THE BLACK BOX - USNA vs NROTC admissions process

[2017 DS 2019 DD]

If the published objective stats (ACT/SAT, class rank, CFA scores) for women admittees were the same or better than for male admitees than your position is solid, and I would make no argument to the contrary. The reality is that women and minorities are being admitted on a lesser threshold, to the exclusion of more qualified white male counterparts. If someone wishes to argue that there is a benefit to having greater diversity of officers which outweighs the inherent disadvantages of admitting a significant percentage of candidates who are less qualified from an objective standpoint, I would listen intently to whatever wisdom is offered in that regard, and perhaps there is something to be said there. But let's not confuse the issue; it is easier for women and minorities to be admitted. This is affirmative action. And this is how we are building our military.

It is what it is.

Please read the Class of 2019 Profile at this link:

http://www.usna.edu/Admissions/_files/documents/ClassPortrait.pdf
867 of the 12,340 males that applied are members of 2019 which is 7%
324 of the 3761 females that applied are members of 2019 which is 8.6%
In speaking with Admissions last year in a teacher/counselor group that the girls were some of their best applicants.

 

[2017 DS 2019 DD]

If the published objective stats (ACT/SAT, class rank, CFA scores) for women admittees were the same or better than for male admitees than your position is solid, and I would make no argument to the contrary. The reality is that women and minorities are being admitted on a lesser threshold, to the exclusion of more qualified white male counterparts. If someone wishes to argue that there is a benefit to having greater diversity of officers which outweighs the inherent disadvantages of admitting a significant percentage of candidates who are less qualified from an objective standpoint, I would listen intently to whatever wisdom is offered in that regard, and perhaps there is something to be said there. But let's not confuse the issue; it is easier for women and minorities to be admitted. This is affirmative action. And this is how we are building our military.

It is what it is.

I would like to add that my daughter graduated 1st in her class of over 500 students at a highly respected high school (taking all AP core classes her Junior and Senior year with all A's), maxed out 4 of 6 parts of her CFA, is the State Power Lifting record holder, was first chair violin in her orchestra, Girl's State, 2 years National Honor Society, was the MOC principal nomination, also offered appointment to West Point (withdrew app to AFA as got one of the first 150 offers to West Point in the country and it was her second choice to Navy), and the list goes on and on. She is excelling at the Naval Academy and never complains that is difficult. My 2/C son with almost the exact same resume got a LOA in early October, she didn't get her offer until late January. It didn't appear there was favortism.

 

[MomNewToThis]

If anyone should really complain, it would be Asian-American candidates. They have to perform at higher standards than all ethnic groups include white males.

"There is no evidence that Asian applicants receive special preference at either of the military academies [USMA and USNA]. In fact, there is evidence that the Asian applicants with the same academic qualifications find it somewhat more difficult to obtain admission than do their white counterparts at both academies."

http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/663/ceousa-service-adademies.pdf

This study is based on the incoming freshman class in 1995 (so c/o 1999) so it is a little old, so take this with a grain of salt....

"Men outscore women on the math SAT at the U.S. Naval Academy by 15 points, and by 30 points at the U.S. Military Academy. But women outscore men by 15 points on the verbal SAT at the U.S. Naval Academy, and by 10 points at the U.S. Military Academy. Women have a better median class rank at both service academies than do their male counterparts. The male-female gap in median class rank at the U.S. Naval Academy is 8 places, while the male-female gap at the U.S. Military Academy is 6 places. At both academies, in sum, male admittees have better math SAT scores while female admittees have better verbal SAT scores and higher class rank. There is no evidence of sex discrimination against men or against women."

 

[brovol]

I would like to propose the question....What is a "reasonable" way to fix the SA admissions process, if it is broke or "unfair?"

Simply admitting the candidates with the best application packages, regardless of gender or race. Pure merit. I know, it seems very old fashioned.

 

[brovol]

I don't know if you can back those statements up with real numbers but my DD has maxed 4 of the 6 CFA events for men (bball throw was too short and mile was too slow), is a 2 sport recruited athlete with a 4.89 GPA with a single B in high school, ranked 3rd in her class, went to Girls State and has won a number of awards for math and leadership.

Though she doesn't check this board, the perception that she got in based on a lower standard than her white male counterparts will follow her throughout her career. Because some people will assume things that are untrue

At the same time her opportunities will increase because she is memorable - she is a very bright/attractive woman and she will stand out more than the 400 white guys who all look the same in uniform

No one is well served by lowering the standard.

But at the same time, diversity of thought and background is valuable to any team and I think the MOC nominating process is key to that.

The SA selection process isn't perfect. The intangibles matter and to what degree they get weighed vs the tangibles will always be open for debate and in an imperfect world the SAs will seek to strike that balance sometimes by giving too much weight and sometimes not enough

I don't suggest, even remotely, that women are not deserving of appointment. Indeed, to the contrary, I believe that women are equally deserving, and equally worthy. Likewise, I am certain that some of the very best candidates, midshipmen, and officers are women, and our military is better with women officers than without them. My problem is anyone, male, female, white, black, or otherwise, given special consideration due to that classification. It is not only unfair, but it compromises our goal of achieving the best military possible.

 

[brovol]

I would like to add that my daughter graduated 1st in her class of over 500 students at a highly respected high school (taking all AP core classes her Junior and Senior year with all A's), maxed out 4 of 6 parts of her CFA, is the State Power Lifting record holder, was first chair violin in her orchestra, Girl's State, 2 years National Honor Society, was the MOC principal nomination, also offered appointment to West Point (withdrew app to AFA as got one of the first 150 offers to West Point in the country and it was her second choice to Navy), and the list goes on and on. She is excelling at the Naval Academy and never complains that is difficult. My 2/C son with almost the exact same resume got a LOA in early October, she didn't get her offer until late January. It didn't appear there was favortism.

It sounds like your daughter would be a top candidate regardless of the issues being discussed here. She would be admitted under any standard.

What I question are situations where a candidate is admitted with an inferior résumé, as compared to others who have far better resumes, but get rejections due to the fact that they are the less desired race or gender.

 

[Cerberi]

The problem is - if the perception is the standard has been lowered to accommodate certain race/gender/ethnicity, people like my DD and others are assumed to have gotten appointed by achieving a lower standard regardless of reality.

In my day at USAFA, the issue was recruited athletes and the number admitted that had no chance of surviving academically. (Attrition on the whole was over 30%). I knew I never really had to study the first 2 years at USAFA because the majority of classes were graded based on the mean and until the football recruits were weeded out, I would always do fine.

 

[brovol]

The problem is - if the perception is the standard has been lowered to accommodate certain race/gender/ethnicity, people like my DD and others are assumed to have gotten appointed by achieving a lower standard regardless of reality.

In my day at USAFA, the issue was recruited athletes and the number admitted that had no chance of surviving academically. (Attrition on the whole was over 30%). I knew I never really had to study the first 2 years at USAFA because the majority of classes were graded based on the mean and until the football recruits were weeded out, I would always do fine.

I see what you are saying, and I agree. I must say too though that there should be no negative connotation. Getting in is the goal, and all those who achieve that goal or worthy. I only suggest that the process should be one which ensures that the best get in, so the beat officers get out, and our military is as good as it can be. Perhaps that is unrealistic given this age of political correctness.

 

[MomNewToThis]

It sounds like your daughter would be a top candidate regardless of the issues being discussed here. She would be admitted under any standard.

What I question are situations where a candidate is admitted with an inferior résumé, as compared to others who have far better resumes, but get rejections due to the fact that they are the less desired race or gender.

Please, what is the evidence males get rejected because they are the less desired race? How do we know that females candidates are admitted over male candidates when the males have far better résumés? I have not seen proof of this anywhere, and if it does exist, I would like to know where.

 

[MammaMia]

The "best candidates in, best commissioned officers out" argument depends on the assumption that midshipman develop at an equal rate at the academy, and so those who were at the top coming in would continue to be better than other potential candidates all the way through. I don't know that anyone has proven that that's consistently true. Some midshipmen with lower high school academics outperform the straight-A, 95th percentile test scoring all-state Eagle Scouts in the military academy environment. I don't believe the kids who get in with lesser scores are there only to score points for a varsity team. I trust that admissions has the experience to have developed a good sense of who has good officer potential despite lower GPA or SAT scores. Or they have learned that all students benefit from having a range of people in the class makeup. There simply isn't enough room for all the qualified candidates, and having an officer corps whose diversity roughly reflects the fleet seems like a reasonable goal. The admissions benchmarks keep going up year over year, so the quality of the incoming classes is not suffering due to the efforts to meet diversity goals. If someone can prove that the best high school students overwhelmingly make the best officers, then I might be convinced that blind admissions would be better than the process they are following now. But I haven't seen that evidence.

 

[brovol]

The "best candidates in, best commissioned officers out" argument depends on the assumption that midshipman develop at an equal rate at the academy, and so those who were at the top coming in would continue to be better than other potential candidates all the way through. I don't know that anyone has proven that that's consistently true. Some midshipmen with lower high school academics outperform the straight-A, 95th percentile test scoring all-state Eagle Scouts in the military academy environment. I don't believe the kids who get in with lesser scores are there only to score points for a varsity team. I trust that admissions has the experience to have developed a good sense of who has good officer potential despite lower GPA or SAT scores. Or they have learned that all students benefit from having a range of people in the class makeup. There simply isn't enough room for all the qualified candidates, and having an officer corps whose diversity roughly reflects the fleet seems like a reasonable goal. The admissions benchmarks keep going up year over year, so the quality of the incoming classes is not suffering due to the efforts to meet diversity goals. If someone can prove that the best high school students overwhelmingly make the best officers, then I might be convinced that blind admissions would be better than the process they are following now. But I haven't seen that evidence.

Well, the academies and most other selective schools seem to desire those who achieve high scores on ACT/SAT and highest class rank, as those items make up the largest portion of the whole candidate score, whether the candidate falls into a special classification or not. Apparently colleges, including the academies, find some correlation between higher scores and achievement.

It is a red herring argument to cite examples of those with less impressive application numbers excelling at the academies. Of course that can be true, and may be relatively frequent, just as it is true that sometimes those with the best admissions applications do poorly. These instances however are only relevant if your argument is that the academies should have open admissions in general, and let attrition do the job of selecting the best officers. In reality though, the academies have set up a selection process with criteria for choosing the best applicants. Should that formula (whatever it is) be applied uniformly to all candidates, or should the admissions threshold be lower for some clarifications and higher for others?

For those who insist that women and minorities are admitted with the exact same objective (ACT/SAT, class rank, CFA) numbers as white males, and demand to see evidence that the numbers are different, I don't have statistics. Frankly I doubt they would be advertised by the academies, as they would illustrate an inequity which some may believe to be a poor reflection on an institution based on honor. Personally, I don't feel that way, as I understand there is a balancing act which needs to be played in the era we live today, and politics are part of the process. And, to be honest, I do believe that diversity is important, and some efforts need to me made if the old ways were not producing enough female and/or minority officers. Having said that, for those who need to see evidence that the standards are different for women and minorities, in the absence of such proof, will you acknowledge that "if" the numbers or criteria for selecting women or minorities is different that would be not only unfair, but a compromise to the goal of making our military the best it can be?

 

[AJC]

They way I read all this is that no qualified applicants are rejected.
They are just not selected.
The SAs have an assigned mission.
Change the mission and the process they use to execute that mission will be adapted to the new mission.

 

[raceplace]

One thing I would like to add, yes I agree that all candidates should be treated equally, regardless of race/skin color. However, test scores and high school GPA are no indication of how that person will do as an officer in the military. Remember there are always a good amount of prior enlisted sailors/marines that also gain an appointment to USNA each year. These men and women have gone on to do great things, and you might be surprised what their high school GPA and SAT was. Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be perfect to do well at a service academy. Leadership and integrity is not defined by test scores. Obviously there must be a way to sift through candidates, but just because someone has better test scores/GPA/extracurriculars does not mean they are more capable of leading our nation's military. There are always kids kicked out of USNA and other service academies for cheating or etc.. even our nation's "finest" have their flaws. I would like to think the service academies take a person's entire package into deep consideration before easily dismissing them based on test scores. Especially considering a candidate must meet the minimum GPA/SAT to even apply. I think this is what you all were saying as well, just wanted to clarify. Go Navy!

 

[usnagrad1988]

One thing I would like to add, yes I agree that all candidates should be treated equally, regardless of race/skin color. However, test scores and high school GPA are no indication of how that person will do as an officer in the military.

AMEN to that. To be intellectually honest here, I had no idea the SA existed and got into NAPS due to football. For crying out loud, I had 4 C's and 2 A's my Sophomore year (and the 2 A's were in PE and Architectural Drawing!). I did pick it up my Junior and Senior years to graduate with a 3.6 unweighted, but with that and my SAT's, NAPS was my offer. My brother followed me 2 years later and is a Captain in the Navy with 27 years in. A classmate of mine from the Fleet, who I met at NAPS, is a 1-Star USMC General now. Academics doesn't determine leadership or a career in the service. In fact, it would be interesting to see if those with better academic scores got out of the service to pursue civilian careers with more lucrative salaries. I know many of my classmates who majored in Economics did.

 

[usnabgo08]

Unlike in my era, Admissions can choose whoever they like out of the 10 versus possible the most qualified by an objective score. With all the criteria involved in choosing candidates, obviously the weighting on fixed scoring (PRT, SAT/ACT, Grades, etc) versus other items such as extracurricular, leadership, sports, volunteer work, Boy Scouts, JROTC and so on becomes critical, but it would be nice to have candidate packages go to the board, minus race, gender, and ethnicity, so that the Academies chose the most qualified versus discrimination.

First, the decision of the Admissions Board to qualify someone is NOT strictly based on the whole person multiple. The WPM is entering argument...case and point...I had a candidate that had mediocre academics (nowhere near some of the candidates on this board) and was found board qualified (Caucasian male) because of, what I believe to be, other areas in his application (not going into specifics). So WPM isn't the end all, be all, as Admissions has told BGOs. Furthermore, the number of fully qualified candidates has been over 3,000 the last few years (so the earlier post stating 2,400 isn't accurate in today's process...but was about right close to a decade ago)...the Admissions Board isn't the ones deciding appointments...they decide if someone is "scholastically qualified," which also means that a candidate has the potential to make it through the USNA program and, ultimately, commission as an officer. For a majority of the Admissions cycle, the Admissions Board has NO IDEA who may or may not get appointments, so yes, they could qualify more candidates (of all different races/ethnicities/genders) to expand the pool, but in the Admissions Board opinion, they found them qualified (for a reason, I presume beyond just their ethnic background or gender)....remember, of the approximate 6,000 cases reviewed by the board, only a little more than a half will be fully qualified (yes, some of those are medically/CFA DQ'd). There are candidates of all backgrounds who aren't found board qualified. The record viewed by the AB does have the ethnic background listed (basically one line, that is almost obscured...in other data) and I doubt that is the first thing that is looked at. Given the amount of time the AB has to spend on a record, if they do look at the ethnic background, they are probably looking at all the OTHER, pertinent data as well or they are clearly negligent in their job (highly disbelief the latter). But I digress...they still do not know who is getting appointments. Remember, many appointments don't occur until late December/January+, when quite a few AB decisions have already been made.

Once all of the candidates in a slate all have been reviewed and later in the Admissions process, the Admissions Office starts matching appointments. Yes, this is where some of the decisions to "fit" the class do occur. So now how does USNA know who is the best "fit?" All the candidates being considered for an appointment MUST be fully qualified (or LOA, if medically DQ'd pending waiver). So Admissions is choosing qualified candidates...based on the recommendation of the Admissions Board, who for the majority part of the Admissions process, have no clue on who is going to receive an appointment. The AB, essentially, provides a list of qualified candidates to the Admissions Office, who then matches them to slates, nomination sources, national pool, etc. So the claim that race/gender factors in...I'm sure that is true (I mean it has basically been mandated from the chain-of-command that ethnic % of officers = ethnic % of enlisted). However, the claim that somehow, the candidates with various ethnic/gender backgrounds, are less qualified...I don't necessarily believe. Which leads me into the rhetorical question of...how does one know who is best qualified (and with future potential to commission...obviously, this is probably a harder task), given all the different combinations of objective stats (college entrance exams) and subjective (i.e. rigor of H.S. course load, leadership activities, teacher/BGO reports, personal/family hardships/situations, character situations)? Thus, that is the point of the Admissions Board and there always will need to be a human factor to "balance" the subjective and objective data. "Best/most" qualified isn't an easy task. Also, when slates are submitted, specifically, if competitive...there isn't a stipulation that the most qualified candidate, per the WPM, be selected.

Is the process perfectly fair? I would argue it probably isn't...but I don't think you would ever get it to be perfectly fair. Next will be the arguments about recruited athletes, the purpose of NAPS and who should be there, etc. How do you satisfy everyone?

 

[usnagrad1988]

Simply admitting the candidates with the best application packages, regardless of gender or race. Pure merit. I know, it seems very old fashioned.

Those days are gone. My brother served at NAVPERS in his last tour and was Senior enough to be in the know on all the Navy statistics, as his job was placing personnel all over the world. He indicated that from a fiscal standpoint, females get out of the service at twice the rate as males, and thus are much more costly to train and then have get out. Obviously you would expect this from a biologically standpoint with families. I had an almost 50/50 division of males to females in food service and it was painful every deployment to have many women decide plan a family and get pregnant at that point so they didn't have to deploy. We wouldn't get replacements in time and leave undermanned. It put a strain on the rest of the division. As far as SAs go, when I was at USNA there was a max of 10% females and now it is approximately 25% female. In addition, the SAs are trying to increase minorities to reflect what is in the fleet. Couple this with the number of admits dropping form when I was a Plebe (1,400) to less than 1,200 now and the percentages go waaaaay down for white males. Sorry guys, that's the reality of the New Navy.

 

[FALgarand]

Wondering how soon before we fondly recall the quaint old days of DOD/SA handwringing over just two genders.

 

[brovol]

One thing I would like to add, yes I agree that all candidates should be treated equally, regardless of race/skin color. However, test scores and high school GPA are no indication of how that person will do as an officer in the military. Remember there are always a good amount of prior enlisted sailors/marines that also gain an appointment to USNA each year. These men and women have gone on to do great things, and you might be surprised what their high school GPA and SAT was. Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be perfect to do well at a service academy. Leadership and integrity is not defined by test scores. Obviously there must be a way to sift through candidates, but just because someone has better test scores/GPA/extracurriculars does not mean they are more capable of leading our nation's military. There are always kids kicked out of USNA and other service academies for cheating or etc.. even our nation's "finest" have their flaws. I would like to think the service academies take a person's entire package into deep consideration before easily dismissing them based on test scores. Especially considering a candidate must meet the minimum GPA/SAT to even apply. I think this is what you all were saying as well, just wanted to clarify. Go Navy!

The academies themselves have specifically determined that ACT/SAT scores DO matter, and that they are a very good tool in determining whether a candidate has the capacity to do well academically at the academies. It is perhaps the single most weighted factor in the process according to both USNA and USMA admissions officers who I spoke with. And if you are a white, non athlete male, it better be high, unless the other factors are so dazzling that an average ACT/SAT might get you in.

Now, having said that, of course there are congressional districts which are so uncompetitive that some white males will get in on minimum scores; and some women and minorities will too in those districts. But in moderately competitive districts, or off the NWL, you better have more than average application scores.

 

[MomNewToThis]

For those who insist that women and minorities are admitted with the exact same objective (ACT/SAT, class rank, CFA) numbers as white males, and demand to see evidence that the numbers are different, I don't have statistics. Frankly I doubt they would be advertised by the academies, as they would illustrate an inequity which some may believe to be a poor reflection on an institution based on honor. Personally, I don't feel that way, as I understand there is a balancing act which needs to be played in the era we live today, and politics are part of the process. And, to be honest, I do believe that diversity is important, and some efforts need to me made if the old ways were not producing enough female and/or minority officers. Having said that, for those who need to see evidence that the standards are different for women and minorities, in the absence of such proof, will you acknowledge that "if" the numbers or criteria for selecting women or minorities is different that would be not only unfair, but a compromise to the goal of making our military the best it can be?

With all due respect, I am not INSISTING that females are admitted with similar stats as males, nor am I DEMANDING to see the evidence...however, the only information I found seemed to indicate that the stats slightly favored males over females. I did not make anything of it, but you have implied in several posts that women receive preference in admissions over men.

Also, I do agree with Cerberi that "The problem is - if the perception is the standard has been lowered to accommodate certain race/gender/ethnicity, people like my DD and others are assumed to have gotten appointed by achieving a lower standard regardless of reality". IMHO, you perpetuate this situation by repeatedly insinuating that women are admitted with lesser stats. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Sledge]

He indicated that from a fiscal standpoint, females get out of the service at twice the rate as males, and thus are much more costly to train and then have get out. Obviously you would expect this from a biologically standpoint with families. I had an almost 50/50 division of males to females in food service and it was painful every deployment to have many women decide plan a family and get pregnant at that point so they didn't have to deploy. We wouldn't get replacements in time and leave undermanned. It put a strain on the rest of the division. As far as SAs go, when I was at USNA there was a max of 10% females and now it is approximately 25% female.

Yes, but our egalitarian SECDEF has recently rolled out a host of changes as concessions to the biological differences in females: longer maternity leave, "sabbatical" leaves of absence for child rearing years, etc. Add that lower, uh, I mean gender neutral physical standards, and it's a much more female-friendly environment in the military these days.

And 25% is the magic threshold wherein a minority gender in a group ceases to be tokenized. That is, if you would believe some obscure and tendentious DOL study that's often referenced as the gospel by Ray Mabus and the harridans at SWAN. 25% across the board - on ships, at the academies, in the Marines. 25%!