I think part of what fuels the fire every year is the QNS designation. Simply telling someone they weren't admitted is enough. There were thousands of high school students that apply each year and could have done fine at Harvard, but were denied. The bottom line for SAs (just like Harvard or other colleges) is that those denied didn't make the cut. Telling them they were "qualified" but there weren't enough spots is just sugar coating it.
The Military Prep School Scam
- Thread starter hornetguy
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
True.... as it did for my experience with USAJobs.
Other colleges such as Harvard doesn't hold an applicant and "prepare" them for next year. You're either in or out.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Is that the real reason? I feel like it's a legal check. Yes, they weren't disqualified, but they were selected.
Federal employment has the same thing....
"LITs you were qualified, but not selected."
They didn't tell me that because they were going to hold on to me until next year.
I will say there is a slight difference with the SAs because of the forced geographic dispersion. I am not an admissions expert, but could trim it down alot and cut most applicants, but keep a very small contingent on the "wait list" and put some from the wait list into prep schools.
I don't have a problem with the prep schools per say, but there are alot of kids out there this time of year that need to just accept they didn't make it in and move on, not try to compare themselves to others that made it in. There is nothing wrong with re-applying or just moving on in another direction.
The AoG scholarships are a non-issue b/c they are privately funded.
I also believe (in response to USMAPS banter) that an athlete that performs at a D1 level brings something important to the table that has a positive application to a military career. Most high school athletes (even many sports captains) don't bring that attribute to the table. I'm sure that isn't a popular statement, but it is what I believe.
I don't have a problem with the prep schools per say, but there are alot of kids out there this time of year that need to just accept they didn't make it in and move on, not try to compare themselves to others that made it in. There is nothing wrong with re-applying or just moving on in another direction.
The AoG scholarships are a non-issue b/c they are privately funded.
I also believe (in response to USMAPS banter) that an athlete that performs at a D1 level brings something important to the table that has a positive application to a military career. Most high school athletes (even many sports captains) don't bring that attribute to the table. I'm sure that isn't a popular statement, but it is what I believe.
Last edited:
Wrong! Check out Andover, Exeter, St. Paul's, etc. They all have 5th year HS senior classes for that very purpose. Check out the ages of the Yale 2013 NCAA Hockey champs. Very few went to HS for four years and then straight to college.
The difference is that someone other than the US taxpayer pays for their indulgence in notions of D1 athletic grandeur.
If you read through the thread, it's not just athletes that are sent to prep, instead of prior enlisted, other QNS candidates get to spend another year of pretend SA before they're let in. Who cares about hockey anyway?
Actually, a few of us, but that is irrelevant.
I personally know of a young lady who played hockey with my daughter a number of years ago who will be commissioning from WP this spring. She went the prep route obviously not as a recruited athlete (she had to give up playing college hockey for this).
Yeah, prep schools (both military and non-military) are used by athletes (and non-athletes) to gain admission to a school they might otherwise not be able to get into.
Could it be viewed as a scam? For some I guess, because some of the candidates turn out to be less than desirable students. It is really easy to focus on the failures and point fingers at the poor judgement in candidate selection. We also have witnessed plenty of less-than-desirable candidates who got in without the prep school.
Lots of people like to talk anecdotes, the plural of which is not data. Until someone shows a thorough look at the population as a whole with a metric of what the expected outcome should be, lets not get too crazy in our debate.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
I could comfortably say hockey at USCGA is very popular...
And I care about hockey.
And I care about hockey.
AcademyFriend1
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 200
Actually, Harvard does do this to a certain extent. They have something called "the Z List" (Google "Harvard and Z List" and you should find it) -- they take people off the waiting list and offer them admission at Harvard after a gap year. In my experience, and as I believe a number of commentators have noted, those given Z List status are strong academically and there is zero risk they will not do fine or better at Harvard . . . and they are all full-paying or even come from the type of families that can give a building.
The desire to "manage a class" is not limited to the service academies. (I get that no taxpayer pays for the Harvard Z-Lister's gap year, of course.)
(And, oh yeah, if we're polling here, I care about hockey too. Was at the Frozen Four watching my alma mater pull off an "under[bull]dog" victory this past weekend.)
AcademyFriend1
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 200
Thanks, CB.
You are indeed right about the long and winding pathway to campus for Ivy league ice hockey players these days. I am probably a big ol' hypocrite for being so happy about the national championship, as I have been saddened that the Ivies have followed the college hockey trend of effectively double- or triple- redshirting players by having them play junior hockey for 2-3 years before matriculating. I don't think 21 year old college freshmen who are basically there to play hockey (with some exceptions -- I was a college athlete myself and you can't paint all the athletes with the same brush as some are very academically oriented) is a great idea, and I would have been okay with the Ivies falling from first tier hockey competition by bucking the trend.
(With that said, I cheered my head off for the amazing performance by the Bulldogs' 24-year-old senior goalie. Like I said, big ol' hypocrite.)
iceman2018
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 118
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Whoa whoa whoa, Wayne Gretzky was not cool and if he was in the NHL today he wouldn't have the records he currently holds.
Boom! Take that Edmonton fans.
iceman2018
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 118
He played 20 seasons in the National Hockey League (NHL) for four teams from 1979 to 1999. Nicknamed "The Great One", he has been called "the greatest hockey player ever"[1] by many sportswriters, players, and the NHL itself. He is the leading point-scorer in NHL history, with more assists than any other player has points, and is the only NHL player to total over 200 points in one season – a feat he accomplished four times. In addition, he tallied over 100 points in 16 professional seasons, 14 of them consecutive. At the time of his retirement in 1999, he held 40 regular-season records, 15 playoff records, and six All-Star records. He won the Lady Byng Trophy for sportsmanship and performance five times,[2] and he often spoke out against fighting in hockey.[1][3]
"The great one" isn't cool for you? Oh well I don't think he argued his way to the hall of fame. You're on a league of your own.
"The great one" isn't cool for you? Oh well I don't think he argued his way to the hall of fame. You're on a league of your own.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Oh I know who "The Great One" was. I still say he played in a slower league. He played before curved blades. No one touched him, not because he was untouchable, but because if they did, they had their clocks cleaned by his protection.
The same thing is true in baseball. Would Babe Ruth dominate in 2013? No.
Yes, Gretzky was good in his time. That didn't make him cool, just good.
I'll take Mario Lemieux (Super Mario) over Gretzky ANY day... and I'm not even mentioning how bad he was as a coach or the issues with his assistant coach and wife with the Coyotes.
Last edited:
It is very difficult to compare talents of players of different ages. Average scoring per game was much higher in Gretzky's day than it was in the decade following where Lemieux or other great scorers have played. I look far beyond statistics to assess great hockey players (or other sport athletes for that matter). Lemieux has turned into one of the better front office guys (quite by accident as I don't think he exactly planned have a team dumped on him). Yzerman also comes to mind when I think of great players who will be great for the sport after retirement. And there is no I in Yzerman.
Christcorp
15-Year Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,382
But michael jordan; in his prime; playing TODAY; would still kick butt. So, as far as I'm concerned, he is one player I will say stands the "Test of Time".
iceman2018
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 118
I don't think you can discredit a Hall of famer and say such things in his face unless you have an achievement that is as noteworthy.
It's akin to walking up to a highly decorated veteran and say his medals or ribbons don't mean anything.
Christcorp, MJ is a living legend bar none. Except for his stint with the wizards, his competitive fire was unmatched.