The Military Prep School Scam

Christcorp, your answer created another question about athletes- Do the athletic programs have high attrition rates, that is athletes that drop athletics, but stay at the academies?

I thought I answered that. Football, being the largest team (Population wise), averages 15-20 "SENIORS" C1C players. That number, 3 years earlier, started off with approximately 50-60 players. And YES; the majority of those 35-40 who are no longer on the team, were still at the academy and do graduate. I would assume the same for the other teams. Obviously, the numbers change every year. One class could have had a lot more individuals who are still on the team come senior year. Some others; less.

But unlike a traditional university, attendance to the military academies are not tied to a scholarship. I.e. If you are kicked off the team, you lose your scholarship, hence you are kicked out of school. Most athletes attending the military academies are NOT the 5-Star athletes that are being recruiting by LSU, Florida, Texas, Ohio State, etc... On the other hand, most athletes attending the military academies are NOT the 2.0 gpa - 16 ACT student either. So whether they stay on the team or not, MOST do fine remaining at the academy and graduating and being commissioned.
 
Still haven't seen a good reason why D1 (and all of the problems it brings) should be preferred over D3 for a military academy, whose main goal is to produce military officers.

Except money.

I thought it had been answered. But better yet, your suggestion is quite unrealistic. Air Force, Navy, and Army are D1- FBS. If you had suggested downgrading to D1 - FCS, I could buy that. If you suggested downgrading to D2; I'd wince, disagree, but respect your opinion. But to suggest downgrading to D3??? Well, I guess the 3 academies, at least air force and navy, would probably be the 2 HIGHEST RANKED teams in the country "EVERY YEAR". I guess you could FORCE the teams to be worse, and catch up (Down) to the rest of the D3 teams, but that's not logical. Hell, I can't even remember the last time Air force lost to a D1-FCS school??? Let alone a D2 or D3 school

As for money, there's only a fraction of the money to be had in D2-D3 as there is in D1-FBS. Then again, when the coast guard and merchant marine academy has LESS than 25% of the student body, you don't need as much money. When that schools; along with navy, and army are all on the east coast and has access to about 100 schools in a 100 miles, it's much more cost effective. Air Force doesn't have that luxury. And because the academies don't prioritize their athletics like a traditional university, and instead supports all 27 sports, the money is a requirement. But again; for the coast guard and merchant marine, who only have an enrollment of around 1000 students, that's not a problem.
 
As you said the cadets are mostly high school varsity athletes. So it is not likely that the prep school is needed to ensure enough athletic cadets get in. If this is the case, why should the taxpayers pay for a year of prep rather than admitting one of the already fully qualified candidates that got the TWE?

Very true. You got me there. But the way I see it is, opportunity. I have been given the opportunity to go to prep school. I am not a recruited athlete although I did play varsity soccer in high school, and by the grace of God, I have been given a chance to prove myself in a college setting. Better to see that a person is incapable of passing their classes at prep, then to have them go through boot camp and figure that out their first year because the person cannot handle it. Prep school is cheaper. At least that is what I see it as.
 
Let me ask you then. After the recruited athletes and the principal nominees have been given their appointments, next comes the national pool where your DS were in competetion for a spot with qualified applicants from the whole country. Do you think your statement that "there were appointees with weaker resumes compared to your DS" still hold true?
If he were truly qualified as you have stated, then how many reapplicants from prep got an appointment ahead of him? Couldn't he have gone straight to the SA ahead of someone who didn't make the cut the year before?

You asked:
1-Is there a desire to discredit prepsters, or what? If the program did not work, why does it exist?

2-Are there stats regarding non-athletic prepsters?

3-Do you feel he is unworthy of the appointment?"

My answer is:
1-No, I have much respect for people that persevere and not easily give up on their goals.

2-Stats would be helpful

3-Your DS deserves and have earned his appointment.

I'm merely trying to be informed and am trying to gain knowledge from people that know more.
You are changing the premise of the discussion to something that flyboy did not state. However, even with your shift, flyboys statement is still plausible. You might want to review the attached link to 32 C.F.R. PART 901—APPOINTMENT TO THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
and read 901.19 carefully.

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title32/32-6.1.1.11.18.html
 
If the SAs are turning away qualified applicants each year, why are appointments reserved for prep grads that didn't make the cut the previous year? Besides athletes recruited for their athletic potential, how about the non-athletes? If they were deemed unworthy of an appointment, because their stats aren't good enough, why not just give it to someone who is already qualified without any prepping?

As you said yourself, every year QUALIFIED applicants are turned away. What really needs to be clarified is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the foundation scholarship students were those very kids who were qualified candidates yet there wasn't room for them at the Academy for the incoming class immediately following their high school graduation. There's a reason that the Academies send out "qualified no vacancy" letters. Many of these, as you put it, "unworthy" candidates are in fact very much qualified.
 
There are a number of prep school attendees who have just received appointments but weren't recruited athletes and many still awaiting theirs. I'm surprised they haven't chimed in to debunk this stereotype. Besides being taught military drill, and a refresher on academics, I'm curious about what's their opinion on why they should they be given an appointment over a fully qualified 1st time applicant that gets a TWE that says; "you're qualified but we don't have a slot for you".

I might not have gone to THE prep school (USAFAPS) but I was a Falcon Foundation scholarship recipient. I DID get that QNS letter last year. As did the vast majority of 30+ other scholarship recipients who attended NWP with me last semester. Some of them even received LOAs last year. I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that people who don't enter the Academy straight out of high school are less worthy of being there. Personally, I think it might say even more about that candidate as they showed tremendous persistence and the ability to overcome adversity.
 
Why not just grant them admission for next cycle?
What's to "prepare" if you're good to go?

When an appointee is unable to get through BCT for medical reasons or is injured, they may return the next year.
Why can't a "QNS" recipient be granted the same without being prepped?
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that most people would argue that it's simple; that the academy should simply take the 1100-1300 (Whatever they admit that year) highest qualified applicants. The 2 main problems with that are: 1) Probable lack of diversity, and 2) It's unfair..... Huhhhhhh; how can that be unfair?

It's not little Johnny's fault where he is raised, the school he goes to, the parents and family he was born to, etc... If little Johnny bust's his butt and gets a 3.95 gpa in a school that is crime ridden, crappy teachers, and no advanced classes, parent (singular) who dropped out of high school, and 27 composite ACT; how does he compete with little Brian who happens to come from a more affluent family, where parents were very involved with his education, where he had access to being in the IB program or able to take ALL the AP classes he wanted; also received a 3.95 gpa (But with more high level classes) and was tutored to take the ACT/SAT tests???

This is what the prep-schools are SUPPOSE to be about. They're SUPPOSE give the benefit of the doubt in answering the question: "WHAT IF". What if little Johnny has the same opportunities? Could he have excelled even more and been even BETTER than little Brian??? Well, lets give him a "CHANCE" and see???

Now; unfortunately, the diversity that the academies preach is NOT ALWAYS the diversity that it should be. While race and gender are definitely part of diversity, it's SUPPOSE to also include economics, parental status, urban vs suburban vs farm vs ranch, high vs low population, first generation American, first generation College bound, overcoming of adversity, and MANY other areas. WHY???? Simple..... That is the makeup and demographic of the enlisted force that these future officers are going to be leading. So, the Prep-schools were designed to give these diverse kids, enlisted, and those who didn't have the same opportunities, the chance to PROVE...... "WHAT IF". Mind you, these are SUPPOSE to be individuals that the ALO and MOC's see a high level of potential. Not the 2.3 gpa student. The student, for whatever their background or situation and for whatever they were DISH OUT growing up, who did the BEST the could with it. For the individual who did all they could be expected to do with what they had. But because of influences outside of their control, especially academically and with lack of support, aren't able to compete with many others. Yes, they did the very best they could, with what they had; and thus, show a lot of potential.

But alas, this isn't the way the prep schools wind up being. Many of the preppers are in fact the type of student with the potential, that SHOULD be given the chance. But there are also many there that the academy has chosen based on race, gender, and yes..... athletic abilities. But mind you, these "Athletes" are not the 5-Star type of athletes we think of with recruited athletes. Chances are, if they weren't applying to the academies, they wouldn't be playing sports any place in college. The academies don't get the recruits who are actively being recruited by USC, Florida, Ohio State, Texas, etc... If they are recruited by them, they won't come to the academy. Well; 99.9% won't. But still, the academies do what they can, to offer individuals who weren't given the same opportunities, but demonstrate the potential to have outdone some of those who did have opportunities and received an appointment.

But like everything else in life, nothing is perfect. Neither is the prep-schools or the appointment process. But if you get rid of the prep schools, then that's unfair to many applicants. Just like title 10 give the representatives and senators the right to CHOOSE their #1 nominee (Principle). I ALWAYS encourage the MOC's to use this method. At least 50% of the class will be the students that the MOC wants at the academy representing their district/state. That alone is GREAT Diversity. But most MOC's "Think" they are too busy to make such a decision. Therefor, they allow the academies to choose their appointee for them.

Do I think changes need to be made at the prep schools? Yes.... But, I believe the prep schools are very important and an integral part of a quality academy class of cadets and future commissioned officers.
 
Why not just grant them admission for next cycle?
What's to "prepare" if you're good to go?

When an appointee is unable to get through BCT for medical reasons or is injured, they may return the next year.
Why can't a "QNS" recipient be granted the same without being prepped?

Last year at West Point, there were 2,629 qualified cadets, meaning they were all academically, physically, and medically qualified, and they all had a nomination. Only 1,193 were appointed. It is just not feasible to grant the rest of the group admission to the next class.
 
Christcorp, while I agree with the gist of what you said, there are two points which are sticking with me...

But alas, this isn't the way the prep schools wind up being. Many of the preppers are in fact the type of student with the potential, that SHOULD be given the chance. But there are also many there that the academy has chosen based on race, gender, and yes..... athletic abilities. But mind you, these "Athletes" are not the 5-Star type of athletes we think of with recruited athletes. Chances are, if they weren't applying to the academies, they wouldn't be playing sports any place in college. The academies don't get the recruits who are actively being recruited by USC, Florida, Ohio State, Texas, etc... If they are recruited by them, they won't come to the academy. Well; 99.9% won't...

I seriously doubt this. They would just be recruited to play at "lesser" D1 and D2 schools.

The way I read this it seems you are saying that the academies are the only opportunities for these athletes. Are you implying that therefor the SAs have an obligation to admit them? From your past posts on other discussions I wouldn't think so, but this is a little ambiguous to me.

But like everything else in life, nothing is perfect. Neither is the prep-schools or the appointment process. But if you get rid of the prep schools, then that's unfair to many applicants. Just like title 10 give the representatives and senators the right to CHOOSE their #1 nominee (Principle). I ALWAYS encourage the MOC's to use this method. At least 50% of the class will be the students that the MOC wants at the academy representing their district/state. That alone is GREAT Diversity. But most MOC's "Think" they are too busy to make such a decision. Therefor, they allow the academies to choose their appointee for them.

Yikes! I would expect pressure to be political correct would result in a class that wasn't very diverse at all! Regardless, I always thought that MOCs presented a slate as opposed to a principle nominee was because...

1. They wanted to avoid accusations of favoritism.
2. They wanted to make happy as many constituents as possible.

One of our senators (Levin) came right out and told DD (and several other candidates) that he wasn't giving her a nom because he knows she has one from another source. His staffer told DH that all MOCs in the state coordinate with one another to give as many kids as possible at least one nom to one academy.

Nicole
 
Why not just grant them admission for next cycle?
What's to "prepare" if you're good to go?

When an appointee is unable to get through BCT for medical reasons or is injured, they may return the next year.
Why can't a "QNS" recipient be granted the same without being prepped?

Essentially thats what the foundation programs do. They say hey if you don't slack off this year then you can have an appointment next year. Going to one of the 8 prep schools is probably mainly to maintain enthusiasm and a challenging academic curriculum.

The thing about this is there are only under 100 foundation scholarships offered each year. This past year there were only 60. This means that those 60 people who had gotten the QNS letters will (unless they do something incredible stupid) receive an appointment for the next year. FAR more than 60 people receive a QNS letter each year. There just wouldn't be room in the next incoming class if all the QNS people from the year before were given appointments. If those people were to re-apply, however, are more than welcome to. It's not a one shot thing. You are allowed to apply until the age of 23.

And I'm only referring to the falcon foundation program. I don't know all that much about USAFAPS
 
Last year at West Point, there were 2,629 qualified cadets, meaning they were all academically, physically, and medically qualified, and they all had a nomination. Only 1,193 were appointed. It is just not feasible to grant the rest of the group admission to the next class.

+1 oops I essentially just restated this... unfortunately more bright and accomplished people want to go to SAs than there is room for!
 
Is my approximation of available slots close?
pls free to debunk or correct.

535=Congressional and Senatorial principal nominees
unlimited=Presidential,Legacy
?=Vice presidential
80-100=Prep School Graduates(prior enlisted,active)*
?=Recruited athletes(red shirt)
250=Reapplicants(prep)
_________________________________________________________________
total= available slots left for qualified candidates to vie for in the national pool

*the intended target of prep
 
Is my approximation of available slots close?
pls free to debunk or correct.

535=Congressional and Senatorial principal nominees
unlimited=Presidential,Legacy
?=Vice presidential
80-100=Prep School Graduates(prior enlisted,active)*
?=Recruited athletes(red shirt)
250=Reapplicants(prep)
_________________________________________________________________
total= available slots left for qualified candidates to vie for in the national pool

*the intended target of prep

see page 8 of this document:

Nomination Sources per class by vacancy:

Senate 100 seats
Presidential 100 seats
House of Representatives 435 seats
Regular Army 85 seats
Vice President 1 seat
Reserve Component 85 seats
Virgin Islands 1 seat
Medal of Honor unlimited
Guam 1 seat
JROTC/SROTC 20 seats
Puerto Rico 1 seat
Sons / Daughters of 100% Disabled Vets ~10 seats
American Samoa 1 seat
District of Columbia 1 seat
Superintendent 50 seats
 
Senators and Rep's as well as the VP may have 5 cadets at the academy at a time. So 1 out of 4 years they will have an extra slot. Figure 1.25 a year for those and you will be close.
 
Nigel; yes, most recruited athletes at the academies, if not receiving an appointment, could possibly still be recruited by traditional universities. My point was; they aren't going to be top ranked teams. Because, if they were top ranked athletes, they'd already be getting recruited, and they wouldn't be coming to air force. So yes, they might play for other universities, but like you said, probably lower D1; FCS vs FBS, or even DII schools.

As for your diversity question, I'm not sure I even understand it. The government pushes diversity more than any other organization I know of. And they do it in the name of political correctness.

As for your statements:

1. They wanted to avoid accusations of favoritism.
2. They wanted to make happy as many constituents as possible.

One of our senators (Levin) came right out and told DD (and several other candidates) that he wasn't giving her a nom because he knows she has one from another source. His staffer told DH that all MOCs in the state coordinate with one another to give as many kids as possible at least one nom to one academy.


1) Totally false. This statement, if said by a MOC, is simply their way of "Passing the Buck" so they don't have to take responsibility.
2) Allowing the academy to choose instead of them choosing, does nothing to make as many constituents happy as possible.

The truth is: Most MOC's present a slate of 10 names, instead of ranking the 10 names, because they don't want to make the effort. (In my opinion). It's not hard to coordinate with the other senator and representatives to only give one nomination per person. Nothing wrong with that at all. Many large states with hundreds of applicants coordinate their nominations. I can live with that. But I am totally against them pushing the responsibility for the appointment to the academy. Why even have the representative or senator nominate in the first place. Sounds pretty stupid to me. Why not just do what the coast guard does and everyone applies to the academy, and they choose.

In other words, if the Representative/Senator doesn't know who the BEST QUALIFIED of their nominees is; what makes them think the academy would know any better. Except for the CFA test, the MOC pretty much knows everything about the applicant that the academy knows. These are their constituents. They need to take the responsibility and make the choice.

But again; the academy wants diversity. That IS Politically Correct. Things may change now that the supreme court is getting involved with universities, diversity, etc... But for now, diversity is a very serious desire of the academies.
 
Senators and Rep's as well as the VP may have 5 cadets at the academy at a time. So 1 out of 4 years they will have an extra slot. Figure 1.25 a year for those and you will be close.

you forgot one very important variable. There's only an 80-85% retention rate. Meaning, if 1300 appointees walk into BCT, only about 1050-1100 will graduate 4 years later. So, if an individual drops out or is kicked out, that too frees up a slot for a MOC, if that individual was charged to them.
 
you forgot one very important variable. There's only an 80-85% retention rate. Meaning, if 1300 appointees walk into BCT, only about 1050-1100 will graduate 4 years later. So, if an individual drops out or is kicked out, that too frees up a slot for a MOC, if that individual was charged to them.

Thought about that but decided not to complicate it further. If you use 85% it will get you to about 1.5 slots.
 
Back
Top