.

Yes, the viewpoint you posted was immature.

dunninla
13th February 2012, 07:36 PM
i have actually found myself to have become a little bitter towards the selection process and NWL.
That is only natural, human. Take this as an opportunity to let the dust settle, and reconsider what is important in life.

The notion of"Go to your college for a year and reapply to USMA..." certainly rubs me the wrong way. several have responded that elite civilian colleges don't offer near this much opportunity to adjust to feedback and reapply.

Loyalty is a vital part of leadership. If our DS is not offered an appointment to West Point, you can rest assured he will not be reapplying a year later. He will take the route presented to him and run with it. How sure are you of what HE wants? Will you direct him, or allow him to chart his own course after receiving advice from several relevant sources?

His goal is to become an officer in the US Armed Forces. He will do it with or without West Point- with a school that recognizes his value. As others have posted, no gaining an appointment does not mean WP does not recognize his value. As pointed out, the WCS is not the only consideration... geography and diversity play a role, as does politics, and some luck as well with regard to slate vacancies, and West Point Admissions serves at the pleasure of Congress in many of these selection criteria.

Sorry to vent, but it's a bit ridiculous to act as if USMA is the only way he can get to where he wants to go. That piece has been a bit of a turn-off in this 2 year vetting process. West Point is a fine institution, but not the only one. Venting is allowed, after all this is an internet discussion board. I would have preferred that Scout Pilot had not responded exactly as he did, but that's what makes this world a great place... each of us in unique in our perspective and approach. I say vent, work it out, grow from it, and learn to be a mature counselor to your son.

katydid817
13th February 2012, 08:38 PM
Scoutpilot – your comments say it all . . .

“Did someone get a letter from West Point that read "Your kid is worthless and you can take this application and cram it in your cramhole?" I didn't think so. So grow up a bit, huh?”

Enough said.

FlyBoy1993
13th February 2012, 08:41 PM
Thank you BOTH for your responses.

To answer some of the questions:

1. If not USMA, he will attend a SMC, so he will still have the military element in his education, although not directly tied to his entire academic coursework. He has already accepted his ROTC scholarship. The SMC was a very close 2nd favorite on his list of schools, with some non-military alums in our family already.

2. HE is the one driving his development and career path. We are there to support and counsel him, with the need for direction more associated with cleaning his room versus what his long term goals are. The reason I stated that he would not reapply is that I know what he has put into the whole process. He's also wired like I am- If someone turns you down and there's another avenue to get you there, why keep bothering? If I wasn't good enough then, what changed? I will stick with the one that offered me the chance to get there. Loyalty matters. There are also the family ties to the SMC.

3. I, too, appreciate the candid conversation and feedback.

4. Lastly, he is still on the NWL, so this very discussion may all be for naught with regard to his future.

BigNick
14th February 2012, 05:17 AM
Very emotional subject. Let me provide you some insights based on my experience which includes:
1. Graduate of West Point
2. Taught math 4 years an Assistant Professor at West Point
3. Was on the Admissions Committee for two years
4. Served over 30 years of active duty
5. Have son in the Class of 2015

No Admissions process or selection process is perfect. However, the people in the admissions process are great people who are totally dedicated to selecting the very best people to attend West Point. They study, debate, argue, agonize, lose sleep, and even pray over their admissions choices and decisions. I believe they do a GREAT (not perfect) job of picking the best people. However, they are limited by:
1. MOCs who choose their vacancy winners. Of course the MOC choice must be fully qualified but there could be (probably are) other candidates with higher scores.
2. Title 10 legal requirements - law made by Congress. Explained in much detail by Buff81 in the Forum.
3. Diversity target selections. Right or wrong in our society and in the Army, diversity is seen as making the class and the Army better. This is debatable, but it is a fact of life in our "politically correct" society. Clearly, some candidates with higher qualifications are “passed over” to make room for these candidates. If you disagree with this process, write your MOC or the Department of the Army and NOT West Point.
4. Candidates completing their applications correctly and in a timely manner. Sometimes great candidates submit their final papers so late that the class is mostly filled.

The fact is that the top schools in the U.S. (Army, Navy, AFA, Ivy League schools, MIT, Stanford, etc. etc.) have limited slots and routinely turn away MANY excellent students.
BOTTOM LINE: It is up to you to convince the MOC that you deserve to be his vacancy winner – to get better grades than other candidates – have higher SAT scores -do more push-ups and pull-ups – to get leadership positions in school- to be successful in sports -etc etc. It is a competitive world. When your son or daughter enters the Army IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE VERY COMPETITIVE for promotions, best assignments etc.
It is very natural and normal for you to believe that your son or daughter is great – and they probably are – but do not blame West Point if they do not get an offer. Either go to Plan B or improve your record and try again next year. Good luck to all the people on the NWL – I wish all of you would get an offer but-----

FlyBoy1993
14th February 2012, 11:49 AM
I hope he gets an offer too.

I hope you don't think 2 years into the application process and 18 years into our DS's life, we don't understand how competitive it is for talent.

That being said, it is still very presumptive to tell someone after all of this, ' Hey, we know you put everything into this, but it wasn't quite enough. Try again next year."

At that point, the game changes on both sides of the equation. That's all I am saying.

jagabiti
14th February 2012, 12:05 PM
Nothing in the mail yet for DS. He is on 4year ROTC to a great school and loves it. Somehow his MOC nomination Is not showing up and MOC isn't returning DS's calls. DS has the phone message about his nomination so he is confused as to what's up with that. He has even sent the academy emails with nothing returned. Time is running out for it to show up in his file. Hey is could be worst.... Having a QNS is so much better then the ones that didn't get past the first part or second part of the application. We are very proud of DS even if he is Not picked of the list. He is going to graduate college as a second LT in the Army and serve his country. The end is still the same. Let's celebrate how much our kids have done to get this far. QNS means they are the best there is but just not a space for them! :smile:

Mongo
14th February 2012, 01:33 PM
3. Diversity target selections. Right or wrong in our society and in the Army, diversity is seen as making the class and the Army better. This is debatable, but it is a fact of life in our "politically correct" society. Clearly, some candidates with higher qualifications are “passed over” to make room for these candidates.

Two questions. Would passing over the more qualified candidate in favor of a diversity goal not be in violation of Title 10? Also, to increase ones WCS based solely on race, color, or gender, not be in violation of equal rights laws?

Luigi59
14th February 2012, 01:43 PM
Two questions. Would passing over the more qualified candidate in favor of a diversity goal not be in violation of Title 10? Also, to increase ones WCS based solely on race, color, or gender, not be in violation of equal rights laws?

I would think since USNA routinely practices it (according to all the FOIA documents pried from them last year) it would not be a problem for WP to do likewise.

Mongo
14th February 2012, 01:57 PM
I would think since USNA routinely practices it (according to all the FOIA documents pried from them last year) it would not be a problem for WP to do likewise. The public's perception of FOIA raw data and actual procedures are not necessarily the same. However, this IS a WP thread.

marciemi
14th February 2012, 02:12 PM
That being said, it is still very presumptive to tell someone after all of this, ' Hey, we know you put everything into this, but it wasn't quite enough. Try again next year."

I just really don't see how this is presumptive. :confused: Nearly every Ivy or top-ranked school tells the first part of it to around 90% of their applicants every year. I see the "Try again next year" as just an added bonus. As I said earlier, it's great to have that opportunity if you REALLY want WP. If you don't and plan B works out better for you - great! It's just nice to know that that option is still there.

Edited to add: I'm also a bit perplexed by the comments along the line "if West Point didn't think I'm good enough, then I'll go somewhere that does" (or variations on this). The WP admissions process is as objective as it can be (within the structures of nominations, etc.) - it's not just "oh, hey, we didn't like you." It's not that they didn't THINK you were good enough - by this year's standards, compared to the rest of 2016 applicants, the bottom line for QNS candidates is simply that they WEREN'T, no matter how hard they tried or how much effort they put into it.

scoutpilot
14th February 2012, 03:34 PM
Edited to add: I'm also a bit perplexed by the comments along the line "if West Point didn't think I'm good enough, then I'll go somewhere that does" (or variations on this). The WP admissions process is as objective as it can be (within the structures of nominations, etc.) - it's not just "oh, hey, we didn't like you." It's not that they didn't THINK you were good enough - by this year's standards, compared to the rest of 2016 applicants, the bottom line for QNS candidates is simply that they WEREN'T, no matter how hard they tried or how much effort they put into it.

Yes! We have a winner!

This is not some evil slight against your kid. WP has metrics laid out for how they score candidates. If someone gets in over your child, it means that they had done more and/or done it better. It's as simple as that. It's not as though people are picked at random off the NWL. The class is X size, which means only Y candidates can come off the NWL. If your child isn't above the cutoff line for Y, then that's that and it's on NO ONE but your child. His WCS is completely determined by his actions...SAT/ACT, CFA, etc.

That being said, it is still very presumptive to tell someone after all of this, ' Hey, we know you put everything into this, but it wasn't quite enough. Try again next year."

At that point, the game changes on both sides of the equation. That's all I am saying.

No, all you're saying is that you think your child worked hard enough on THE PROCESS that he deserves admission (i.e. "put everything into this"). The process isn't the point. The whole candidate is the point.

Acting as though WP is somehow insulting your child by not thinking he's good enough is illogical. It's like saying someone is insulting a Cadillac by thinking a Rolls Royce is better. Sure, someone worked very hard to make both and both represent someone's best effort. But the Rolls is better by most objective metrics you want to use. The same principle applies to candidates. Your child may have given his best. That doesn't mean someone else isn't better for WP based on the WCS metrics.

I still have no idea why you think it's presumptive. At this point, it strikes me as sour grapes. Would you be this bitter if he'd applied to Harvard and said "No, you're not accepted" and that was it? Is outright rejection better in your mind than the chance to try again?

If you want to blame someone, blame the competition.

MemberLG
14th February 2012, 03:37 PM
Would passing over the more qualified candidate in favor of a diversity goal not be in violation of Title 10?

No, the Title 10 is about how many and does not specifically address how to determine best qualified. So in theory, if a SA decides to give a Congressional vacancy to a candidate that does not have the higest WCS in the Congressional district, it still met the Title 10 requirement of appointment someone against the vacancy from the MOC nomination.

Also, to increase ones WCS based solely on race, color, or gender, not be in violation of equal rights laws?

No, unless there is a specific part in the WCS grading sheet (if there is such thing) says race, color, or gender.

quadething
14th February 2012, 09:43 PM
Yep, I got a QNS letter and i've got my plan B in full force. it really stinks being told by the review board that I had the best file, but WP didn't pick me for #1. oh well, OSU here I come !

scoutpilot
14th February 2012, 10:01 PM
Yep, I got a QNS letter and i've got my plan B in full force. it really stinks being told by the review board that I had the best file, but WP didn't pick me for #1. oh well, OSU here I come !

Which review board said that? The nomination review board for your MOC?

Vista123
14th February 2012, 10:12 PM
Yep, I got a QNS letter and i've got my plan B in full force. it really stinks being told by the review board that I had the best file, but WP didn't pick me for #1. oh well, OSU here I come !

Im confused. I thought I saw you posted earlier under appointments for class of 2016 that you received an appointment:


33. quadething, Nov.22, Congressional, TX-17

quadething, Nov.22, Congressional, TX-17

BigNick
14th February 2012, 10:59 PM
Each member of Congress can use ANY METHOD THEY WANT TO DETERMINE THEIR VACANCY WINNER. Title 10 does not put ANY restrictions on how they pick their vacancy winner. Of course, that vacancy winner DOES NOT get an offer unless they are declared FULLY qualified by West Point. Most MOCs have a panal of people (usually including some local retired West Pointers) to interview the candidates and make recommendations to the MOC. However, this is just a recommendation. In my Congressional District last year the MOC picked the person ranked #2 by his board which is his right. (My son got in from a Presidential nomination). The person ranked #1 was put on the NWL and did not get an offer.
The vast majority of MOCs want to send the very best people in their District to WP. However, the "best" as determened by the MOC, and the best as determined by WP can be different. However, MOCs are political people so I am sure that this is a factor in some cases.

afmom1
14th February 2012, 11:10 PM
Well, as a mom whose beloved DS received the TWE in June last year (arrghhhhttp://www.serviceacademyforums.com/images/smilies/cool.gif) I gotta say I think the last year has ended up being an incredible experience for DS. So despite being nervous about chiming into a contentious thread I just want to tell anyone out there that is anxiously waiting or started to feel despondent that your life will not be over if you fail to get an appointment. DS applied only to USNA last year; goal was to become a pilot (visions of landing on aircraft carrier in rough seas come to mind). Mailbox stalking did not cause BFE to magically arrive in mailbox, and by April faces around our house were quite glum. DS asked and was told he was a very good candidate, but as scoutpilot states graphically in this thread, there were candidates out there with better grades. So he was told to go to college, do well (mostly A’s) and re-apply. At this point DS really had to think about what he wanted. Did he want to fly?(because he didn’t necessarily have to go to the academy to become a pilot). Or did he want to serve his country? (and he realized he didn’t have to go to the academy for this either as there might be an option for ROTC, or he could go to college and then sign up after he graduated). He pretty quickly came to the conclusion he first wanted to serve his country (well and then fly……what is it about flying????) and decided to re-apply, this time to all academies to maximize his chances. Next decision: which college? Unfortunately our state college, which would have been the cheapest option, has only a 17% 4-year graduation rate due to over-enrollment in current economy and inability to get classes. DS would not be able to get English fall semester, and maybe not Calculus. (If you are in this situation in college and can’t get the classes you need then try to add the class after school starts. As a Professor if a motivated student came to me and explained the situation I would let them add if I could). We looked at preparatory schools as most parents and students on the forum stated the preparatory schools were an excellent experience. DS choose Greystone, a 4-year University plus preparatory school that met his need for college curriculum. I liked the idea of a preparatory school because he would get some exposure to the military (I wanted to be sure he knew what he was getting into - I was trying to convince him to go to college and become a doctor…….hey it seemed safer and remember this is BELOVED DS) and I liked the idea that he would automatically be in a small peer group all highly motivated with similar goals (we know in higher education that the transition from HS to college is HARD…….we try to get freshman into FIGs, small groups of freshman interested in the same thing, as this type of peer group increases their chances of staying in college and doing well). So off he went to college. We knew even if he did his best, he still might not get in, so plan B was ROTC. He did well, and has grown tremendously as a person. He says his study and time management skills have improved. He has identified a major (engineering) that he is very interested in (in case that flying thing doesn’t work outhttp://www.serviceacademyforums.com/images/smilies/shake.gif). He met people from all branches of the military and even had the opportunity to help with the wounded warrior program, which was a privilege. AND………he received a principal nomination from Senator for USAFA, congressional nomination to USMA, and just a week ago received his APPOINTMENT TO USMA!! Though I think he would have figured all this out if he had been accepted last year, this year I’m sure he will go and FLY (metaphorically speaking). So I guess the morale of the story is: hang in there! Wanting to serve your country shows your dedication and compassion. Managing to complete that darned application shows drive and perseverance. You will be highly successful no matter what happens but I hope your BFE comes in the mail soon (and if you end up next year with my DS tell him to phone home more often!!).

cb7893
15th February 2012, 02:51 AM
So I guess the morale of the story is: hang in there! Wanting to serve your country shows your dedication and compassion. Managing to complete that darned application shows drive and perseverance. You will be highly successful no matter what happens but I hope your BFE comes in the mail soon (and if you end up next year with my DS tell him to phone home more often!!).

Thank you for a clear minded, level headed perspective. Best of luck to your DS. Sounds like the kind of kid I want mine associating with.

Mongo
15th February 2012, 11:26 AM
Each member of Congress can use ANY METHOD THEY WANT TO DETERMINE THEIR VACANCY WINNER. Title 10 does not put ANY restrictions on how they pick their vacancy winner. I should have been more specific. When the Academy does the selection, they are required by Title 10 to select the most qualified. Here, for example, is the portion promulgating guidance for the NWL (boldface mine):
If the annual quota of cadets under subsection (b)(1), (2), (3) is not filled, the Secretary may fill the vacancies by nominating for appointment other candidates from any of these sources who were found best qualified on examination for admission and not otherwise nominated. I don’t think there is any argument that the method of “examination” devised by the Academy to select the “best qualified” is the WCS system. I also don’t think there is any argument to the aforementioned statements in this thread that the highest WCS wins:
…………………….
The candidate with the highest WCS wins.
………………………………..
The common misconception on this thread that the Academy does not have to give the highest WCS the appointment (boldface mine):

No, the Title 10 is about how many and does not specifically address how to determine best qualified. So in theory, if a SA decides to give a Congressional vacancy to a candidate that does not have the higest WCS in the Congressional district, it still met the Title 10 requirement of appointment someone against the vacancy from the MOC nomination. is in violation of Title 10 and cannot be true. Again only discussing the selection process where the Academy decides, not the
Title 10 portion of the law where the MOC can pick whoever he wants.

Most would argue that, when the Academy selects, to give the appointment to anyone other than the candidate with the higher WCS would be in violation of Title 10. Additionally, most would argue that to give a candidate extra WCS points based solely on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin“ would be in violation of Title 8.



No, unless there is a specific part in the WCS grading sheet (if there is such thing) says race, color, or gender. I think we agree. With any record before the board, I am most positive that they are aware of the race, color, or gender of the candidate.

buff81
15th February 2012, 12:54 PM
I should have been more specific. When the Academy does the selection, they are required by Title 10 to select the most qualified. Here, for example, is the portion promulgating guidance for the NWL (boldface mine):

(e) If the annual quota of cadets under subsection (b)(1), (2), (3) is not filled, the Secretary may fill the vacancies by nominating for appointment other candidates from any of these sources who were found best qualified on examination for admission and not otherwise nominated.

This portion of the Title X does not have to do with selection off the NWL, if that is what you are referring to.
It is about guidance for filling the unused slots allotted for Presidential noms, RGARMY and RSCOM.
Any of the unused 100 slots for PRES, unused 85 slots for RGARMY or unused 85 slots for RSCOM can be used as noms for those that are 'not otherwise nominated'.
Also, note that this says, 'nominating for appointment'. This language is not used for MOC noms so therefore I have interpretted (and maybe wrongly) that those receiving these unused slots are given direct appointments and do not go on the NWL. Again, I could be wrong and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am. :wink:

This is the section that has to do with the NWL (Bold added by me):
(5) 150 selected by the Secretary of the Army in order of merit (prescribed pursuant to section 4343 of this title) from qualified alternates nominated by persons named in clauses (3) and (4) of subsection (a).(MOC NOMS)

Note the 'order of merit' part. Those 150 selected must be by order of merit. IOW - the top 150 by WCS.

Then to fill the rest of the class (bold added by me):
If it is determined that, upon the admission of a new class to the Academy, the number of cadets at the Academy will be below the authorized number, the Secretary of the Army may fill the vacancies by nominating additional cadets from qualified candidates designated as alternates and from other qualified candidates who competed for nomination and are recommended and found qualified by the Academic Board. At least three-fourths of those nominated under this section shall be selected from qualified alternates nominated by the persons named in clauses (2) through (8) of section 4342 (a) of this title, and the remainder from qualified candidates holding competitive nominations under any other provision of law. An appointment under this section is an additional appointment and is not in place of an appointment otherwise authorized by law ( 3:1 of Congressional to Service connected noms)

Frankly, in re-reading Title X ( my favorite past-time :sleep:), I don't see where there is any legal mandate to WP as to how they choose the vacancy winner of a Competitive slate. We are told they do it by WCS, but there is nothing legally binding about doing it that way. Selecting by WCS comes into play with the NWL.

GoArmyBeatNavy
15th February 2012, 01:06 PM
I think we agree. With any record before the board, I am most positive that they are aware of the race, color, or gender of the candidate.

It is illegal to use race as an admissions "points earning" evaluation criteria. I believe the supreme court made that clear in Gratz v. Bollinger.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, though, the court ruled that a University could "favor" ethnic minorities to increase "Diversity". I believe Scout Pilot has already talked about this methodology recently on this forum.

My understanding, from reading these forums, is that congressional vacancy winners are the candidates with the highest whole candidate score and that race is not taken into account in determining these scores and thus not taken into account in determining the winner of the district (I am not talking about those candidates chosen by their congressmembers directly). That would meet the requirements in Gratz v. Bollinger.

Now, I think Title 10 gives the service academies the ability to select candidates out of order after selecting the top 150 (if there is room in the class). The remaining slots will go to Soldiers, Minorities, Athletes, Leaders, Scholars.

I also believe that the service academy prep programs help the academies to reach these goals. USMAPS is for manly Soldiers, Minorities, Athletes while the Association of Graduates scholarship is primarily for Scholars and Leaders.

Forgive me if I am incorrect, but I think that is what I understand from numerous postings. Buff, Big Nick or Scout Pilot can correct me if I am wrong.

What does this all mean? Well, to limit the diversity discussions for West Point (or other service academies) to minorities leaves out the other areas where West Point strives for diversity.

The Service Academies are required to allow candidates to compete from every congressional district and if there is a qualified candidate from a congressional district with a nomination, that individual is getting in. Title 10 also limits the number of candidates that can come from a congressional district nomination to 5 at a time at the academy. Thus, for every top notch candidate from northern virginia that doesn't get in there is a "not so top candidate" from some "not as competitive" area who is getting in.

Is this fair? That just because someone if from a rural community they have a better shot at getting in then someone from a Washington Suburb? Depends on how you look at it. Congress believes that it is important to have geographic "diversity" in its military.

Additionally, half the board of visitors for West Point are members of congress and I am sure they are briefed on the admissions processes. If congress wanted to change the use of additional slots at West Point for Minorities they could easily change title 10. Their inaction (and in fact action, in allowing the additional slots) means that they support the use of these slots for further "diversity."

As was said earlier, if you disagree with how the service academies do their admissions process, call your congressman, West Point appears to be just following the law. It is a perfectly logical argument that diversity should not be an admissions goal, but it is obviously not one that congress agrees with.

To suggest that a candidate did not get in, though, because of minority candidates getting in is simplistic and presumptuous. If congress decided to eliminate diversity as a goal, they could just as easy remove those extra slots and give them back to the congressional districts.

quadething
15th February 2012, 03:26 PM
Which review board said that? The nomination review board for your MOC?

Im confused. I thought I saw you posted earlier under appointments for class of 2016 that you received an appointment:


Yes, the MOC review board said that at our banquet for nominees. It was really hard with everyone telling me how excited they were to hear and I had to tell them I wasn't in. So many former Army officers told me this and its very disheartening. I told them about OSU though.


and I've had 1700 people ask about that, i ended up not getting the vacancy after MOC sent it to WP

scoutpilot
15th February 2012, 03:39 PM
Yes, the MOC review board said that at our banquet for nominees. It was really hard with everyone telling me how excited they were to hear and I had to tell them I wasn't in. So many former Army officers told me this and its very disheartening. I told them about OSU though.


and I've had 1700 people ask about that, i ended up not getting the vacancy after MOC sent it to WP

I don't think this is making sense...

Your MOC board told you that you had the best file. So were you or were you not the principle nominee?

If you were the principle nominee, were you not 3 Q'd? Your signature says NWL so I can only assume you were 3 Q'd.

If you were not the principle nominee...why? It seems odd to be told you have the best packet but not be the principle nominee.

If the MOC folks told you that but didn't give you the principle spot, then that's on them and not on WP. They have a bit of explaining to do if that's the case. How you could tell folks publicly that Candidate X had the best file but not make him the principle nominee is beyond me.

MemberLG
15th February 2012, 04:23 PM
. . . .How you could tell folks publicly that Candidate X had the best file but not make him the principle nominee is beyond me . . ..



Gaming the system - my nomination board discussed it before. If the board thinks the applicant is above average, don't need to make him or her a pinciple nominee as he or she will get appointed through another nomination or off of the national waiting list.

Mongo
15th February 2012, 04:53 PM
Gaming the system - my nomination board discussed it before. If the board thinks the applicant is above average, don't need to make him or her a pinciple nominee as he or she will get appointed through another nomination or off of the national waiting list. Possibly. I have seen it happen. Also, the MOC could have submitted a competitive list and still told a few candidates that they had very strong, or the strongest, package. What the MOC thought was the strongest package and what USMA Admissions determined was the strongest package might not necessarily be the same. And MOCs bearing good news get votes.

scoutpilot
15th February 2012, 05:05 PM
Gaming the system - my nomination board discussed it before. If the board thinks the applicant is above average, don't need to make him or her a pinciple nominee as he or she will get appointed through another nomination or off of the national waiting list.

Possibly so. I put that situation solely on the MOC if that's the case.

VonFritz
15th February 2012, 06:00 PM
Having gone through the process I have a feeling I may know what happened to quad in this instance. Last year when my son received his nominations, a couple of the representatives mentioned to him that they felt he had the strongest file they were submitting. Being new to the process, we were all very excited! Time went by and we heard NOTHING! We were still pretty confident - all the way until he received his QNS letter in April - BOOM goes the dynamite!
Unfortunately, if your MOC submits a competitive slate to WP, it doesn't fully matter what the MOC believes is the strongest candidate - the nomination review board will look at the entire file of the candidate and make their decisions. The MOC's file is not as complete as the file on hand at West Point! Remember, West Point will continue to get all candidate updates until Feb 28th - by then all MOC's will have submitted their slates!
I think that quadething's MOC representatives may have eluded to him that he had the strongest file, but unless he was the primary vacancy candidate it doesn't guarantee anything! Good luck at OSU!

GoArmyBeatNavy
15th February 2012, 06:01 PM
Gaming the system - my nomination board discussed it before. If the board thinks the applicant is above average, don't need to make him or her a pinciple nominee as he or she will get appointed through another nomination or off of the national waiting list.

Well then, I guess they lost at the game. Its sad that they might have put the candidate into that situation. Quade, if your file is that good, you should apply again next year. Some college might help.

MemberLG
15th February 2012, 07:21 PM
Well then, I guess they lost at the game. Its sad that they might have put the candidate into that situation. Quade, if your file is that good, you should apply again next year. Some college might help.

If "they" are the nomination board, they lost little. The reality is that the board members might feel bad for a little bit. Otherwise, nothing they can do other than not to do it next year.

A kid, in theory, that really work hard to be the best he or she can be lost.

Luigi59
15th February 2012, 09:28 PM
It is illegal to use race as an admissions "points earning" evaluation criteria. I believe the supreme court made that clear in Gratz v. Bollinger.

Not true. In the companion case Grutter v Bollinger (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html), the Court UPHELD the allowance of race-based admissions, by a 5-4 vote.

In no way did that case make it illegal. In fact, the Court upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in order to further the compelling interest of diversity. The SAs use it (race) as the primary factor in meeting "diversity goals."

quadething
15th February 2012, 09:35 PM
yessir, I will probably re-apply.

The MOC told me personally he felt I had the strongest file but he has no military experience so decided to send the vacancy choosing to WP, and he said he expected me to get it...Sadly I didn't. It bothers me they base SO much on SAT scores. I get my new scores back tomorrow (prev. 580 670 580) but I'm pretty sure thats why WP picked the other candidate. I met him...I have about 8 inches in height and 50-70 lbs on him but its about the file and not the candidate it seems. haha I was hoping my varsity football experience and I told them I was going to walk-on but I guess that didn't add! hopefully something can happen and I can come back from QNS to picked up or something but I don't have much faith in that.

BigNick
15th February 2012, 11:00 PM
Quad - a sad tale. I fault the MOC represetatives. THE ONLY AGENCY THAT CAN OFFER OR PROMISE ADMISSION IS THE WEST POINT ADMISSIONS OFFICE. Unless the MOC made you the vacancy winner (evidently he did not), he or the local FFR have no authority to give you the impression that you would be accepted. If the MOC thought you had the best file he should have made you his vacancy winner.
It appears that the MOC submitted a slate of up to 10 nominations and let West Point decide. How the MOC ranks his people and how West Point ranks the candidates CAN AND OFTEN ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
Based on my experience on the Admissions Board, I suspect that your relatively low SAT scores were your downfall. To be really competitive these scores need to be in the 650-720 range with no scores in the 500s.
If you are a great football player I suggest you contact the West Point coaches and see if they are interested in you. If so, they might be able to get you in with these scores.

GoArmyBeatNavy
15th February 2012, 11:19 PM
Not true. In the companion case Grutter v Bollinger (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html), the Court UPHELD the allowance of race-based admissions, by a 5-4 vote.

In no way did that case make it illegal. In fact, the Court upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in order to further the compelling interest of diversity. The SAs use it (race) as the primary factor in meeting "diversity goals."

Did you read my post, where in line 2 I said:
"In Grutter v. Bollinger, though, the court ruled that a University could "favor" ethnic minorities to increase "Diversity". I believe Scout Pilot has already talked about this methodology recently on this forum." The use of minority status is not allowed as a means to evaluate a candidate but it can be used to increase "Diversity" as goal at the institution.

Luigi59
15th February 2012, 11:31 PM
Did you read my post, where in line 2 I said:
"In Grutter v. Bollinger, though, the court ruled that a University could "favor" ethnic minorities to increase "Diversity". I believe Scout Pilot has already talked about this methodology recently on this forum." The use of minority status is not allowed as a means to evaluate a candidate but it can be used to increase "Diversity" as goal at the institution.

If there are 2 remaining candidates for 1 slot and race is used as the selection criteria (to increase "diversity") than it absolutely was used to evaluate a candidate.

Hoffy600
15th February 2012, 11:41 PM
To be really competitive these scores need to be in the 650-720 range with no scores in the 500s.
If you are a great football player I suggest you contact the West Point coaches and see if they are interested in you. If so, they might be able to get you in with these scores.


BigNick: I saw on another thread that to be competitive in the NWL one needs to have 700's and above. If what you said is true, then would my scores of 680 M 690 CR 700 W still put me out of the competitive range? I think I'm right one the cusp of the cut-off, from what I can understand.


(that being said, I understand alot more goes into competitiveness than just SAT scores, but I am specifically referring to the smaller class size and the "cut off" for SAT scores.)

Thx alot, Hfy600

GoArmyBeatNavy
15th February 2012, 11:44 PM
If there are 2 remaining candidates for 1 slot and race is used as the selection criteria (to increase "diversity") than it absolutely was used to evaluate a candidate.

I am just stating what the court said. The first case said you could not use race as a "points earning" evaluation of a candidate. The second case said you could weigh race in an effort to make a more diverse student body. Obviously you disagree. How do you feel about "evaluating" a candidate based on their state and district domicile? Or is your only objection using minority status. Both would seem to be out of the control of candidates.

fball100
15th February 2012, 11:56 PM
Based on my experience on the Admissions Board, I suspect that your relatively low SAT scores were your downfall. To be really competitive these scores need to be in the 650-720 range with no scores in the 500s.

I know the Writing score is the least important but how unimportant is it because I have Math and C. Reading scores in the 730 to 690 range but a 550 for writing.

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 12:21 AM
How do you feel about "evaluating" a candidate based on their state and district domicile? Or is your only objection using minority status. Both would seem to be out of the control of candidates.

I favor eliminating Congressional nominations..

Use a merit-based nationwide competition, ensuring the most qualified are appointed without regard to geography, and eliminate race as a factor completely.

toadleegold
16th February 2012, 01:20 AM
I know the Writing score is the least important but how unimportant is it because I have Math and C. Reading scores in the 730 to 690 range but a 550 for writing.

my ds had 720 + m, 700+ r, 700+ w, 4.2+ weighted gpa (many AP classes), top 10% in a VERY tough school (I know in many schools, this would be top 3% range), good leadership and awards, 4 years sports, passed physical with flying colors...etc. was told no issues what so ever but didn't win the principle nom since he came from a very competitive district and got the qns letter...just like that. heart breaking to ds who worked so hard for this and thought he had a good chance. he is still praying to get a suprise letter later, but getting prepared for plan b. I don't know what else he could have done and very proud of him and his efforts. I just can't help wonder tough...how many were actually better than him? I guess we will never know. Good luck to all.

Jcleppe
16th February 2012, 02:04 AM
my ds had 720 + m, 700+ r, 700+ w, 4.2+ weighted gpa (many AP classes), top 10% in a VERY tough school (I know in many schools, this would be top 3% range), good leadership and awards, 4 years sports, passed physical with flying colors...etc. was told no issues what so ever but didn't win the principle nom since he came from a very competitive district and got the qns letter...just like that. heart breaking to ds who worked so hard for this and thought he had a good chance. he is still praying to get a suprise letter later, but getting prepared for plan b. I don't know what else he could have done and very proud of him and his efforts. I just can't help wonder tough...how many were actually better than him? I guess we will never know. Good luck to all.

The truth is, there isn't anything else he could do.

I guess the easy answer would be....There were just enough applicants seen to be better then your son. Better is probably not the right word, different may be better. Other applicants may have been Captain of one more sport, SAT's may have been ever so slightly higher, 20 more community service hours, Eagle Scout, any number of things can make the difference.

My older son went through this, while he considered the USMA, his SAT's were not stellar, he opted to just apply for the ROTC Scholarship. My younger son did the same last year. Watching this board and seeing posts from some applicants that had portions of their stats higher then my son and not selected made me wonder the same thing. My son was selected and while portions of his application were weaker then others, portions were stronger. It's hard as a parent to see there kids work so hard only to miss the mark.

All I can say is that my older son will graduate this year and commission, he embraced the path he took and excelled finishing in the top 6.4% in the nation. He received his #1 branch. It's hard for a young person to re-focus sometime when they are denied their first choice but it won't take him long before he hits the ground running again. Kids like these always seem to embrace the next challenge and reach their goals.

Good luck to your son, I hope the mail box brings good news for him.

Just_A_Mom
16th February 2012, 02:40 AM
I favor eliminating Congressional nominations..

Use a merit-based nationwide competition, ensuring the most qualified are appointed without regard to geography, and eliminate race as a factor completely.
This would be a disaster; for the greater good of West Point, the Army and the Country.
Congressional representation assures that the Army will be staffed by a broad section of officers from varying backgrounds. Only about half the class is selected from MOC's.

dunninla
16th February 2012, 03:03 AM
Just a Mom: why is "varying" geographic background important to the readiness of the Army? I get the arguments for the importance of racial, gender, ethnic, etc. diversity, but why Geography? How is your home town important? Is an xrace, ygender applicant from one city preferable to the same race/gender (but with much higher SAL evaluation), from another city? I don't get that.

Jcleppe
16th February 2012, 03:08 AM
Just a Mom: why is "varying" geographic background important to the readiness of the Army? I get the arguments for the importance of racial, gender, ethnic, religious etc. diversity, but why Geography? How is your home town important? Is an xrace, yreligion, zgender applicant from one city preferable to the same (but with much higher SAL evaluation), from another city? I don't get that.

Oh come on Dunninla, you know the best cadets come from Poughkeepsie, how would the Army survive without them.

nickm5
16th February 2012, 04:01 AM
i think its less about the geography can more about the congress men and women.

each member of congress has a part in deciding military funding and sa class sizes. they probably decide other stuff too but I'm not sure on the specifics. Therefore each member gets to send a qualified candidate to any sa. This is a law that congressman get to send people to sa's. Guess who makes laws? congress does. I believe this is why there is geographical distribution.

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 11:28 AM
This would be a disaster; for the greater good of West Point, the Army and the Country.

That's your opinion, with no basis in fact. You're entitled to it, just as I am entitled to believe you are 100% wrong.

Unless you believe that selecting the best candidates without regard to race, religion, sex, or geography is somehow a bad thing.

Mongo
16th February 2012, 11:50 AM
Just a Mom: why is "varying" geographic background important to the readiness of the Army? I get the arguments for the importance of racial, gender, ethnic, etc. diversity, but why Geography? How is your home town important? Is an xrace, ygender applicant from one city preferable to the same race/gender (but with much higher SAL evaluation), from another city? I don't get that. Many, many reasons. I will ramble. The military should reflect the public it serves. The officer corps should reflect the enlisted that they serve. The British have studied this for generations and agree.

An example, every E-1 who joins the military thinks he will become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Along this road, he needs role models. Role models just like him. His leadership should be able to talk Braves baseball and care less about the Red Sox. Without role models to emulate, he is much more likely to leave the military disallusioned. Therefore, the makeup of the military will change. The recruiting command will find that it is more effective in finding career enlisted in mid-Atlantic, Northeastern, and Far West suburban areas since that is where most officers are found since they have the highest SATs in the nation and better schools.. The South, long the bastion of enlisted procurement will dry up.

Exactly the same argument as racial, ethnic, and gender. The closer the officer ranks reflect the enlisted, the more comfortable they are. The more comfortable they are, the better they perform. The better they perform, the more effective our military is.

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 12:08 PM
Many, many reasons. I will ramble. The military should reflect the public it serves. The officer corps should reflect the enlisted that they serve. The British have studied this for generations and agree.

An example, every E-1 who joins the military thinks he will become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Along this road, he needs role models. Role models just like him. His leadership should be able to talk Braves baseball and care less about the Red Sox. Without role models to emulate, he is much more likely to leave the military disallusioned. Therefore, the makeup of the military will change. The recruiting command will find that it is more effective in finding career enlisted in mid-Atlantic, Northeastern, and Far West suburban areas since that is where most officers are found since they have the highest SATs in the nation and better schools.. The South, long the bastion of enlisted procurement will dry up.

Exactly the same argument as racial, ethnic, and gender. The closer the officer ranks reflect the enlisted, the more comfortable they are. The more comfortable they are, the better they perform. The better they perform, the more effective our military is.

All of which can be accomplished without the need for Congressional nominations.

Mongo
16th February 2012, 12:13 PM
Frankly, in re-reading Title X ( my favorite past-time :sleep:), I don't see where there is any legal mandate to WP as to how they choose the vacancy winner of a Competitive slate. We are told they do it by WCS, but there is nothing legally binding about doing it that way. Selecting by WCS comes into play with the NWL. The method of the slate says it all, "Competitive". WP tells the MOCs to allow them to select and they will select the most competitive by WP standards. WP has a fiduciary responsibility to select the best qualified. Do you honestly think that the MOCs would continue to allow WP to make the final selection if the selection process were anything else?

Yes, via the Principal selection method, the MOC can choose anyone he wants so long as they are qualified. However, his check and balance is his constituancy. Political survivability demands that the MOC take this into account.


GoArmyBeatNavy has been so kind as to point out two Supreme Court decisions that forbid extra WCS points be given for diversity. I think that it is a given from the input by those in the know that in the NWL selection process also that the highest WCS wins. I would contend that since the selection process must be above scruitny and always subject to investigation or legal action, that the only defendable recourse is to make ALL academy selections, including the remainder of the class beyond the initial 150 NWL with the possible exception of the Supts 50 selectees, subject to WCS ranking. (USNA follows this procedure.)

GoArmyBeatNavy
16th February 2012, 12:33 PM
I would contend that since the selection process must be above scruitny and always subject to investigation or legal action, that the only defendable recourse is to make ALL academy selections, including the remainder of the class beyond the initial 150 NWL with the possible exception of the Supts 50 selectees, subject to WCS ranking. (USNA follows this procedure.)

I guess their supe uses all 50 of his for the football players :groupwave:

:tank:

Mongo
16th February 2012, 12:37 PM
I guess their supe uses all 50 of his for the football players I know that it is the philosophy of both the current Dean of Admission and the most recent past one is that any use whatsoever of the Supts appointments is considered a failure of the system. There are many things that some Division 1 athletes bring to the table that translates very favorably to WCS points. It is these athletes that USNA seeks. And I would guess WP also.

GoArmyBeatNavy
16th February 2012, 12:40 PM
I know that it is the philosophy of both the current Dean of Admission and the most recent past one is that any use whatsoever of the Supts appointments is considered a failure of the system. There are many things that some Division 1 athletes bring to the table that translates very favorably to WCS points. It is these athletes that USNA seeks. And I would guess WP also.

I was joking...lamenting our poor football performance against Navy the past decade.:smile:

MemberLG
16th February 2012, 01:00 PM
yessir, I will probably re-apply.

The MOC told me personally he felt I had the strongest file but he has no military experience so decided to send the vacancy choosing to WP, and he said he expected me to get it...Sadly I didn't. It bothers me they base SO much on SAT scores. I get my new scores back tomorrow (prev. 580 670 580) but I'm pretty sure thats why WP picked the other candidate. I met him...I have about 8 inches in height and 50-70 lbs on him but its about the file and not the candidate it seems. haha I was hoping my varsity football experience and I told them I was going to walk-on but I guess that didn't add! hopefully something can happen and I can come back from QNS to picked up or something but I don't have much faith in that.


If you are going to reapply, suggest that you retake the SAT (perhaps taking a prep cours) even if you will attend a college.

Personally, I don't like the focus on SAT/ACT scores, but based on the limitations of West Point, it works. Like it or not, can't give individualized attention to over 10,000 applicants to determine their true academic abilities. There are some cadets with low SAT scores that excel at West Point academically, but they are the exceptions.

I know many great candidates that will give 110%, but no amount of desire or effort can over come the fact you only have 24 hours in a day. SAT/ACT is a good indicator of your academic foundation. I believe academic is #1 reason for cadet separation. Wth a heavy academic load and required activities, a cadet with a weak academic foundation and that falls behind academically will be in trouble.

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 01:26 PM
There are many things that some Division 1 athletes bring to the table that translates very favorably to WCS points. It is these athletes that USNA seeks.

The two-tiered admissions system has already been documented and proved at USNA, let's hope that WP never follows.

'Best and brightest'? Academy's admission of minorities, recruited athletes comes under scrutiny (http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2011/01/30-42/Best-and-brightestAcademys-admission-of-minorities-recruited-athletes-comes-under-scrutiny.html?ne=1)

The Annapolis Capital newspaper on Sunday published a significant investigative piece on admissions at the U.S. Naval Academy, adding new voices and fresh statistics to the ongoing debate over whether the service academy routinely lowers its exacting entry standards for minority applicants and athletes.

The Capital reviewed academy records and found that the school admits students with SAT section scores as low as 370, although its standard cutoff for white non-athletes is 600.

"The unfairness is absolutely real," a former admission board member told the Capital, one of several the paper quoted anonymously.

scoutpilot
16th February 2012, 01:55 PM
The two-tiered admissions system has already been documented and proved at USNA, let's hope that WP never follows.

'Best and brightest'? Academy's admission of minorities, recruited athletes comes under scrutiny (http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2011/01/30-42/Best-and-brightestAcademys-admission-of-minorities-recruited-athletes-comes-under-scrutiny.html?ne=1)

In the parlance of our times...OH, SNAP.

I guess that's good for football. Not good for much else.

scottgd
16th February 2012, 01:58 PM
Just a Mom: why is "varying" geographic background important to the readiness of the Army? I get the arguments for the importance of racial, gender, ethnic, etc. diversity, but why Geography? How is your home town important? Is an xrace, ygender applicant from one city preferable to the same race/gender (but with much higher SAL evaluation), from another city? I don't get that.

I suspect Academy self-preservation is at the root of it. If the vast majority of cadets were say from Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. I doubt the rest of the country's taxpayers would be willing to fund it.

It's very similar to when the DoD buys a big ticket weapon system. It trys to make sure as many congressional districts as possible are somehow involved in making it. Makes it harder for Congress to vote no.

Mongo
16th February 2012, 02:38 PM
The two-tiered admissions system has already been documented and proved at USNA, let's hope that WP never follows.

I think most would agree that the interpretation of raw FOIA data by an uninformed individual with questionable motives would not define policy. With that said, I would bet that USMA’s policy for the selection of athletes is no different than that of USNA.

scoutpilot
16th February 2012, 02:55 PM
I think most would agree that the interpretation of raw FOIA data by an uninformed individual with questionable motives would not define policy. With that said, I would bet that USMA’s policy for the selection of athletes is no different than that of USNA.

Exactly what needs to be interpreted about an SAT score in the 300s?

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 02:57 PM
I think most would agree that the interpretation of raw FOIA data by an uninformed individual with questionable motives would not define policy.

The Annapolis Capital newspaper reviewed the data - try again. One or two is an anomaly. Numbers like the ones below indeed define policy.


48% of fully qualified white males for the Class of 2014 were offered appointments. 88% of fully qualified AA males for the same class received offers.

61% of fully qualified white females for the Class of 2014 were offered appointments. 97% of fully qualified AA females for the same class received offers.


THAT is a two-tiered admissions POLICY. Race is DEFINITELY an admissions factor at USNA.

The data is there, spin it away with red herrings and ad hominen attacks.

USNA Admission Statistics by ethnicity for the classes of 2012-14 (http://www.hometownannapolis.com/photos/110130usnaadmissions2.pdf)

Mongo
16th February 2012, 03:22 PM
48% of fully qualified white males for the Class of 2014 were offered appointments. 88% of fully qualified AA males for the same class received offers.

61% of fully qualified white females for the Class of 2014 were offered appointments. 97% of fully qualified AA females for the same class received offers.




Discussed in this thread, specifically around my post # 13:

http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=23935&page=2

USNA discussions should occur in another thread.

GoArmyBeatNavy
16th February 2012, 03:24 PM
The Annapolis Capital newspaper reviewed the data - try again. One or two is an anomaly. Numbers like the ones below indeed define policy.


48% of fully qualified white males for the Class of 2014 were offered appointments. 88% of fully qualified AA males for the same class received offers.

61% of fully qualified white females for the Class of 2014 were offered appointments. 97% of fully qualified AA females for the same class received offers.


THAT is a two-tiered admissions POLICY. Race is DEFINITELY an admissions factor at USNA.

The data is there, spin it away with red herrings and ad hominen attacks.

USNA Admission Statistics by ethnicity for the classes of 2012-14 (http://www.hometownannapolis.com/photos/110130usnaadmissions2.pdf)

Looks like Navy is being very successfull in their goal of a diverse student body.

I wonder what the performance of these QUALIFIED and admitted Cadets are: graduation rates, retention, promotion to 0-6, etc. It is important to consider this in this debate since the purpose of the Military Academies is to provide officers for the services. The African American graduates I serve with in the Army, Navy and Marines have been top notch. Of course I have only been in 10 years, so that is only a sample size of a hundred or so since graduation, so I only have allegorical evidence. There has to be studies out there about this.

Not saying that you do not have a point. But the interpretation is that race can be a factor:

Military academies are tight-lipped about their affirmative action policies, Seitz said. But, based on General Accounting Office reports and congressional testimony, she has concluded that they consider race one of many factors influencing admissions decisions and do not assign any specific weight to minority status. The University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program is similar.

Schools can use race as one admissions factor, “to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” according to the Supreme Court decision regarding the University of Michigan Law School. But policies that are not “narrowly tailored” and systematically grant minority applicants a quantifiable advantage violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court said in a separate decision striking down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action program. The undergraduate school universally awards applicants from under-represented racial backgrounds with 20 points on a 150-point scale used to guide admissions decisions. (http://www.usma.edu/publicaffairs/directorscorner/GOVEXECAffirmActionJuly03.htm)

No red herring, you are definately correct. Just not saying that it is wrong, especially according to the Supreme Court (or at least Justice Sandra Day O'Connor :smile: )

Congress could easily change this with a law if they viewed it as either not effective or not politically advantageous. There must be support out there in America for this not to be challenged (of course, the press would probably blow a challenge to minority admissions at the SAs out of perspective).

Mongo
16th February 2012, 03:29 PM
Exactly what needs to be interpreted about an SAT score in the 300s? Probably via NAPS. Probably a Verbal score. The primary reason for sending non-priors to NAPS is for those students who score low on SATs but perform well academically. Some students do not test well, especially on standardized tests. First generation Americans from non-English speaking homes do not score well. A multitude of reasons. Being a BGO in the rural South, I have seen many 3Qed white male non-athlete candidates with sub 600, even 500, SATs and some were even offered appointments. Some of these same individuals also applied to and were accepted by WP. I trust the system in that there was a very valid reason and it was not explained in the FOIA raw data.

oldcorpsdad
16th February 2012, 03:59 PM
Ok, this whole thread has started to digress, but I agree with SCOTTGD above. As it is now, cadets come from every congressional district. Every member of Congress gets a say and has constituents at the Academies. Every district has grads that return to the community and contribute. Republicans, Democrats, they all have the opportunity to provide visible constituent services to their electors through the Academy process. There have been many attempts to eliminate the Academies. As it is distributed now, that is not seriously going to happen. Their budget goes up and down, but its probably not going away. If you made it to the best qualified, there are areas of the country and populations that would dominate the rolls. The way it is now brings a cross section of the population from across multiple demographics. Its not perfect and exceptional candidates sometime don’t get selected. And truthfully, I had classmates who ranked way below me academically and in other areas at the Academy who passed me by in promotions years ago. In the end, the system isn’t perfect, but it works.

MemberLG
16th February 2012, 04:08 PM
Probably via NAPS. Probably a Verbal score. The primary reason for sending non-priors to NAPS is for those students who score low on SATs but perform well academically. Some students do not test well, especially on standardized tests. First generation Americans from non-English speaking homes do not score well. A multitude of reasons. Being a BGO in the rural South, I have seen many 3Qed white male non-athlete candidates with sub 600, even 500, SATs and some were even offered appointments. Some of these same individuals also applied to and were accepted by WP. I trust the system in that there was a very valid reason and it was not explained in the FOIA raw data.

We lack facts to have a meaningful discussion.

Yes some students score low on SATs but perform well academically, so if we have access to the high school transcript we can confirm or deny your theory. But we don't have it.

The point about first generation Americans from non-English speaking homes is invalid. Many cases first generation Americans don't meet the citizenship requirement to attend SA. Did you meant say second generation Americans? I know of some SA grads that immigrated to US when they were young, but don't know any of older age (this will be 1.5 generation). I think the youngest will be around 12 or and oldest will be around 17. I believe the minimum residence requirement is 5 years for naturalization. When parents become naturalized citizens, childern under 18 are naturalized. If you have to naturalized individually, 17 + 5. 18 +5 will be pushing it.

I think I know the reasons why certain candidates gets accepted when they appeared to be less qualified than some other candidates. But I am not naive enough to believe that only the best qualified candidates get accepted by SAs.

Mongo
16th February 2012, 04:30 PM
We lack facts to have a meaningful discussion. My point exactly. Neither did the Annapolis fish wrapper. My speculation is as valid as those who are drawing negative connotations from theirs.

The point about first generation Americans from non-English speaking homes is invalid. Many cases first generation Americans don't meet the citizenship requirement to attend SA. Did you meant say second generation Americans? I actually was just giving an example. Candidates from homes where English is not the language of choice often score lower on the verbal portion of the SAT.
I think I know the reasons why certain candidates gets accepted when they appeared to be less qualified than some other candidates. But I am not naive enough to believe that only the best qualified candidates get accepted by SAs. Anything beyond comparing the most qualified candate from one Congressional to one from another "We lack facts to have a meaningful discussion." So long as the SAs closely guard the actual WCS process, which they will, there will always be speculation. And speculation leads to the unsupported assumptions such as are being made in this thread. Maybe WP folks are more astute than those associated with USNA and will nip these rumors in the bud before they escalate to the Annapolis Capital level.

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 04:51 PM
The primary reason for sending non-priors to NAPS is for those students who score low on SATs but perform well academically.

Explain how 40 of the 60 members of the D1 lacrosse team, students that graduated from such prestigious schools such as St Albans, Gilman, Boys Latin et al, went to NAPS.

I suppose we are to believe that student aplicants who attend a $25,000 per year exclusive college prep school cannot qualify academically to USNA?

:rolleyes:

Nothing but a red shirt athletic program and a backdoor to a two-tiered admissions system.

The data is available for those with their eyes open.

MemberLG
16th February 2012, 05:29 PM
. . . Anything beyond comparing the most qualified candate from one Congressional to one from another "We lack facts to have a meaningful discussion." So long as the SAs closely guard the actual WCS process, which they will, there will always be speculation. And speculation leads to the unsupported assumptions such as are being made in this thread. Maybe WP folks are more astute than those associated with USNA and will nip these rumors in the bud before they escalate to the Annapolis Capital level.

We could have qualifed speculations as some posters have decent amount of knowledge and experience with the admissions process.

Least for me I have interviewed the candidates, have interview them again as a member of the MOC noinmation panel, and have access to the admissions office database to compare with other candidates.

A word comes to my mind - transparency.

Mongo
16th February 2012, 05:31 PM
Explain how 40 of the 60 members of the D1 lacrosse team, students that graduated from such prestigious schools such as St Albans, Gilman, Boys Latin et al, went to NAPS. The coach responsible for this is no longer at the Academy and his departure probably had something to do with this. Not to say that Admissions checks and balances should not have prevented it. But, for many, he was a very likeable guy. I would bet that the practice has ceased.

My understanding is that when the new coach cleaned house, many of those dropped could not even make the existing club team.

scoutpilot
16th February 2012, 05:35 PM
Explain how 40 of the 60 members of the D1 lacrosse team, students that graduated from such prestigious schools such as St Albans, Gilman, Boys Latin et al, went to NAPS.

I suppose we are to believe that student aplicants who attend a $25,000 per year exclusive college prep school cannot qualify academically to USNA?

:rolleyes:

Nothing but a red shirt athletic program and a backdoor to a two-tiered admissions system.

The data is available for those with their eyes open.

Whenever the data is plainly ugly, you can just ignore it and say "we can't understand it" or "we need more."

MemberLG
16th February 2012, 05:36 PM
. . .

I suppose we are to believe that student aplicants who attend a $25,000 per year exclusive college prep school cannot qualify academically to USNA?



In some cases, yes.

Some kids attend those exclusive college prep schools because their parents can afford to pay $25000 a year.

Some kids attend those exclusive college prep schools because they are athletes. A younger brother of one of my friends received a full scholarship from McDonough to play lacrosse.

I have seen SAT scores from non-athlete candidates from those schools and some of them sucks.

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 05:56 PM
In some cases, yes.

And in many others, no.

How many back-door admissions are necessary before a claim of "foul" is initiated?

A younger brother of one of my friends received a full scholarship from McDonough to play lacrosse.

FYI - MIAA schools are forbidden from offering athletic scholarships.

MemberLG
16th February 2012, 06:06 PM
. . . My understanding is that when the new coach cleaned house, many of those dropped could not even make the existing club team.

The new coach might have cleaned house, but I think it's a business a usual. If you check the different lacrosse website, there is a Div I committment tracking. Several juniors (which will be class of 2017) shows up committing to Navy.

MemberLG
16th February 2012, 06:10 PM
FYI - MIAA schools are forbidden from offering athletic scholarships.

So, are you telling me that I made up the story?

Call it what you want, need base scholarship, diversity scholarship, or whatever. If my friend's brother was not a good lacrosse player, he would have never gotten that scholarship. He ended up attending of of the Ivy league school. Again, I like the kid but I don't think he would have gotten in without playing lacrosse. Yes, Ivy league school also don't give out atheltic scholarships.

Is it not an atheltic scholarship, regardless what you call it if the main reason for the scholarship is the recipient's ability to play a sport?

dunninla
16th February 2012, 06:35 PM
FYI - MIAA schools are forbidden from offering athletic scholarships. Don't even know what MIAA is, but this subject comes up a lot with regard to DIII schools and athletic scholarships (DIII doesn't offer athletic scholarships). Some DIII arrange "Citizenship", "Leadership", and other silly code-word categories of MERIT scholarship as a proxy for "athletic" scholarships. What's in a name?

Mongo
16th February 2012, 07:42 PM
A word comes to my mind - transparency. A horrible idea. It would destroy the entire WCS concept. Instead of being good all around prospects, candidates would attempt to mold themselves as the ideal model.

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 07:55 PM
So, are you telling me that I made up the story?

Call it what you want, need base scholarship, diversity scholarship, or whatever. If my friend's brother was not a good lacrosse player, he would have never gotten that scholarship. He ended up attending of of the Ivy league school. Again, I like the kid but I don't think he would have gotten in without playing lacrosse. Yes, Ivy league school also don't give out atheltic scholarships.

Is it not an atheltic scholarship, regardless what you call it if the main reason for the scholarship is the recipient's ability to play a sport?

You can call it whatever you want, but if you check with McDonough, or Gilman, or Boys Latin, or Loyola, or any other MIAA school, they all will tell you the same thing - there are not athletic scholarships given, only financial "need based" scholarships.

Don't even know what MIAA is..

It is the highest rated, most competitive, most talent-rich high school lacrosse leagues (and one of the tops in football as well) in the country. Most schools are based in Baltimore.

Luigi59
16th February 2012, 07:57 PM
Is it not an atheltic scholarship, regardless what you call it if the main reason for the scholarship is the recipient's ability to play a sport?

I know quite a few kids who attend MIAA schools who received financial aid - some play sports, some don't.

VonFritz
16th February 2012, 08:54 PM
It is crazy to think that athletic ability has nothing to do with some students either receiving financial aid or entrance into a school. It is true that only D1 and D2 schools are allowed to subsidize tuition by awarding athletic scholarships. That does not strictly apply to D3 schools. While prohibited to award athletic scholarships to D3 students, many D3 institutions award financial assistance in other ways - academic, need based.... Some of these students are good students, but their athletic prowess is the real reason for the scholarship. Loop-holes, if you look long enough for one you will find one!

buff81
16th February 2012, 09:03 PM
And to think that last night I was going to compliment y'all for staying on topic and being fairly civil. What a difference a few hours makes. :bang:

A good thread about candidate selection went downhill with posts about USNA's admissions practices in regards to diversity and now about scholarships at MIAA schools? :bang:

I'll give the usual advise (which most of you have personally heard MANY times before), keep it on topic and take your off-topic discussions to another thread or via PM. If y'all can't help yourselves and continue :topic: then guess what will happen. :lock:

Back to the subject at hand:

Frankly, in re-reading Title X ( my favorite past-time ), I don't see where there is any legal mandate to WP as to how they choose the vacancy winner of a Competitive slate. We are told they do it by WCS, but there is nothing legally binding about doing it that way. Selecting by WCS comes into play with the NWL.


The method of the slate says it all, "Competitive". WP tells the MOCs to allow them to select and they will select the most competitive by WP standards. WP has a fiduciary responsibility to select the best qualified. Do you honestly think that the MOCs would continue to allow WP to make the final selection if the selection process were anything else?

That is how WP does it, but it is not a legal mandate per Title X.
I don't see anywhere in Title X where it says that the vacancy winner of unranked slates submitted by MOCs, must be chosen by a 'Competitive' method by West Point.

Yes, via the Principal selection method, the MOC can choose anyone he wants so long as they are qualified. However, his check and balance is his constituancy. Political survivability demands that the MOC take this into account.

Some MOCs appear not to understand this when they 'game the system' and their best qualified constituent loses.

GoArmyBeatNavy has been so kind as to point out two Supreme Court decisions that forbid extra WCS points be given for diversity. I think that it is a given from the input by those in the know that in the NWL selection process also that the highest WCS wins. I would contend that since the selection process must be above scruitny and always subject to investigation or legal action, that the only defendable recourse is to make ALL academy selections, including the remainder of the class beyond the initial 150 NWL with the possible exception of the Supts 50 selectees, subject to WCS ranking. (USNA follows this procedure.)

WP does not. The 150 off the NWL is done by order of merit (WCS) as per Title X. The remainder of the class is filled (the 3:1 ratio part) without regards to the WCS (as permitted by Title X) . This is how WP fines tunes the class to meet some of the diversity goals. IOW - a legal way to pick candidates with WCS lower than others. LOAs are also a way to meet diversity goals.

Mongo
17th February 2012, 01:31 AM
WP does not. The 150 off the NWL is done by order of merit (WCS) as per Title X. The remainder of the class is filled (the 3:1 ratio part) without regards to the WCS (as permitted by Title X) . This is how WP fines tunes the class to meet some of the diversity goals. IOW - a legal way to pick candidates with WCS lower than others. LOAs are also a way to meet diversity goals.I doubt seriously if this would pass legal scrutiny.

GoArmyBeatNavy
17th February 2012, 02:05 AM
I doubt seriously if this would pass legal scrutiny.

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 4343 01/07/2011

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle B - Army
PART III - TRAINING
CHAPTER 403 - UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

-HEAD-
Sec. 4343. Cadets: appointment; to bring Corps to full strength

-STATUTE-
If it is determined that, upon the admission of a new class to
the Academy, the number of cadets at the Academy will be below the
authorized number, the Secretary of the Army may fill the vacancies
by nominating additional cadets from qualified candidates
designated as alternates and from other qualified candidates who
competed for nomination and are recommended and found qualified by
the Academic Board. At least three-fourths of those nominated under
this section shall be selected from qualified alternates nominated
by the persons named in clauses (2) through (8) of section 4342(a)
of this title, and the remainder from qualified candidates holding
competitive nominations under any other provision of law. An
appointment under this section is an additional appointment and is
not in place of an appointment otherwise authorized by law.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 242; Pub. L. 88-276, Sec. 1(2),
Mar. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 150; Pub. L. 93-171, Sec. 1(5), Nov. 29,
1973, 87 Stat. 690; Pub. L. 102-25, title VII, Sec. 701(f)(5), Apr.
6, 1991, 105 Stat. 115.)

-MISC1-

I think this is where the authority to appoint out of order after the first 150 comes from.

BigNick
17th February 2012, 02:42 AM
I personally do not want to hear or care what the USNA does. I think those posts are not relavant to the USMA part of the forum and just causes confusion.I suggest that the moderator immediately move those posts to the USNA section of this forum.

Mongo
17th February 2012, 08:55 AM
I don't see anywhere in Title X where it says that the vacancy winner of unranked slates submitted by MOCs, must be chosen by a 'Competitive' method by West Point. The answer, again, is in the name. It is not called the "Random Pick" Method for a good reason. From the Congressional Guide:
Competitive Nomination
This is the method of nomination favored by the
academies and used by most Members of Congress
(approximately 70-75 percent). The Member of Congress
submits to an academy an unranked slate of up to ten
nominees for each vacancy. The candidates are then ranked in
order of merit in accordance with the specific academy’s
system. The most highly qualified is selected for an offer of
admission (an appointment) to fill the vacancy.

buff81
17th February 2012, 10:27 AM
The name does not mean anything - legally.
My only point is that there is nothing in Title X that mandates how WP should choose who gets the vacancy off a MOCs unranked slate.
There are no guidelines in the Code as to how WP has to determine the vacancy winner off an unranked slate.
WP determines the vacancy winner by order of merit, but it is not mandated that they do it that way per the Code.