Anyone else still waiting out there?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree completely with RockyB :thumb:

Second time through here and even more flaws in the process got exposed this time around. Its not about people not caring or being politically correct or any of that stuff. In the end they do the best that they can, however.....

The best candidates do not always get in.
The brightest kids do not always get a fair shake.
Some of the criteria is outdated and irrelevant, yet it helps make a selection.
Geography matters, significantly.
Interviews are basically irrelevant, which means that your contact with a SA is irrelevant.

etc. etc. etc

Be advised this is nothing more than an observation of the facts as I experienced them over two years and not an indictment of any candidate or category.

Pretty tough assessment of the admissions process. Do you have any data to back it up?
 
Agree completely with RockyB :thumb:

Second time through here and even more flaws in the process got exposed this time around. Its not about people not caring or being politically correct or any of that stuff. In the end they do the best that they can, however.....

The best candidates do not always get in.
The brightest kids do not always get a fair shake.
Some of the criteria is outdated and irrelevant, yet it helps make a selection.
Geography matters, significantly.
Interviews are basically irrelevant, which means that your contact with a SA is irrelevant.

It depends on your definition of "best.

Does the brightest kid always make the best officer? Nope.
Is having officers from all over the country a benefit to the Army? Yep.

I doubt there were many 4.0 students that were president of student body and captain of a team contact sport that didn't get in no matter where they were located geographically.

If you haven't been in the Army then you don't have the appropriate background to know what is "best."
 
Agree completely with RockyB :thumb:

Second time through here and even more flaws in the process got exposed this time around. Its not about people not caring or being politically correct or any of that stuff. In the end they do the best that they can, however.....

The best candidates do not always get in.
The brightest kids do not always get a fair shake.
Some of the criteria is outdated and irrelevant, yet it helps make a selection.
Geography matters, significantly.
Interviews are basically irrelevant, which means that your contact with a SA is irrelevant.

etc. etc. etc

Be advised this is nothing more than an observation of the facts as I experienced them over two years and not an indictment of any candidate or category.


Pretty tough assessment of the admissions process. Do you have any data to back it up?

BillyB, you imply that I didn't serve. Who says I didn't serve? And just because I did then that makes me qualified to know whats Best? Really?

Yup, my experiences. Facts are stubborn things sometimes. I know we all go into this process with rose colored glasses and some of us probably come out cynical.

Again, I believe the admission folks do the best that they can, but since you asked.

I've heard many times that candidates with lower test scores/gpa and fewer EC's get offers over candidates with better scores/grades and more EC's. How or why I don't know but thats whats been said. Hence less qualified candidates get in.

I've heard many candidates on here say "my Liason interview went great, I was told I was their candidate", as my son was, then they can't even answer a question after 3 months about where you stand or how you look, hence they are irrelevant and you interviewed well and thats what they say, thats all they can do, they are not a liason anymore than I am.

Answer me this, why is there a line item for school newspaper or drama club on the application? Is that somehow more valuable than Pier Ministry or underclass mentoring programs....newspaper, really. Fine leadership qualities are established there that you can't get anywhere else. How about boys/girls state? Why is that so influential? If you didn't know about it then your somehow less qualified or if you were not selected because there were just too many applicants, then your less qualified. Really? It's a weeklong symposium for Gods sake. How does that provide more leadership experience than being a youth coordinator and liason for walk for life and raising funds for a year long cause.

In my experience the "whole candididate" stuff is misrepresented and needs to be updated. I believe in the enitire candidate being subject for review and open for evaluation, but make it everything and don't weight non-leadership stuff to the same degree as clear leadership activities. and don't weight something that requires admitance to a select few more than daily life activities that candidates participate in. Then you'll get more of the better candidates, in my opinion.

The geography statement, well, thats just a fact.
 
I doubt there were many 4.0 students that were president of student body and captain of a team contact sport that didn't get in no matter where they were located geographically.

I think you would be surprised just how many with the stats you posted did not receive an appointment.

Does the brightest kid always make the best officer? Nope.

I agree completely with this one.

A lot of applicants seem to think that just because they have off the chart stats from high school that it will translate into success at WP, ROTC, or the military itself. While to some it may seem unfair that some receive appointments with stats lower then theirs, they need to understand that there is much more that goes into and selection process, and thank goodness for that.

While my son's are not WP but rather ROTC the same argument comes up during every selection period. Older son turned down WP to go ROTC, younger son never applied to WP. It was a tough decision for the older son to make but he is happy.

My younger son started ROTC this year with a 4 year scholarship, there were 2 other 4 yr awardees that started with him. Of the 3 my son had the lowest stats, by far. 1 of the cadets left the program the first semester and the second is about to be shown the door, not by his choice, my son is at the top of his MS class. My point is that the selection boards look at much more then the raw stats, if they didn't my son would have never been selected, but given the opportunity he has excelled.

While the applications for both WP and ROTC list several boxes to check for certain leadership and EC positions there is also a section that allows the applicant to list all the other EC's and Leadership positions they have held that are not printed on the application. I have no doubt these are given equal consideration.

It may seem unfair when your son or daughter is not selected because of how good they look on paper but remember there are other options for those that truly want to serve, they will find a way.

Just to clarify, I was never in the Army, I was however an Officer in the Armed Forces and even then the debate of what was fair raged on, and the results were the same.
 
Last edited:
I assumed that you didn't serve in the military because if you did serve you would know how important it is for some soliders to be able to identify with officers that have a similar background/geography as them. I saw that many times in the combat arms units I served in.

I know there were smarter kids that were rejected from USMA than some of my classmates (and me), but I sure learned a ton from the kid from Mississippi that probably wasn't the smartest but had a totally different background/up bringing than me.

Lots of people want to pile on the recruited athletes getting extra help in entrance into the academies, but grueling physical work, constantly pushing your limits, getting beaten down, but still getting back up in a football game is pretty darn close to the attributes that will be required of you in the Army. Couple that with good grades and you have a solid base for the makings of a good Army officer.

There are many things that are strong predictors of the making of a good officer and I would say raw brainpower and grades isn't #1 on the list. It is a combination of things (to include smarts), but I would take a 3.6 captain of the wrestling team most anyday before I would take a 4.0 with weaker ECs.
 
BillyB,
Pretty presumptuos of you, don't you think. Because someone has different opinion than yours, then they are somehow easy to label and understand.

I fully understand and appreciate the inner workings of a military unit and the many varied and sundry pieces that make it function effectively. I lived it.

I happen to agree with you in principle about preferring one set of skills over another and booksmart is not all that you want or need for that matter.

It's not as much the result that we are disagreeing on as the process.
I believe that this process is fundamentally flawed, thats where this discussion started.
 
this topic has turned into baiting but i wanted to say:

YES. JESUUUS I thought I was one of the last. I've been told I'm right belowed the insured vacancy winners, but that I am not out of the running. This seems to be a nail biter all the way until the end. I'm pretty pumped.

PS: lets not fight! I don't know why everyone has to strut around on these forums as if they're some kind of big man. I mean really, sometimes the "NO I SERVED" arguments just get ridiculous.
 
I assumed that you didn't serve in the military because if you did serve you would know how important it is for some soliders to be able to identify with officers that have a similar background/geography as them. I saw that many times in the combat arms units I served in.

I know there were smarter kids that were rejected from USMA than some of my classmates (and me), but I sure learned a ton from the kid from Mississippi that probably wasn't the smartest but had a totally different background/up bringing than me.

Lots of people want to pile on the recruited athletes getting extra help in entrance into the academies, but grueling physical work, constantly pushing your limits, getting beaten down, but still getting back up in a football game is pretty darn close to the attributes that will be required of you in the Army. Couple that with good grades and you have a solid base for the makings of a good Army officer.

There are many things that are strong predictors of the making of a good officer and I would say raw brainpower and grades isn't #1 on the list. It is a combination of things (to include smarts), but I would take a 3.6 captain of the wrestling team most anyday before I would take a 4.0 with weaker ECs.

There are some reasonable ideas here that speak to me. I won't stack up against a top notch student that focuses only on school, but I can and do understand how to clearly communicate and get a job done. I would probably fit into this category of candidates. I'm not a 4.0 but I do well in school if the instruction is consistent and testing is based on material taught. I'm a great athlete with solid leadership skills. Is the bias apparent yet?

Based on conversations with a possible base commander, physical and mental stamina are a necessity. Nothing slows down when an operation or training regimen is calling for you to keep step. This muscle memory is a necessity!

I do agree there are a number of factors that are difficult to measure, and I'm hoping my teacher evaluations will demonstrate those strengths that missed on academic and physical tests.

I can only hope I get to the NWL or get a great choice of my ROTC school.
 
MOCs can nominate anyone they want for their vacancy- however, those nominations do not get admitted unless WP says that they are FULLY qualfied. MANY, MANY MOC nominations do not get in WP every year.

Each MOC may nominate up to 10 people for each of their vacancies - but they are not required to do so. The vast majority - in my experience - of MOCs take the nomination process VERY seriously but a few do not.

The admissions process is dictated by Title 10 - a law passed by Congress. Title 10 rules are not the work of the Army or WP. However, within those laws WP Admissions works very hard to get the best possible nominees admitted.
 
Fritz,
You are so wrong in so many areas I do not know where to begin.

It is natural to be very disappointed if your DS does not get admitted and it is natural to blame the system in that case.

It is not a perfect system. Every system in the military and in civilian life has flaws. Life is not usually "fair" 100% of the time. Of course, the Army and WP have to obey the law - Title 10. This does mean that the best 1050 people do not get admitted - it does make a difference of how competitive your district is. Some Districts get 50 or more candidates for a vacancy while there might be 3-5 applicants in another District. In addition, minorities and athletics clearly have an advantage. However, ALL of the people that get admitted are fully qualified and worthy of admittance to WP.

I am one of the people authorized by WP to conduct the Official Interviews. I can tell you that THE INTERVIEW IS VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY HIGHLY RATED. This is usually the only time in the process that a WP official actually sees and talks to a candidate (except foe the students that go to the SLS). Of course the inteview can go well and that is a big plus for the candidate. However, there are many good interviews acroos the nation, so a good interview is not a guarantee of getting an offer. This is a VERY comptitive process!! I can tell you that many candidates do not get in due to a bad interview. I have also seen many fine candidates that were perfect at the interview not get in due to weaknesses in other areas.

Incidently, the teacher Recommendations and three papers that are requied from each candidate are also very important. The exact results of these important activities are kept secret - as well as the results of the interview. Almost every candidate (and their parents) seem to believe that they did well in all of these activities. THAT IS NOT TRUE. There is a WIDE range of grading in these areas.

A VERY IMPORTANT POINT: If a great candidate is not the vacancy winner in his congessional district - and is deemed fully qualified in every area by WP -they are put on the NWL. If they are a strong candidate they will have a high candidate score (WCS) and will likely get admitted. Very strong candidates get in even with this "flawed" system.
 
Last edited:
Fritz,
You are so wrong in so many areas I do not know where to begin.

It is natural to be very disappointed if your DS does not get admitted and it is natural to blame the system in that case.

It is not a perfect system. Every system in the military and in civilian life has flaws. Life is not usually "fair" 100% of the time. Of course, the Army and WP have to obey the law - Title 10. This does mean that the best 1050 people do not get admitted - it does make a difference of how competitive your district is. Some Districts get 50 or more candidates for a vacancy while there might be 3-5 applicants in another District. In addition, minorities and athletics clearly have an advantage. However, ALL of the people that get admitted are fully qualified and worthy of admittance to WP.

I am one of the people authorized by WP to conduct the Official Interviews. I can tell you that THE INTERVIEW IS VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY HIGHLY RATED. This is usually the only time in the process that a WP official actually sees and talks to a candidate (except foe the students that go to the SLS). Of course the inteview can go well and that is a big plus for the candidate. However, there are many good interviews acroos the nation, so a good interview is not a guarantee of getting an offer. This is a VERY comptitive process!! I can tell you that many candidates do not get in due to a bad interview. I have also seen many fine candidates that were perfect at the interview not get in due to weaknesses in other areas.

Incidently, the teacher Recommendations and three papers that are requied from each candidate are also very important. The exact results of these important activities are kept secret - as well as the results of the interview. Almost every candidate (and their parents) seem to believe that they did well in all of these activities. THAT IS NOT TRUE. There is a WIDE range of grading in these areas.

A VERY IMPORTANT POINT: If a great candidate is not the vacancy winner in his congessional district - and is deemed fully qualified in every area by WP -they are put on the NWL. If they are a strong candidate they will have a high candidate score (WCS) and will likely get admitted. Very strong candidates get in even with this "flawed" system.

Now that explanation should be a permanent sticky :thumb:
 
Hi Big Nick, thanks for your input, but I'm not swayed, All you did in your statement above was re-state the same tired old process and MOC's and WCS, blah, blah, blah. Think about the process objectively.

Long timers/moderators on here have said that these interviews can certainly hurt you, but they are not likely to get you in. Not from me, from them.

I am willing to go out on a limb here and say that a huge percentage of all candidates have good recommendations from their schools teachers and counselors, they are self serving to the schools after all. Please don't regurgitate the ever so small percentage of recommendations that aren't good as a counterpoint

you said "minorities and athletes have a clear advantage" oh there's a statement that helps a "whole candidate" argument. See the point just because the system says trust me it'll work doesn't mean that it does.

Please don't lose sight of the act that I have said multiple times that it is the process that i and others have issues with, it is far to subjective for a so called well defined system
 
Last edited:
fitz,

In my view the purpose of this forum is to provide information, help, and encouragement to the fine men and women who want to serve their country by going to WP and following a career in the Army. Thank God we have those type of young people in our country. I wish them all the best whether or not they get into WP.

Unfortunately, you make many statements unsupported by real experience from inside the selection process or from any other facts. You clearly have the right to have an opinion, but I am confident that the readers of this forum can tell the difference between unsupported opinions and facts.

The system is not 100% fair and objective - it has been written by political people - not WP or the Army. We must help the candidates successfully get thru the process in the antiipation that the ones who get thru will have a successful career at WP and in the Army.

Most teacher letters are positive - but to greatly different degrees. They are just one piece of the total picture (just as interviews are just one piece). I have seen many of these letters and you are wrong in your assumption.

The best way to make changes to the system is thru your congressman or woman.

I am very convinced that the entire Admissions Team and the vast majority of Congressmen are dedicated to selecting the best people for WP.

Those candidates who fall short should look inward and improve their record and then try again rather than blaming the system.
 
Last edited:
West Point has and is producing outstanding Army officers that I and others on this forum have fought under, with and lead in combat.

West Point has spent the past twenty years looking very hard at itself and adjusting itself to continue to produce outstanding leaders. They would not be able to do this with out an effective admissions system.

I am sorry that you, Fritz, do not see value in the West Point admissions process. You presented strong opinions on the admissions process but did not produce actual data to back them up, just anecdotes and assertions based on your observations.

If you feel that the process should be changed, you should petition your congress members. They will probably ask you why, though. Answering "it isn't fair" will only get you so far.

Now if you would have said something similar to, "West Point Admission's focus on strong academics over leadership-development-experiences might be a contributing factors to the high attrition of West Point officers at the five year mark" you would have shown that you have actually looked into some of the possible draw backs of the admission process. Not that I agree with that, but it is definitely something to consider.

Instead, though, it appears you were just venting about the admissions process with very strong opinions on a forum meant to assist young candidates in their efforts to apply. There is probably a better location for those gripes other than a posting about delayed notification of admissions status.

Now, candidates get to read this and your gripes instead of information such as:

- Call your liaison or admissions representative to find out about your file.
- Have you misplaced any communications from West Point
- Did you get a nomination.
- etc

Just because you disagree with the process does not mean it is not valid. West Point produces a very good product and calling the process into question demands better then just gripes.
 
Flawed

I keep hearing you scream fundamentally flawed, the process and what others have said but I still havent heard any facts from you on what makes it flawed. You keep speaking of other and what they say...and I keep reading what is being said. Then you tell us all how you are willing to go out on a limb about what teachers recommendation are...now prove it and just dont talk it....Tell me why the system is flawed....As i see it, you dont know the syatem, just complaining, defending and then attacking.....and " no" I do not see what you mean when you say Atheletes and Minorities...I think that is all part of the system and that truly doesnt make it flawed....why should it?
 
I keep hearing you scream fundamentally flawed, the process and what others have said but I still havent heard any facts from you on what makes it flawed. You keep speaking of other and what they say...and I keep reading what is being said. Then you tell us all how you are willing to go out on a limb about what teachers recommendation are...now prove it and just dont talk it....Tell me why the system is flawed....As i see it, you dont know the syatem, just complaining, defending and then attacking.....and " no" I do not see what you mean when you say Atheletes and Minorities...I think that is all part of the system and that truly doesnt make it flawed....why should it?

What?

"Unfortunately, you make many statements unsupported by real experience from inside the selection process"
This is my second time through this maze, he has re-applied and I know the process, thats why I have such strong opinions.

Heres an example I shared with someone recently to give you some perspective: based on what I've read and it's only my opinion based on what's been posted on here for the past 4 months, my sons application is top 20% of all the stats, SAT's, EC's , 3 sports, 2 captancies, 100's hrs. of community service etc. I found out 2 weeks ago that our congress person slot has been offered to a sophomore in a very good college in the ROTC program. How is someone supposed to compete against that? How do you win that slate? Then you go in the pool and deal with diversity.

You may not all agree with me and thats fine, but I would have preferred to have been told by the MOC or his WP liason " it honestly looks like the slot is taken" 2 months ago. But instead you hear the same "he's a strong candidate, he's the best candidate I have submitted and so on. If you think I'm alone in these feelings, you are mistaken.

So to not highjack this thread anymore, I have repeatedly said the folks in admin do the best they can the system has worked for a long time so I get it, but it has glaring flaws, lack of communication is one of them, but I do believe strong candidates are selected and that makes me proud and feel good, but it is also true that not everyone has a fair shot, there are some things that you can't do anything about and thats the system too. thats all, don't ignore that fact.

Fritz out :thumb:
 
I'm kind of sorry I started this thread! :)

The simple reality is that there are a limited number of spaces at USMA, and too many perfectly well qualified candidates ready, willing, and able to fill those spaces. Some may consider the process flawed, but ultimately the classes are filled with a geographically diverse group, the vast majority becoming successful Army officers ...... do I wish my kid could be one of them? Yes. Will that happen? At this point, probably not. We knew the odds going in, and ROTC is an excellent Plan B.
 
Heres an example I shared with someone recently to give you some perspective: based on what I've read and it's only my opinion based on what's been posted on here for the past 4 months, my sons application is top 20% of all the stats, SAT's, EC's , 3 sports, 2 captancies, 100's hrs. of community service etc. I found out 2 weeks ago that our congress person slot has been offered to a sophomore in a very good college in the ROTC program. How is someone supposed to compete against that? How do you win that slate? Then you go in the pool and deal with diversity.

I'm going to make an assumption here so correct me if I'm wrong.

I assume from the way you worded your statement that your son is not participating in ROTC. I assume that he is in college right now since you said he is applying for the second time. You asked how your son can compete with the person you mentioned.....Simple answer, He Can't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top