- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
nomination question
- Thread starter sheriff3
- Start date
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
Who is the best judge of candidates for admission to a service academy?
1. The academy, or
2. A Congressional panel
If you believe that a Congressional panel is the best judge - why let the academy have a say at all? Let the MOC decide who gets in.
If you believe that the academy is the best judge - why add a pre-screening layer to the process?
Matthewmillr94
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 77
I'm inclined to think that if you didn't have the nomination screening, it would take the academies much, much longer to assemble classes. USAFA usually has around 12,000 applications from what I hear. As everyone here knows very well, the admissions staffs at the service academies gets to know their candidates very well regarding background checks, medical qualifications, etc. I can definitely see some logistical issues arising with 12,000 people getting this type of personalization.
Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app.
Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
And yet many schools deal with FAR more applicants.... without DODMERB eliminating numerous applicants.
burnerafter16
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 211
It may be a combination of the two which the four SA utilize except USCGA where an interview for an appointment is optional.
How could they offer an appointment just by what's on an application form and essay?
The Congressional/Senatorial panel don't just rubber stamp or sign an nomination just because you ask for one. It's a tedious process that takes a lot of time and effort. It may be different in some districts but in ours, it's a competition and in the past have garnered much success.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
Doesn't answer the question. Read it again and make a choice.
Either #1 or #2 is better. Not both.
burnerafter16 said:
It's done all the time, often with outstanding result. And not just as USCGA.
burnerafter16 said:
While not as simple as you try to make it with your "rubber stamp just for asking" comment, you'd be surprised at the number of people who get a MOC nomination without ever interviewing with the MOC or his staff/panel etc - nothing but the written nomination application.
burnerafter16
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 211
IMHO, having more than one screening process is better. I believe that awarding an appointment without a face to face interview is not being thorough.
What's on paper doesn't necessarily translate to reality-especially on resumes and essays.
As I have stated, our district requires a face to face interview in front of a panel of SA alumni and community leaders. The Senatorial nomination panel does their interview over the phone. Our experience with USCGA did not involve any. I wouldn't be surprised if it's done differently elsewhere.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
So if your district requires one, and another district doesn't, are you one even footing?
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
So bring them by my house, let's making it three layers. I'm far more involved and aware than Congressional staff. Why stop at two layers.... let's go for three.
What this in fact is, is a bunch of parents feeling the need to defend their kids' college's process. If USMA, USNA, USAFA and USMMA did away with the Congressional nomination process tomorrow, they would be the same people to praise the decision. "West Point is so flexible and reasonable" they'd say.
burnerafter16
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 211
No thanks but I think an applicant going to your abode would be inappropriate, the ALOs we've encountered at least set up interviews that lasted at least an hour at a neutral location. It allowed them one on one discussion with the candidate to determine if they were accurate in their resume and if they are genuinely honest in their application.
Most 15-17 year old prospective applicants aren't going to just instantly have the werewithal to get through the application process to any SA without their "bunch of parents". It seems like by being the odd man out, you're trying to defend your SA's exclusion of said requirement.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Maybe times have changed. My interview with my BGO for USNA was in his house. My interview for CGA was in an office. Granted, that was over a decade ago....
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
Why? Who knows the qualities of what makes a great cadet/mid better, the academy admissions office or the MOC staff?
I continue to ask this question, because you continue to avoid answering it.
They both cannot be better, one must be better than the other. I believe the academy admission's office knows better. If they are also using an interview process (mandatory at USNA and USAFA, optional at USMA, USCGA, and USMMA) great, they get some face-to face time as well, which does not have to include the MOC office at all.
If you believe otherwise, please give details as to why. Remember, a MOC could have just won election this year and his/her people may have zero experience in selecting candidates, so why would you prefer their input over the academy?
My district does not, my son got a nomination without ever once talking to a member of the Congressman's staff.
My son interviewed in person with the Senator's office, and got her nomination as well, to the same academy.
Tell me what was the difference between the thoroughness of the Senator's panel, an in person interview, and the Congressman's panel, all done on paper? Remember, we are talking about the same candidate --yet you would categorize the Congressman as 'not being thorough" but the Senator you would be satisfied, even though they came to the same conclusion about that candidate.
I've interviewed many candidates. Some received appointments, some did not. Just as some in my area who did not interview - some of them received appointments, some did not. The interview was never the deciding factor.
Our DS went through both admission processes from both USMMA and USCGA. I think that anyone applying to either Academy or any college is willing to go through the paperwork or nomination procedures required. In the end, it is where the potential candidate feels most comfortable. Luckily our DS went on several visits to the Academies and asked questions before he made his decision.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,027
I hesitate to enter this fray yet again but am doing so because I simply feel those who want to defend the USCGA process that does not require a nomination are doing so by simply attacking the processes of the other four academies that do require them.
Before I do though I'd like to say simply one may or may not be better than the other - think about it - maybe they both are very good ways to make sure that those entering all five academies are excellent, motiviated suitable candidates.
That said I'd like to reply on the subject as I've had personal experience and insight with the processes followed by 11 Congressmen and 4 Senators across five states over the past 35 years. In ALL cases the experience detailed by burnafter16 - that the nomination required a seperate application and an interview with a board of multiple people was what each of those 12 elected officials had in place to determine who they would offer nominations to; was/is basically what PC's seeking a nomination go through. Further in all 15 cases the intervieew board consisted of an apolitical group of citizens, many of whom were active and recent alumni of the four SAs requiring nominations, as well as in at least two cases alumni of USCGA. I say this because as I read the posts there seems to be a portrayal of the interview generally being a one on one with a single staffer and/or crony of the member. In my experience with 15 data points that has never been the case. In fact in all cases there were at least two, and usually three people doing the interview.
Further here in Northern VA where I currently live and competition for nominations is fierce, there are other items on the applications that concern leadership, and community service, etc. and the interviewers ask for details to better vet and qualify that, as well of the reasons for lack of such items - for example a young man or woman who is form an economically disadvatanged family that might need to work to help out, etc. Things that would legitimately limit their ability to do volunteer work at school, etc. Also things that are very hard to totally, objectively cover in a written application, let alone vet. At the end of the day I know that the processes in both the Maryland, DC, and Northern VA districts do this all very well. I know it because of the number of selected prospective candidates offered spots at all four of tho academies requiring nominations from these States and Districts; but even moreso by the number of those PCs that graduate compared to the overall general attrition rate.
My points are simple:
1) The process that is followed in the 15 places I have first hand experience and knowledge of that require a Congressional Nomination, is conducted in a manner that is apolitical, and adds to the assurance that the selected candidates are who I as a taxpayer want getting these scholarships. It also does so in a way that helps ensure the so called "total person" is considered in a way that a process without involvement by those elected officials that I vote for to oversee how the Government including DoD, DOT/MARAD, and yes even DHS/USCG spend "my tax dollars" do so properly.
2) As to Luigi59's question " Who knows the qualities of what makes a great cadet/mid better, the academy admissions office or the MOC staff?" As I've intimated, I'll trust the initial decision as to which ten people from a state (in the Senator's case) or Congressional District (in the MOC's case) should be considered to a process with a panel of multiple people who actually live in the district and usually look at anywhere from ~40-100 (in an MOC's panel case) or ~100 - 300 (in a Senator's panel case) over a panel of people at the Academy who have to look at so many more and don't understand first hand the environment the young man or woman lives in when asking the sorts of questions that tend to or should IMO be asked during these interviews. Simply put the panel usually consist of recent graduates so they are as well or better qualified than the admissions office and they have more time to really consider the applicants. Also it's NOT and either/or like you say - in USNA, USMA, USAFA, and USMMA they have BOTH reviews as part of a two step process while at USCGA there is a single step process.
3) As for LITS comment: "I'm still trying to figure out why you're defending it. It takes "power" away from the service academy, and the service, and puts some of in the hands of a politician." I've read this three times and I don't understand his point at all - LITS are you suggesting you'd rather we be ruled by a Military Junta instead of elected officials aka "politicians" and you'd prefer all the "power" reside with the various "services"? Just asking since it would take a pretty big change to our Constitution to make that happen.
4) LITS as for your comment "Maybe times have changed. My interview with my BGO for USNA was in his house...." I'd respectfully suggest that since as you say "That was over a decade ago." the interview with the Blue and Gold Officer was probably in addition to and not for solely what you needed to do for any nomination from either of your State's Senators or a Member of Congress. I'm not an expert but my understanding USNA often has BGO's interview applicants and forward summary evaluations to their admissions offices as part of the Admissions Office NOT the Nominating Authorities process.
5) Luigi59 indicates re: the MOC interview board: "If you believe otherwise, please give details as to why. Remember, a MOC could have just won election this year and his/her people may have zero experience in selecting candidates, so why would you prefer their input over the academy?" I strongly believe otherwise. I've now seen three instances where here in Virginia a Senate and/or house seat changed hands and parties as a result of retirement of the member. In all three cases, the incoming member kept the prior member's process and interview board in place in it's entirity until they were in office for a full year. In all three cases they did so to make sure the process was smoothly and fairly executed for those who had already started it. As I said here where I live the competition is fierce for these spots and the process is as apolitical as anything I've ever seen.
So in closing I'll just wonder aloud since it's been a really long time since as Luigi indicated: "the Revenue Cutter School of Instruction was founded, the Congress did not want any possible appearance of impropriety between those making the revenue laws and those enforcing them, thus the appointment process for the officers would not require Congress to nominate candidates" maybe it's time for those that run that school in New London to stop clinging to such an archaic notion and embrace a process that the other four SA's seem to have no problem making work and work with a result that provides a more geographically as well as otherwise diverse group of students with similar standards of excellence and success. Further rather than just attacking the process followed by the other four SAs why not at least admit USCGA is the "odd duck" in this matter, understand and accept it and realize that in the case of the other four SAs things are also working just fine. None are letting in unqualified candidates or lowering any standards, in fact standards at all five SAs are increasing etc. And like I said, as the "odd duck" USCGA is the academy that is not clearly follwoing the tradition of elected officials running the military and not vice versa.
Before I do though I'd like to say simply one may or may not be better than the other - think about it - maybe they both are very good ways to make sure that those entering all five academies are excellent, motiviated suitable candidates.
That said I'd like to reply on the subject as I've had personal experience and insight with the processes followed by 11 Congressmen and 4 Senators across five states over the past 35 years. In ALL cases the experience detailed by burnafter16 - that the nomination required a seperate application and an interview with a board of multiple people was what each of those 12 elected officials had in place to determine who they would offer nominations to; was/is basically what PC's seeking a nomination go through. Further in all 15 cases the intervieew board consisted of an apolitical group of citizens, many of whom were active and recent alumni of the four SAs requiring nominations, as well as in at least two cases alumni of USCGA. I say this because as I read the posts there seems to be a portrayal of the interview generally being a one on one with a single staffer and/or crony of the member. In my experience with 15 data points that has never been the case. In fact in all cases there were at least two, and usually three people doing the interview.
Further here in Northern VA where I currently live and competition for nominations is fierce, there are other items on the applications that concern leadership, and community service, etc. and the interviewers ask for details to better vet and qualify that, as well of the reasons for lack of such items - for example a young man or woman who is form an economically disadvatanged family that might need to work to help out, etc. Things that would legitimately limit their ability to do volunteer work at school, etc. Also things that are very hard to totally, objectively cover in a written application, let alone vet. At the end of the day I know that the processes in both the Maryland, DC, and Northern VA districts do this all very well. I know it because of the number of selected prospective candidates offered spots at all four of tho academies requiring nominations from these States and Districts; but even moreso by the number of those PCs that graduate compared to the overall general attrition rate.
My points are simple:
1) The process that is followed in the 15 places I have first hand experience and knowledge of that require a Congressional Nomination, is conducted in a manner that is apolitical, and adds to the assurance that the selected candidates are who I as a taxpayer want getting these scholarships. It also does so in a way that helps ensure the so called "total person" is considered in a way that a process without involvement by those elected officials that I vote for to oversee how the Government including DoD, DOT/MARAD, and yes even DHS/USCG spend "my tax dollars" do so properly.
2) As to Luigi59's question " Who knows the qualities of what makes a great cadet/mid better, the academy admissions office or the MOC staff?" As I've intimated, I'll trust the initial decision as to which ten people from a state (in the Senator's case) or Congressional District (in the MOC's case) should be considered to a process with a panel of multiple people who actually live in the district and usually look at anywhere from ~40-100 (in an MOC's panel case) or ~100 - 300 (in a Senator's panel case) over a panel of people at the Academy who have to look at so many more and don't understand first hand the environment the young man or woman lives in when asking the sorts of questions that tend to or should IMO be asked during these interviews. Simply put the panel usually consist of recent graduates so they are as well or better qualified than the admissions office and they have more time to really consider the applicants. Also it's NOT and either/or like you say - in USNA, USMA, USAFA, and USMMA they have BOTH reviews as part of a two step process while at USCGA there is a single step process.
3) As for LITS comment: "I'm still trying to figure out why you're defending it. It takes "power" away from the service academy, and the service, and puts some of in the hands of a politician." I've read this three times and I don't understand his point at all - LITS are you suggesting you'd rather we be ruled by a Military Junta instead of elected officials aka "politicians" and you'd prefer all the "power" reside with the various "services"? Just asking since it would take a pretty big change to our Constitution to make that happen.
4) LITS as for your comment "Maybe times have changed. My interview with my BGO for USNA was in his house...." I'd respectfully suggest that since as you say "That was over a decade ago." the interview with the Blue and Gold Officer was probably in addition to and not for solely what you needed to do for any nomination from either of your State's Senators or a Member of Congress. I'm not an expert but my understanding USNA often has BGO's interview applicants and forward summary evaluations to their admissions offices as part of the Admissions Office NOT the Nominating Authorities process.
5) Luigi59 indicates re: the MOC interview board: "If you believe otherwise, please give details as to why. Remember, a MOC could have just won election this year and his/her people may have zero experience in selecting candidates, so why would you prefer their input over the academy?" I strongly believe otherwise. I've now seen three instances where here in Virginia a Senate and/or house seat changed hands and parties as a result of retirement of the member. In all three cases, the incoming member kept the prior member's process and interview board in place in it's entirity until they were in office for a full year. In all three cases they did so to make sure the process was smoothly and fairly executed for those who had already started it. As I said here where I live the competition is fierce for these spots and the process is as apolitical as anything I've ever seen.
So in closing I'll just wonder aloud since it's been a really long time since as Luigi indicated: "the Revenue Cutter School of Instruction was founded, the Congress did not want any possible appearance of impropriety between those making the revenue laws and those enforcing them, thus the appointment process for the officers would not require Congress to nominate candidates" maybe it's time for those that run that school in New London to stop clinging to such an archaic notion and embrace a process that the other four SA's seem to have no problem making work and work with a result that provides a more geographically as well as otherwise diverse group of students with similar standards of excellence and success. Further rather than just attacking the process followed by the other four SAs why not at least admit USCGA is the "odd duck" in this matter, understand and accept it and realize that in the case of the other four SAs things are also working just fine. None are letting in unqualified candidates or lowering any standards, in fact standards at all five SAs are increasing etc. And like I said, as the "odd duck" USCGA is the academy that is not clearly follwoing the tradition of elected officials running the military and not vice versa.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
The odd duck, but it's important to remember that CGA wasn't following the "tradition" long before USMMA or USAFA existed and had an "traditions" at all.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
1. ok...
2. And yes, some how a single step works, as it does for most schools in the U.S., so either the Harvards, Princetons, Yales also have it wrong OR a nomination doesn't mean anything at all.
3. Military junta? It's probably good to remember, USMMA isn't a military academy. Jasper I can't remember if you were in the military, but either way, I'm fairly certain you realize the military doesn't have political approvals for every decision, promotion or advancement. And then, for some reason, ROTC programs don't have to have that "accountability?"
4. The BGO interview is with someone acting as the eyes and ears of the Academy. It was far more involved than the interview with 1 staffer and 1 Navy commander in the Senator's panel, or the 10 folks in the Representative's panel. Besides an acceptance to the NROTC program at Vanderbilt (I guess I did something right in the Frist interview, the commander was the NROTC CO at Vandy).
5. USMA, USNA and the news kids USMMA and USAFA have it backwards.
burnerafter16
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 211
I'm not avoiding to answer but you continue to not accept my reply which is fine. There's more to a candidate than what's on their resume. The most important aspect of the one on one interview(at least with an ALO,BGO or admissions) is that the applicant is sincere with their willingness to serve their country and not just being coerced. When the MOC panel consisting of at least four community leaders,public servants and SA alumni(USMA,USAFA,USNA) interrogate, the questions asked are tough. It may not be the same as the admission panel of your SA but in my experience as of this year's early acceptance cycle, USCGA awarded my DS/DD with an appointment with no interview while the other SAs which also awarded appointments did so. The MOC and the Senators in our district are multiple year incumbents and from their track record shoots down your suggestion that they have zero experience. The difference with the MOC interview being held at a accessible venue close to home versus the Senator's office which is a day's drive away is the reason why the interview (still by panel) is held over the phone. Maybe we'll never agree but that's your prerogative. It just reinforces the fact that you're defending it because it's the system that you went through. Tradition or age doesn't imply being correct all the time.
Last edited:
kpbaseballmom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 149
All of which begs the question:
After all this vetting and "who can get it right best" do the academies lose around 30% of the incoming class by time graduation rolls around?
After all this vetting and "who can get it right best" do the academies lose around 30% of the incoming class by time graduation rolls around?
NYBEAR
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2010
- Messages
- 72
I had this conversation a few years ago with others who defended the current practice of requiring a nomination from an often times disinterested MOC, or worse, disinterested MOC staffers. It is nice to hear that in Virginia, recent SA graduates are on the board. What about the rest of the country?
In New York, a very liberal state, unfortunately, they often bring out very well meaning WW2 veterans to decide who gets the nomination? Well intentioned men, but clueless. I have been there with many applicants. C'mon now? There is a better way.
Every national university of prominence has figured it out. It is time that the 5 service academies figure it out.
200 years ago, I am sure that West Point did not have an admissions office. There was no way to compare prospective candidates from all the various rudimentary educational systems of the time. Back then a MOC knew who had the potential and sent on horseback to Highland Falls, NY his best and brightest. This MOC nom requirement is bad vestige of the past IMO.
Today there is absolutely no reason that the admissions departments of all the academies could not get it correct, or nearer to correct than it is today
The Coast Guard Academy has it right. The others academies should admit the fact and follow suit.
In New York, a very liberal state, unfortunately, they often bring out very well meaning WW2 veterans to decide who gets the nomination? Well intentioned men, but clueless. I have been there with many applicants. C'mon now? There is a better way.
Every national university of prominence has figured it out. It is time that the 5 service academies figure it out.
200 years ago, I am sure that West Point did not have an admissions office. There was no way to compare prospective candidates from all the various rudimentary educational systems of the time. Back then a MOC knew who had the potential and sent on horseback to Highland Falls, NY his best and brightest. This MOC nom requirement is bad vestige of the past IMO.
Today there is absolutely no reason that the admissions departments of all the academies could not get it correct, or nearer to correct than it is today
The Coast Guard Academy has it right. The others academies should admit the fact and follow suit.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 260
It's not up to the academies, but Congress. It's federal law to require nominations, and they like being involved. Good luck trying to get them to give it up.