To me, there are two type of NAPsters.
1. Those who were in the fleet and have simply been out of academic circulation for a year. NAPS is used to get them back into the swing of things.
2. Those who did not have a strong academic record, did not take challenging enough courses, or who the academy wants
desperately because they are such an athletic superstar. The academy is willing to gamble that they will survive.
Of course, I knew there would be a response that highlighted some NAPster who did fantastic. I'm sure that's true. But aren't there over
200 NAPsters with each incoming class? I'm talking statistically, not a single data point.
That would be like saying, "I know of a midshipman who
didn't go to NAPS and flunked out." That's not how statistical averages work.
Nonetheless, I'm willing to
bet that NAPsters, on the whole (and, yes, I'm generalizing) do not achieve as well academically as those who never needed a preparatory school.
Of course, my point is unprovable because the academy does not (and will
never) reveal such a statistic. To dispute my point is equally unprovable.
Like I said, it's just a theory. My intent was not to personally offend anybody. Although, I knew it would not be a popular viewpoint.
There's probably all kinds of other statistics that are TRUE but would also ruffle people's feathers. For instance, I'm guessing that, on the average, midshipmen appointed from Virginia (where it is highly competitive) do better, academically, than those who are appointed from, hmmm ... uh ... let's say ... uh ...
Arkansas!
Can you tell that I'm feeling very politically incorrect today?
OK, it's somebody's turn to tell me about this one kid they knew,
from Arkansas, who was a Rhodes Scholar back in 1992.