Admissions Board Qualified

I am not sure who this was directed at:

It is a joke to attempt to figure trends from the very limited scope as presented on this forum
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the definition of "very limited scope on this forum" is since my DATA came directly from the STATS that Admissions is reporting. So the trends that I was reporting was all based on FACT, not FICTION. I also stand behind these numbers since there are way more than ~3,000 nomination sources (it's something around ~6,500-7,000). I'd also agree with the poster who said it would be discriminatory to qualify certain candidates only, so increasing the number is a way behind this door (and WP was inferring this earlier on).

As far as NAPS/Foundation is concerned, Admissions Board makes recommendations for these candidates -- I'm pretty sure there is no WPM that the board considers, it's likely more on the specific facts of each candidate. Additionally, I have been explained that NAPS is EITHER for candidates who aren't just there academically OR in leadership skills -- however, it isn't normally for a lack of both.
 
The sole purpose of the Admissions board is to determine the ability to succeed (promising) and the motivation to succeed (highly motivated). This is summarized exclusively bythe WP score.
Click to expand...

A few facts, the WPM isn't entirely calculated by the Admissions Board -- their only function is to "adjust" the score based on the candidate and supposedly they are limited in how much they can do that. Almost the entire WPM is calculated on the data inputted and not normally on the meat and potatoes in a resume/BGO interview, etc.

The WPM is an entering argument for the Admissions Board. Once again, it is possible for a candidate to score highly on the WPM and not be found scholastically qualified (if this is the case, stop and do not pass GO). I would not say the WPM is the exclusive way the Admissions Board makes decisions.
 
He told you correctly Vista. Thanks for sharing.

AJM ... ok, play some. Can you tell me, based upon all admission data and info the committee deals with which variables would enable you to "score" motivation and promise, separating the motivated from the unmotivated, the promising from the less promising. Will it come from the essay? BGO? NASS or no-NASS? Grades? ECs? Pullups? Mile times? Swimming/no swimming? Parents or siblings who are USN/USMC? School? (remember ... nominating stuff doesn't count). So ... now do tell us ... how will this committee, literally none of whom have ever met a candidate will determine that he/she is more/less motivated or promising than the previous 5 who've been deemed qualified but will never have NAPS opportunity nor be appointed?

The world and especially the USNA Admissions Committee awaits your insight. Me too.

I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong mast pole.
 
Whistle Pig said:
Can you tell me, based upon all admission data and info the committee deals with which variables would enable you to "score" motivation and promise, separating the motivated from the unmotivated, the promising from the less promising. Will it come from the essay? BGO? NASS or no-NASS? Grades? ECs? Pullups? Mile times? Swimming/no swimming? Parents or siblings who are USN/USMC? School? (remember ... nominating stuff doesn't count). So ... now do tell us ... how will this committee, literally none of whom have ever met a candidate will determine that he/she is more/less motivated or promising than the previous 5 who've been deemed qualified but will never have NAPS opportunity nor be appointed?
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you have just explained the sole purpose of the WP system. This is exactly what it does, factor each and every input in the admissions process as to the ability to succeed (with motivation being a part of that ability). Each input has been tweaked over the years and weights adjusted in order to arrive at a very measurable method of desirability for each and every candidate.

jadler03 said:
The WPM is an entering argument for the Admissions Board. Once again, it is possible for a candidate to score highly on the WPM and not be found scholastically qualified (if this is the case, stop and do not pass GO). I would not say the WPM is the exclusive way the Admissions Board makes decisions.
Click to expand...
Without a doubt, there are certain academic minimums which will disqualify an otherwise scholastically qualifiable candidate (see the reason that NAPS exists-they may indeed pass 'GO'.). The Admissions Board qulifies each package with RABs. These are added/subtracted to/from the initial package and this revised score does become the basis for qualification for admission.
 
Sorry, you've missed the mark. These things all measure various aspects of past performance. But not motivation. Why do you think that people quit, first round draft picks flop, bonus babies never get beyond the minors, and on and on.

Does the WP system attempt to project future potential based upon past performance. Of course. With the exception of one element of the app process (do you know what that is??? ), all are merely measures of what people have DONE, without any evidence of what they will do.

But now back to NAPS, why do you suppose candidates with 'very highER' WP scores are NOT sent to NAPS ... while those with merely 'very high' scores are? What is the trigger? Do tell.

2 questions for homework to help us learn.
 
Whistle Pig said:
Sorry, you've missed the mark. These things all measure various aspects of past performance. But not motivation. Why do you think that people quit, first round draft picks flop, bonus babies never get beyond the minors, and on and on.

Does the WP system attempt to project future potential based upon past performance. Of course. With the exception of one element of the app process (do you know what that is??? ), all are merely measures of what people have DONE, without any evidence of what they will do.

But now back to NAPS, why do you suppose candidates with 'very highER' WP scores are NOT sent to NAPS ... while those with merely 'very high' scores are? What is the trigger? Do tell.

2 questions for homework to help us learn.
Click to expand...
Motivation is nothing more than the desire to succeed. While one cannot demonstrate specific desire to succeed at the Naval Academy, they can demonstrate a track history of success in all endeavors to date. Past performance indicates future results.

You have been attempting to put words in my mouth. I have never stated or implied that only the highest WP scores attended NAPS, only that the successful NAPS grad would, by definition, be a qualifiable, admissable candidate. NAPS, you must realize, is owned by the Navy, funded by the Navy, and run by the Navy. It is there solely to meet the needs of the Navy. As such, if they feel that the officer corps should not be composed solely of eggheads from suburbia, so be it.
 
You're dancing, I'm afraid. But so be it. Believe what you must. You'd likely benefit from a course in tests and measurement.

But if you come up with how one candidate's "motivation" and "promise" can be measured above and beyond or lesser and below another's, you're headed to be a gazillionaire. I'd bet against that but wish you the very best.

The good news in these boards is that for those who want to know what has and hasn't been said, all they need do is read the record.

We all recognize who fund's and "owns" the Navy. btw, it is NOT "the Navy." The Navy is merely the operator/beneficiary.

Keep reading. We all learn from this good board. You and I both can, I'm confident.

P.S. Do you want a shot at answering the 2 questions? 1. What one measure attempts to assess potential rather than score the past? 2. If you are correct in your contention, why is it that people with higher WP scores and in fact are fully qualified are not considered for NAPS?
 
The Admissions Board votes by majority -- qualified, deferred, rejected. I don't think they sit around the table voting on a number. Though this HELPS them to frame a candidate (i.e. they might be able to generalize the area a candidate is in), ultimately, they are going to be looking at the stats (SAT/ACT, academic rigor), what the briefer is presenting (which is probably all the board members need to know and that could be enough to influence one or more), class rank %, etc. That is what they vote on, not how many points more to add/subtract, though they perform that function, likely a benefit for later on in the process when appointments/slates/pools become an issue. Each board member gets their own vote, so I highly doubt the points make the difference, it is going to be the stats and what is highlighted about each candidate that does and why I say the WPM is not exclusive.

The role of the board is to determine qualification and assign an adjusted WPM (if applicable).

Without a doubt, there are certain academic minimums which will disqualify an otherwise scholastically qualifiable candidate (see the reason that NAPS exists-they may indeed pass 'GO'.)
Click to expand...

Correct, though I meant not a "GO" for an appointment in that current cycle.
 
jadler03 said:
The role of the board is to determine qualification and assign an adjusted WPM (if applicable).
Click to expand...
First, RABs are added. Then, as a final measure, qualification is determined. The vote ensures those with overall admissable packages but with significant weaknesses are not admitted. Any package with the individual portions of the scholastic input skewed heavily in one direction or another, will be viewed critically. Additionally, a weak CFA without supporting sports participation might be cause for concern. A well-rounded package with commensurate WP totals will sail through.
 
Folks,

While discussion of USNA's admissions practices and policies is fine, please remember not to demean or ridicule fellow posters. You can take issue with what someone else says but do so in a respectful manner. If in doubt, read back through your post -- BEFORE posting -- and evaluate whether you are disagreeing with, or your argument is with, a statement or the person who made it. The former is ok; the latter is not.

Thank you.

Your friendly mod.
 
First, RABs are added. Then, as a final measure, qualification is determined. The vote ensures those with overall admissable packages but with significant weaknesses are not admitted. Any package with the individual portions of the scholastic input skewed heavily in one direction or another, will be viewed critically. Additionally, a weak CFA without supporting sports participation might be cause for concern. A well-rounded package with commensurate WP totals will sail through.
Click to expand...

That might be the process, but the vote to qualify a candidate or not will be made on his/her own stats/highlights and not solely on the score. What each member hears/sees around the table is what determines how they vote. They could care less if they added X points; that one thing (i.e. maybe it's saving someones life in a stressful situation) with an average academic record, might be the thing that "wows" everyone even though the WPM doesn't "bump" that much. After all, RABs are done in blocks of points and this one instance isn't going to sky-rocket their WPM.

I remember seeing a video one year when a lady played on a guys baseball team and that "wowed" a few members on the board. At the time when they were still using the green/red sticks, that candidate got a few immediate greens.

I don't buy into that the WPM is the exclusive / end-all-be-all.
 
jadler03 said:
I don't buy into that the WPM is the exclusive / end-all-be-all.
Click to expand...
When all is said and done, and all the qualified packages are presented to the nomination sorce for nomination, they are evaluated solely on the WP score. The WP score is the sole determinant of 'most qualified'.

Sorry I forgot to address it earlier but my comments about information on the forum was directed at those attempting to gain LOA insight from posts herein.
 
When all is said and done, and all the qualified packages are presented to the nomination sorce for nomination, they are evaluated solely on the WP score. The WP score is the sole determinant of 'most qualified'.
Click to expand...

Ehh....the matching/charging nominations to candidates is a very weird process, but I would agree with the generalization that they are likely to go in some type of WPM order. However, before a candidate makes it to this point, they must be triple qualified -- the WPM doesn't mean a thing if they aren't found scholastically (or medically/physically) qualified and have a nomination (in that cycle).
 
Whomever told you this about NAPS......"He was told that my son was not eligible for those because those were only for enlisted, recruited athletes and some minorities.".....was wrong.

Many h.s. students are given the opportunity to attend NAPS to improve their academics who are none of the above.

You are NOT eligible for NAPS if you are 3Q.

Now I know the usual cast of characters will chime in with their OPINIONS on what USNA should/shouldn't do relating to NAPS, but those are the facts.
 
Well, count me among those you might be discounting. Only because, beyond anecdotes, "Many h.s. students" who do not fall among those categories are not NAPSters. I'll gather up the profiles that have been shared, confident it will debunk the allegation noted.

In the meantime can you put some specific definition to your use of "Many?" Thanks.
 
I didn't say all, I said many. The person making that quote has previously indicated her son has an LOA. LOA's specifically state you are "guaranteed of an appointment if...you complete your other obligations"....generally that means getting a NOM. Someone with an LOA would NOT be eligible for NAPS.
 
That's correct. Qualified candidates are not candidates for NAPS.

But so I know what we're discussing, you noted ..."Many h.s. students are given the opportunity to attend NAPS to improve their academics who are none of the above."

What do you mean by "many?" Is it an absolute number, a % of each NAPS class, more than the 3 groups? Knowing how you define "many" relative to that which you're contending about the 3 noted groups appointed to NAPS. My reason in asking is trying to get an understanding of what your statement of "many" means. I hope this makes sense and you can grasp why I'm asking for your clarification about this. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top