Admissions Board Qualified

2

2017MarineDad

5-Year Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
28
My DS’ BGO sent an email indicating that my DS was qualified by the Admissions Board. My DS asked me what this meant (ie what can he read in this)? My take on this is you have to be 3Q’d (Admissions Board, CFA, and medically) and have a Nomination to be considered for an appointment. Therefore, even though the Admissions Board qualification is a hurdle, you really cannot read anything into it. Others will be 3Q’ed + nom, and not get appointment. I do have the following questions though:

1. If yesterday was the 1st board, how do they determine who’s completed application do they review and either qualify, disqualify, or defer? Is it based on application completion date, or RD decision on who to present, or …?

2. If you are Admissions Board Qualified are you ranked, or do they take a clean look at all those that are Admissions Board qualified and nom’ed and then in January rank them?

3. If they rank initially, will it help to send updates between now and December (ie, he should get his Eagle in Sept/Oct timeframe), and will these change his ranking?

4. Can you read anything in being qualified in 1st board (strong candidate, or just what it says “qualified”)?

5. Is there an estimate on how many typically get 3Q'd plus nom? I know that this will very year to year, but is it typically around 2,000, 5,000, ...?
 
First things first! CONGRATS to your DS and to his DD (and DM)! WELL DONE and timely! You'll get more worthy responses to your questions from forumates, but lemme give 'em a go. See my thoughts below your questions.


2017MarineDad said:
My DS’ BGO sent an email indicating that my DS was qualified by the Admissions Board. My DS asked me what this meant (ie what can he read in this)? My take on this is you have to be 3Q’d (Admissions Board, CFA, and medically) and have a Nomination to be considered for an appointment. Therefore, even though the Admissions Board qualification is a hurdle, you really cannot read anything into it. Others will be 3Q’ed + nom, and not get appointment. I do have the following questions though:

1. If yesterday was the 1st board, how do they determine who’s completed application do they review and either qualify, disqualify, or defer? Is it based on application completion date, or RD decision on who to present, or …?

2. If you are Admissions Board Qualified are you ranked, or do they take a clean look at all those that are Admissions Board qualified and nom’ed and then in January rank them?

3. If they rank initially, will it help to send updates between now and December (ie, he should get his Eagle in Sept/Oct timeframe), and will these change his ranking?

4. Can you read anything in being qualified in 1st board (strong candidate, or just what it says “qualified”)?

5. Is there an estimate on how many typically get 3Q'd plus nom? I know that this will very year to year, but is it typically around 2,000, 5,000, ...?
Click to expand...

1. No idea. Wondering why this matters?

2. No idea. But I think your DS's determination is a function of his WP score, i.e. that he has enough points for consideration for appointment. Essentially what they've said at this point is "good enough." Not sure when and with whom they are ranked, i.e. w/ nominating source etc. I THINK the answer is that they are not ranked beyond their nominator's pool until they are determined to be put into the national pool.

3. I confess ... your fascination with this ranking thing has me totally lost. You'll need someones much smartern me. Now THAT will be easy. Just hold on.

4.Not too much beyond your DS has been a leader in getting all his stuff in that his file can be presented. Doesn't mean he's a stronger candidate than someone reviewed in February.

5. Look at the stats and do an archival search. YOu can get this number which is consistantly close ... and encouraging. Especially when you discern that the odds are monumentally improved when at that point of being 3Qed + nominated. Not a guarantee or lock, but looking good.

In any case your DS is doing well and all remains a "go" as the countdown continues, Houston! :thumb::thumb:

Keep it going!
 
1. If yesterday was the 1st board, how do they determine who’s completed application do they review and either qualify, disqualify, or defer? Is it based on application completion date, or RD decision on who to present, or …?
Click to expand...

Agree with WP -- No idea on how they decide whose packages to review out of those that are complete.

2. If you are Admissions Board Qualified are you ranked, or do they take a clean look at all those that are Admissions Board qualified and nom’ed and then in January rank them?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware that they "rank" people. They determine who's qualified and then, when the MOC noms come in, decide at that point how to slot candidates. Some depend on how the MOCs submit their slates (i.e., principal noms, etc.)

3. If they rank initially, will it help to send updates between now and December (ie, he should get his Eagle in Sept/Oct timeframe), and will these change his ranking?
Click to expand...

Yes, he should update his packet -- and it has nothing to do with ranking (see above). However, if you submit something extra, make sure to include "proof" -- a certification by a school official for school activities and other proof, such as a copy of the certificate, award, for other stuff.

4. Can you read anything in being qualified in 1st board (strong candidate, or just what it says “qualified”)?
Click to expand...

Not really.

5. Is there an estimate on how many typically get 3Q'd plus nom? I know that this will very year to year, but is it typically around 2,000, 5,000, ...?
Click to expand...

The number is usually published somewhere -- probably 3500-4000 but maybe someone has more accurate figures.
 
Class of 2016 had the following:

~7,000 with an official nomination
~3,070 found fully qualified (presumably, most had nominations)
~1,395 offered an appointment
~1,210 inducted

Basically it is about a 50% shot if found qualified. So, while being fully qualified is a major step in the process, you still have to compete with other candidates.

Also, doing some rough math....3,000 qualified candidates decided over about 28 weeks (now through end of March, 3 weeks off for Thanksgiving/Dec holidays) is about 107 candidates being qualified by the board per week (given that the Admission Board only meets once a week now, statistically speaking your son was 1 of about 100 to be qualified this week -- again this is an average, there could have been more or less).
 
Last edited:
Great post Jadler, thanks for doing some math.

The hairs on this have been "split" a bit more precisely. I promise to do some research, but my recollection, which is admittedly vague, seems to recall that there are notably fewer than the 3070 3Qed who received a nomination. Don't hold me to that, but I seem to recall for those 3 Qed AND w/ a nomination it's about 75% shot.

I'm prepared to be edified and/or corrected if this is off base. I have erred once. And it cost me 6 months in the box and a frontal lobotomy.:eek: So I'm shakin' it boss!:stupid1::worship:
 
Actually, those numbers are correct, pulled directly from what is being reported, except I rounded off. The trend is that MORE candidates are being 3Q'd and that is up since the Class of 2011 went through the admissions process.

I'm going to presume that if you are 3Q'd, you have a nomination (I know there are probably a handful that do not, but it's so small, it's almost irrelevant):

Percentage of offers of appointment vs. 3Q'd
Class of 2009: 82%
Class of 2010: 80%
Class of 2011: 75%
Class of 2012: 69%
Class of 2013: 58%
Class of 2014: 56%
Class of 2015: 48%
Class of 2016: 45%

Trend clearly shows that if you were found 3Q'd as a member with Class of 2009, you had pretty good odds of receiving an appointment....Class of 2016, less than half!
This doesn't necessarily mean the competition is stiffer, it is really a result of 3Q-ing more candidates than was historically done pre-Class of 2010/2011.
 
Good stuff, but I'm still thinking it's off base. Aren't you giving, as you note, the number of appointments divided by those 3Qed?

Where I THINK (again, not sure. Maybe '85 or some others can resurrect this ... I am certain this has been ferreted out before) you may be gone astray is "assuming" all those 3Qed get nominations. I'm not sure they do to the degree you assume.

And so that leads me to think that those who have BOTH 3Qed status AND a nomination ... is a much higher percentage who receive offer of appointment. The number of nominations, with modest give and take, never change, no matter how many more apps and perhaps then 3 Qed there might be.

ThePig said:
.. I promise to do some research, but my recollection, which is admittedly vague, seems to recall that there are notably fewer than the 3070 3Qed who received a nomination.
Click to expand...
 
qualified

I seem to recall a post or posts last year that stated roughly 19-20k applicants each year, roughly 4.5-5k nominated and 2k 3q'd with a nom.
 
Given that the delta between 3Q'd and offered appointments for the Class of 2009 was only ~310. Is it safe to assume that a majority of those 310 didn't get appointed because they didn't have a nomination or they just ran out of spots? I'd say the latter.

So maybe Admissions has tweaked how they report this stat or have been more liberal with 3Qs....either way, even if you took between 500-1000 candidates off (presuming these didn't have nominations, which I think is an outrageous number), the percentage is between 55-65%, which is still close to 50/50 vs. 3/4.

Any way you want to cut the stats, being 3Q'd is no guarantee of appointment.
 
So based off what I see on the Class of 2012 profile (this is the last profile that actually published more detailed stats then what is put out today)....the verbiage states:

"Nominees qualified scholastically, medically and physically: 2196"

Note it says nominees....doesn't say official candidates. Using the SAME graph/stats that I have (and 2196 is the same number reported as the number of "Qualified" for Class of 2012) and looking at what they report as the number of "Qualified" for 2013-2016, the numbers increase into 3,000. So I believe the actual term "Qualified" might include 3Q + nomination on the slide I am looking at.
 
Thanks for the numbers, as jadler03 put it:
"Any way you want to cut the stats, being 3Q'd is no guarantee of appointment. "

DS needs to finish up Eagle (District review in a couple of weeks) and not slack.
 
Sorry if I am confused. Not the 1st nor last ... but I have to wonder if you're somehow extrapolating wrongly, J?

I fear your "extrapolating" might well be "assuming" that the numbers of Qualified who have nominations has increased. You may be correct. That would be interesting to know, for sure, i.e. as the number of apps has increased have more been 3Qed?

Your assumption/extrapolation may well be correct. IF so ... it would suggest that as "applicants" (as has been beaten to death earlier, we know these are NOT like college "applicants" ... and here's where I become very skeptical of your extrapolation) ... we've been told these are NOT students seeking candidate numbers necessarily. That # has been sorely padded by all kinds of additions that are not overt indicators of "I want to be a candidate") In other words, these numbers are NOT the same pool as in earlier years, apples and oranges as to who's being counted and why.

This is a left over from the Fowler fiascos. But in any case ... the short answer from what seems known is that it is somewhere between 75% and 50% of those who are 3Qed and therefore "in the possible pool of applicants" AND receive a nomination.

One obvious question is WHY would the Admission Committee bother to 3Q MORE applicants, thus monumentally magnifying the mountain of work ... for absolutely NO RETURN? How so? There remain a stable number (even fewer in reality) number of spots available. So WHY would they in effect say ...

"Let's see if we can double or triple the # of candidates we deem to be qualified!" when there are actually FEWER appointment slots.

Rather, what they would do, ASSUMING (again) with 50% increase in apps over 4 or 5 years now, is to simply say, we are going to raise the bar, thus including more "better" candidates and fewer "lesser" candidates.

It makes no sense to double or triple the degree of disappointment among the candidate pool from year to year. And to double or triple the work of the Admissions Committee.

And 3 more unknown and confounding factors to conclude this rambling ...

1. There is a huge increase in the number of LOAs granted. And as we know, those are pending, probable guaranteed slots ...

2. AND the LOAs are going out MUCH EARLIER.

3. With aggressive recruitment (not passive receipt) of minority priority populations, it would be unreasonable to assume that in light of the enormous level of commitment and work required just to become 3Qed, recruited candidates (who are obviously being recruited by literally EVERY COLLEGE and U ... but require little or none of the effort to be considered admissable) would complete the steps necessary. Totally different mindset.

But here's the final confounding kicker in all of this ...

Despite vastly more "applications" ... the admission stats have declined.

Would it not be very reasonable to assume that the 3Qed pool has NOT been strengthened but in fact somewhat weakened?

So we see that absent much more information, the clear answer is ... we don't know.:confused::zip:
 
WP,

I didn't extrapolate anything. I simply pulled the numbers from an Admissions slide showing Qualified Candidates vs. Offers of Appointment from a range of USNA classes. What I was saying is that the Class of 2012 number (on this slide) was the SAME EXACT number listed on the class profile that stated "Nominees qualified scholastically, medically and physically." So unless Admissions changed something in the background (which we are unlikely to ever know) and reported these number differently, the slide I am looking at would indicate ""Nominees qualified scholastically, medically and physically for Class XXXX."

There is no law that states that Admissions can't qualify more candidates and it actually doesn't add much more man-hours. One reason I could think of is that it gives a broader selection for Admissions to choose from when deciding to give appointments and who to "charge" nominations to.
 
Thanks for clarifying. Your explanation helps.

Still, your speculation about why they'd want to 3Q MORE (other than minority priority candates essential to fulfill the Admissions AA mandate) makes no sense.

For if that were the case, the "ideal" scenario would be to 3Q all applicants. Clearly that is what the trend is. And it would more or less diminish and ultimately defeat the entire purpose.

No, the entire process is to narrow the group going thru the funnel, not to expand it. Suggesting that they want to expand the pool of 3Qed makes no sense at all. That's the purpose in WP scoring and ultimately in ranking. Otherwise what you're suggesting is that the process becomes arbitrary and subjective. And we know even USNA cannot withstand that kind of allegation. The political component would never allow that.

Rather, and again, excluding minority candidates, there is no magic to the WP baseline ... and if everyone eventually scored whatever is necessary to gain scholastic qualification, then the level for 3Qing would simply be raised. Think of it as grade inflation. If everyone gets an A? Then graduating with distinction requires an A+. The same would drive the Admission process.


There has never been a single word about how USNA admissions has somehow failed to attract more and more better qualified applicants each and every year. Even the class of 2008 never led to that contention.:confused:
 
We don't know the exact reason. I'm not trying to justify it or even say it's the correct one. I'm just reporting the facts that I have seen. You and anyone else can make of it what you'd like.
 
Since USNA never publically indicates how many LOA's they give out, I have no idea how anyone can conclude that more/less are being given out then in prior years.
 
A fair question. Following this process carefully for 9 years, and bringing experience and perspective to my conclusions about these particular issues, it is quite possible I may yet be incorrect. In previous years, LOAs were notably fewer and farther between, and later in the season. It was a frequent and chronic observation, especially relative to WP's far more aggressive practices, and the less occasional conflict with highly selective secular institutons and their early acceptance and admission practices.

You're certainly free to your own speculation and opinion of mine. For the better answer, I'd bet on mine, especially knowing you "2" have been watching for a good while and apparently have not noted this practice.
 
WP: if you check the published class profiles for the past few classes I believe you will find there is reasonable consistency to the number of noms in play. For 2016 USNA reported 833 Presidential, 5,146 Congressional, 351 SecNav, 142 ROTCs, and 35 for Dependents of Deceased/Disabled Veterans. One of the many confusion factors involved, of course, relates to the number of duplicated noms ( noms from multiple sources per candidate). Regarding the consistency of class size I don't think you will ever know what algorithm, if any, is used by Admissions - it is one of several closely-held factors in the process. In the 2016 cycle I suspect there is evidence of a miscalculation in this regard as early on USNA reported a target class size of 1,190. Early in the spring when numbers started flowing it became obvious that acceptances were running at a higher rate than expected. It seemed to adjust itself for unstated reasons, but I suspect it was a result of AFA running late in getting its offers in the mail (pure conjecture based on observation and conversation with some AF liaison officers). Regardless, USNA ended about 20 plebes above the earlier published target of 1,190. You need to understand that A/C's and BGO's have tried to get more information from Admissions regarding the selection process for years and Admissions will go only so far in exposing the inner workings and hidden mechanisms. As an aside, if you think about it, the first real screen for admissions occurs in the selection for nominations... it takes the 20,000 number down to about 6,500 real players.
 
WP: I think the advent of more and earlier LOA's was a direct result of WP's and AFA's more aggressive use of LOA's and the confusion that disparity was causing. I know I "lost" prime candidates to WP in particular due to that situation and the pressure that was exerted upon the candidates to make a commitment. While there have been "official" statements that the LOA process was being tightened, I was not observing that in this area while I have been an AC. I suspect the current situation will be with us for the foreseeable future.
Regarding the 3Q'd situation, keep in mind that not all 3Q'd candidates are equal. That seems especially true now that the floor is not as firm as it was for a while about ten years ago from my personal casual observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top