'Best and brightest' article from hometownannapolis.com

[aglages]

Some former admissions board members and officers say the borderline students often struggle to survive at the Naval Academy.

"It is the equivalent of taking a square peg and putting it in a round hole, where it doesn't fit," said one former board member and career military officer who was stationed at the academy.

"The unfairness is absolutely real," said the officer, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity.

It's unfair, the officer said, to admit marginal students ahead of their better-prepared counterparts, and Naval Academy officers and capable midshipmen are under constant pressure to tutor the underachievers.

"We are pouring money and staff time into getting them through," the officer said. "The drain on the paid staff and the nonpaid staff is enormous."

..what do the ones appointed however they were appointed and for whatever reason they were appointed handle it once they get there.

I can only say that those students that struggled with PT and boxing were not mentioned as an enormous drain on staff and resources.

 

[Mongo]

I'm sorry Mongo but that's just double speak. Whether someone chooses a SA, ROTC or OCS has nothing to do with their "success indicators". Those choices are made for many reasons other than academic skills. ..............................................
Question: Does the Navy use success indicators?

Never heard the specific term "success indicator" used by Admissions before.

And I assume they too are more than academic skills.

How many ROTC students do you know who have flunked out of ROTC and then had to enroll at a SA?

And how many candidates do you know who could not get into ROTC and had to settle for an Academy?

I did say "in general".

 

[aglages]

How many ROTC students do you know who have flunked out of ROTC and then had to enroll at a SA?

No one...is it an option?

And how many candidates do you know who could not get into ROTC and had to settle for an Academy?

None for the Navy. Several recently for the Air Force although I don't know whether they would consider it "settling". There have been some USAFA applicants that applied for both the SA and AFROTC and were selected for the SA but not awarded an AFROTC scholarship.

 

[dpt135]

Perhaps, USNA is different from USMA, but USMA there is a minimum SAT scores and if an applicant is below the minimum SAT scores, the admissions office can ask academic departments for wavier(s).

Yes, the "best and brightest" are not "highest SAT and GPA," but you need to give some credit to admissions folks, to include MOC nomination process to weed out the "higest SAT and GPA" applicants that don't belong at SA. I am on my MOC's service academy nomination board and one year we did not give a nomination to a "highest SAT and GPA" kid because our determination was that he doesn't belong at a SA and he won't make a good military officer.

Yes "Best and brightest does not always correlate to grades and standardized test scores" but most cases they do. The admissions process is based on the average results, not exceptions. If you ever took a statistic class, you will know what a bell curve or normal distribution is. The admissions process is focused on the normal distribution, not the outliers.

Searched the USMA admissions and found this:
Q: What must I score on the SAT/ACT?
Keep in mind there is not a dedicated score as we evaluate several areas. Academics are 60% of our evaluation while 30% is your leadership potential (based on high school and solider experiences) and 10% is your physical aptitude. Competitive scores for USMAPS in the past were SAT 1100 and ACT 23.
So, what are the minimums for USMA? If the SAs were looking for normal distribution why are they interested in the super high SATs at the beginning of the bell curve. Shouldn't those be left off since they are outliers?

 

[dpt135]

One other point, my representative did give interviews but not my Senators. How do you weed out the real dweebs when not all MOCs give interviews?

 

[MakeItHappen]

There have been some USAFA applicants that applied for both the SA and AFROTC and were selected for the SA but not awarded an AFROTC scholarship.

Proof....of a two-tiered admission process at USAFA.

 

[aglages]

How do you weed out the real dweebs when not all MOCs give interviews?

How about the MOCs that actually did interview and thought they weeded out the less qualified candidates....just to have them come through the back door via NAPS? Where does the Navy get the noms for the NAPS grads? That would have been an interesting stat to see in the article. I know the NAPS students are supposed to re-apply for noms from their MOCs but what happens if they don't get one? If a MOC has one opening available at the USNA and 200 candidates, is he going to give it to the NAPS student? Even if he just puts the NAPS student on his slate, someone has to be charged for that nom. Who? What's the chances that the USNA appointees that come through NAPS don't need to meet minimum academic qualifications and also do not need MOC approval because they are given noms from a different source?

 

[aglages]

Proof....of a two-tiered admission process at USAFA.

Proof of two different and separate evaluation processes for two different programs with different needs.

 

[Bullet]

Only the top half of the Academy class is capable of being a pilot? Where does that leave ROTC and AOCS?

Not sure what he was trying to say. And I read it several times.

What's not to understand? He's simply pointing out that when you lower the quality of the candidate pool for entry (which I take as regardless of source), it is safe to say that you will have an impact on the quality of the pool of individuals at each step in their follow on careers.

Glad to be of assistance in helping you understand a simple example of statistics. Something I learned at a State U, btw...

On this forum, we always tell candidates to make sure they have a Plan 'B', with that plan normally being ROTC. For those whose Plan 'A' is ROTC, the backup plan might be OCS.

I'm with you so far.

I would think that, in general, these "success indicators" would be ranked with those at the Academy the highest, ROTC second, and OCS bringing up the rear.

And here is where you lose me. What in the Sam Hill does commissioning source have to do with anything he is talking about here? He's talking about the pool of candidates entering the Academy each year, and the possible effects from lower their standards. The pool of candidates entering other institutions of higher learning are not part of his equation, only yours. And ROTC and OCS would also have to deal with the consequences (and so would the US military) if they lowered their standards for whom they accept into their program.

He is questioning the 'success indicators' of those at the bottom of the Academy pile.

OK, back on track. I agree with you here; he IS questioning the standards for the lower half of the Academy's pool of candidates

Where does that leave ROTC and OCS. Would they not "be ranked lower, advanced slower, and given less demanding (and therefor rewarded) jobs than the group let in with higher average success indicators."

Annnnd, the wheels come right back off. Where does this leave ROTC and OCS? I don't know, nor does it matter. ROTC and OCS are an entirely different pool of commissioning candidates than the Academy. CDR Salamander is making a point about the Academy's admission standards; why do you insist on bringing in other commissioning sources into HIS argument?

You wouldn't be making that silly argument that ROTC and OCS are only for the "less qualified" candidates, and turn our "less capable" future officers, would you?

How can we, in good faith, recommend someone fgo ROTC or OCS if we believe this is true?

Simple. It isn't true, despite your twists in logic in an attempt to confuse simple statistics.

And one, at the age of 17 is branded with a certain "success indicator" quotient which will follow him the rest of his career. "I'm sorry son but I see from your USNA application that you are not capable of working in Operations. You can take the First Lieutenant job." Give me a break.

All of us on these forums have said multiple times that sometimes it takes a while to finally catch up in life and excel. We are all not thoroughbreds right out of the gate. Some stumble early, make a few mistakes, are at first slow to pick up the pace. But that doesn't mean in life that the proverbial "light bulb" won't suddenly illuminate above their heads, and the next thing you know, they will be running at full speed, passing those whom we all thought they never had a chance to surpass.

For that reason, and that reason alone, CDR Salmander's argument is severely flawed. And perhaps that is why it may be OK to sometimes give a kid a break when their not up to the standards of their peers at age 17, and give them that proverbial "golden ticket" entry into the Academy. Based on a hope that they one day WILL get it. And for that one reason alone, I can agree with the USNA's policy to allow underachievers a second chance.

But please, don't start throwing in ROTC and OCS as your argument that these sources will produce lower quality officers than an Academy grad. Produce a better 2nd Lt (or Ensign), and perhaps a better 1 Lt (or Lt J.G.)? I'd agree to that somewhat. But after about 2 years in service, commissioning source plays little in an officer's success. Not having the academic skills, or a solid ability to learn these skills, necessary to understand the technical challenges they will face in this modern military? That is where failure is assured.

This guy would say anything to stir the pot.

Kettle....

 

[dpt135]

There is definitely a two tiered system for athletes. Two kids in my hometown who are Div 1 prospects : one for USAFA not really interested in military just wants to play football;Granted he is a smart kid. the other to USMA never considered it for school until the wrestling coach approached him a month ago. He was told to take the writing portion of the ACT,don't worry though it doesn't matter what you make. He has done no application process and where will his nomination come from now?They said he may go through their prep school this year and worry about that next year.Frustrating for me, a non-Div 1 athlete that has been determined to attend USNA and have been working on entrance since applying to summer session last year. My application is complete with 2 noms ,but just waiting and trying to be patient. It is just tough hearing these guys get an easier way in.

 

[aglages]

It is just tough hearing these guys get an easier way in.

It isn't necessarily an easier way in, it's just that as DIV I athletes they have an intangible quality that you may not have...leadership. Some people think that DIV I athletes just have better physical qualities (size, strength, speed) but evidently the USNA is also able to recognize a certain leadership aptitude that they have that helps their overall candidate score enough to offset their attitude or academic issues.

 

[LineInTheSand]

It isn't necessarily an easier way in, it's just that as DIV I athletes they have an intangible quality that you may not have...leadership. Some people think that DIV I athletes just have better physical qualities (size, strength, speed) but evidently the USNA is also able to recognize a certain leadership aptitude that they have that helps their overall candidate score enough to offset their attitude or academic issues.

This of course overlooks the $$ generated by D1 sports. I don't buy it. They can have all the leadership experience as anyone else, skill and ability separates them in the arena of sports. The werent born D1 ath;etes, they got there because of their skill and the money they bring in. If not, they would be on some Diii school.

 

[aglages]

I don't buy it.

My post wasn't meant to be serious.

 

[dpt135]

I have leadership. I have been the Varsity captain on the wrestling team for two years at a 6a school,plus other non-sport leadership roles. I am actually a better leader, citizen , and student than the D1 athletes on my squad. This may be the exception though, and what you say may be more true for the majority. But, most of the D1 kids I know don't focus alot on grades or citizenship, and are only "leaders" because the crowd follows a very popular athlete.

 

[Mongo]

No one...is it an option?

None for the Navy. Several recently for the Air Force although I don't know whether they would consider it "settling". There have been some USAFA applicants that applied for both the SA and AFROTC and were selected for the SA but not awarded an AFROTC scholarship.

agales, it was a rhetorical question on the two old Navy standards: No Ensign ever washed out of SWO school (or NFO training) and had to become an aviator. (Implying that it is a one-way street, many more come the other way).

 

[Mongo]

My post wasn't meant to be serious.

But it is. Of course they do. If sports didn't matter, why do you think extracurricular activities are such an important part of the application process and such a high percentage of successful candidates both played high school sports and acted as captains of their teams? If it weren't important, why is every midshipman required to play a sport at some level all four years? Looking to our sister service, is there not something quoted on the exterior of Michie Stadium about development on "these fields"? Did some famous general not say something about for an especially dangerous mission, give him an Army football player? I guess that last one could be interpreted the opposite way. Or maybe there generals made rank and were successful despite being poor judges of leadership? If you want to see statistics, a half dozen grad school thesises at Monterrey have addressed this very issue. Google them and read them. All, depending on the criteria, in one form or another conclude varsity athletes perform equally better in the fleet than do their non-sports playing contemporaries. I personally had a candidate who went on to captain a major sport. I'm sure they went surface in order to five and dive. They love it. Their latest unsolicited comment: "Being a captain at Navy really prepared me to be a surface officer".

 

[Mongo]

.

And here is where you lose me. What in the Sam Hill does commissioning source have to do with anything he is talking about here?

I am unsure what 'success indicators 'really are but I assume that it is all the things on the application processes which are utilized to determine one's potential for success as a Naval officer. In other words, pretty much everything. Now, if we were to plot the sum of these indicators for each individual and somehow plot them, I am sure we would have three overlapping bell curves with the most selective apex being USNA, then ROTC, and lastly OCS. Would it not stand to reason that those at the bottom of the USNA bell curve would correspond with ROTC selectees higher on the bell curve, and OCS grads even higher on the bell curve. Since Salamander determines the entire careers success rate dependent upon these indicators, would it not seem logical that an even greater percentage of ROTC and OCS grads would meet the criteria for the bottom tier of his two tiered evaluation, promotion, and job assignment system, compared to USNA. Are they doomed from the outset? For those of you unfamiliar with Navy life, they do comingle the different sources, once they graduate.

"Glad to be of assistance in helping you understand a simple example of statistics"

 

[Mongo]

I thiink the point of this whole discussion should be more about---what do the ones appointed however they were appointed and for whatever reason they were appointed handle it once they get there. For those who are familiar with my posts -WTH. DS is a plebe --high school honor student-athlete--- leadership out the wazoo and disciplined like no other --yes i am his mother but his resume was outstanding. Is he from a area that may be considered underrepresented =probably. But now that he is there and is experiencing it all---IT REALLY doesnt matter why you got in or how. If the bottom line is to develop leaders by the end of four years the grooming process kicks all their hineys once in . An "A" student struggles in PT an athlete needs help in math -----what do they do? They become a team a band of brothers and sisters. They work it out together. When they are commissioned they better be able to relate to all races,mentalities and religions not to mention they better know how to relate to each group.Sally helps Joe with math and he in turn helps her with PT. The object of the SA is to grow and develop all qualities and to develope attitudes that they do it together ---no one is going to make it by themselves. So what if appointee one is a athlete--he will still need help with something--so what if candidate two is a math wiz she might need a peer to box with.. Bottom line---if they were all one race one GPA one SAT score ---robots not caring feeling strong committed leaders would never be produced. Diversity is real people and everyone needs to be able to know they have someone there with their back. Leadership is developed not given . And to be a great leader you have to be a good follower first. IMO

Absolutely fantastic post. There is not one word in it that I do not completely agree with. As will all graduates. Your son is very perceptive in having realized it so soon so well as to be able to convey it to a parent.

 

[MemberLG]

Searched the USMA admissions and found this:
Q: What must I score on the SAT/ACT?
Keep in mind there is not a dedicated score as we evaluate several areas. Academics are 60% of our evaluation while 30% is your leadership potential (based on high school and solider experiences) and 10% is your physical aptitude. Competitive scores for USMAPS in the past were SAT 1100 and ACT 23.
So, what are the minimums for USMA? If the SAs were looking for normal distribution why are they interested in the super high SATs at the beginning of the bell curve. Shouldn't those be left off since they are outliers?

If I may clarfiy my posting, there are minimums SAT scores that require a waiver from academic departments. There are around mid 500s. So, if I score 500 on SAT verbal, depends on my other qualifications, my Admissions officer might ask for an academic wavier, if granted I am academically qualified.

I used the term normal distibution losely, so if I recall my stats class correctly, a normal distribution could be shifted either right or left.

So the normal distribution for national SAT scores is different from the normal distribution for West Pont applicant SAT scores.

As for the weeding out process, nothing is perfect. And in my opinion, your Senators should conduct interviews, however if you are from a big state might not be practical.

 

[MemberLG]

I have leadership. I have been the Varsity captain on the wrestling team for two years at a 6a school,plus other non-sport leadership roles. I am actually a better leader, citizen , and student than the D1 athletes on my squad. This may be the exception though, and what you say may be more true for the majority. But, most of the D1 kids I know don't focus alot on grades or citizenship, and are only "leaders" because the crowd follows a very popular athlete.

dpt135,

First of all, you think you have leadership. What is your defintion of leadership? What is the most difficult thing you have accomplished as a leader? How do you act as a leader when no one slept for more than 4 hours per night in last 10 days, eaten only 1 1/2 meals a day, carrying more than 100 lbs, and it's raining (I count my blessing that this was Ranger School, not combat).

There are many empty leadership position for high school kids, being an admissions volunteers and being on a congressional nomination panel, with few questions I can tell most of the time if a kid is a real leader or as you put it just a popular kid.

From my perspective, SAs are looking for leadership experience and/or kids with leadership potential. If an applicant never held any leadership position, it's questionable. But with at least some "leadership" position, we know that the applicant is at least is interested in doing something and at least put in a position to do something. Sometimes you learn more from your failures as a leader than being a successful one.

You stated "[D1 kids] are only "leaders" because the crowd follows a very popular athlete," so are you just a leader since you are a good wrestler?