Class of 2015 Profile

MIHOSER said:
In other words, it's apples and oranges and there really is no way to compare, least of all by comparing acceptance rates that are calculated in different manners.
Click to expand...

So true but we'll certainly have fun trying! BTW I don't think my DS who is currently "enjoying" (his words) Plebe Summer would have stood a chance getting into Harvard.:smile:
 
Last edited:
You are correct on report format and the numbers. The issue isn't changed though, is it. Unless you want it to be. And notably, the TOP scores are higher. What does that tell you?

We agree it is tough to make a fully accurate comparison with numbers given. And that may be for specific reasons. It is what it is, and while we can quibble, the bottomline stands. At best, despite massive infusion of resources and recruiting, no improvement at best. At least, a significant decline in the traditional top indicators.

But you can't use the applicant # both ways. First you argue ... wow big increase. Then you counter that by implying no such increase, just counting them differently? Either way, this picture is clear despite either overt or covert attempts to report it all differently for the very reason you've noted. So that at least it can be argued it's "apples and oranges."

The issue remains clear. More candidates, lower profile. And it sounds weak to ignore the obvious in lieu of calling it what it is and addressing it. Either explaining it ... or improving. But camouflaging it or pretending it is something else is not what you or any of us should strive for.

MIHOSER ... while I've no idea of his specifics, I'd still bet your son could get out of Harvard. There are many many who could readily succeed in running the Crimson course who never see their BTE! :wink:
 
No I am not using the numbers boths ways - I said in response to another post that the increase in applicant numbers could be compared over the last several years but maybe not before that because they changed the way they reported them. My point being that the increase in applications over the last two to three years is real and that the number of appointments has remained roughly the same so the acceptance rate has gone down - simply math. Please show me where the top 25% SAT scores are shown for 2011 - I may be looking at something different.
 
Please explain how the "candidate" number has been changed in the way it is counted. Thanks. How did it go from 12k to 19k in a season?
 
I didn't say counted - I said reported. Luigi and others pointed out that they use to show a more detailed breakout of the application numbers much as some of the other SA's do. I try to be careful when comparing numbers so I was only comparing the numbers for the increase in apps over the last several years because I had heard that USNA had made some changes to what they included as a application a numbers of year ago. So comparing numbers from say five years ago could be problematic but I think the last three years are safe if that makes sense.
 
Sorry but I really don't get that. So you're suggesting that beginning 3 years ago ... different reporting was used? Can you explain that, please. This is the first I've heard that one.

Now, what we do know is that the staffing, recruiting, resources, of all kinds were dramatically altered then. Got one Supe relieved of his duties, ultimately. But the numbers are somehow different? A candidate today is not similarly counted as a candidate 3, 4, 5 seasons back?

Specifically, why is reporting numbers from 5 years back not ok. 3 is. What about 4. This is a real revelation.
 
It's all about ego and the desire to say/state/print/list/post "We are the most desirable and exclusive military academy because more people apply to the USNA than any other."

Without a doubt, USNA gets more applications than the others. Of that there is no question.

If USNA admissions feels they must over-inflate their numbers to appear more exclusive, they do so at the risk of appearing disingenuous - i.e. - they are reporting as "applicants" anyone who fills out the initial web form listing their name, address, GPA, and sends an SAT score or transcript.

Hardly an "application" in any sense of the imagination.

Releasing the number of "completed applications" would do a far better service to anyone who is looking to compare these numbers, for whatever reason they are comparing them, especially those "what are my chances for admission" questions.

The bottom line:

  • No one competes with an "applicant" who doesn't complete their application.
  • No one competes with an "applicant" who doesn't meet the scholastic, medical, and physical qualifications.
  • No one competes with an applicant who does not have a legal nomination.

Period. No one is eligible for an appointment, unless they meet the above 3 criteria.

Once you arrive at this "magic number" it is very easy then then correlate/compare "acceptance rates" that actually mean something.

And based on historical data (some of which is no longer released by USNA admissions, for whatever reason) the acceptance rate for USNA is ~14%-20% year after year.

As it is for all of the SAs when reporting accurate admissions data.
 
# No one competes with an "applicant" who doesn't meet the scholastic, medical, and physical qualifications.
# No one competes with an applicant who does not have a legal nomination.
Click to expand...

If we based on the above statements, then the acceptance rate is not 14-20% but at least 60-80%.

Even at Harvard /Yale, do you think that all applicants meet scholastic qualification ?

Does the future Mid compete with each other in the area for nomination ?
 
Just a reminder and point of clarification about that 19,000+ number ...

From the USNA Admissions website:

"A preliminary application must be submitted to become an official candidate for next year’s entering class. If you have applied for our Summer Seminar program, please do not submit a preliminary application.

After being designated as an official candidate for admission, all applicants will be notified by mail. Within your candidate letter will be important instructions on how to proceed with the application process (sent no earlier than mid-May)."

So ... what this means is simply this: One must send in preliminary information to receive a number AND access to an application. Period. It says nothing about the number of actual applicants. 1985 has shared valuable insight into this, noting that 50-60% of her candidates actually complete an application.

So using 19,000 as a base number in attempting to establish a selectivity in admissions number is totally bogus. It may be more reasonable to assume there are 10K completed apps from which about 4,000 receive a nomination and thus become eligible to be considered for an appointment. Thus a "best case" selectivity is probably 15% but more correctly near 40% (1500 offers from about 4,000 applicants found to be admissable w/ nominations.)

And when one looks at this, then it becomes readily apparent how ridiculous it is attempting to suggest that there is any meaning or somehow comparable to Harvard ... whether it is 895/19145 and a 4.7% "acceptance rate" as summer1942 would like to believe ... or 1426/19145, aikbuto's fictitious 7.8% rate. Both or bogus, neither has any application in comparing it to Harvard.

btw, the quote from USNA describing the preliminary step in order to receive access to application? That came from AikiBudo, 03 May 2011. So he/she knows what she's suggesting is totally bogus. But hey, if it makes her feel better, have at it. Just don't try to inform that it is somehow anything more than myth or fairytaled twisting of some numbers published about his/her son's class. The truth is that the candidate pool is being padded by infusion of huge resources at USNA in an attempt to alter the eventual composition of the class. And at least in regard to traditional academic measures, they are succeeding. And the data's declining. It is what it is, not what some would like us to think by counting it slightly different that it might be quibbled about. A classic stategy when clarity is not the objective. Anyone remember how the previous Supe naively obfuscated the data in reporting in his final year? And anyone wonder why that was quickly and completely eliminated?

You know, this is a terrific place with great kids. But there is no valor or honor in trying to spin it. In fact, it is denigrating and diminishing, doing a great disservice to the place and the Plebes.
 
summer1942 said:
If we based on the above statements, then the acceptance rate is not 14-20% but at least 60-80%.
Click to expand...

Technically, that is correct.

Based on historical data, there are ~2,000 - 3,000 qualified nominated candidates and ~1,300-1,500 appointment offers.

The last profiled class at USNA that had those numbers reported was the class of 2012.

3Q + nom applicants = 2,196 (These are the only applicants eligible)
Appointment offers = 1,537
Click to expand...

Therefore is is correct to state that (for the Class of 2012, currently 1/C Mids) 7 out of every 10 USNA candidates/applicants who were qualified for appointment received one.

USAFA numbers are similar (using 2014, a more recent example): They had 2,445 3Q + nom candidates/applicants, and there were 1,566 appointment offers, a 64% acceptance.

West Point reports similar numbers for 2014 - They had 2,342 3Q + nom candidates/applicants, and there were 1,375 appointment offers, a 59% acceptance
 
Last edited:
OK- cant help it... have to vent. After reading these posts, COME ON!! We all know the true numbers that matter- 3Q with nom. 19,000+ "APPLICANTS" means NOTHING!! All these number do is inflate egos and discourage perspective candidates. Last week I read a post where someone said their BGO said there are over 30,000 applicants already this year!! REALLY!! There is NO WAY!!! Stick with the numbers which matter when discussing acceptance rate- 3Q with Nom. Those are requirements just like needing to take a required class in HS for admission. My 10 year old could fill out the interest application online... and be included in the applicant pool.

Wonder how many perspective candidate throw in the towel after reading posts that are so discouraging with inflated numbers like this. Not a true picture of the process and what someones "chances" are.
 
Luigi59 said:
The acceptance rate is not 4.67%. There were not 19k applicants.

Count "completed applications" only if you want to compare apples to apples.

Counting every single person who types their name and address and enters a GPA as an "applicant" is not very accurate.
Click to expand...

If that person navigated their way to the United States Naval Academy's website and took the type to fill out a preliminary application - they obviously had SOME interest in attending.

Not too many schools pre-screen their candidates like this.

Let's say somebody infinitely unqualified to go to Harvard decides to apply nonetheless. Do you think Harvard will not accept their application fee by saying, "Wait! Don't even bother. You have ZERO chance of being accepted. Save your money." ?

No!

They will gladly take their money ... gladly accept their application ... gladly throw it into the trash ... and gladly include them amongst the many who "applied to Harvard."
 
Memphis9489 said:
If that person navigated their way to the United States Naval Academy's website and took the type to fill out a preliminary application - they obviously had SOME interest in attending.

Not too many schools pre-screen their candidates like this.

Let's say somebody infinitely unqualified to go to Harvard decides to apply nonetheless. Do you think Harvard will not accept their application fee by saying, "Wait! Don't even bother. You have ZERO chance of being accepted. Save your money." ?

No!

They will gladly take their money ... gladly accept their application ... gladly throw it into the trash ... and gladly include them amongst the many who "applied to Harvard."
Click to expand...

Who is arguing that Harvard's numbers are any more accurate? Certainly not me.

In fact, you have confirmed that the "number of application" is meaningless, whether given by USNA or Harvard, and does not accurately reflect the true chance of admission/appointment.
 
The comparison between the service academies and the Ivies is ridiculous. Most of the SA kids couldn't get into an Ivy, and most of the Ivy kids couldn't get into a service academy, so let's just stop comparing the two.
 
Whistle Pig said:
Sorry but I really don't get that. So you're suggesting that beginning 3 years ago ... different reporting was used? Can you explain that, please. This is the first I've heard that one.
Click to expand...
A few years back, three or four, the USNA/NROTC application process was combined so that anyone appling for NROTC who simply checked a box automatically applied to USNA. There is no way to determine exactly how many of these candidates truly intended to apply to USNA and would attend if accepted and how many simply checked the box because they felt the correct thing to do was "apply to all commissioning sources available."

The number of 3Qed candidates will remain relatively constant over the years. A more qualified year group will cause a higher minimum qualification and some who may be 3Qed one year might not have been during a more competitive year. So, using this number as a part of an acceptance rate is irrelevant.
 
Ah, of course. Thanks Mongo for the 2x4 'twixt the eyes. I knew that. Altho as you note, makes no diff in the discussion, imo, beyond making it look like more than it really may be.

tallbutshort ... great line. Mind if I play off it?

"Most of the SA kids might not get into an Ivy, and most of the Ivy kids would never get OUT of a service academy!"
 
Another update for the class of 2015 profile: The Academic Dean announced today that the class of 2015 now holds the ALL TIME RECORD for the number of plebes validating courses in Calculus, Chemistry, Physics and English.
 
Whistle Pig said:
tallbutshort ... great line. Mind if I play off it?

"Most of the SA kids might not get into an Ivy, and most of the Ivy kids would never get OUT of a service academy!"
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a might not, I think it's a would not. But the fact that most of the Ivy kids would never make it out of a service academy is completely irrelevant when it comes to selectivity. Is a service academy harder? Absolutely. Is a service academy harder to get into? No, it's just different.
 
Well, I'm not sure I agree. The entire purpose of selectivity is attempting to enroll those most likely to finish the course in the "fastest" time. Those most likely to ...

And in that vein, SAs are FAR MORE SELECTIVE than the Ivies numbers aside for this simple fact ... Not only could Ivy students not complete the course, they'd not be appointed. Why? One simple reason ... most of them would not pass the CFA. It's that simple.

Thus ignoring the attempts to put a round selectivity statistics into a square appointment hole ... I'd bet a dime to a dollar more SA kids'd be admitted to Ivies than Ivies'd ever get into SAs. No brainer if one simply backs up and looks at the reality of this. As you've noted, the admissions is different. And it is that difference that ultimately makes the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top