Service Academies Being Sued

From the USMA 2017 class profile:


Men / Women / Total / % Women

Applicant files started 12,283 / 3,125 / 15,408 / 20.2%

Nominated 3,461 / 705 / 4,166 / 16.9%

Qualified 1,818 / 347 / 2,165 / 16.0%

Admitted 1,002 / 188 / 1,190 / 15.8%


Numbers look pretty much in line to me.

Be careful what doors you open ... In the spirit of making everything “objectively fair” though – I can be persuaded that the XX applicants and the XY applicants should be held to the same Candidate Fitness Assessment in order to be considered qualified for admission.
 
Goal of the Service Academy admissions is to be representative of the enlisted population in regards to demographics. With military enlisted female population at around 14.5% I believe each SA exceeds such and is very representative with their admissions goal and representation.
 
Is there a "cap" on female enrollment? I've never heard of one. I'd say the "truth" is probably found in who applies vs. who is appointed. Those numbers will tell you more about any alleged appointment discrimination than percentage serving.
 
sean007 said:
From the USMA 2017 class profile:


Men / Women / Total / % Women

Applicant files started 12,283 / 3,125 / 15,408 / 20.2%

Nominated 3,461 / 705 / 4,166 / 16.9%

Qualified 1,818 / 347 / 2,165 / 16.0%

Admitted 1,002 / 188 / 1,190 / 15.8%


Numbers look pretty much in line to me.

Be careful what doors you open ... In the spirit of making everything “objectively fair” though – I can be persuaded that the XX applicants and the XY applicants should be held to the same Candidate Fitness Assessment in order to be considered qualified for admission.
Click to expand...

The focus should be the number of female applicants and nomination for female applicants
Using the nubmers above,
for men, % of nominate from applied is 28.2%, % of qualifed from applied is 14.8%, % of admitted from applied is 8.2%
for women % of nominate from applied is 22.6%, % of qualifed from applied is 11.1%, % of admitted from applied is 6.0%.
for men, % of qualifie from nominate is 52.5%, % of admitted from nominated is 29.0%,
for women, % of nominate from applied is 49.2%, % of admitted from nominated is 26.7%
So it looks like it's tougher for female applicants.
However, when it comes down to where West Point has most control -qualified and admitted - the difference is less than 1%.
for men, % of admitted from qualified is 55.1%
for women,% of admitted from qualified is 54.2%
 
^^^ As I posted in another thread, those are 2017 numbers. For 2018, the percentage of qualified males admitted was ~48%. The percentage of qualified females admitted was ~59%. This after USMA put the word out in the media (there were numerous articles) that they "wanted more women," ostensibly because they expect the percentage of female enlisted to increase in coming years.

Unless things go backwards - and they never do - it looks like it's going to be harder to get in as a qualified male than a qualified female until they get the incoming classes 25-30% female, or whatever percentage is acceptable to Sue Fulton and the Service Women's Action Network.
 
Sledge said:
Unless things go backwards - and they never do - it looks like it's going to be harder to get in as a qualified male than a qualified female until they get the incoming classes 25-30% female, or whatever percentage is acceptable to Sue Fulton and the Service Women's Action Network.
Click to expand...

I suspect Sue Fulton and Service Women's Actin Network wants 50% plus females in incoming classes, as that's the % in regular colleges (simply ignoring the fact USMA is not a regular college and 20 to 25% applicants are females).
 
I could be wrong, but this looks like merely a FOIA lawsuit at this stage -- those are fairly common if public records requests are denied. They don't move all that quickly.

It's a fair inference that the plaintiffs want the records to mull over making a challenge to the current make-up of the service academies. There are number of legal doctrines that, collectively, result in courts giving a great deal of deference to the military about its judgment as to what it needs for its mission, so a lawsuit seeking a court-mandated major change in the percentage of women would probably not succeed at this point, given the lower percentage of enlisted women as well as the fact that certain major missions (ground combat) are still closed to women. (But bookmark this and check back in 50 years . . . who knows what will happen.)
 
AcademyFriend1 said:
I could be wrong, but this looks like merely a FOIA lawsuit at this stage -- those are fairly common if public records requests are denied. They don't move all that quickly.

It's a fair inference that the plaintiffs want the records to mull over making a challenge to the current make-up of the service academies. There are number of legal doctrines that, collectively, result in courts giving a great deal of deference to the military about its judgment as to what it needs for its mission, so a lawsuit seeking a court-mandated major change in the percentage of women would probably not succeed at this point, given the lower percentage of enlisted women as well as the fact that certain major missions (ground combat) are still closed to women. (But bookmark this and check back in 50 years . . . who knows what will happen.)
Click to expand...

Not a FOIA expert, my understanding is that internal policies are protected from FOIA. How many females applicants yes? Their WCS scores, maybe. How WCSs are calculated, no.
 
I suspect that a smaller percentage of women than men is interested in SAs and this, not discrimination, accounts for the lower percentage of women at the schools. Today (given the job openings for women in the military) there is no reason the SAs shouldn't be gender neutral when it comes to admissions. They should take the "best" candidates (recognizing that's subjective) regardless of gender and let the numbers fall where they may.
 
MemberLG said:
AcademyFriend1 said:
I could be wrong, but this looks like merely a FOIA lawsuit at this stage -- those are fairly common if public records requests are denied. They don't move all that quickly.

It's a fair inference that the plaintiffs want the records to mull over making a challenge to the current make-up of the service academies. There are number of legal doctrines that, collectively, result in courts giving a great deal of deference to the military about its judgment as to what it needs for its mission, so a lawsuit seeking a court-mandated major change in the percentage of women would probably not succeed at this point, given the lower percentage of enlisted women as well as the fact that certain major missions (ground combat) are still closed to women. (But bookmark this and check back in 50 years . . . who knows what will happen.)
Click to expand...

Not a FOIA expert, my understanding is that internal policies are protected from FOIA. How many females applicants yes? Their WCS scores, maybe. How WCSs are calculated, no.
Click to expand...

Typically pre-decisional subjects are "protected." As far as the process is concerned, I don't see a reason is should be withheld. I guess that could be a push, because it is an internal process. It's not classified. It's not LE sensitive. It's not proprietary. It doesn't violate anyone's privacy.
 
usna1985 said:
I suspect that a smaller percentage of women than men is interested in SAs and this, not discrimination, accounts for the lower percentage of women at the schools. Today (given the job openings for women in the military) there is no reason the SAs shouldn't be gender neutral when it comes to admissions. They should take the "best" candidates (recognizing that's subjective) regardless of gender and let the numbers fall where they may.
Click to expand...

The same can be said for race.
 
usna1985 said:
They should take the "best" candidates (recognizing that's subjective) regardless of gender and let the numbers fall where they may.
Click to expand...

I believe that is the issue - some folks disagree with the numbers.
 
My quick analysis based on historical data of admitted/qualified rates is attached as a PDF. In its active Excel format, it shows that if the percentage of females at USMA exceeds 30%, there may not be enough qualified applicants to reach that percentage. At a class composition of 25% females only 47% of qualified males are admitted, while 81% of qualified females are admitted. I read on this forum that the WCS score is predictive to select males that will be successful in a military career, but it's not so for the females since family choices frequently conflict with a females's military career. We will never have more female officers in the Army than we start with as cadets, so if we start with more than we need, by the time they reaAch the 20-year point, we will have a better chance of matching our force composition goal. Also, in essence, allowing the higher percentage of women is a way to reduce class size without reducing the class size. This tax-payer funded education isn't wasted on those who don't complete a military career, since many of them end up as spouses of career military supporting the troops on the homefront.
 

Attachments

  • USMA Admissions Analysis.pdf
    100.9 KB · Views: 8
usna1985 said:
I suspect that a smaller percentage of women than men is interested in SAs and this, not discrimination, accounts for the lower percentage of women at the schools. Today (given the job openings for women in the military) there is no reason the SAs shouldn't be gender neutral when it comes to admissions. They should take the "best" candidates (recognizing that's subjective) regardless of gender and let the numbers fall where they may.
Click to expand...
My DS just registered with the selective service today. I noticed on the form that being a female was an exclusion for needing to register. The Service Women's Action Network and the ACLU should look into that obvious sex discrimination. They won't at this time, because they know the angry claws of the majority of parents with daughters would come out and destroy the whole push to women in the military storyline. It would be a big political embarrassment for all those pushing for more women in combat.
 
MemberLG said:
usna1985 said:
They should take the "best" candidates (recognizing that's subjective) regardless of gender and let the numbers fall where they may.
Click to expand...

I believe that is the issue - some folks disagree with the numbers.
Click to expand...

"Take the best but that's subjective." - You could essentially say they are doing that now, as Admissions "subjectively" determines what's best. Therefore, no change needed.

It's a conundrum, wrapped in politics, inside a controversy.
 
Wrapped in this is the assumption that the men and women who apply are equally well qualified, understanding that determination is somewhat subjective. However, it could be that the men -- or the women -- who apply are more qualified and that could skew the number of appointees.

The issue of women making the military a career is an important one. But it's not directly related to admissions b/c it's impossible to predict which men or women will make the military a career. However, figuring out how to retain female officers at close to the same rate as males is critical or there is the potential for critical shortages down the road. Probably a topic for another thread, however. :)
 
usna1985 said:
However, figuring out how to retain female officers at close to the same rate as males is critical or there is the potential for critical shortages down the road. Probably a topic for another thread, however. :)
Click to expand...

It is another discussion, but until males can have babies I don't think we can have similiar retention rate between female and male officers. On the civilian side, there are some studies about the discrepancy between promotion rate amone male and female executives. Child bearing was a big factor. Can't remember what the conclusion was.
 
There are also concerns about married military couples being stationed together as well as the ability of civilian spouses to move around with their military wives (an issue civilian wives have dealt with for years but in a more "traditional gender role" environment). It's not an easy issue, to be sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top