Denied on basis of being a Non-Minority

[mjm]

@ LITS

Yes, you are correct ... it is much easier to deal with when it is not your issue. I guess this is where my old age comes into play...... and with old age comes a mellowing .... There are some things in life where the fight makes you wearier and you must "let it go'.

 

[aglages]

.. it would be interesting to see if it's EASIER to get into a service academy as a female. I would guess it is.

According to the newspaper article on USNA admissions a couple of years ago....it was not. Almost the exact same percentage of women were accepted as men (keep in mind the female applicant pool was smaller). However, if you were a black female.........

 

[educ8]

Here is an interesting report titled:

Racial, Ethnic and Gender Preferences in Admissions to the U.S. Military
Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy


http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/663/ceousa-service-adademies.pdf

 

[MemberLG]

That's why here at West point, we have x numbers for subjective test, like essays. Its pretty hard to discriminate on a number, so just assign a random number to every applicant and then decide if they should be accepted or not. It's a pretty basic concept that would solve a nationwide problem.

Don't know what your background is, many things on WCS are subjective by default.

Can you say being a sports team captain at your high school will give you same leadership experience as being a sports team captain at another school? How can make a distinction between a sports team being selected by the coach or being elected by team members? Are all teachers consistent and honest when they evaluate their students? How do we differentiate high score based on an expansive tutor vs. individual effort?

 

[#armystrong]

Yeah, I get that, but instead of applying race, ethnicity, sex and have names of subjective parts of applications. Which essentially is the entire application, numbers should be randomly assigned instead of having names or any extraneous details. Therefore, it would essentially limit any bias or "discrimination" as was discussed earlier in this thread. I highly doubt someone is going to discriminate, because a person is identified by certain numbers, thus this would be the fairest way to proceed.

 

[MemberLG]

Yeah, I get that, but instead of applying race, ethnicity, sex and have names of subjective parts of applications. Which essentially is the entire application, numbers should be randomly assigned instead of having names or any extraneous details. Therefore, it would essentially limit any bias or "discrimination" as was discussed earlier in this thread. I highly doubt someone is going to discriminate, because a person is identified by certain numbers, thus this would be the fairest way to proceed.

Okay, I get it too. You are just concerned about ending "discrimination" that affects you and don't care about other types of "discrimination." That's very discriminatory.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Okay, I get it too. You are just concerned about ending "discrimination" that affects you and don't care about other types of "discrimination." That's very discriminatory.

That's generally how it works.... and when everyone is discriminatory, no one is discriminatory.

I think less of a student who is accepted below the standards just to fulfill a program of institutionalized discrimination. That doesn't mean that cadet or midshipman WON'T be great, he/she could be the best ever. But until that's the case, for that individual, they're a notch down, in my book. And that's unfortunate because that's ENTIRELY the case due to a program of inequality in selection standards.

 

[MedB]

So perhaps to be "fair" and end "discrimination" we should look ONLY at objective criteria such as:

1) Test scores on standardized tests - shown to be impacted greatly by private tutoring, paid prep courses, and socio economic background

2) Number of IB/AP classes taken - shown to be directly linked to demographic data for school districts

3) Amount and variety of Extra Curriculars - shown to be clearly influenced by the school district and socio-economic level of community


Hey while we are at it, we could even improve effeciency by steamlining militarly ranks down to just Lords, Knights, and Yeoman!

 

[MemberLG]

So perhaps to be "fair" and end "discrimination" we should look ONLY at objective criteria such as:

1) Test scores on standardized tests - shown to be impacted greatly by private tutoring, paid prep courses, and socio economic background

2) Number of IB/AP classes taken - shown to be directly linked to demographic data for school districts

3) Amount and variety of Extra Curriculars - shown to be clearly influenced by the school district and socio-economic level of community

If I may

4) GPA - shown to be inflated for many students

 

[msmith789]

That's generally how it works.... and when everyone is discriminatory, no one is discriminatory.

I think less of a student who is accepted below the standards just to fulfill a program of institutionalized discrimination. That doesn't mean that cadet or midshipman WON'T be great, he/she could be the best ever. But until that's the case, for that individual, they're a notch down, in my book. And that's unfortunate because that's ENTIRELY the case due to a program of inequality in selection standards.

First, I want to say I am saddened that this discussion is even posted. Obviously, the post by the young student who spelled a word incorrectly twice, not even the same way, in one post should provoke such a flurry of discussion. I had to join just to comment because of the sheer ignorance of the statement above. I do believe that young man should be focused on his weaknesses and why he was not accepted. Furthermore, he was denied in EA. Our admissions officer pointed out if you get denied in EA you can not be considered for regular admissions not sure what I am missing. Why does he think his application should be reviewed again because someone from his high school asked? If life were only that simple.
Secondly, I do read this forum quite often and always thought you had very informative answers, until reading this post. I am not sure how you would know if someone was sub-standard? Unless you yourself are making he admissions decision I am not sure how you could judge if they are below standard. That might be your own personal issue. It seems odd to me that you would post that comment. It is a slap in the face to all the kids that attend CGA.
Regardless, admissions make decisions how the deem fit, whether its race, gender,because they are a great athlete or the ties to CGA. I am positive that if these kids are truly sub-standard they would not succeed at CGA. It is a shame that some people look down on kids that they assume are sub-standard. Ultimately,it is an assumption and everyone knows what happens when one assumes!

 

[LineInTheSand]

First, I want to say I am saddened that this discussion is even posted. Obviously, the post by the young student who spelled a word incorrectly twice, not even the same way, in one post should provoke such a flurry of discussion. I had to join just to comment because of the sheer ignorance of the statement above. I do believe that young man should be focused on his weaknesses and why he was not accepted. Furthermore, he was denied in EA. Our admissions officer pointed out if you get denied in EA you can not be considered for regular admissions not sure what I am missing. Why does he think his application should be reviewed again because someone from his high school asked? If life were only that simple.
Secondly, I do read this forum quite often and always thought you had very informative answers, until reading this post. I am not sure how you would know if someone was sub-standard? Unless you yourself are making he admissions decision I am not sure how you could judge if they are below standard. That might be your own personal issue. It seems odd to me that you would post that comment. It is a slap in the face to all the kids that attend CGA.
Regardless, admissions make decisions how the deem fit, whether its race, gender,because they are a great athlete or the ties to CGA. I am positive that if these kids are truly sub-standard they would not succeed at CGA. It is a shame that some people look down on kids that they assume are sub-standard. Ultimately,it is an assumption and everyone knows what happens when one assumes!

I had the same question of EA v. RA too.... but the conversation certainly went in another direction.

Oh, my statement was FULL of assumptions, I'll give you that. And I'll also say that, in general, especially now, I have no idea who doesn't meet "the standards." And I'll admit I'm in no position to pick folks, I'm not in a policy position, I'm an outsider now, looking in.... I'm not Adm. Papp and it wasn't my policy. I'm just a former cadet who did well enough to get in, without special connections or quotas. My feelings are ALL opinions, many based in experience, but opinion. I think I'm right, but I'll allow for the fact that I could be wrong (I just don't think that I am wrong.)

But I'm not here to provide rose colored glasses.

The slap in the face of kids (and they aren't actually kids) is that they are not attending a school that claims to attract only the "best and the brightest" with the actual best and brightest. Good old male WASP LITS spends his entire grade school career doing EVERYTHING he can to one day go to CGA. LITS (there's aren't my actual scores) gets a 1600 on the old SAT, all A's, captain of 3 teams, etc. And then LITS finds out his classmates got a 1000 on his SAT, was a C student and didn't play sports. But he DID help meet the Commandant's goal! Do you think that's a slap in the face of LITS? You sure as hell better believe it. Note: I have no idea what my classmates scores were. But I do know of some "diversity" initiatives that rippled through the corps of cadets and "slapped" many.

And it's not a race thing. Nothing above (except identifying myself as a male WASP) talks about the race or gender of the sub-standard classmate.... only that he or she did not achieve the same "bestness and brightness" as LITS.

Make no mistake, cadets know who CAN and CAN'T perform at CGA, and they'll lose 1/3 of their classmates, often because they COULDN'T perform. Truly sub-standard cadets CAN make it, but many do not.

When a policy is in place that DRIVES diversity, and, with the FOIA releases, shows lower standards are accepted, THAT is bad for the Coast Guard Academy, bad for service academies and bad for the services. That cancer invades the thinking of all members. "Was this guy or gal selected because he/she was the best pick or because there was a quota." I'm all for a diverse work force, and as fars I was concerned, we were all blue, not white, black, red, yellow.... BLUE. Institutionalized discrimination (and that's what we're talking about when we remove the pretty dressing) is wrong. It's wrong if it favored whites, or males, or blacks, or females, or anyone else. It's wrong.

 

[EDelahanty]

Oh, my statement was FULL of assumptions, I'll give you that. And I'll also say that, in general, especially now, I have no idea who doesn't meet "the standards." And I'll admit I'm in no position to pick folks, I'm not in a policy position, I'm an outsider now, looking in.... I'm not Adm. Papp and it wasn't my policy. I'm just a former cadet who did well enough to get in, without special connections or quotas. My feelings are ALL opinions, many based in experience, but opinion. I think I'm right, but I'll allow for the fact that I could be wrong (I just don't think that I am wrong.)

In other words, LITS, you can't be sure you weren't one of the sub-standard admittees. Good thing you married up, like I did.

 

[LineInTheSand]

In other words, LITS, you can't be sure you weren't one of the sub-standard admittees. Good thing you married up, like I did.

Oh, I was above average, haha, but that quickly changed once I was a cadet.

 

[MemberLG]

When a policy is in place that DRIVES diversity, and, with the FOIA releases, shows lower standards are accepted, THAT is bad for the Coast Guard Academy, bad for service academies and bad for the services.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the trap you are falling into is limiting your definition of the "standards." What is it- GPA and SAT scores? There are extreme cases, such as my plebe roommate, something like 1000 on SAT, was a football recruit, didn't make the team, but did manage to graduate. But I believe those extreme cases are not the norm. So how do we start differentiate, is 100 points, 90 points, or 10 points difference in the SAT score significant enough to classify someone as below the standard? Does experiencing adversity count for anything - not as to losing the state championship but coming from a single parent home (this is race neutral). U
Ultimately, certain portions of candidate evaluation is subjective and good or bad one's socioeconomic background factors in.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the trap you are falling into is limiting your definition of the "standards." What is it- GPA and SAT scores? There are extreme cases, such as my plebe roommate, something like 1000 on SAT, was a football recruit, didn't make the team, but did manage to graduate. But I believe those extreme cases are not the norm. So how do we start differentiate, is 100 points, 90 points, or 10 points difference in the SAT score significant enough to classify someone as below the standard? Does experiencing adversity count for anything - not as to losing the state championship but coming from a single parent home (this is race neutral). U
Ultimately, certain portions of candidate evaluation is subjective and good or bad one's socioeconomic background factors in.

I DO think these things play into it.... but I don't think that consideration should be given for race or gender. Overcoming something? Great! That's legit. In fact that kind of thing IS considered. Rising above certain difficult situations? AWESOME! Race? No. Gender? No.

 

[Packer]

So how do we start differentiate, is 100 points, 90 points, or 10 points difference in the SAT score significant enough to classify someone as below the standard?

If we are going to be fuzzy with a standard it isn't really a standard. You have to draw a line somewhere.
I would suggest 100 point increments in discerning SAT scores, ie
1500-1600 = 1
1400-1499 = 2
1300-1399 = 3
1200-1299 = 4

I think the abilities of someone that scored between 1400-1499 are all essentially identical. If you scored 1399 and are purple you are still a 3.

 

[MedB]

I think perhaps there are two points being co-mingled here...

First, and it must come first:
Do we desire a diverse officer corps that more closely represents the enlisted ranks (and/or public)? Yes or No?


Then, and only then:
What is the best/fairest way to select commissioning program candidates while keeping with the answer above?


First day of Project Management 101, folks... Start with the end in mind. If you don't take those questions in order, you are likely to design a "fair" selection criteria that does not in any way meet your objectives!

Again, this issue is not unique to our SAs. It might be worth considering how large police forces have dealt with these considerations and why they've landed where they have in working towards a diverse approach.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I think perhaps there are two points being co-mingled here...

First, and it must come first:
Do we desire a diverse officer corps that more closely represents the enlisted ranks (and/or public)? Yes or No?


Then, and only then:
What is the best/fairest way to select commissioning program candidates while keeping with the answer above?


First day of Project Management 101, folks... Start with the end in mind. If you don't take those questions in order, you are likely to design a "fair" selection criteria that does not in any way meet your objectives!

Again, this issue is not unique to our SAs. It might be worth considering how large police forces have dealt with these considerations and why they've landed where they have in working towards a diverse approach.

I like your approach, but I think there's a more important first: What do we want out of the officer corps (and military)?

Is it to win wars and protect the country or is it to look like the country.

I have a job. I'd like a jet pack too. If your question was "Does LITS want a jetpack?" SURE! But that doesn't mean it gets me closer to doing my job.

Do we want the officer corps to be like the enlisted force.... which COULD be like the country as a whole? Sure. But is that the primary thing we should be concerned about? What about fat people.... reduce weight/fitness standards so fat people can serve. There are, after all, many fat people in the country. What about blind people or Down syndrome or.... anything else? No? Then the military isn't an mirror of the people it protects. That's OK, as long as it protects those some people.

In uniform I was never protecting males WASPs. I didn't only manage the while members of my division. I represented and worked for ALL of my guys (it was an all male ship, for berthing reasons).

 

[MedB]

So I'm going to assume the best here, and take for granted that you understand there is far more to this question than the simple examples either you or I provide... Of course accomplishing the core mission(s) of the military is the starting point; the discussion builds from there. But the notion that some don't seem to want to address, is the potential benefit/detriment to accomplishing those core missions if the officer corps is seen to be unrepresantative of the force as a whole.

We are human, with human failings. So if only percieved or otherwise, there are indeed ramifications for having a "ruling class" perception within the ranks.

For example... Say the Perfect Officer Profile is somehow developed and fact-based unbiased scoring system is created, and as a result in a few years the entire officer corps of a service branch becomes overwhelmingly dominated by Female, Asian-descent, Petite, officers with an Erudite approach. Do you truly not believe that might impact effectiveness of the force? Of course it would.

I believe you far too easily dismiss the human factors involved..
1) perception some might have for leaders not understanding their needs
2) perception certain enlisted folks might have of their chances to progress
3) the potentional for "group think" amongst the officers
4) etc etc etc

I am a realist. In the real world the consequences for having a "ruling class" of officers have already happened in history. And in the real world they will happen again if we don't guard against them. That is why diversity is important.... not to satisfy some politician's ego or some liberal agenda.

Diversity is good for our military AND its ability to fuflill its core mission now and into the future. Once we understand that, it illuminates all the factors that need to be considered when choosing officer candidates.

 

[Packer]

Isn't the issue/solution having a qualified diverse applicant pool? It is not accepting lesser qualified applicants for the sake of diversity.

Now what makes someone qualified to train to be an officer is a really good question. I really don't know that someone with a 1600 SAT is likely to be a better officer han someone that has a 1200 SAT. SAT scores certainly have a demographic bias but they are used largely because it is easy to compare scores and hard to compare/evaluate leadership potential.