Recruiting vs. Blue Chip?

What's the problem? That those young people at the prep schools don't pay? Is it an envy issue? They're not keeping YOU from a nom or an apptmt.

One could say that most of red-shirted athletes that come through Prep wind up being qualified for the SA and to become an officer. That's probably true.

The "problem" however some folks might have is that, statistically speaking, red-shirt prepsters graduate at a lower rate overall, account for more honors/conduct violations, and even when they make through the SAs they are less likely to go into Operational roles or stay beyond the minimum 5 year commitment. Certainly not true of every individual of course, but those overall statistics come from different government agency / commission studies.

In a time when thousands (literally) of other qualified candidates are turned away, some might question if this practice makes sense. Perhaps it does, but you have to admit that it's a fair question to ask.

********************
For the record... I am personally not one of those "best test score, period" folks. I am fully supportive of the SAs (and military's) ongoing attempts to create a rich and diverse officer corps. But when such a high percentage of SA candidates already have years and years of athletic competition at the club, HS, and regional level under their belt, do we still want to carve out specific space in the prep school system just to bolster our D1 athletic teams' win percentage? I am not convinced.
 
Last edited:
account for more honors/conduct violations

I agree with most everything you've said except this part. It seems a bit anecdotal to me.

Whenever a poster ask about sports for some reason it derails to the Prep and if it's worth it. When it does I default to Hornet's post many moons ago which has study data in it on Prepsters. I don't remember seeing numbers on Preppies accounting for more honor/conduct violations but I'm old and could have forgotten :redface:

If you have a study that shows that I would love to read it.
 
From my listening-ears experience, many of the doolies were glad to have a prepster amongst 'em at BCT.

I personally knew of four young people (2 men, 2 women) who went through the prep school. The two women both graduated with honors, and I know that both men graduated/commissioned but I don't know what their slots were.

Totally anecdotal, yes. And I have never ever heard that the kids from the prep school have more honor violations than others. I would seriously doubt they have MORE alcohol hits; they don't have the time and they have a coach or two riding them about it.
 
From my listening-ears experience, many of the doolies were glad to have a prepster amongst 'em at

From what I can glean, it's those "high academic stats (and possibly NOT URM) but not enough room for you" types who have the hardest time with athletes getting prep. Some athletes may get prep with lower scores or a "hook" so the rejected kids feel unfairly overlooked.

I have no doubt that direct appt cadets really appreciate their preppie classmates.

We are hopping for prep for our athlete kid. An extra year of investment in his growth and development can only be viewed as a win. :smile:
 
It seems a bit anecdotal to me. (snip)

If you have a study that shows that I would love to read it.

You are right about derailing into value of red-shirting approach at Prep. Guilty as charged.

As for the facts though, several of us have posted numerous links in the past few years on these topics. Here are a few of the highlights from (3) GAO studies, (1) in-depth study by a Diversity commission, and several investigative reports citing FOIA documents from the SA's, and words of quotes from former SA and Athletic Dept staff....

"Since 2009, prep school graduates have been responsible for 38.5 percent of freshman honor violations at a time when they comprised an average of 14.1 percent of the class."
Article citing third GAO study results

"The 240-student school houses nearly 150 athletes, including a 53-member football squad and 
29 team managers, even as academy leaders claim the prep school is about leadership rather than sports."
Investigative report from this year

"If their numbers aren't that great but there's something else there, there's some leadership, we will take a risk," Mueh said.
Recruits must have at least a 50 percent chance of "getting through the Air Force Academy," he said.
A star linebacker, leaders explain, doesn't always come with top grades, perfect morals and high test scores.

(Fairly sure 50% is not the standard success gauge for non-IC Athletic candidates btw)
Article link quoting AFA Athletic Director

And many more you can find in this thread and others... Sorry, even boring myself now regarding this topic! :) Seems like folks want to believe what they want to believe and no facts will be enough. Such is the way of things I suppose.
SA Forums thread of 11+ pages with study links on topic

********
One more time lest someone again misconstrue my position.... I think the Prep schools are an important investment we should most certainly maintain. I think Prepsters are awesome and add tangible value to the class mix as well as the officer corps. What I DO think should be looked at though, is how the mission of the Prep schools have morphed in recent years to become defacto red-shirt factories; vs places to foster diversity candidates and prior enlisted opportunity. The results of that mission creep present lots of negatives with only one positive benefit.... winning more D1 games.
 
Last edited:
Many state and nationally recognized competitors have sacrificed study time in order to become highly skilled in their sport. Becoming a top level athlete in any sport requires a huge commitment in time. So they may have the academic ability but did not have the time to develop it into an all A super scholar. I do not think their dedication to excellence in their sport should be dismissed because they had to sacrifice top notch grades to achieve this.

Having said this, the question arises: how to determine a top notch athlete with the academic ability to succeed?

I would think there is some "formula" for lack of a better term. But is this forumla all that accurate or does it need tweaking? Do they make exceptions in order to create a more powerful and successful team?
 
One thing I will say about the academy and IC athletes....

If one of the major reasons for having the prep school was to establish a means of having a "Red Shirt" year, then there would be quite a few prepsters with very high High School GPA's and ACT/SAT scores. Most of the football players from the class of 2012 were not in the prep school. And when the coach spoke to my son and many others I know of, they were told quite directly that their grades, test scores, and application was "TOO GOOD" to get into the prep school. They either received an appointment or they found a traditional school. But they were told that the prep school was NOT an option for them.

So; anyone saying that the academy wants to send as many of their recruited players to the prep school to get them an additional year (Red Shirt) practicing for varsity, doesn't understand the academy or athletic department.

FWIW: I've also see first hand; Coach Calhoun and others on his staff; turn down players who would fall into that 4-5 Star recruited athlete category because they knew that these recruits/athletes/students would NOT be able to hack the academy. And the coach has been very clear to his players, to the press, and everyone else; that academics and graduating future officers is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the academy and his team.
 
Many state and nationally recognized competitors have sacrificed study time in order to become highly skilled in their sport.

And many top Academic students sacrificed time from sports to study and become top academically. On top of that, WHY should we reward someone who puts sports ahead of education? It should ALWAYS be academics and then athletics..... If this was the case (which I don't think it is) I'd rather see the prep school bring in the top academic students who perhaps failed the CFA.

Becoming a top level athlete in any sport requires a huge commitment in time. So they may have the academic ability but did not have the time to develop it into an all A super scholar. I do not think their dedication to excellence in their sport should be dismissed because they had to sacrifice top notch grades to achieve this.

And becoming the best academically also requires a huge time commitment. Also almost every cadet at the academy was a multiple sport athlete in high school. I do not believe the D1 athletes are better because they worked harder at their sport. There are many athletes who worked their butt off but will never play D1 sports. They just don't have the genetics. To insinuate that the better athletes worked harder is just false.

If you use the argument that we put athletes in prep to bring up their academics because they had worked harder at athletics thus sacrificing academics, then couldn't you also argue it the other way? Someone who stands out Academically then should be admitted to the Prep to allow them time to work on their physical abilities since they sacrificed the time working on their academics and sacrificed athletics.

I personally don't have a dog in the fight I just don't agree with this argument. If one of the purposes (not the only purpose) is for allowing some recruited athletes time to bring up their academics (which I think they do) then lets just admit it and stop trying to sell it as something it isn't. Contrary to John Grubers belief we are not stupid.....:wink:
 
One thing I will say about the academy and IC athletes....

If one of the major reasons for having the prep school was to establish a means of having a "Red Shirt" year, then there would be quite a few prepsters with very high High School GPA's and ACT/SAT scores. Most of the football players from the class of 2012 were not in the prep school. And when the coach spoke to my son and many others I know of, they were told quite directly that their grades, test scores, and application was "TOO GOOD" to get into the prep school. They either received an appointment or they found a traditional school. But they were told that the prep school was NOT an option for them.

So; anyone saying that the academy wants to send as many of their recruited players to the prep school to get them an additional year (Red Shirt) practicing for varsity, doesn't understand the academy or athletic department.

FWIW: I've also see first hand; Coach Calhoun and others on his staff; turn down players who would fall into that 4-5 Star recruited athlete category because they knew that these recruits/athletes/students would NOT be able to hack the academy. And the coach has been very clear to his players, to the press, and everyone else; that academics and graduating future officers is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the academy and his team.

I agree if the recruited athlete is "academically ready" for the Academy they are direct admits. But are you saying they DO NOT use it for athletes they want that are NOT academically ready?

Using the term "redshirt" is not correct. But I do believe they use the Prep for athletes they want that are behind in academics.

Also I'd think Coach Calhoun HAS TO consider whether they can handle the academics of the Academy. They will do him no good if they fail out in the classroom.
 
I'll quote my kids' high school coach...."You can't teach a kid to be tall." Teaching an athlete to be a better student might just be more feasible than vice versa. The smaller, less athletically coordinated kid may not ever be able to rise to the physical standards needed to do some of the jobs that officers are required to do. I'm sure there are jobs that do not require a high level of strength/coordination, but my guess is that there are more that do. Add in the fact that athletes have years of experience in high octane competition and teamwork, and I can see why these skills are valued by the AF.:cool:
 
Add in the fact that athletes have years of experience in high octane competition and teamwork, and I can see why these skills are valued by the AF.:cool:

As they should be! No reasonable person debates the values of athletics; both physical, emotional, and in terms of teamwork/leadership. Most would go as far as saying that lessons taught through athletics can be very hard (or even impossible) to learn any other way. 100% agreement.

But.... The vast, vast majority (85%+ ?) of SA direct admit candidates are already coming to the table with years of sports competition, varsity letters, captainships, etc under their belt. As well as qualifying CFA scores.

Why then do we need such a large percentage of Prep slots set aside for potential IC athletes?

Hint: It isn't to raise the overall percentage of candidates with competitive athletics on their resume.
 
As they should be! No reasonable person debates the values of athletics; both physical, emotional, and in terms of teamwork/leadership. Most would go as far as saying that lessons taught through athletics can be very hard (or even impossible) to learn any other way. 100% agreement.

But.... The vast, vast majority (85%+ ?) of SA direct admit candidates are already coming to the table with years of sports competition, varsity letters, captainships, etc under their belt. As well as qualifying CFA scores.

Why then do we need such a large percentage of Prep slots set aside for potential IC athletes?

Hint: It isn't to raise the overall percentage of candidates with competitive athletics on their resume.

Exactly my point (But said much better). :thumb:
 
As they should be! No reasonable person debates the values of athletics; both physical, emotional, and in terms of teamwork/leadership. Most would go as far as saying that lessons taught through athletics can be very hard (or even impossible) to learn any other way. 100% agreement.

But....

The debate is about the values of IC athletics to cadets/midshipmen to SAs.

How much and what kind of development occurs when a cadet that played a high school sports continues to play football at SA? Intramural vs. Club vs. Div I.

I think we have to agree to disagree on the contribution of IC athletic programs to the development of cadets/midshipmen in respect to the cost (i.e different admissions standard for recruited athletes vs "normal" candidates) we think exist.
 
All I can add is the email from our recruiting coach said; "your application has been blue chipped for entry so we should see something soon." And an email from our admissions counselor said: " your file is coded with an A meaning you are blue chipped by the athletic department..." It may not be a phrase that you've heard... but I can tell you it must be a term they are all familiar with.
 
Thanks for the links MedB:thumb:

There is a lot to read up on in the GOA reports. The articles, to me, seem to have a slant to them. Almost as if there is an ax to grind but that's just my interpretation of them.
 
Don't generalize about IC's and recruited athletes. One in the track/cross country program just got a Rhodes Scholarship.:thumb:
 
Last edited:
There's been quite few ic, even football, who have gone on to grad school.
 
Don't generalize about IC's and recruited athletes. One in the track/cross country program just got a Rhodes Scholarship.:thumb:

Congratulations to Rebecca Esselstein http://gazette.com/air-force-academy-senior-named-rhodes-scholar/article/1541986

She is also a Marshall scholar. :thumb:

In my experience, distant runners are a unique athletes. They have to enjoy the punishment of training as they are very driven human beings. I wonder if they have ever done a correlation of SAT scores to athletic programs. I bet distance running would fare well. I remember a Stanford distant runner won the Rhodes a few years back.
 
It is "relatively" easy to be a 3 letter athlete on your local high school team. What is more difficult is to stand out as an all state or nationally ranked athlete. To become recognized at state and national level, one needs to put in far more time and dedication than just after school practices and games.

Also, competition on the state and national level is far more challenging than at the local school district level. There is far more pressure at the higher the levels of competition. It's easy to be a big fish in a small pond.

In some high schools, once you are a junior or senior you automatically are put on the varsity team as the high school uses seniority. So the V can be a reflection of grade as opposed to dedication and ability.

I personally know a boy who made the Olympic development program on the state level, regional level and is now on a full ride at college for soccer. He will also be traveling to the UK this summer to train with a pro team. His level of dedication, practice, travel and cross training went far beyond my son who was varsity soccer in high school.

Also, academic rigor is not the same across all high schools. In some, it is far easier to earn an A than in others. College academic advisors are very familiar with the standards and requirements of each of the high schools in their districted area.

I am not saying that all the prep school athletes are "Wunder kind," but I think it is a disservice to dismiss all their potential as less valuable than an academic achiever who participated in high school sports.

And before it is asked. My cadet did not go to the prep school.
 
+1 Momba

My kids had to drive almost an hour each way every night, plus Saturdays, and plus Sundays if there was a tournament - and because it was not a school sport, did not get a "get out of homework" pass for weekend competitions held hundreds of miles from home. I can't tell you how much of their academic careers was spent doing homework by flashlight in the car.

The dedication of the athlete, especially one who also does well in school, holds a part time job, plus is a volunteer, is just amazing. And these kids often turn out to be equally amazing as adults.

So, stop dissing the prepsters. If they deserve a place in the cadet or mid ranks, they've earned it, just as the math whiz has, who also plays tennis and a trumpet.
 
Back
Top