Naval Academy professor: A veneer of selectivity - College, Inc. - The Washington Pos

[2012mom?]

And the notion that Navy football pays for itself let alone other sports activities is pure nonsense.

WP, your comments above are based on what facts?
1. Navy's web site shows an average of over 34,000 attendees for Navy's 5 home games this year, with a high of ~37,000 for Air Force. The stadium (according to Wiki, so maybe not accurate) has ~34,000 seats, so your comment about it "rarely being filled," is clearly not accurate, unless by "being filled," you require SRO areas to be filled.
2. It's comparing apples to oranges to say that the items necessary for DI financial success are also required for Navy. For one thing, Navy doesn't pay for "scholarships" out of the athletic budgets, since all Mids are active duty Navy. Also, most DI schools (other than Texas, ND, and some others) do not have an exclusive TV contract, as Navy does with CBS. While other schools do share TV revenue via conference contracts, I dare say that no one here has the information to compare those revenue streams.

Remember, too ... a monster hidden cost here that is NOT accounted for in looking at any figures. NAPS. ... Or let's build in the costs of raising private funds. Refurbishing and maintaining the stadium. Alumni Hall costs. And on and on.

-NAPS would exist anyway for those coming from the fleet.
-Not sure what you mean about counting the cost of raising private funds. Are you aware of the Blue and Gold membership program, alumni association memberships/donations, and other donations? Are you aware of the extent to which alumni make donations? The biography of Gene Fluckey describes how he spear-headed the fundraising to expand NMCMS while he was on faculty at USNA. Every "Class of" sign on the stadium represents a substantial investment in the stadium. As another example, a quick web search shows that the Class of 1971 alone paid for the Isherwood Entrance area to Alumni Hall.

Further, suggesting that USNA could not recruit an equal or better quality of class absent the PR of football? Pure speculation that could be argued forever w/o any evidence of such. In fact, remove the athletes from the pool and I'd speculate the total academic measures would rise, not decline.

Whether academic averages would rise or fall doesn't seem all that important, IMO. For every truly brilliant person to attend a SA and then go on to have a great service career (see "Bill" Lawrence or Chester Nimitz), there are many others not as academically adept who still go on to be outstanding military/civilian leaders (see Ross Perot and Jimmy Carter, who were middle of their classes, or John McCain, who was 5 from the bottom). IMO, I wouldn't want to simply pick all the USNA candidates who would fit right in at MIT or CalTech, and that's what you'd get if you simply took all those with the best "measurables."

The whole point of selecting an incoming class at USNA is to try to find people with the best chance of becoming good leaders, and that is far from an exact science. Perhaps a good analogy would be the NFL draft. Even after watching players perform at the collegiate level for two-four years, picking a QB (team leader) is still risky. For every Peyton Manning, you could list numerous huge failures, or you could find players such as Tom Brady, who were by-passed by all the teams until the 6th round. IMO, once minimal requirements are met, it would seem that characteristics such as leadership ability, tenacity, good study skills, and good time management skills are perhaps more important than having ultra high SAT/ACT scores.

But in any case, Navy football is a monumental money loser.

Again, you state your opinion that Navy football is a money losing proposition, with no facts (other than the existence and cost of NAPS) to back it up.

 

[Whistle Pig]

Interesting POV. You don't need to agree. Obviously.


And I'll stick with my allegation. And if you're serious about really wanting to know? I'd lay you a Romneyan-type wager. There is zero way when all expenses would be honestly, genuinely accounted for that Navy football pays for itself, let alone other inter-collegiate athletic activities.

Now, playing Navy "funny money?" Doing precisely what you suggest, and they do with expenses like NAPS? Or "scholarships?" Or medical costs? Or tutoring and other extras in eductional and training costs? How about transporting and putting up the Brigade for certain games? How about deferred training costs, i.e. athletest who do not get their full training because of practice, summer costs? And your naive question about the cost of raising private monies that would be far less necessary? What about stadium and other practice facility maintenance? Wanna bet if they're charged against athletics? You and I could lend some debate as to what and how to account for the real costs. No, they do precisely as you suggest ... simply charge them off to other budgets thus hiding the real cost of trying to provide a D I level program.

Yours might be a fairy tale that some have tried ... and obviously have sold. Trust me or not. Ain't no way, even though they try. While not central to this albeit tangential, I always find it intriguing that student attendance is required ... and they must buy their own tickets. What's the point of this specific illustration? It is a means of transferring budgeted Mid-designated revenue into the athletic fund. Legal? Probably not. Done? What do you think? Ask your Mid.

You see, Chet can bury expenses ... and obviously does ... at Navy that he'd have to claim at Houston or any other of his previous stops.

 

[TheDukeOfEarl]

Sorry all, but I'm going ad hominem here, because I do believe that the motives of the professor are relevant. It is also notable that the link to the blog has been removed by Wash Post -- you can't find it linked on their page -- and comments closed. Maybe the comments there pointing out the Post's culpability in the Lynch story that Fleming wnet on about was too much for them....

Fleming clearly holds a grudge, and clearly got slighted by someone at USNA somewhere along the way, and hell hath no fury like a tenured Birkenstock-wearer spurned. But I wonder how different the USNA yield numbers are from the other "elite" schools? How many students pay Harvard the $75 application fee but then never follow through with the supplemental info required? How unique is USNA's "leg-up" policy when compared to the "bye" given to under-represented students at, say, Brown, or Stanford? Would Fleming be as concerned about the fact that a woman applicant can attend M.I.T. with lower scores than a male? And how does USNA refusal to release data to a gadfly like Fleming stack up against the refusal by a left-leaning Columbia's to release the transcripts and records associated with a politician's taxpayer-funded education? Or more to the point, would Fleming even take the time to comment if he was employed by one of those institutions instead of USNA? I suspect Flemig has no interest in pursuing such lines of investigation, since the institutions in question aren't subjects of his anti-military agenda. He prefers instead to stay the course in his fifth column attacks on his employer. If he was at any of the civilian universities, instead of at USNA, he would have been tossed out into the real world long ago, trying to find someone willing to hire a throwback English prof who is, ironically, also not much of a writer. In the end he is nothing but a shill pushing his own agenda and book, all the while biting the hand that feeds him. It is unseemly, and whether his point is valid or not is secondary to me.

 

[osdad]

The Mids seem to like him as a teacher ( RATE MY PROF ) if not his opinions of the place. Though they probably mostly ignore those (or are indifferent).

 

[Hurricane12]

For what it's worth, though I've never personally taken a class with Professor Fleming one of my close friends did this past semester.
Though he was very opinionated (obviously) she got the sense that he writes what he does out of a genuine concern for the Academy and desire to see it be as best as possible.
She's also probably from one of his largest "target groups" (female recruited varsity athlete with, out of HS, less than perfect academic credentials) and still left the class with a much higher opinion of him than she had previously.

For better or for worse, and whether or not he's going about it the "right way," I've gradually come to think he genuinely has good intentions.

 

[Whistle Pig]

It seems from all indicators, Fleming's a fair teacher. Sadly, seems that's not enough for him. Gotta wonder what has gotten him off the team that he chose to be part of in an earlier life. And why his obvious frustration with his lot has not led him in other directions, altho that might be readily apparent. Probably fewer English professorial positions with lesser scholarly expectations among any comparable, highly prestigious institutions. So he gets the cachet of being at USNA absent virtually any requirements of scholarly activity. And he's seemingly a reasonably good instructor and advisor, his primary responsibilities allowing him the freedom to write and muddle in his administrivial sandbox. I'm sure it's frustrating to him that he, as a faculty member, sees himself as being stuck watch-dogging that which the Board of Governors ought to be concerned with in any other public trust. He'd probably be an interesting fellow with whom to have a cup of coffee, if not necessarily share a foxhole with. Still, I'm betting he's figured out how to call his behavior patriotic. Undoubtedly, his approach most appeals to dirt-loving media in need of juice, and undiscerning, readily swayed youthful Mids. We sure don't hear a peep from his peers, do we? Even fellow-tenured teachers. And that should tell us much about the character of this character, regardless of the degree of truth he proclaims to preach.

 

[Luigi59]

Sorry all, but I'm going ad hominem here,

At least you're honest.

In the end he is nothing but a shill pushing his own agenda and book, all the while biting the hand that feeds him. It is unseemly, and whether his point is valid or not is secondary to me.

And that should tell us much about the character of this character, regardless of the degree of truth he proclaims to preach.

This.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps.

• First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim).
  
• Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

 

[Whistle Pig]

Or so one might want people to think. Certain irony about this notion in that it's only basis is shooting the messenger. And hiding it all in verbosity designed to baffle and amaze the plebians and bury 'em in baloney and the remnants of philosophy 101.

 

[LineInTheSand]

The Mids seem to like him as a teacher ( RATE MY PROF ) if not his opinions of the place. Though they probably mostly ignore those (or are indifferent).

Students tend to be a little closer to the reality of the institution, and maybe less inclined to "defend" the "honor" of an institution for the comfort of those who have never been. I don't mean that just for USNA.

Again, USNA is a federally funded military institution.... if it's not classified, and it's release could hurt the interests of the United States... then the information SHOULD be released. Plain and simple. If they don't like/appreciate that, they can stop accepting 100% of their funding from the U.S. taxpayer who has a right to that knowledge. I of course, mean this for any institution, not just USNA.

 

[MemberLG]

Don't understand why some people are attacking Professor Fleming as a person, rather attacking what he did.

One thing to say he has his facts wrong but to say things like

"And why his obvious frustration with his lot has not led him in other directions"

"So he gets the cachet of being at USNA absent virtually any requirements of scholarly activity"

"Fleming clearly holds a grudge, and clearly got slighted by someone at USNA somewhere along the way, and hell hath no fury like a tenured Birkenstock-wearer spurned"

without any proof other than inductions from a few newpaper articles seems unfair; He said bad things about Naval Academy, so he must be a failure/holds grudge. So all civilian professors at Naval Academy are there because they couldn't teach at Harvard.

How about some folks here are Naval Acadmey officials out to discredit Professor Fleming.

 

[Whistle Pig]

There are ways to do things. And ways to do things. And the Prof knows that. He's sought and merits the attention he receives. As Prof. Thomas Sowell notes in his book "Intellectuals in Society", many professors commonly work at being seen as uncommon. Fleming's simply achieving that which he desires.

 

[Luigi59]

Certain irony about this notion in that it's only basis is shooting the messenger.

I do find it odd that the attacks come at him, rather than the data he presents. Data that, in fact, is assembled by the USNA! He IS only the messenger!

I also find it to be highly unsettling that he had to file a FOIA request to get information that should be provided to any US citizen.

Fleming has uncovered many uncomfortable truths about the admissions process, favoritism, cronyism, minority selectivity, etc - and in almost every case, all we hear is what a bad guy he is, just trying to sell books, hates the USA, etc etc - not many people readily go after his data or his facts.

The data he has forced - yes forced - USNA to reveal this time is not surprising. As stated in many posts above, it was understood wink wink that they were inflating their app numbers, and that no reasonable person would believe 20,000 people applied for admission.

I find his information quite informative, interesting, and intellectually stimulating at a level far above the "they let the black guy in over the white guy" type responses in the Annapolis Capital.

 

[Idzak]

Mod edit.

 

[Whistle Pig]

Mod edit

 

[usna1985]

Folks,

We've allowed this thread to continue b/c Prof. Fleming's views about USNA admissions are arguably relevant and of interest to candidates and others.

However, the thread has veered off course and deteriorated into personal attacks, which are not only non-productive but contrary to forum rules.

I'm not going to close this threat but, unless your post is DIRECTLY related to the original topic AND does not call out another member, don't post it.

 

[Idzak]

My apologies.

 

[Candidad]

The questions not asked. Yet.

This is an interesting topic. I don't have anything to add regarding the professor's motives, but USNA should be transparent in everything it reports. The truth shall set you free and all that. It would be really easy to report:

1. Number of applicants to NASS
2. Number of applications to USNA completed and actionable. (Is this really the same as 1. above?) Hopefully this could be done on an app(les) to common app(les) basis fairly easily. You have completed an application to a civilian university when you complete their on-line application including supplemental essays, send your transcripts, send your board scores, send your letters of recommendation (if required), and pay the application fee (if not waived). I think there is a direct analogy here to the USNA application. This would then be the "number of applicants".
3. Number of candidates triple qualified (scholastically, medically, and physically). Civilian universities require solo qualified (scholastically)
4. Number of candidates with nominations.
5. Number of nominated candidates offered appointments.
6. Number of candidates accepting appointments.

"Selectivity" would then be #5/#2. "Yield" is #6/#2

Seems to me the bugaboo is using #1 if that's what they do.

The larger questions are the importance of "selectivity", whether that really measures "quality" and should the service academies worry about it?

Many people would argue that the more select the pool of candidates, the higher the quality of the student body and ergo, the better the school. That might be true, but consider the following:

Whole person metrics including GPA, scores, athletics and extra-curriculars are probably a better indication of incoming student body quality that what percentage of applicants are accepted.

The #2 number above is going through the roof across the country due to the ease of on-line applications (fees are often waived to recruit applicants), and the resonant panic about admittance to college and the need for ten safety schools. Panic generates more applications, lower acceptance rates and therefore more applications. I am absolutely convinced based on the lengths some schools went to get my son to apply, that they would do just about anything to increase the number of applications to enhance their perceived selectivity. They need more rejections or even kids using them as fallback. In fact a couple of obscure universities offered him guaranteed scholarships if he would apply. (Of course maybe they are just shopping for good students. Nothing wrong with that.)

So what does it really mean to have the percent admitted drop if it does so primarily because the school gets more applications? Hard to say. Does Arbitrary U improve drastically simply because one year the number of applications increases 15%?

What is behind all this? USNWR rankings. Should the service academies pay attention to this or just drop out because their missions are so different? A cursory review of each academy's web site indicates that indeed they do pay attention and promote their high USNWR rankings, whether nationally or regionally. They want to compete with the most prestigious schools academically, so they need to show they are on par.

But are the USNWR rankings the best way to show par? Particularly for the unique service academies? I think these rankings are mostly about selling magazines and it is absurd to place such weight on precise numeric rankings (particularly when the ranking methodology changes often) when there are thousands of colleges and universities, each suited to different types of students.

[As an aside, I think diamond ratings like AAA would be better. Flea infested schools that actually suck knowledge from your brain get one graduation cap; the really solid schools where you get a good education but don't impress mommy's and daddy's friends might get three caps; and the true gems get five.]

Lastly consider what someone whose university topped those rankings nearly 20 years ago has to say about them. He thinks they are garbage. (But said nicely the way a university president would.)

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html

Just food for thought.

 

[cb7893]

Candidad, you are correct about the uselessness of the statistics. I find the Stanford President's Letter an absolute joke. He has set up a strawman in USNWR while at the same time (since 1996, when the letter was written), Stanford has done as much or more than any other University to stoke the admissions arms race, which in turn stokes the tuition arms race.

Just yesterday, we received a letter from the Stanford Gifted Student Program concerning our HS Junior. Straight to the garbage. We got the same letter for son #1 several years ago. We made the mistake of thinking it meant something.

 

[BobBigBoy]

I guess the real key is what a non government run university considers an application. For example; my DD started and submitted applications to several schools. Prior to finalizing the applications by submitting transcripts, she received an LOA and nomination and did not send in any of the further information that was requested to the various colleges. Now, they were completed applications, but not finished because transcripts weren't sent. Will the schools consider her applications as complete and used in their stats....I would bet so. So, isn't any application that is submitted valid? I would argue that even a completed Summer Seminar application would be, technically, an application to the school.

 

[LineInTheSand]

So, isn't any application that is submitted valid? I would argue that even a completed Summer Seminar application would be, technically, an application to the school.

But it isn't an application to that class..... the class that the numbers are about. Do Summer Seminar.... then senior year of HS.... take a year off..... now what....that's summer seminar # is considered "valid" as an application? To which class?

To me, it's bumping up stats...