Teacher Rec's Complication

I have read in too many different places, from BGOs, about all the "extra" things they do for their candidates to help them gain an appointment. Some even proofread their Personal Statements.

To me, that is overstepping the bounds of their job description and it only serves to make the playing field uneven. One candidate may have a very energetic, proactive, knowledgeable BGO who has this notion that he is on some kind of commission - almost as if he gets a free toaster oven or a free trip to the Bahamas for each candidate who gains an appointment.

It should not be that way!

In my opinion, the BGO has a very narrow function:

1. Determine if the candidate really wants to attend the Naval Academy. Are his parents making him? Does he really want to do something else? Does he not really want to serve in the military?

2. Determine if the candidate knows what he/she is getting into. It's a very military environment. They will not have all their summers off. They will have limited freedoms. They will have a service commitment at graduation.

3. Allow the candidate to explain anything unusual that appears in his record.

4. Review with the candidate the remaining items to complete their package.

5. Answer any questions the candidate has.

That's it!

The candidate should not get any more help than that. Don't teach them about any of the do's and don't's (there are a few tips). You are not their mentor. You are not their career counselor. You are not their buddy. You are not there to coach them through the process and help them put together any better package than they could have done without your help.

If the candidate wants to venture off into areas like that, he should initiate those topics - not the BGO. The candidate should get no additional beyond the help that he asks for - and then the BGO should determine if that kind of "help" is appropriate.
 
If the candidate wants to venture off into areas like that, he should initiate those topics - not the BGO. The candidate should get no additional beyond the help that he asks for - and then the BGO should determine if that kind of "help" is appropriate.

Ditto for the most part. Such as "here is my course schedule for senior year...does it match what a competitive candidate would take?" The BGO won't send an email out saying, "everyone ensure you take the following courses."

One candidate may have a very energetic, proactive, knowledgeable BGO

I somewhat disagree with this. I send out an email to all my candidates in May/June outlining who I am, what I do, a very broad stroke of the Admissions process, the nomination requirement and that I am here to help. That is being proactive, but it is upon the candidate to contact me if they want to introduce themselves and ask questions. I think proactive BGOs are okay, as long as they aren't holding the candidate's hand through the process. I have found that a mix of proactive/reactive works well. In being proactive, I actually identified candidates who were no longer interested. Now I would agree there is an extent. And I know I'm not the most proactive BGO because I have seen other BGOs go further down the path than I do (the personal statements I hadn't heard before, yet I'm not shocked).
 
I somewhat disagree with this. I send out an email to all my candidates in May/June outlining who I am, what I do, a very broad stroke of the Admissions process, the nomination requirement and that I am here to help. That is being proactive, but it is upon the candidate to contact me if they want to introduce themselves and ask questions.

If you're very proactive BGO (which you seem to be by sending out unsolicited emails), I'm not surprised that you somewhat disagree with me. :)

Really? The candidate needs to be told that they need a nomination?

I guess I'm of the opinion that the admissions process should be a bit more Darwinian. Let those who have not figured out the most basic things, that can be known with a modicum of effort, fall by the wayside. If they do not realize they need a nomination, that is an excellent indicator that they are not really even trying to figure out what it takes for admission.

Answer their questions when they initiate contact.

Interview them on the basics.
1. Do you want to attend the Naval Academy?
2. Do you know what you're getting into?
3. Is there anything you feel you need to elaborate on?
4. Review what needs to be completed.
5. Do you have any questions?

Done!
 
If you're very proactive BGO (which you seem to be by sending out unsolicited emails)

They aren't unsolicited, in fact, it is a requirement for BGOs to reach out to candidates, when initially assigned. It's mentioned in publication.

Even if it wasn't a requirement, simply, explaining the process creates no advantage, it is simply a matter of fact, not hints or how to do things. My intro letter is the only email I initiate to candidates, everything else has been on their own and the serious ones got their application in early and then there are others, who I am waiting to see what will happen. It's also a way that a candidate can never claim that they didn't know who their BGO was, that their candidate letter got lost in the mail, etc. They have the ability to contact me.

The application process (between USNA's and nominations packages) is lengthy, thorough, and demanding --- if they really do not have an interest, they will not complete the application.
 
The application process (between USNA's and nominations packages) is lengthy, thorough, and demanding --- if they really do not have an interest, they will not complete the application.

You've never come across a candidate (or heard of one), who is basically being prodded into applying by their parents or pressured by some outside source? Often, those type of candidates will complete the process because much of it is being done for them.
 
You've never come across a candidate (or heard of one), who is basically being prodded into applying by their parents or pressured by some outside source? Often, those type of candidates will complete the process because much of it is being done for them.

Yes, I have. And I personally found out that USNA1985's statements about BGO interviews to be completely true when noting this type of discrepancy in the write up.

I'm definitely not advocating that BGOs should be proactive to the point they are constantly prodding candidates or helping complete their application (i.e. holding their hand), but a little reach out and proactiveness that doesn't "force" candidates one way or the other doesn't increase the odds or give an unfair advantage.
 
I'm definitely not advocating that BGOs should be proactive to the point they are constantly prodding candidates or helping complete their application (i.e. holding their hand), but a little reach out and proactiveness that doesn't "force" candidates one way or the other doesn't increase the odds or give an unfair advantage.

I agree. Yet, I do believe there are BGOs out there (not you necessarily) who are proactive to a fault. They have taken on the role of an advocate for the candidates to whom they've been assigned. Each of their candidates who earns an appointment is another notch in their belt.

A candidate's record is what it is. It stands on its own merits. The quality (or lack thereof) of the candidates is no reflection of the BGO.

In fact, I do not think it's the BGO's job to tell the candidate how they can improve their chances - unless asked. And, even then, within boundaries.

Examples of the things a BGO should not do (in my opinion).

Ask the candidate if they have any minority blood in them. "You should definitely let the academy know that in your application. Have you done that?"

"I see you are a very talented lacrosse player who has many awards. Have you made any contact with the lacrosse coach? Have you attended the lacrosse camp at the Naval Academy? If not, you should."

"Do you have a copy of your Personal Statement? Perhaps I can proofread it for you and make some suggestions."

"You should make it known that you intend on majoring in some kind of engineering. You get extra points to your multiple for that."

"Your SAT/ACT scores are a bit marginal. You should keep taking it as often as you can and try to improve your scores." That is tactical advice that the candidate should figure out for themselves. There is ample information available on this issue. However, if the candidate asks, "Should I take the SAT/ACT again?", of course, the answer is "Yes." That would be your answer to any candidate, regardless of their score because it can never hurt. Take it as often as you have time and the financial resources for.

"I'm personal friends with your congressman. He's a friend of mine. I'll bend his ear. It might help you get a nomination."

"I know some of the people who sit on the admissions board. I'll see what I can do to get them to take a look at your packet as early as possible. I'll even put in a good word for you."

Much of what the candidate needs to know is clearly outlined in the Admissions/Candidate Catalog. The burden is on them to be familiar with it. If they have a question about anything the BGO can (and should) answer it. But there is no reason to give them unsolicited tutelage of the process.
 
A candidate's record is what it is. It stands on its own merits. The quality (or lack thereof) of the candidates is no reflection of the BGO.

Agree that it isn't a reflection on the BGO and no BGO should be doing this to earn them brownie points.

Ask the candidate if they have any minority blood in them. "You should definitely let the academy know that in your application. Have you done that?"

Normally this isn't an issue because when they submit the PCQ it normally asks for that, so that should have already been noted. However, for other reasons, I think that is a personal choice and might be considered offensive if one pursues that question.

"I see you are a very talented lacrosse player who has many awards. Have you made any contact with the lacrosse coach? Have you attended the lacrosse camp at the Naval Academy? If not, you should."

Disagree with the first part...some student-athletes might not think they will make the cut. Obviously during the interview, it becomes obvious whether the candidate is an athlete and I do ask if they plan to pursue playing at the DI level (some do and some don't) and I suggest that if they are considering DI to submit the Student-Athlete Questionnaire on navysports. I don't care what they end up doing and I never bring up navysports after that quick discussion. The fact that a BGO says it's available isn't cutting the corner because, ultimately, the coach will decide whether that candidate is a priority or not. Does it look good if a candidate already knew about it and submitted a form....of course! However, I'm not going to hide that information from a candidate who wasn't aware of the opportunity, even if they didn't do the research.
I agree about the second part, because I personally believe going to the sports camp doesn't gain any ground, anyhow. Plus, it is a risk either way, you may or may not standout -- there is no guarantee. If one was really concerned about being recruited, they would fill out a questionnaire or contact the coach directly.

"Do you have a copy of your Personal Statement? Perhaps I can proofread it for you and make some suggestions."

At that point the BGO is aiding in the application.

"You should make it known that you intend on majoring in some kind of engineering. You get extra points to your multiple for that."

Agree that this shouldn't be said. However, I feel BGOs should explain how USNA is a math/science/engineering school and that all MIDN take these courses, the Navy requirement for 65% to be Group I/II majors, but that Group III are allowed....what they choose to pursue is then up to them...BGOs SHOULD NOT influence that desire. I have found that explaining the academics doesn't matter....some still want to be engineers and some want to do poly sci!

"Your SAT/ACT scores are a bit marginal. You should keep taking it as often as you can and try to improve your scores." That is tactical advice that the candidate should figure out for themselves. There is ample information available on this issue. However, if the candidate asks, "Should I take the SAT/ACT again?", of course, the answer is "Yes." That would be your answer to any candidate, regardless of their score because it can never hurt. Take it as often as you have time and the financial resources for.

I disagree. Once again, if you recommend that they re-take their SATs...one, it is up to them to do it; two, by telling them to re-take it, you aren't increasing their score, it is still up to them to study, take practices tests, and then perform better on the actual exam(s). This is not an advantage and I think BGOs should encourage interested candidates to re-take exams. Now let me caveat, if I don't hear from candidates (i.e. they have never initiated any contact with me or been interested), I don't reach out to them and tell them to retake their tests. However, if a candidate has shown interests, is making progress on their application, I am at least going to counsel them on re-taking it, though I will not tell them to shoot for a score...I will just indicate that they are traditionally lower than the competitive candidate range.

"I'm personal friends with your congressman. He's a friend of mine. I'll bend his ear. It might help you get a nomination."

"I know some of the people who sit on the admissions board. I'll see what I can do to get them to take a look at your packet as early as possible. I'll even put in a good word for you."

These are both clear ethical violations by trying to influence the MOC/Admissions process outside BGO/AC lanes.
 
Doesn't the BGO write a report on the interview with the candidate? If it's a good report, isn't that "putting in a good word ", and would that not influence the decision of the admissions board?
 
The report is to the Admissions Board and that is an official part of the process. Going "behind the scenes" and trying to influence the voting member(s) is not allowed and bad ethical behavior.
 
Back
Top