You can think that, but the moc has the responsibility to rank their slate. Now, if they want to delegate that to the academy and have them choose from a slate of 10, then so be it. That's their option.
The SAs are much more qualified to select the appropriate candidates than are the MOCs offices. Most MOCs recognize this. 70%-80% of MOC USNA nominations are via the competitive slate. Even the designated principals most often have a competitive alternate. Each Academy has an entire team that does nothing but evaluate the probability of success of each candidate as either a midshipmen/cadet or/and an officer. The results are called the WPM. Congressmen have nothing to compare with this procedure. I would hope that most MOCs realize this and delegate the awesome responsibility of selecting the correct candidate to those most capable of determining it.
You, or I should clarify and say Mongo, has the belief that the individual who received an appointment using a presidential (or similar non-moc) nomination would automatically be the #1 choice on the MOC's list. Then, and ONLY THEN, would Mongo's argument hold any water whatsoever. Because if the individual isn't the #1, then they'd need the presidential slot, that they had, for their appointment.
Absolutely. The basis of my entire argument. But as you state below, most of these highly qualified early appointment by default would be #1 in their MOC districts. Your quote from below: "4. If an individual is authorized a presidential or other non-moc nomination, and the academy wants them to receive an appointment using that nomination, then chances are that they are an exceptional individual and they should already be at the #1 or #2 slot on the MOC's slate."
But if the academy basically had your appointment use the MOC, and they reallocated the presidential from BFE Arkansas, then it's possible that you'd be taking the MOC slot away from someone at the MOC who was more qualified than the presidential eligible person who is going to use it so the academy can have back the presidential.
This is the matrix that admissions spends months developing and executing to ensure just this selection does not happen. They will chose the alternative that will result in the two best nominees receiving appointments.
Obviously, this is highly unlikely to occur, so the individual using the presidential and no other nomination is a moot point. Why unlikely? In excess of 80% of candidates are eventually selected via the competitive method. You yourself have stated that the early appointments are also likely to be at the top of the MOC list. Therefore it is more likely than not to occur.
The only way any of Mongo's argument hold water, is if the individual with an appointment, using the presidential or other non-MOC nomination, was going to be the #1 slot on the MOC's slate; As we both agree, more likely than not. {b} AND assuming the MOC actually ranked their slate.
No. In the few instances where the MOC selects a principal, he can select anyone he choses and so long as they are 3Qed, they will receive the appointment. Yes, perhaps reducing the quality of the class.
Because, how the academy ranks individuals doesn't necessarily correlate to the way a MOC might rank their individuals. Back to my original statement. The Academy's ranking is more accurate.
The argument is: If an individual receives an appointment utilizing a non-moc nomination, should the individual release their potential MOC nomination back to the MOC, or do they go ahead with that nomination and possibly release the non-moc nomination back to the academy. I don't think it matters at all, either way, for numerous reasons.
1. You aren't lowering the quality of those who eventually do get an appointment.
You have just agreed with my prime example that it in fact does. Other than saying that the top 1700 or top 2200 rankings are all equal and it doesn't matter, which it does, please provide an example of where the quality of the class is enhanced by an early appointment withdrawing from his MOC nomination process. I will save you some time. You cannot.
2. Many MOC's won't provide a nomination to any individual if they already have a nomination.
True. Nothing the Academy can do about this.
3. The academy has approximately 500 appointments that they get to fill from the general pool. They aren't going to be dealing with sub-caliber individuals.
Irrelevant to the discussion. Actually the general pool will raise the quality of the class.
4. If an individual is authorized a presidential or other non-moc nomination, and the academy wants them to receive an appointment using that nomination, then chances are that they are an exceptional individual and they should already be at the #1 or #2 slot on the MOC's slate.
Yes, as already discussed and one of the basics of my argument.
Bottom line is: If you, the applicant, received an early appointment, prior to normal MOC interviews and nomination selections, then you are helping your MOC give a nomination to a fellow state citizen. And there's no proof that your fellow citizen/applicant isn't the most qualified. "Why does the most qualified have to have come from a different state"? Also, if the academy doesn't think this is fair, and they think they should be the ones who have final say so in who receives the appointments, and NOT the MOC (By ranking their slate and announcing their "PRIMARY" nominee), then the academy can simply STOP OFFERING EARLY ADMISSIONS APPOINTMENTS. The academy can wait until all MOC nominations are submitted in December/January. Then, the academy can move around the nominations any way they want to.
Which obviously USNA does to a much greater extent than does AFA assuming your observations are correct. They have this power at their disposal. Just like the army can give an LOA in July/August. So this has nothing to do with the appointee calling their moc and saying: Sir/Ma'am, thank you for scheduling an interview, but I received an appointment using my presidential (Non-MOC) nomination. Please consider appointing another qualified individual from our State/District as your primary nominee. If you have ANY COMPLAINTS with the appointee using the presidential/non-moc nomination for their appointment and not applying for additional MOC nominations, then tell the academies to STOP OFFERING EARLY APPOINTMENTS. Tell them to wait until all nominations have be awarded, then they can use whichever ones they want. Beyond the scope of most candidates. They have to work within the existing system.
For the OP and others interested in the LOA and nomination issue, the answer is simple. Until you have actually received an appointment, NO NOMINATION is a guarantee to an appointment. Even if you have an LOA. Every nominator has a finite number of nominations that can be used for an appointment. But they have an almost unlimited number of nominations they can give out. So you are taking chances, even with an LOA, that you are guaranteed to get one of the allotted nomination slots. If you are fortunate, it will turn directly into an appointment. So, for you air force individuals, if you have a non-MOC nomination from JrROTC/ROTC, Presidential, or whatever; then when your application is 100% complete, the ONLY way you'll get an LOA, is if the nomination you have; e.g. presidential or JrROTC/ROTC, has had their allotted appointment slots used up already. Not true for USNA
If the academy hasn't used all the allotted slots, then you won't receive an LOA. You'd receive an appointment. Apparently, according to Mongo, this is similar to the Navy. Don't twist and misconstrue my statements. The LOA correlation you describe above has nothing to do with LOAs being awarded at USNA. (They don't offer LOA's without an Application being 100% complete). For you West Point folks, no matter what LOA you have, and no matter what nomination you have or are entitled to, also apply for your MOC nominations. There's too many variables in the Army LOA system to count on an appointment, simply because you have a nomination from a non-moc source. good luck. mike....