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.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'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.