THE BLACK BOX - USNA vs NROTC admissions process

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I do not suggest at all that anyone's child has been appointed because of a lower standard, nor do I believe that there aren't even perhaps a great majority of appointed women who would be appointed under any standard, and are every bit as qualified as any male appointee. However, it is no secret, and is not disputed that the accademies are openly making an affirmative effort to increase the numbers of women and minirities. There are actually percentage goals. I hope it is fair to assume that the academies have always admitted the best female and minority applicants. If these Things are true, then unless the admissions strategy is simply to pray that the number of highest quality female and minority applicants suddenly grows this year so that the percentage goals are magically reached while the accademies are sticking with a purely merit based objective system of appointment where all candidates are evaluated equally regardless of gender or race, we must accept that the admissions standard is being reduced for women and minorities so that a higher percentage get appointed. If this is true (and I am still surprised there are some who might believe it isn't), then the academies are admitting a less percentage of candidates who are neither female nor minorities (aka, white males). Admitting less of the non minority males makes that particular pool of candidates a more competitive group overall, and thus means you need to have an even more impressive application to be admitted if you fall into that classification.

I'm not trying to raise tempers, and I certainly don't want to be placed on anyone's most dispised poster list. My candidate is a male, so yes I have a bias; however, he was an early admit to USMA which has been his first choice, and we are delighted regardless what happens at USNA (he is still waiting on USNA). There is a reality here though which is what it is, and debate won't change the facts. As I have said before, perhaps the ends justify the means, and I won't argue either way on that. Having a diverse academy and military is good, so perhaps this is the best way of achieving that. And if my daughter, who would have been a competitive academy candidate, had decided to apply to an academy I would not discount her accomplishment even slightly should she have recieved an appointment.
 
I think admissions at USNA and other colleges look at certain factors to evaluate candidates. In terms of an analogy, lets think about a football team. The goal is to have the most effective winning team. If you have 20 superstar quarterbacks try out and yes they are super athletes, unfortunately only two or three will make it. The team needs some running backs, wide receivers, and even big strong slow guys in front to block.

It is not how many pull ups every candidate can do, it is the whole package based on the need still not filled. So yes, females and minorities play just as important of a role in making the team stronger. It does not mean the academy is dropping any standards. It frankly gets weaker with too many quarterbacks on the team. And yes, the academy is picking the best of the best in each of its required positions. It is making the academy stronger not weaker by being diverse.

So i disagree with the "we must accept that the admission standard is being reduced" part of your comment. Yes a football team can only have 3% quarterbacks, 5% running backs, etc... Does not mean they are dropping the standard of how far you can throw a football when it comes to the running backs.

Unfortunately, does not matter where you fall in the spectrum, you must be at the top of your group in a very well rounded way to get selected.

If usna had to select which parents to pick for the 2020 class, i think they would select everyone posting in this forum. Caring, proud, involved parents. Wish everyone all the best.
 
I think admissions at USNA and other colleges look at certain factors to evaluate candidates. In terms of an analogy, lets think about a football team. The goal is to have the most effective winning team. If you have 20 superstar quarterbacks try out and yes they are super athletes, unfortunately only two or three will make it. The team needs some running backs, wide receivers, and even big strong slow guys in front to block.

It is not how many pull ups every candidate can do, it is the whole package based on the need still not filled. So yes, females and minorities play just as important of a role in making the team stronger. It does not mean the academy is dropping any standards. It frankly gets weaker with too many quarterbacks on the team. And yes, the academy is picking the best of the best in each of its required positions. It is making the academy stronger not weaker by being diverse.

So i disagree with the "we must accept that the admission standard is being reduced" part of your comment. Yes a football team can only have 3% quarterbacks, 5% running backs, etc... Does not mean they are dropping the standard of how far you can throw a football when it comes to the running backs.

Unfortunately, does not matter where you fall in the spectrum, you must be at the top of your group in a very well rounded way to get selected.

If usna had to select which parents to pick for the 2020 class, i think they would select everyone posting in this forum. Caring, proud, involved parents. Wish everyone all the best.
The football analogy lacks foundation for the admissions question. The academies wish for all of their students to be well rounded, and are not recruiting specific talents to earmark ultimate officer roles at this stage, but are rather seeking individuals who are all intelligent, driven, committed, high character people, capable of fulfilling what ever needs exist throughout their military careers.

Whether or not you accept that there is a difference between males and females, or minorities and non minorities in the admissions equasion is up to you. You don't need to accept that the sun rises in the East either, and if you don't it is pointless for me to argue that it does. But there is a difference, and the academies have made it clear that they have made that an objective, so accept it or not.
 
The football analogy lacks foundation for the admissions question. The academies wish for all of their students to be well rounded, and are not recruiting specific talents to earmark ultimate officer roles at this stage, but are rather seeking individuals who are all intelligent, driven, committed, high character people, capable of fulfilling what ever needs exist throughout their military careers.
The analogy works in terms of diversity though. In terms of fulfilling what ever needs exist throughout their careers, "proper" proportions of diversity is also a need the military has.
 
I feel I can speak from experience as I have a 2/C son and a plebe daughter (both white) at the Naval Academy. In addition, I went there last year as a teacher to the Centers of Influence training. I take issue with the thought that girls are given preference and are not as qualified to be there. It is true that this year there were more girls admitted than any year previous. It also was the year that had the highest SAT/ACT average in it's history. When talking with Admissions, they stated that they have far more girls than ever before applying without recruiting them. Last Plebe summer had the fewest students leave the Academy and ALL that did were males. I am very proud of both my children for getting into such a prestigious school even though we do not have any family with military backgrounds and feel BOTH of them deserve kudos for their accomplishment. Go Navy and Go Navy Girls!

I remember hearing the same stats at PPW for c/o 2019: 1) most females ever, 2) highest SAT/ACT average ever, 3) fewest Plebes leaving during Plebe summer, 4) none of the Plebes who left were female.

My son has had nothing but good things to say about the female Plebes in his company. There are several that he has mentioned and said, "she's a 'bro.'" (He considers that a compliment.) My son is a white boy who has lived in South Dakota for the last five years. He seems to appreciate the diversity in his class. Some of his favorite company mates are black or female. He also enjoys getting to know people from all over the country.

IMO, the biggest challenge is being from a competitive area for the particular academy. My son received an NROTC scholarship, a Type 7 AFROTC scholarship, and an appointment to USNA. He had two nominations for USAFA, but didn't receive an appointment there. The competition in our state was just higher for USAFA due to its relative proximity to South Dakota and the presence of the Ellsworth Air Force base in our area ( more AF families). For some, it was USAFA or bust. My son's Plan A was USNA, and I'm glad he got it. But, I don't fool myself into thinking he would have made it in from one of the more competitive districts in our country.

I don't know how the Admissions Office works, but if I were making the decisions on who to appoint and had a choice of the following: a student who attended a private prep school and was in the top 10 percent of his class and had an ACT score of 32, or a lower income inner city kid in the top 10 percent of his class with an ACT score of 29, I would probably choose the inner city kid because I would think he had more potential. The prep school kid has probably had many advantages, such as excellent schooling, a testing tutor, a stable family, and peers who are equally determined to succeed. The inner-city student more than likely had many disadvantages and peers who tried to bring him down, yet he has shown evidence of overcoming. A 29 is not as high as a 32, but I would still think he scored high enough to prove he ahas what it takes to succeed. Who knows how high he would have scored if he had the funds to take the tests over and over or to hire a tutor. I see the value in having officers that approximately reflect the gender and racial make-up of the enlisted force. As long as there are minimums in place below which a student is considered unqualified, I think the class make-up will be o.k.

Admissions must be pretty good at what they are doing; the attrition rate is way lower than it used to be. That leads me to believe that the students they are admitting have what it takes to succeed and commission as an officer. I don't think there is a method to employ that would be 100 percent fair. It seems that they do their best to choose an excellent group of Midshipmen. I have been quite impressed with the Plebes I met at PPW, and the other Midshipmen I have come to know. I'm sure some great candidates do not get an appointment, but I haven't met one yet who I thought didn't deserve to be there. My son did tell me there was one Plebe is his company, a white guy, who the Upperclassmen didn't think belonged there for some reason (attitude, I think). Anyway, they have been particularly hard on this Plebe...but he's still around. My son is pretty impressed that he has been able to handle it all.

The mission of the Naval Academy starts out "to develop Midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically..." I'm sure they pick candidates they see as having potential in those areas. Morally is listed first, but is the most subjective measurement. Mental and physical attributes are more easily measured. I imagine the moral component has to be developed from reading between the lines in teacher recommendations, essays, and how the student has spent his time in high school. I don't know how much weight they give the moral component, but have to believe it is weighed somehow.

Well, that's just my thoughts, FWIW. I have no insider information and claim no superior knowledge of the process. I'm just thankful my son seems to have landed in a place that suits him. Even if had not gained an appointment to USNA, I believe he would have been able "to bloom where he was planted." He's had experience with that with some of our moves. He spent 5 years in a school in Arizona that was labeled as "failing." Probably, one-third of the kids at the school did not speak English at home, so the school faced many challenges. He may not have always had the best education, but he learned to appreciate our differences and how to get along with kids from a variety of backgrounds.

I hope that all of your sons and daughters receive an appointment in the near future, and I hope they appreciate the diversity at the Academy.
 
I remember hearing the same stats at PPW for c/o 2019: 1) most females ever, 2) highest SAT/ACT average ever, 3) fewest Plebes leaving during Plebe summer, 4) none of the Plebes who left were female.

My son has had nothing but good things to say about the female Plebes in his company. There are several that he has mentioned and said, "she's a 'bro.'" (He considers that a compliment.) My son is a white boy who has lived in South Dakota for the last five years. He seems to appreciate the diversity in his class. Some of his favorite company mates are black or female. He also enjoys getting to know people from all over the country.

IMO, the biggest challenge is being from a competitive area for the particular academy. My son received an NROTC scholarship, a Type 7 AFROTC scholarship, and an appointment to USNA. He had two nominations for USAFA, but didn't receive an appointment there. The competition in our state was just higher for USAFA due to its relative proximity to South Dakota and the presence of the Ellsworth Air Force base in our area ( more AF families). For some, it was USAFA or bust. My son's Plan A was USNA, and I'm glad he got it. But, I don't fool myself into thinking he would have made it in from one of the more competitive districts in our country.

I don't know how the Admissions Office works, but if I were making the decisions on who to appoint and had a choice of the following: a student who attended a private prep school and was in the top 10 percent of his class and had an ACT score of 32, or a lower income inner city kid in the top 10 percent of his class with an ACT score of 29, I would probably choose the inner city kid because I would think he had more potential. The prep school kid has probably had many advantages, such as excellent schooling, a testing tutor, a stable family, and peers who are equally determined to succeed. The inner-city student more than likely had many disadvantages and peers who tried to bring him down, yet he has shown evidence of overcoming. A 29 is not as high as a 32, but I would still think he scored high enough to prove he ahas what it takes to succeed. Who knows how high he would have scored if he had the funds to take the tests over and over or to hire a tutor. I see the value in having officers that approximately reflect the gender and racial make-up of the enlisted force. As long as there are minimums in place below which a student is considered unqualified, I think the class make-up will be o.k.

Admissions must be pretty good at what they are doing; the attrition rate is way lower than it used to be. That leads me to believe that the students they are admitting have what it takes to succeed and commission as an officer. I don't think there is a method to employ that would be 100 percent fair. It seems that they do their best to choose an excellent group of Midshipmen. I have been quite impressed with the Plebes I met at PPW, and the other Midshipmen I have come to know. I'm sure some great candidates do not get an appointment, but I haven't met one yet who I thought didn't deserve to be there. My son did tell me there was one Plebe is his company, a white guy, who the Upperclassmen didn't think belonged there for some reason (attitude, I think). Anyway, they have been particularly hard on this Plebe...but he's still around. My son is pretty impressed that he has been able to handle it all.

The mission of the Naval Academy starts out "to develop Midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically..." I'm sure they pick candidates they see as having potential in those areas. Morally is listed first, but is the most subjective measurement. Mental and physical attributes are more easily measured. I imagine the moral component has to be developed from reading between the lines in teacher recommendations, essays, and how the student has spent his time in high school. I don't know how much weight they give the moral component, but have to believe it is weighed somehow.

Well, that's just my thoughts, FWIW. I have no insider information and claim no superior knowledge of the process. I'm just thankful my son seems to have landed in a place that suits him. Even if had not gained an appointment to USNA, I believe he would have been able "to bloom where he was planted." He's had experience with that with some of our moves. He spent 5 years in a school in Arizona that was labeled as "failing." Probably, one-third of the kids at the school did not speak English at home, so the school faced many challenges. He may not have always had the best education, but he learned to appreciate our differences and how to get along with kids from a variety of backgrounds.

I hope that all of your sons and daughters receive an appointment in the near future, and I hope they appreciate the diversity at the Academy.
WELL SAID AND THOROUGHLY REASONED, SD MOM. I also think usna2020Dad's football team analogy is spot on. The Navy itself is not sailors all doing the same job. You've got HUNDREDS of different positions needed to do what needs to be done, just like a football team has different positions to make a Super Bowl team.
 
Last edited:
WELL SAID AND THOROUGHLY REASONED, SD MOM. I also think usna2020Dad's football team analogy is spot on. The Navy itself is not sailors all doing the same job. You've got HUNDREDS of different positions needed to do what needs to be done, just like a football team has different positions to make a Super Bowl team. Having a good old boy network of privileged white boys does not help the Navy and it doesn't sure as heck doesn't help the country.
I was hoping this thread would die off and I think there has been a lot of good dialogue surrounding the topic.

For the record, I am one of those 'privileged white boys' and my DD is an appointee who has an exemplary record of accomplishment that it would be tough to argue that she made it because she was the best 'female' candidate.

There is no need to resort to name calling and I take offense to your categorization.

It is a sensitive topic and there are good and bad reasons for each sides argument, but it is a constructive argument until you start name calling

As for legacy being a factor - who better understands the commitment and sacrifice required to make it through the SA and as a career (though my family was not a career military or officer family). I would bet that historically legacies have a higher overall retention rate than non legacies.

Frankly, we should appreciate and be thankful for those families that have made it a legacy to serve their country and pass down the traditions of Duty Honor Country.

And I think most grads know which of their kids 'belong' at an SA vs other commissioning sources. I have never met a grad whose kid was interested in an SA that wasn't honest with their kid about whether it was a good fit for them or not. They know a lot better than those parents who hear the propaganda about how wonderful the SAs are
 
Last edited:
I was hoping this thread would die off and I think there has been a lot of good dialogue surrounding the topic.

For the record, I am one of those 'privileged white boys' and my DD is an appointee who has an exemplary record of accomplishment that it would be tough to argue that she made it because she was the best 'female' candidate.

There is no need to resort to name calling and I take offense to your categorization.

It is a sensitive topic and there are good and bad reasons for each sides argument, but it is a constructive argument until you start name calling

As for legacy being a factor - who better understands the commitment and sacrifice required to make it through the SA and as a career (though my family was not a career military or officer family). I would bet that historically legacies have a higher overall retention rate than non legacies.

Frankly, we should appreciate and be thankful for those families that have made it a legacy to serve their country and pass down the traditions of Duty Honor Country.
My apologies for offending you and anyone else. No offense was intended. I was not trying to call anyone any names, just expressing my view that having a diversified class of Naval officers SHOULD be the goal.

Earning an appointment is tough for ANY candidate, all of whom have exemplary records of accomplishment to have made it this far. THAT was my point. I do NOT believe candidates earn their appointment because of race or gender. And, like you, I was hoping this thread would die off. I was offended that it was raised again this year, though of course it always is.

I would also say it's tough to argue that my DS appointee earned his spot because he was the best "fill in the blank" candidate. He earned his spot, like your DS earned hers, because the Admissions Board determined it was in the best interest of the USNA.
 
Last edited:
And the counter argument is - do we want the best Navy or the best diversified Navy and is seeking diversity helping or hurting that goal

I have no doubt that diversity is important and tends to make a better Navy/country
 
I don't know and I also don't know if the 'trade offs' made to accomplish diversity help or harm the Navy's true mission.

I think diversity is an overall positive but IF (note the IF) there is a lowering of standards to accomplish diversity what price is the Navy and our country paying.
 
I definitely agree on the legacy point. I'm a little disappointed myself as a candidate this year that I might not make it in because they don't take legacy in as a more significant factor. I know one student I go to school with that received an appointment that I have higher test scores, grades, more extracurriculars, and more leadership positions than. I know he's a fantastic candidate just as many who applied this year, but I don't see how I would be any different than him or how my background wouldn't help me. I would be a 4th generation naval academy midshipmen, 12th in my family to attend the school, and I would be following in the footsteps of my parents and my older sister. I really do not understand why they would not put more significance in legacy applicants because they have experience in the family and are likely to have to sources they need to succeed and have the ability to ask those who in their family who attended the academy any questions they have. I definitely believe this leads to higher retention rates but I don't know of any information that supports this belief.
Oh well, maybe I'm just overreacting because I'm stressed out and I still haven't heard back yet. I'm sure the admissions board knows what they're doing. All of us waiting will hear back soon enough one way or another. Good luck to everyone still CPR!

Edit: I was trying to quote Cerberi but I guess it didn't work. Not sure if there's any way I can quote the post now but sorry about that.
 
For every legacy Midshipmen who did well and thrived at USNA I can point to one that either left the school or were miserable Mids. So legacy has pros and cons too, just like any other source does. My Plebe Summer detailer was a legacy of many generations, father was stationed on the yard and older Mid Sib brother, quit during detail (leaves a great impression on new Plebes). Just off the top of my head I can think of at least 10 legacies that left or were tossed out. I am sure if I counted I could double that number. I think it's amazing to want to follow in the footsteps of your family, but don't count on legacy putting you over the top. I hope you get the chance to wear the white works and Dixie cup. Good luck.
 
For every legacy Midshipmen who did well and thrived at USNA I can point to one that either left the school or were miserable Mids. So legacy has pros and cons too, just like any other source does. My Plebe Summer detailer was a legacy of many generations, father was stationed on the yard and older Mid Sib brother, quit during detail (leaves a great impression on new Plebes). Just off the top of my head I can think of at least 10 legacies that left or were tossed out. I am sure if I counted I could double that number. I think it's amazing to want to follow in the footsteps of your family, but don't count on legacy putting you over the top. I hope you get the chance to wear the white works and Dixie cup. Good luck.
Thanks for the response. I never really knew that but I guess I understand why some SA's would be hesitant to pick up legacy applicants because of that. Too bad it's hard to differentiate between those who know they will be committed and those who aren't quite cut out for service. By chance do you know if summer seminar ratings by squad leaders affect admissions at all? My squad leader probably wasn't supposed to tell me, but he let me know that he gave me the highest ratings in all the categories that we were judged on. I know it probably doesn't mean much, but I was just wondering if it does do anything. Thanks
 
I think majority of legacies do great at USNA, but for whatever reason admissions has decided they don't put much weight on it. Do I think they do any better than other kids from non-military families? No, not really. Also I think USNA does it to prevent any belief that favoritism comes into play in the process.
 
My apologies for offending you and anyone else. No offense was intended. I was not trying to call anyone any names, just expressing my view that having a diversified class of Naval officers SHOULD be the goal.

Earning an appointment is tough for ANY candidate, all of whom have exemplary records of accomplishment to have made it this far. THAT was my point. I do NOT believe candidates earn their appointment because of race or gender. And, like you, I was hoping this thread would die off. I was offended that it was raised again this year, though of course it always is.

I would also say it's tough to argue that my DS appointee earned his spot because he was the best "fill in the blank" candidate. He earned his spot, like your DS earned hers, because the Admissions Board determined it was in the best interest of the USNA.
Not one person has even maintained that the services shouldn't be diverse, and I have suggested many times that it is better to have a diverse military. Americans are a diverse group, and should remain that way in all facets.

My only point is that there IS a difference between being a female vs a male, or minority vs non minority in the SA appointment threshold. To pretend otherwise is naive in light of what the academies themselves conceed.

This does not mean that some of the very best candidates, or officers are not women or minorities. They are, and they will continue to be. But if you have two candidates with the exact same application resume, and both are say in the 30 ACT range, with a 3.7 GPA, top 18% class rank, and otherwise equal in all other respect, but on is a minority female and the other is a white male, with both out of the same congressional district, how many are betting the white male gets in if only one spot is open? All arguments asside, that's what we are talking about.
 
Isn't the best Navy the best diversified Navy??
If I was starting a small moving company, and needed to hire four workers, I would not care what race, religion, or gender they were, but would simply want the hardest working, committed, conscientious and reliable people to hire, and sure wouldn't think that my company would be best served by hiring less desirable people who happened to have a certain color skin or gender.
 
If I was starting a small moving company, and needed to hire four workers, I would not care what race, religion, or gender they were, but would simply want the hardest working, committed, conscientious and reliable people to hire, and sure wouldn't think that my company would be best served by hiring less desirable people who happened to have a certain color skin or gender.

With all due respect, Judge, that analogy doesn't work. The United States Naval Officer population with its many hands on nuclear and diplomatic triggers, is not analogous to a four person privately owned moving enterprise.
 
With all due respect, Judge, that analogy doesn't work. The United States Naval Officer population with its many hands on nuclear and diplomatic triggers, is not analogous to a four person privately owned moving enterprise.
We can agree to disagree on this point then, as I firmly believe that with the importance of what our officers do (hands on nuclear and diplomatic triggers), it would be better if the best and most capable people, white, black, male, or female, were leading and making decisions. That is the message within my simple analogy. Having the best people for the job in my mind is more important that being the correct skin color or gender; whether that job is moving furniture, or an officer who holds the trigger to nuclear weapons. In fact, some might think it is more important in the latter situation. But again, I understand that you apparently disagree.
 
We can agree to disagree on this point then, as I firmly believe that with the importance of what our officers do (hands on nuclear and diplomatic triggers), it would be better if the best and most capable people, white, black, male, or female, were leading and making decisions. That is the message within my simple analogy. Having the best people for the job in my mind is more important that being the correct skin color or gender; whether that job is moving furniture, or an officer who holds the trigger to nuclear weapons. In fact, some might think it is more important in the latter situation. But again, I understand that you apparently disagree.

I firmly agree with you, that we need to fill the positions of the US Navy Officer ranks with those who have the greatest skills and talent and wisdom ( especially those units that hold the nuclear triggers). But our military which leads our troops and sailors should reflect the poplulace, or diversified body of our enlisted ranks and also our citizens. I don't believe in lowering the standards, but an effort should be made to fill the ranks with fully qualified officers who reflect the nation we are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top