THE BLACK BOX - USNA vs NROTC admissions process

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it belittling to women if we say that men are generally taller than women, larger, or stronger? What if we acknowledge that some women are in fact taller or stronger than some men? Would it be belittling to men if someone said that there are many things which women have physical or other advantages over men? Why is it that we have a group of thoughtful and intelligent people on these forums, who all have a similar interest, but we have to be grossly careful and sensitive about saying something which, although it may be accurate, may strike someone else as offensive; particularly if it is inconsistent with the current measure for political correctness?

The statement of yours that I took issue with was that FEMALE CANDIDATES ARE ADMITTED WITH LOWER SCORES THAN MALE CANDIDATES. In your own words - "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." You clearly state in many of your posts that women and minorities are usually admitted over more qualified white males.

Also, in response to your assertion that "The academies have acknowledged that there is a current drive to immediately increase percentages of women and minorities at the academies. But if someone says that will neccesarily decrease the number of non minority men, a FACT which is irrefutable and mathmatical, and a fact which neccesarily means that a non minority male needs to be better than he would have had to be before, we are sexist or offensive." - how does this relate to lower entrance standards? Could it be that increasing percentages of women and minorities actually raises standards across the board? So, the white male has to be better than before, because there is more competition?
 
Last edited:
Again with the straw man. I said that if you both increase the percentage of females, and increase the time off for pregnancy, you'll have more vacant billets in the ranks than in the past. Unless the new females coming in are going to be less apt to bear children than their predecessors. Will that be the case? 2 weeks vs 12 weeks (or 18 in the Navy).

What we should not do is assume that a woman wants to have children, so we should not increase their numbers in the academies. Also, making the assumption that there will be more vacancies could be incorrect. Perhaps making the military more family friendly will help with retaining the best and brightest in the service, and will enhance the mental and physical health of those in the military, which will also help retain members. That is the rationale that Ash Carter explains. I think it makes sense.
 
Sledge, Navy has reverted back to 12 per SECDEF policy.

BT

MomNewToThis, I have two DD's and one DS. I understand your points and thank you for sharing.

BT

JTGib, thank you for sharing your son's journey. Best of luck to him at West Point!

BT

Ho0ps, I propose we lock this thread. Someone please second.
 
Hello MomNewTo This,
I am sorry if comments here have made you feel that people are engaging in the male vs. female argument. I only visit this site now because I want to be able to comfort those receiving the TWE. I have been on both sides: TWE (2015) and BFE (2016) for my DS. I am asking you to have some compassion for the people coming to grips with the TWE. It's been almost a year to the day we received the TWE so my DS reapplied and got in to both West Point and Navy and I am telling you, the TWE still hurts today even with the BFE. Be as kind and understanding as you can towards their defensive reactions. It is truly a process for the DD/DS and the family when you are forced to watch one of these highly motivated kids open what is most likely the first rejection in their lives. I admit that after a few days of tears I was so angry that I started making excuses similar to all of these which helped with the "sting". I can't tell you how many times in these past few weeks I have read the forum and the TWE postings and I cry all over again for these young people. Trust me, no one on this forum thinks "men are better or more qualified" but they are just trying to wrap their brains around this process when you are on the receiving end of the TWE. One person wrote something like: "Who are they taking if they're not taking kids like mine?" How many of the TWE people have heard that one? All of us.

My son actually declined his Offer of Appt from Navy this year and chose West Point after realizing it had more of what he was looking for from the commissioning angle, but I am also going to admit that the gleam in his eye telling Navy "no" this time appeared to be very satisfying for him because when he hit the final decline button, he said: "They missed out on a future Admiral when they rejected me a year ago." I also believe he is now 100% satisfied with the way this all worked out for him because West Point is where he belongs and he NEVER would have known that without the Navy rejection so Navy made the right choice "passing" on my DS. But a year ago, we were all sitting around this household coming up with every reason possible on "how could they have passed on our great kid?" I was very gracious on this forum after the TWE, but off of the forum, I was p*ssed as heck and said some things I did not mean at all in order to help with the healing process. I'm sharing all of this to ask you, could the man vs. woman argument be over now? Your DD is in and has an appointment so congrats to her and feel fortunate for that, but let everyone mourn this loss however they see fit. This forum was designed to allow people to vent so let's let them vent. They are in no way saying "your daughter" or any other female offered an appointment did not deserve one---they are simply trying to understand how and why their DS/DD did not receive one.

And finally, to all of the TWE and waitlisted applicants, I am so sorry and please tell you DD/DS to REAPPLY if that's what they really want, and start right away. My son received the TWE the first week of April 2015 and received his offer to USMA in late Jan 2016 and to USNA in early Feb 2016 this time around. THIS PROCESS STILL MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL and I've now been on both sides. My DS's application was NO DIFFERENT this time except for the added prep school semester 1 grades. (All A's---just like in HS---not sure why they needed to see that---can you tell I'm still annoyed by the 2015 TWE??) This process is very tough and sucks but it somehow works. If your kid wants it bad enough, he/she will reapply with a new transcript and make sure it's a good one! GOOD LUCK!! And the bad news---the TWE will sting for a very long time and that's just the truth. Sorry, no sugarcoating with that one.

Hi JTGib, awesome news for your DS. I do have compassion for those receiving the TWE - just yesterday, two of the most outstanding students I have ever known were turned down by Ivy League schools after being waitlisted - and my thought was "If they don't want these two, what on earth are they looking for?".....As for my own DD, she has not always had everything come her way, and I think sometimes we as parents take the rejection as hard or harder than the kids. I have not made personal attacks on anyone. I also truly admire those kids who reapply. This forum is a good place to vent (obviously!) but I think it is important to remember that there are a LOT of candidates that read and post on this board, and many of them are young teenagers...they read what is said and they take it to heart. I think it is important to all the DDs and DSs to know that it is not okay to just say whatever comes to your mind. If someone would not say it to a female or minority candidate's face, they should not post it on this forum or anywhere else.
 
The statement of yours that I took issue with was that FEMALE CANDIDATES ARE ADMITTED WITH LOWER SCORES THAN MALE CANDIDATES. In your own words - "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." You clearly state in many of your posts that women and minorities are usually admitted over more qualified white males.

Also, in response to your assertion that "The academies have acknowledged that there is a current drive to immediately increase percentages of women and minorities at the academies. But if someone says that will neccesarily decrease the number of non minority men, a FACT which is irrefutable and mathmatical, and a fact which neccesarily means that a non minority male needs to be better than he would have had to be before, we are sexist or offensive." - how does this relate to lower entrance standards? Could it be that increasing percentages of women and minorities actually raises standards across the board? So, the white male has to be better than before, because there is more competition?
I did not say that women and minorities are USUALY admitted over white men. I did however at least insinuate that some women and minorities are likely being admitted over more objectively qualified white male counterparts. You are so hellbent on getting on a soapbox, and manifest the chip on shoulder, that you refuse to read or acknowledge that many times over the course of this dialog I have repeated that if women or minorities have a better candidate score and a better application package than the competition then she or he should be admitted over that person. I also acknowledge that I don't have the list of candidates and all of their application information, and thus can not compare the assessments being made, but based on what we are being told by the academies themselves, they are increasing the percentages of women and minorities. That means, necessarily that they are decreasing the percentages for white males; do you agree? They did not say that, "if women are better candidates" they are increasing the percentages.

How about this: will you agree with me that in the interest of both fairness, equity, and our country's military being the best it can be, that the academies should accept the most objectively qualified, deserving candidates, all measured by the same scale? Whether the candidate is male, female, minority or non minority? That the standard should be exactly the same for male and female candidates, and if they are not, would you agree that the process is flawed and should be changed? Because if what you are offende by is the suggestion that there is a different standard for women than men, can we conclude that you believe not only that there isn't (and that the academies are going to increase those percentages by other meathods), and that there shouldn't be an even slightly lower standard for women candidates? If so, then We are both on the same page, and should have no quibble with each other. So please answer.
 
I did not say that women and minorities are USUALY admitted over white men. I did however at least insinuate that some women and minorities are likely being admitted over more objectively qualified white male counterparts. You are so hellbent on getting on a soapbox, and manifest the chip on shoulder, that you refuse to read or acknowledge that many times over the course of this dialog I have repeated that if women or minorities have a better candidate score and a better application package than the competition then she or he should be admitted over that person. I also acknowledge that I don't have the list of candidates and all of their application information, and thus can not compare the assessments being made, but based on what we are being told by the academies themselves, they are increasing the percentages of women and minorities. That means, necessarily that they are decreasing the percentages for white males; do you agree? They did not say that, "if women are better candidates" they are increasing the percentages.

How about this: will you agree with me that in the interest of both fairness, equity, and our country's military being the best it can be, that the academies should accept the most objectively qualified, deserving candidates, all measured by the same scale? Whether the candidate is male, female, minority or non minority? That the standard should be exactly the same for male and female candidates, and if they are not, would you agree that the process is flawed and should be changed? Because if what you are offende by is the suggestion that there is a different standard for women than men, can we conclude that you believe not only that there isn't (and that the academies are going to increase those percentages by other meathods), and that there shouldn't be an even slightly lower standard for women candidates? If so, then We are both on the same page, and should have no quibble with each other. So please answer.

I wish you would not refer to me as "hellbent on getting on a soapbox" and "manifest the chip on shoulder". You do not know me and should not assume that about me. That is just not nice to say. I think you would have more success with discussing things if you left those sort of comments out.

Regarding "accepting the most objectively qualified, deserving candidates, all measured by the same scale", the problem is that there are many intangibles that cannot be objectively scored. Which objective standards would you use, and which would you leave out?
 
Hi JTGib, awesome news for your DS. I do have compassion for those receiving the TWE - just yesterday, two of the most outstanding students I have ever known were turned down by Ivy League schools after being waitlisted - and my thought was "If they don't want these two, what on earth are they looking for?".....As for my own DD, she has not always had everything come her way, and I think sometimes we as parents take the rejection as hard or harder than the kids. I have not made personal attacks on anyone. I also truly admire those kids who reapply. This forum is a good place to vent (obviously!) but I think it is important to remember that there are a LOT of candidates that read and post on this board, and many of them are young teenagers...they read what is said and they take it to heart. I think it is important to all the DDs and DSs to know that it is not okay to just say whatever comes to your mind. If someone would not say it to a female or minority candidate's face, they should not post it on this forum or anywhere else.

Yes, and likewise, someone with an offer in hand should be reminded that "it is not okay to say whatever comes to your mind" either. Having been there with the TWE, it's like telling someone who is mourning about anything to suck it up and hide how they are feeling. The kids going to the SA's better be able to "handle" hearing the truth or they won't make it 3 minutes into I-Day or R-day and the truth is, this is how some people feel and IMHO, they should be able to question their own kid's rejection from all angles. Some people need facts and numbers and stats to be able to process THIS crazy process!!!! You certainly have a right to question and comment on what they're questioning but trust me, the TWE side is extremely, extremely tough so all I was asking is that maybe you should peruse a "welcome aboard" thread and enjoy your daughter's exceptional accomplishment. And yes, you haven't personally attacked anyone, but your never-ending banter with Sledge and others should have ended a long time ago. Why get all riled up when you should be celebrating? That was all I was suggesting. You have the right to get angry---but so do the people who are still trying to make sense of the rejection. Good luck to your daughter and your family. I came here to celebrate with those with good news but also show some empathy for the candidates and parents so I plan on leaving this toxic thread now and I hope to see you celebrating on other threads! :) Enjoy your afternoon.
 
While I'm not sure where I stand on this, I just want to know why only MALES are required to register for selective service if all things are equal???
That is a good question. The answer is that in order to do this, Congress would have to change the law because it specifically addresses "male persons". There is more about this on the Selective Service Website on the page titled "Women and the Draft". I don't think Congress has made any moves on this. It will be interesting to see how this proceeds.
 
Yes, and likewise, someone with an offer in hand should be reminded that "it is not okay to say whatever comes to your mind" either. Having been there with the TWE, it's like telling someone who is mourning about anything to suck it up and hide how they are feeling. The kids going to the SA's better be able to "handle" hearing the truth or they won't make it 3 minutes into I-Day or R-day and the truth is, this is how some people feel and IMHO, they should be able to question their own kid's rejection from all angles. Some people need facts and numbers and stats to be able to process THIS crazy process!!!! You certainly have a right to question and comment on what they're questioning but trust me, the TWE side is extremely, extremely tough so all I was asking is that maybe you should peruse a "welcome aboard" thread and enjoy your daughter's exceptional accomplishment. And yes, you haven't personally attacked anyone, but your never-ending banter with Sledge and others should have ended a long time ago. Why get all riled up when you should be celebrating? That was all I was suggesting. You have the right to get angry---but so do the people who are still trying to make sense of the rejection. Good luck to your daughter and your family. I came here to celebrate with those with good news but also show some empathy for the candidates and parents so I plan on leaving this toxic thread now and I hope to see you celebrating on other threads! :) Enjoy your afternoon.
I have to agree with this. At this point emotions are high and raw. If your DD or DS has an appointment to USNA it is time to move away from this forum. All your questions can be answered on the parent pages. This thread is tired.
 
That is a good question. The answer is that in order to do this, Congress would have to change the law because it specifically addresses "male persons". There is more about this on the Selective Service Website on the page titled "Women and the Draft". I don't think Congress has made any moves on this. It will be interesting to see how this proceeds.

I find it interesting that it was set up in such a way that SECDEF can just drop the exclusion of females from the combat arms with the stroke of a pen and a feel good press conference, yet it takes congressional approval to change selective service. So, we can blame the inequity on Congress, I guess. In dreamworld, I'd like to think a new SECDEF could reverse things just as easily, but Pandora's box has been opened.

I really don't think there would be any furor if females were required to register for the draft. Given the very remote likelihood of the draft ever being implemented again.
 
I wish you would not refer to me as "hellbent on getting on a soapbox" and "manifest the chip on shoulder". You do not know me and should not assume that about me. That is just not nice to say. I think you would have more success with discussing things if you left those sort of comments out.

Regarding "accepting the most objectively qualified, deserving candidates, all measured by the same scale", the problem is that there are many intangibles that cannot be objectively scored. Which objective standards would you use, and which would you leave out?
I wish you wouldn't say many of the things that you are saying too, but I respect your right to say them, so I guess we will both need to just live with the the fact that people don't always say what we want them to say, or even how we would prefer for them to express themselves. And although I myself have a thick skin, since you have been so kind with sharing advise on manners, I will suggest that you might consider being less preachy. ;)

As to the balance of your post, it does not surprise me that you don't agree that all candidates should be evaluated by the exact same scale of measurement. You ask which standards should be utilized. I would suggest that whatever the standards or formulas the academies have been using should continue to be utilized. They simply should be applied absolutely equally to all candidates, regardless of gender or race, and let the chips fall where they may. One last time; do you agree?
 
That is a good question. The answer is that in order to do this, Congress would have to change the law because it specifically addresses "male persons". There is more about this on the Selective Service Website on the page titled "Women and the Draft". I don't think Congress has made any moves on this. It will be interesting to see how this proceeds.
Can we assume you would support women being eligible and compelled to register for the draft?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top