The Army's Disservice To Women

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by MemberLG, Jun 21, 2013.

  1. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    From Washington Post, June 21st

    My two cents, the admissions office could have gave a better answer.

    My answer would have been that the number of admitted female candidates are reflective of number of female applicants. Female qualified vs admitted is about 2% less than males, but I suspect that number can be easily accounted by soldier applicants.

    Class of 2016 profile

    Men Women Total
    Applicant Files Started... 12,101....3,070.. 15,171
    Nominated....................... 3,553.......732.... 4,285
    Qualified (in academics and
    physical aptitude)........ 2,191.......438.... 2,629
    Admitted..................... 1,002.......191.... 1,193

    We had some previous discussions about legality of SA admissions goal/quota. My guess is that since SAs are different from normal colleges, so different set of rules.
     
  2. buff81

    buff81 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2,644
    Likes Received:
    263
    My understanding of the class composition goal model is that the goal % is a goal and not a ceiling. It is a goal, not a quota.
    If there is a female that would put WP over the 16% goal for women, I find it unlikely that they would not offer that female an appointment solely because she would put the class composition of women over 16%.
     
  3. sheriff3

    sheriff3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    318
    This may or may not be an Army or WP thing. Don't forget about the gate keepers, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (MOC). Here is my experience with the whole process. DD applied to WP for the 2016 Class. Med qualified, competitive in all areas. Interview could have gone better ( DD had wisdom teeth removed 24 hours earlier and could not reschedule and did not tell the interview folks so she may have come across as a drunk chipmunk). That being said DD did not get a nomination. Colorado is considered very competitive I believe. When the names of the nominees were released in the local paper I found it very interesting that no female’s names were listed. To be fair, it is possible that all kids nominated were not in the paper as the nominee could choose to not have their name listed as nominated. The scenario that all females would choose to not have their names listed seems unlikely so that leads me to believe that 1) there were no females nominated or 2) only a very small number of females were nominated and all chose to not have their names listed in the paper. I find it very difficult to believe we had no qualified female applicants that warranted a nomination to WP from southern Colorado. I inquired with the MOC's staff and received no response verbally. I then e-mailed the MOC/staff for the following information:
    Total number of nominations applied for from this MOC.
    Number of male applicants to this MOC of nomination.
    Number of female applicants to this MOC for nomination.
    Number of males nominated by this MOC.
    Number of females nominated by this MOC.
    I also asked for this same information for the previous 3 years.
    Hardly state secrets or nuclear launch code stuff right?? WRONG!!!!!
    I was told by MOC staff that this information is subject to privacy laws and not available. I assured the staff member I was not looking for names of applicants, or any personal information just the raw numbers above. Staff said no. I said fine I'll just submit a Freedom of Information request for the requested information. His response was "members of congress are exempt from the FOI act.
    MOC 1 / Constituents 0...... Game over.
     
  4. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,754
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Congressional staffers are idiots. That has nothing to do with the Privacy Act... there is nothing identifiable in there. I guess I'll just have to elbow the next staffer I see on a Metro train in DC for you. Getting elbowed is all they're good for.
     
  5. DHinNH

    DHinNH USMA 1989

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Why do so few young women attend this prestigious — and taxpayer-funded — academy when, as of 2011, women earn 56 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded nationwide?"

    It is hard for me to believe that an educated person would ask this question. What the # does the percentage of bachelor's degrees earned by women nationwide have to do with the percentage of female cadets at West Point?
     
  6. Aglahad

    Aglahad Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    5
    Exactly, there really is no correlation between the two and should not be compared.
     
  7. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
    Well maybe that "educated" person didn't go to a service academy...:yllol:

    And absolutely agree with you...
     
  8. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Probably for the same reason so few women join the military as enlisted.
     
  9. DHinNH

    DHinNH USMA 1989

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. pathnottaken

    pathnottaken Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. pathnottaken

    pathnottaken Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    It actually answer the logical question: If WP has only 14% female, how many female goes to other universities. If that answer was low like 15% than WP would be no different than other university, but since the number is high 56% then WP is different!
     

Share This Page