Was the admissions process producing qualified naval officers that were qualified to lead in the 1950s & 60s? I don't think this should be the litmus test of whether the USNA's current admissions process is selecting the best possible candidates from it's applicant pool.
Yes, in addition, the system must also be
fair.
There's no question that the application pool has many outstanding people who would make effective naval officers.
I also think we can all agree that "the best" are not necessarily those with the highest SAT scores
or those who do the most pull-ups
or those who graduated in the top 10% of their class. It's not difficult finding outstanding candidates. The challenge is finding the
best candidates. I think that's what the American taxpayers deserve. I think that's what the Navy and Marine Corps deserve. I think that's what the enlisted personnel deserve for their future leaders.
Success in past endeavors has always proven to be a good predictive metric for future success. Short of a crystal ball, that is about the best that can be done. This is why a huge part of the application process is demonstrating
past successes.
Past outstanding academic excellence is a reliable indicator of
future academic excellence. And vice versa. The same can be said for other categories, as well; physical fitness, leadership, reliability, honesty, etc.
When I was a midshipman, I remember some very good people who washed out for academics. They were great people. They probably would have made great officers. But they simply could not get through the rigors of the academic program. Very sad. It is not only important that a candidate has potential to be an effective officer, but they
also must be able to survive the academy program. Because, if they can't, then whatever attributes they had that would cause them to be an effective leader are meaningless.
The academy's admission process is fair to each state. That is mandated. No matter how weak a candidate's packet may be from some rural area of Idaho, if s/he's 3Q'd, and s/he's better than the competition - s/he's going to the Naval Academy!
The academy's admission process is fair to each district. If that district has zero candidates qualify - that's not the academy's fault. If nobody even applies from that district - that's not the academy's fault. There is a spot awaiting for
somebody in that district who applies, gets nominated, and is 3Q'd.
The academy's admission process if fair to men and women - as has already pointed out by their nearly identical acceptance rates.
What's under scrutiny ... Is the academy's admission process racially fair?
Actually, if the Naval Academy would simply proclaim: "In accordance with policy set forth by the Chief of Naval Operations, each incoming class will consist of a minimum of 33% minorities" - I would understand that. In that context, they'll simply have to do what they have to do to obtain that objective. This may mean that the acceptance rate of minorities is markedly higher than non-minorities for no other reason than less minorities tend to apply - especially if those who
do apply tend to be concentrated in certain regions. People may not like it, but at least they'll understand
why some candidates get in with a markedly inferior candidate packet.
For instance, if the objective is to have x-number of Hispanics and a disproportionate number of the Hispanic candidates come from just a handful of states (which is
probably the case), there are going to be some
non-minority candidates with superior packets from those states who are going to be left in the dust wondering, "
What the heck?" Let's face it, there are going to be more Hispanic applicants from Texas than from Minnesota.
It's an interesting discussion and I don't know all the answers.
I was embarrassed by some of the letters going out of our office. Heads up to applicants. Have independent people proof read your essay and application at least twice.
