Class of 2020 Profile

Just a quick fact. Approximately 50% of an academy class go Pilot. As such, they have a minimum 10 year commitment. So right there, shows, approximately 50% of the class automatically DON'T do a 5 and dive. (Minus wash outs, medical, etc.). And of the 50% who aren't pilots, some of them stay more than 5 years.

How does a recruited athlete make for a better future leader?

"Presented to Universities by the NCAA"
Why athletics is important to human development:

"What does athletics teach individuals:
Attention to detail , Awareness of diversity, Challenging yourself , Commitment, Communication, Competition , Confidence , Cooperation , Coordination , Decision making , Dedication, Determination , Diligence, Discipline, Endurance, Fitness, Flexibility, Focus, Following plans/directions, Give/take feedback and criticism, Goal-directed, Improvement, Integrity, Individual/group effort, Keeping records, Leadership, Learning from failure, Management, Multitasking, Organization, Overcome obstacles, Pain/fatigue management, Patience,Performance, Persistence, Positive attitude, Prioritizing, Problem solving,Punctuality, Pursuit of excellence, Respect, Responsibility, Scheduling, Self-directed, Self-esteem, Set goals, Strategies, Stress management, Supervision, Tactics (offense/defense), Teaching, Teamwork , Thinking on your feet, Time management, Training motivation, Work ethic."

Now, can Non-Athletes learn/develop these same traits and attributes? Of course they can. It's just that in athletics, these attributes/traits are concentrated into one activity. And for the more dedicated athlete; not doing it "Just for Fun", these attributes/traits become a more important part of their life. And when you look at what it takes to become an effective military leader, many/most/all of these attributes/traits are required.

So, we then have to ask ourselves; if we want to know HOW does a recruited athlete make for a better future leader? Why don't we ask ourselves
1. how does a 4.0gpa / 36ACT academic student make for a better future leader?
2. how does a JrROTC or Civil Air Patrol member make for a better future leader?
3. how does being Class President make for a better future leader?
4. how does a Boy/Girl scout or going to Boy/Girl State make for a better future leader?

Remember; just because a cadet was a "Recruited Athlete" doesn't mean anything special. The term "BLUE CHIP" and "RECRUITED ATHLETE" is freely used to IMPRESS the kid. It's terms that they are familiar with from the NORMAL world of College scholarships, recruiting, etc. The academies don't give scholarships. Letters of intent, mean absolutely nothing. An individual can COMMIT to air force, change their mind the day before basic starts, and play sports at any other school. The recruited athlete can get to the academy, and decide their 2nd day of BCT that they don't want to play sports. They don't lose their appointment. They are still a cadet. They are ALWAYS A CADET FIRST. And the coaches know, that they aren't going to have a recruited athlete that can't make it through the academy and become an air force officer. It's not like a college athlete who has 5 years to do college; and they can major in the fine arts.

So, there are lots of things that make an athlete a better future leader. But just like ANY activity and background, it's all about the individual. Academias, JrROTC, CAP, Scouts, Band, Class President, etc. None of those activities make a BETTER LEADER than any other activity. The attributes and traits I listed, when developed, help to make for a better leader. You can get and develop those attributes many different ways. It just happens that athletics brings most of them together at one time. That's why the academy wants their applicants to have a sports back ground. Not to all be D-1 IC athletes. But to be better leaders. And while some EXCELLED in academics, JrROTC, CAP, Scouts, Band, 4H, Class Officer, etc. SOME EXCELLED IN SPORTS>
 
If 5 years of service is a bad ROI for a $400,000 college degree, where does that put the return of 10 years of service for the $6.5 million cost to train one fighter pilot?

Stealth_81
 
Christcorp. You brought up some very good points. For instance a perfect ACT score doesn't mean they are a great leader (or your other list). In fact, it could be argued that a perfect ACT/SAT can correlate to a less than ideal military leader (top scores by itself==not well rounded enough). In fact, the Mayo Medical School admissions outright expresses that they have found extremely high MCAT scores to mean less than ideal (well rounded) doctors. In another example, I applied to a Sales Engineer position and the manager said "we don't like hiring A GPA engineers but rather B GPA engineers". I asked how they felt about C caliber GPA engineers (me). I got the job.:eek:

With that all said, I'm personally convinced that nearly all of the attributes you listed for an NCAA athlete apply to that 2-3 letter winner HS competitor (a.k.a. the majority of the folks admitted to USAFA). To reiterate another time, there is no question there are studs at USAFA (socially, academically, and athletically). A 2015 PTWOB graduate who was a walk on Q-back (or was it a pitcher on the B Ball team but he was both for a short amount of time) and all around great guy. Hence, the total package is what counts. But for high profile sports where winning is important, my perception is there is a temptation to dummy down the stats to get a more winning year (highlighting there are NO dummies at USAFA). My perception comes from articles (I listed one above) as well as talking to cadets. Disclaimer: my kid got in and I am not b_tching. My only other concern is the bad press when they pick the wrong cadets who get into trouble as well as bad ROI (my tax dollar).
 
xyz321 said:
I don't have a recruited athlete in my family, but found this interesting. Watching the Olympic 200 m IM (swimming). Young lady in finals- Maya Dirado- Stanford graduate, announcers noted her perfect SAT- and now Olympian. Recruited athlete does not imply less capability in other areas--
Click to expand...
Athletes can be top of their class. But realistically it is very difficult....DS #1 a USNA class of 2020 is very smart & okay athlete. Because he didn't do school sports, he had time for other school activities, load up on 14+APs & study for SAT etc.
Son #2 does swim & water polo, he has no time to join school clubs & load up on AP classes. It's not that he is dumber but due to practices & competitions it is impossible:)
When I see top athletics getting into good schools I am happy for them & their families. They deserve it!
 
There is no way to predict if a kid at 17 is going to love, like or dislike military service. I have seen some of my classmates that were gung-ho and thought they would be lifers, 5 and dive. I have seen some that didn't have great military bearing or didn't seem to care too much in school go on to do great things in the military. It is very unpredictable. I was a military brat, was heading for BZ type career (up to that point I got out at least) and decided to get out at 5 years.... go figure. I don't think there is any "picking" of the "wrong cadets."
 
billyb said:
There is no way to predict if a kid at 17 is going to love, like or dislike military service. I have seen some of my classmates that were gung-ho and thought they would be lifers, 5 and dive. I have seen some that didn't have great military bearing or didn't seem to care too much in school go on to do great things in the military. It is very unpredictable. I was a military brat, was heading for BZ type career (up to that point I got out at least) and decided to get out at 5 years.... go figure. I don't think there is any "picking" of the "wrong cadets."
Click to expand...
You might be right. Or maybe not. We all have our outlier stories (last in the class==the best leader). Pick a strong correlation and I can share a story of an outlier. The truth (correlations or not) are in the statistics (which are not published).
 
I wouldn't say that I am picking outliers as I think of probably 100 officers I knew well in the military and at USMA. Funny enough... the best 2 I ever served with were ROTC grads from small, not highly thought of academic schools.
 
Last edited:
MN-Dad-2016 said:
But logic tells me that if you were talked into it (a coach or for a "free" education) you entered for the wrong reason. Yes.. Some are going to fall in love with the service. I'm talking averages.
Click to expand...

Although, most recruited athletes likely had multiple opportunities for free education that came with a lot less strings so to speak. So if they CHOSE an Academy they are likely there for the right reasons to begin with.
 
socalfan said:
Although, most recruited athletes likely had multiple opportunities for free education that came with a lot less strings so to speak. So if they CHOSE an Academy they are likely there for the right reasons to begin with.
Click to expand...
We disagree. Ivy's for instance have ZERO free rides (as defined by a scholarship). It simply doesn't happen. Now if you include FAFSA $$'s + need based funds (endowment $$'s), then we can call it "free". But nearly 100% of students who have less parental help (a FAFSA EFC of $0) will be "free".

"Overall, colleges and universities awarded more than $3 billion in athletic scholarships in 2013, but very few of those were full rides. In most sports, coaches are allowed to divvy up scholarships. In 2013, the average amount of money awarded to NCAA Division 1 athletes was $13,821 for men and $14,660 for women. Other divisions offer less, and Division 3 schools offer no athletic scholarships at all." source: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/13/think-athletic-scholarships-are-a-holy-grail-think-again.html

Speaking from experience, the words I underlines are the reality. My experience follows the CNBC article. I know of a lot of D1 players that get far less than a full ride (based of of merit not needs based $$'s).
 
Last edited:
MN-Dad-2016 said:
Christcorp. You brought up some very good points. For instance a perfect ACT score doesn't mean they are a great leader (or your other list). In fact, it could be argued that a perfect ACT/SAT can correlate to a less than ideal military leader (top scores by itself==not well rounded enough). In fact, the Mayo Medical School admissions outright expresses that they have found extremely high MCAT scores to mean less than ideal (well rounded) doctors. In another example, I applied to a Sales Engineer position and the manager said "we don't like hiring A GPA engineers but rather B GPA engineers". I asked how they felt about C caliber GPA engineers (me). I got the job.:eek:

With that all said, I'm personally convinced that nearly all of the attributes you listed for an NCAA athlete apply to that 2-3 letter winner HS competitor (a.k.a. the majority of the folks admitted to USAFA). To reiterate another time, there is no question there are studs at USAFA (socially, academically, and athletically). A 2015 PTWOB graduate who was a walk on Q-back (or was it a pitcher on the B Ball team but he was both for a short amount of time) and all around great guy. Hence, the total package is what counts. But for high profile sports where winning is important, my perception is there is a temptation to dummy down the stats to get a more winning year (highlighting there are NO dummies at USAFA). My perception comes from articles (I listed one above) as well as talking to cadets. Disclaimer: my kid got in and I am not b_tching. My only other concern is the bad press when they pick the wrong cadets who get into trouble as well as bad ROI (my tax dollar).
Click to expand...

I think part of the gap between the "regular" cadets and ICs is in the fact that there are many athletes who really would not have gotten in without the prep school/push from the coach. For example, I had a teammate who took the SAT TEN TIMES just to get a qualifying score. There is also a strong culture on some of the larger teams (football, track, lacrosse) that the athletes are somehow above the rules, particularly freshman year. As an IC, I was always lumped in with this group (made for a terrible recognition, stuck in a group of IC and double teamed by cadre the whole weekend) and it drove me nuts.

I too would LOVE to see stats on things like honor violations/behavior issues and recruited athletes as well as the number that make it to graduation.

What really bothers me is that some of the sports teams really don't tell the whole truth to recruits and it isn't uncommon for an athlete to arrive for basic really having little idea what they have signed up for, resulting in a very short time at USAFA or contributing to the "above the rules" mentality.

I definitely know that most of my growing up and leadership skill development was done on the tennis court and I think that high level athletes bring something unique to USAFA, I just would like the Academy to place additional qualifications a little higher on the priority list. I really think just keeping the standards a little higher would contribute to a culture shift
 
MN-Dad. Just to Clarify. That list the NCAA sent to schools was NOT TO SAY why those attributes applied to D1 Athletes in College. It was part of a larger article saying why ALL ORGANIZED SPORTS are good for kids. Why it's good for high school kids as well as college kids. That it's good for ALL KIDS. So I agree with what you say about the 2-3 varsity or even non-varsity athlete. That list is not just for Intercollegiate Athletes. Basically, the NCAA was trying to explain, especially to many school administrators and such, NOT to have the "DUMB JOCK" mentality. They admit that some athletes are passed along because of their athletic skills; and that's a bad thing. But it's also a bad thing when a school/university/administration thinks they are "Wasting" limited resources on athletics; and that academics is more important than athletics, and that's where all attention and resources should go.

Just like you were saying about the MCAT and medical students/doctors. All academics is BAD. All athletics is BAD. Being the 4.0gpa 36ACT brainiac with nothing else, is BAD. Those attributes I mentioned, while demonstrated through athletics, are the attributes that defines a truly "Well Rounded Individual". An individual who can succeed in life; as part of society; as part of a team; who can become a leader; etc. That's why the academies look for those types of well rounded individuals. I'm an engineer. I've seen college professors and PhD's who have spent their entire life in academia. They know THEORY. They don't know "REAL LIFE". ""Those who CAN...... DO!...... Those who CAN'T...... TEACH!......." Fortunately, we also have a lot of individuals who have the experience and CAN do, who later on decide to teach. That's the best of all worlds.
 
Blessedmom said:
60% acceptance after being fully qualified (hmmm looks pretty easy to get in?) But getting fully qualified is not an easy process:)
Click to expand...

I agree. Getting into the fully qualified with a nomination pool of 2,475 is/was a major accomplishment. I truly believe that dodmerb is a big filter of pairing down the qualified.

That being said and I hope this does not come across wrong (as it could be seen that way and my intention is not so at all), but if 1,492 get an offer out of the 2,475 of 3Q with noms, how can you view it any other way than a 60% chance at that point. I don't see where the 20% number is coming from that is mentioned elsewhere.
 
The 20% comes from the question asked, of what the acceptance rate is of individuals who actually and sincerely apply.

Of the 12,000+ who show initial interest, at least 6000+ actually fully apply. They put in and for the most part complete their applications. They may not get a nomination. They may not qualify. But they truly applied. More than simply did the online or post card basic interest.

And unlike a traditional school, where being qualified is a much larger percentage of applicants, to compare apples to apples, the 6000+ real applications is similar to a traditional school. Thus, 1200 appointees of 6000 is between 18-20% acceptance rate. If you want to use the 60% acceptance rate of qualified nominated applicants, then use that if it makes you feel better. But when you know, and realize, that "Qualified" can be a somewhat subjective term, you'll realize that maybe that isn't the most accurate way to look at it.
 
MN-Dad-2016 said:
We disagree. Ivy's for instance have ZERO free rides (as defined by a scholarship). It simply doesn't happen. Now if you include FAFSA $$'s + need based funds (endowment $$'s), then we can call it "free". But nearly 100% of students who have less parental help (a FAFSA EFC of $0) will be "free".

"Overall, colleges and universities awarded more than $3 billion in athletic scholarships in 2013, but very few of those were full rides. In most sports, coaches are allowed to divvy up scholarships. In 2013, the average amount of money awarded to NCAA Division 1 athletes was $13,821 for men and $14,660 for women. Other divisions offer less, and Division 3 schools offer no athletic scholarships at all." source: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/13/think-athletic-scholarships-are-a-holy-grail-think-again.html

Speaking from experience, the words I underlines are the reality. My experience follows the CNBC article. I know of a lot of D1 players that get far less than a full ride (based of of merit not needs based $$'s).
Click to expand...
You are correct that the Ivy's do not offer sports scholarships. And yes many sports do not offer full scholarships, the high profile/money sports do though. Student athletes with high enough grades to attend an academy likely would also be eligible for merit scholarships in combination either for sports where they offer partial or for Division 2. There will always be exceptions but lets not act like a talented enough well rounded athlete won't have other opportunities outside of the academies if they so choose. also for little or no financial obligation. Also speaking from experience.
 
While Ivy League schools indeed do not have "Free Rides"; "Merit Scholarships"; to think they are out of reach financially is totally inaccurate. The truth is, Ivy League schools have some of the best financial aid programs of any schools. They can set you up with more aid such as scholarships, grants, work study, and loans. Most of this is dependent on the FAFSA. That doesn't even include the private money available for the Ivy League schools. Private, as in companies and foundations who have set up funding to assist kids into majoring in certain fields in certain schools. People don't realize that for MANY AMERICANS, an elite private school can actually be as cheap or cheaper that schools they normally apply to.

Think of the price you see for a private/Ivy league school as the "Sticker Price" at a car dealer. This isn't the actual price you'll pay. On average, most private/Ivy league students will receive $15-$20,000 in FREE money towards their education. I mean FREE. Grants, Scholarships, Tax Breaks. Money you don't have to pay back. I've worked with quite a few kids to get into colleges; (Besides the academies). The last break down I saw was for the 2011-2012 year; but the average NET cost for a student at Harvard, was about $18,000 per year. Mind you, that's AVERAGE. That includes kids from very wealthy families and kids from very poor families. If you're on the very poor side, or you can show your "Diversity", (Not just race, ethnicity, nationality, etc.) but all the other diversities that people have; rural, urban, farm/ranch, first generation college, unique experiences, state you're from, etc. you can tap into even more free assistance. You can get the actual net cost of attending the likes of Harvard to below $15,000 a year.

A lot of people don't realize, you can actually NEGOTIATE Financial Aid Offers. They why you should apply to numerous schools. If the offer from one school is "$X" amount per year in aid/assistance, and another schools offers "$Y", you can tell the school who isn't offering as good an offer what the other schools are offering. Many times they'll send you an "Amended Financial Aid Offer".

As for athletes, here's a little known FACT. Did you know, that at Harvard for example, approximately 20% of the student body 1/5th; actually are RECRUITED ATHLETES and participate in NCAA sports? In football, in D1 AA conferences, they even have the "Ivy League Conference". Schools include Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Penn, Dartmouth, Cornell, and Columbia. Bet you didn't know that. But WAIT!!! Ivy League Schools don't offer Athletic Scholarships. That's true. But how difficult is it to get into Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.? But if you're a recruited athlete, you WILL GET IN!!! Of course, you have to qualify. "Sound Familiar". 20%. Bet you didn't know that. And those recruited athletes, besides being guaranteed admittance, will be assisted in finding the money to attend. Here's another TWIST to this info. The BIG SPORTS POWERHOUSES like Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, PAC 10 schools, etc. Only have about 5% recruited athletes. Vs 20% recruited athletes at Harvard and other Ivy league schools.

So even Harvard, who does not have expectations of winning a National Championship Title in a specific NCAA sport; recognizes the importance of athletics.
 
Christcorp said:
While Ivy League schools indeed do not have "Free Rides"; "Merit Scholarships"; to think they are out of reach financially is totally inaccurate. The truth is, Ivy League schools have some of the best financial aid programs of any schools. They can set you up with more aid such as scholarships, grants, work study, and loans. Most of this is dependent on the FAFSA. That doesn't even include the private money available for the Ivy League schools. Private, as in companies and foundations who have set up funding to assist kids into majoring in certain fields in certain schools. People don't realize that for MANY AMERICANS, an elite private school can actually be as cheap or cheaper that schools they normally apply to.Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, PAC 10 schools, etc. Only have about 5% recruited athletes. Vs 20% recruited athletes at Harvard and other Ivy league schools.
Click to expand...
I never knew that the Ivy's recruited 20% of their student body via athletics. That is a significant percentage. Verified. Thanks for sharing. :)

It's also true that Ivy's have incredibly generous financial aid (needs based not merit based). BUT, if a family makes over $170K (in 2011), you got zero. Nada, nothing. A family income of $120K for instance and Harvard or Stanford had needs based financial aid paying about 50%. Under $75K and tuition was $0 (2011). It's a little more complicated than that. But for a lot of families including ours, we would have gotten precisely $0. It didn't matter how smart or how athletic a student was. Since I want to retire one day, for a lot of students and families, the Ivy's are out of our reach. That's probably why a large percentage of Ivy students get financial aid: because an upper middle class family cannot (or should not?) afford it and they don't apply or don't attend. It was why I emailed our son a link to West Point/USAFA and got him thinking about a possible military path because our financial aid would have been $0. Now at a state subsidized flagship like the UofMN (no slouch school), his tuition would have been $0 after merit scholarships. No offense to the UofMN, but his USAFA education crushed the UofMN. Anyways, contrast that with USAFA (versus Harvard) where our son saved $8K and spent plenty. Now his tuition, books, and expenses at Harvard Medical School will be $0 thanks to HPSP. Plus he gets a stipend to pay for his room and board. Payback==4 additional years which which is music to his ears. IMHO, that HPSP scholarship is a wonderful ROI for our US government (not so good for a future Harvard doctor). Anyways, HMS also has amazing financial aid for medical students. Some students are paying $0 for HMS (@$54K per year + living expenses). Some highly ranked medical schools fight for the top future doctors and have merit based scholarships up to 100%. If I understand correctly, Harvard give $0 merit based funds for medical students. They are ranked #1 in the world and they don't feel they have to. I digress...

Back to your point. Ivy's will be cheap for some, and extremely expensive for others. 20% of recruited athletes could mean a nearly free education @ Ivy's for some students. But of course they need to get into an Ivy in the 1st place. No offense to USAFA, but the majority of the student body won't be getting into an Ivy or Stanford (and the majority of Ivy students could not get into USAFA). Both are looking for different type of student body. But even the UofMN (for instance) isn't going to give a "free ride" to a soccer or lacrosse player. If they do, that student athlete is going to be extremely rare. Our DS's GF got $3K a year at the UofMN to play D1 soccer. That's the norm. When she got hurt, they stopped paying (not so at USAFA). Our family friend got $4K a year at NDSU for track (MN sprinting state record holder). When you hear that parent or student talk about their "free ride" 95% of the time is is combined heavily with financial aid (FAFSA). OF COURSE there are recruited athletes that attend USAFA that could have gotten a "full ride" somewhere else OR paid $0 because of FAFSA/merit aid. But full ride athletic scholarships are far from the norm. That was my point. :) Furthermore, even the best of the best college football scholarships are going to extract all they can from FAFSA before they pay the rest. In many cases, the college pays nearly zero for that "free ride" (the government does). They college might have given them 100% free ride. But they will chose to take all of the government $$'s 1st to save more $$'s for another student athlete. Same-same with academic "full rides". So it's not always easy to find out who really would have gotten a "free ride".
 
Last edited:
I will still contend, that besides the traditional "Financial Aid" that people are use to talking about; via FAFSA, there IS OTHER MONEY. Even for the family with income over $150,000; you don't have to pay the full $50,000-$60,000 per year for an Ivy League School. Not once you look into the private money from corporations, foundations, etc. that's available beyond the school's traditional financial aid paths. Will a family making $170K a year be able to go to Harvard for free or for $5,000 per year? Probably not. But I KNOW you can still get it down to around/or below $20,000 per year. But let's be real. No one should expect to be able to receive a Harvard/Yale/Princeton education for the same price or cheaper than the Universityofwhereverthehell in their state. Just like I don't expect to pay the same for my Lexus as I do my daughter's Ford Focus. But if you think you have to pay the "STICKER PRICE" to go to harvard or yale because the "FAFSA" package says you make too much as a family, that too is not correct.
 
Christcorp said:
I will still contend, that besides the traditional "Financial Aid" that people are use to talking about; via FAFSA, there IS OTHER MONEY. Even for the family with income over $150,000; you don't have to pay the full $50,000-$60,000 per year for an Ivy League School. Not once you look into the private money from corporations, foundations, etc. that's available beyond the school's traditional financial aid paths. Will a family making $170K a year be able to go to Harvard for free or for $5,000 per year? Probably not. But I KNOW you can still get it down to around/or below $20,000 per year. But let's be real. No one should expect to be able to receive a Harvard/Yale/Princeton education for the same price or cheaper than the Universityofwhereverthehell in their state. Just like I don't expect to pay the same for my Lexus as I do my daughter's Ford Focus. But if you think you have to pay the "STICKER PRICE" to go to harvard or yale because the "FAFSA" package says you make too much as a family, that too is not correct.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you say after doing an interesting exercise. But it certainly depends on the college. Harvard for instance has a mere $37 BILLION in endowments (#1). Therefore you can go to https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/choosing-harvard/affordability and click on the calculator. You will see that even at $200K a year (assuming no investments), a family of 4 from MN pays $30,600 all in. @$150K they pay $16.6K. Not too shabby! @$100K, they pay $8400 (CHEAP), and @$70K $5650 (cheaper). That's all in including living expenses.

For fun, I plugged in $150K income for Washington U in St Louis with a mere $7 Billion in endowments by clicking on https://netpricecalculator.sfs.wustl.edu/survey.aspx . Assuming a family of 4 with zero assets and 2 in college, the total per year is $32K all in ($69.7K full boat). So it depends on the school (Harvard being the most generous).
 
There are three kinds of students at expensive private schools: 1. Super smart & low income 2. Bright & super rich 3. Very smart but stupid enough to take out loans;(
I was #3, and still paying off my loan after 20+ yrs:argue1:
 
The whole thread has been quite entertaining. This is a statistical sheet and you can manipulate numbers to make any argument. In the end, we know the SAs are making an effort to be more diverse. We know acceptance rates and the difficulty of acceptance varies by your geographical area.

What doesn't change is you need a high GPA and test scores just as you do for any upper tier school. You must be somewhat athletic and fit and be able to show it on the test and from your application (high school sports, letters, awards, etc.), and you need to have a sense of community. The other piece is you must understand the commitment. This is the well rounded applicant. If you falter in some area, then you better excel in others or have something particular the SA needs. The need can be athletic or diversity, but it has be something that will allow them to overlook other qualified candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top