Interview advice

Status
Not open for further replies.
To close out the issue about interviews first and Noms second:

1. A smart applicant will talk to the particular congressional offices first: When and where is the interview? What is the interview room like (very small; mid-size; large; anything that's unique about the room or furniture that you should know about? How many folks are on the panel that will interview me? Does your office have any general interview guidelines that pertain to that specific congressional panel? Is there anything else I should know about the interview to set myself up for success? To which, dress for success. If you do not know what that means, ask your parents and/or the staffer that is setting up your interview. Know why you wish to attend a service academy. Don't give them the answers you think they want to hear. They'll see through that immediately. Therefore, think long and hard about it in the days and weeks preceding the interview. Look each questioner directly in the eye when responding to them. Respond in a voice that all in the room will hear your answer.

2. I also have been involved for the last 15+ years in teaching the congressional staff about the SA nominating process. This means that I have been taught and also impart my knowledge regarding the medical process. "if" I was an applicant and had a question regarding that specific nomination process (e.g. a congressman) - I'd ask the staffer who administers that process for that elected official. Additionally, I'd ask my liasion officer assigned to me and/or the SA Admissions office in question. For thoise other nominating sources beyond the elected officials, I'd ask my liasion officer and/or the SA Admissions office.

3. Finally, the information provided in front of my posting is correct. Each nom is specifically designated to an applicant for a specific Service Academy. Example: Johnny obtains a nom from Rep X for USAFA but NOT for the USNA. Then Johnny needs to still obtain a nom for the USNA

Good luck!!!:thumb:
 
So true Christcorp. Thanks for the reminder.
This is one of the biggest problems that I see on these forums and what challenges us moderators. The threads that tend to get the most heated:argue1: or closed :lock:usually stem from posters misunderstanding other posters. :bsflagsmileyface:
Tone, inflection, facial expressions:mad::smile: "I'm very serious" or "JK" etc are just not conveyed in text.
Mood of the moment can infiltrate the intent of a written message - "I just got a raise!":yay: vs. "I just found out that spouse has cancer". :frown:
Personality is not always transparent . Someone who has a dry sense of humor :wink: could say the exact same thing as someone who is very literal but both with different intent.

So it is good to remember (as I was once told) - what is written is not always what is read.

Smilies do help though - which I personally happen to love :smile:
 
Last edited:
WELL Said both Christcorp and Buff81! :yay:

As a "young moderator" I'm learning that lesson a lot...it's tough to tell sometimes so I'll watch longer rather than jump in and "counsel, scold, etc."

In the end, I just keep remembering that we're here to help "the kids" as much as we can, not argue amongst ourselves.

And as I've meet some of the folks here...we might "sound one way" on the forum but when we've met...

It's been FUN!!!! :thumb:

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
I stand by all of my statements as they pertain to the LAW - US Code Title 10.
I beleive in communicating the FACTS.
Any disrespect read into my response to Mr Mullen is wrongly inferred. In fact, I would have kindly sent him a private message but he does not communicate via PM.
I do (occassionally) communicate by PM and anyone who would like to do so may feel free to discuss with me this way.

This thread started by the OP wanted to know if her son who has a JROTC nomination should continue to seek others. The straight answer is - of course he should - as per the instructions of the Academy. All Candidates should seek a nomination from all sources from which they are eligible.
Nowhere have I ever read do they tell you to stop at ONE.

As far as one nomination being more 'valuable' than another.
"There is no differentiation between the importance of the nomination...A nom is a nom...."
This is not exactly correct. A Principle Nomination is the most VALUABLE one to have. This assures a minimally qualified candidate an appointment by LAW.

Only those with Congressional Nominations may compete for an appointment as a Qualified Alternate. Simply having a JROTC Nomination does not allow one to compete as a Qualified Alternate. If this particular student ranks #21 in the country of all ROTC (JROTC + SROTC) applicants he is SOL.

I did not mis-interpret anything. It is not the "States" that are 'synched' at all. But the elected officials in a particular state that choose to communicate. If a new Congressman is elected he may choose, on his own, to communicate with the Senators - or not. There is no such thing as Nebraska or Colorado; e.g. being synched. Kids get confused by this and want to know if their state is synched. Even among a state one Congressional District may CHOOSE to collude with the Sentor's while another may find that is not in the best interest of his constituents and may CHOOSE not to collude.
Some may find this splitting hairs - but it is an important distinction.

This statement makes me wonder if you have read USC Title 10:
In accordance with Title X USC, you must have a nomination from a valid nominating authority. A nomination for Rep X, Sen Y, Vice President Biden, JROTC, medal of honor recipient parent, etc are all nominations and have ZERO bearing as to which one carries more weight. Why? Becasue you must have a nomination. If you have a nomination for an authorized nomination source, the block is checked YES.
Click to expand...
USC Title 10 very specifically denotes the Strength of the Corps, Brigade and Wing and how those appointments are to be apportioned.
The numbers written into the law provide limitations and they are very clear.
 
The point is, you did mis-understand and read into it. Granted, you took certain words literally, and thus, you can stand behind that as your defense. No problem. As has been mentioned, the forum is difficult because asking someone to clarify or explain their comments are pretty difficult. No one is saying that anything you said is incorrect. Point is; nothing that larry said is incorrect either. (If you don't read into it) and understand what was being said.
 
How 'bout I have the last word here? :smile:

I think we've beaten this one up pretty well and it's really started to diverge a bit.

Shall we call this one done? :thumb:

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Sorry Flieger - since my message is being personally attacked, please allow me to explain.

Christcorp said:
The point is, you did mis-understand and read into it. Granted, you took certain words literally, and thus, you can stand behind that as your defense. No problem. As has been mentioned, the forum is difficult because asking someone to clarify or explain their comments are pretty difficult. No one is saying that anything you said is incorrect. Point is; nothing that larry said is incorrect either. (If you don't read into it) and understand what was being said.
Click to expand...


No, I did not mis-understand anything. I completely understood what he said.
If people write words down, then I take them.....literally. How else would one take them?

Again .... When Larry Mullen - who is suberbly excellent in all things DODMERB - and even gave fantastic assistance to my own daughter --- tells a Mom that her son with a JROTC nomination that he "only needs one"; he is (IMO) potentially doing her son a disservice by not encouraging him to apply for all Nominations for which he is elibigle.
It's not that simple.

Honestly, I can't understand why folks got so hot under the collar with my response. I put it in that format to make it easy to read and understand.
The only two points I totally disagreed with are #4 and 5 and I stand by that.
It is important for candidates to understand that it is not a 'state' thing. You may call it semantics but there is a clear distinction here. There can be variations in Congressmens' policies within a single state. Not every Congressman in Pennsylvania "talks" with the Senators or refuses to give a Nomination to a Candidate who has a nomination.
This may change even from year to year or from election to election.
 
Everyone...

I think we've finished this thread. The original topic was a good one however for whatever reason, misunderstanding each others posts, differing opinions, etc., it started to take a personal, non-informative turn. My concern is that from differing these positions, comments, opinions, etc., the "original poster" might have become even more confused and possibly might have given up and not returned because of the perception of angst amongst the members. :frown:

That's never the purpose of this forum.

As Buff81 said: smiles are best! :biggrin:

We can have differences here, and sometimes actually get a bit animated, but that's best left to the "off topic" area where we won't confuse or dissuade either students or parents.

So...this thread is now closed. :lock:

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
And in this case, Moderator
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top