The whole person

^Exactly. The college acceptance process is often a mystery-that's a given. Within my own family I have witnessed both the surprise of rejection from a college as well as the shock of getting in to another.

At the class of 2018 parents weekend in August, we were given some fairly specific data about the Plebe class during the academic presentation. There was information about class make up, percentages of things like varsity sports participation, class validation, etc...didn't seem like they were keeping any secrets about it and I'm sure the public affairs office has that information available to anyone.
 
One of the funniest (and most arbitrary) admissions story that I've ever heard involves a kid in our area who graduated from USNA in 2007 (I think). He was very intelligent and was selected to serve in the Medical Corps after graduation. Prior to graduation, like all MedCorps selectees, he interviewed with many medical schools. He is from Tennessee and his first choice was to attend Vanderbilt Medical School in Nashville. They rejected him. Harvard accepted him, however. He was also awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. Once Vanderbilt discovered that they had a rejected a Rhodes Scholar (pretty embarrassing), they contacted him and said that they had changed their mind. He told Vanderbilt to "Pack sand!" and went to Harvard.
 
It's a mystery. I'm a plebe this year. Last year I got an LOA on September 11th. I only had a 26 on the ACT, but I was in great shape and had many leadership/team captain positions. The average SAT scores of those who don't get into the academy are actually higher than the average scores of those who do. Write good essays on your application, and most importantly, be personable. The Naval Academy wants to train effective leaders, not paper pushers. Be a good person, show determination, and exhibit reason why you in particular would excel. Take the BGO interview very serious. I'd say it is one of the most important steps in the process. Good luck!


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
TheNaterrater said:
Take the BGO interview very serious. I'd say it is one of the most important steps in the process.
Click to expand...

Although I would recommend taking everything in the admissions process seriously, I would not say that the BGO interview ranks as one of the "most important steps".

Most candidates get a thumbs up from the BGO. That's pretty much all you need from that process.

It's probably no more important than the CFA; which, ranks pretty low in importance as long as you do "well enough".

SAT/ACT, GPA, involvement in sports, leadership activities and math/English teacher recommendations far outweigh almost all other things. I would say any one of them outweighs (in importance) the BGO interview.

A great BGO interview is probably not going to trump mediocre performance in those other areas whereas a mediocre BGO interview will generally suffice provided the BGO doesn't give you a "not recommended" - which is extremely rare.
 
Memphis9489 said:
A great BGO interview is probably not going to trump mediocre performance in those other areas whereas a mediocre BGO interview will generally suffice provided the BGO doesn't give you a "not recommended" - which is extremely rare.
Click to expand...

Interesting to hear that "not recommended" is rare. Are Navy interviews limited to competitive candidates? Considering 15K plus applicants, if 5000 is interviewed, should be some "not recommended." I caution other FFRs that don't recommend a candidate just because you like the kid.
 
I have to respectfully DISagree with Memphis about the BGO interview. It CAN be an EXTREMELY important step depending on the candidates situation. First off you have to realize the BGO is the only live person who actually sits down with a candidate and hears about the famous "whole person". When the competition gets tight and there is a lot of excellent candidates, the Board is very interested in the opinion of the BGO because the candidates all look good on paper to the Board. A BGO interview can catapult a kid into consideration that normally would not be looked at. The "special circumstances" that the Academy is interested in is often only found out by the BGO and brought to light in the interview.

I often wondered if my interviews were ever read by anybody but I got a call from our regional director that the admissions board really liked the interview on a young man that I had done. While he had good grades and was good in sports, he had zero in anything outside of those two. It turns out that he lived on a cattle ranch with thousands of acres of land and thousands of cattle. He spent his non-school time doing the work of a grown man, complete with running work crews of grown men and raising his own herd. There was more, but it was fortunate that I was also raised on a cattle ranch and knew what he did and could translate it into areas USNA was interested in. I am tooting his horn, not mine, but it was extremely fortuitous that luck put the right two people together and that interview really counted. Neither one of us really knew what was going to come out of that interview but he is at NAPS as we speak.

I will also very much agree that the greatest, smoke-blowing BGO interview in the world will not get a candidate in either.
 
Spud said:
I have to respectfully DISagree with Memphis about the BGO interview. It CAN be an EXTREMELY important step depending on the candidates situation.
Click to expand...

Sure - it can be important. I'm saying, generally, it is not - compared to other parameters. There can always be a unique candidate where his credentials cannot be fully appreciated without given the opportunity to explain those unique circumstances to a real person. And yet, the Personal Statement is often perfect for that sort of thing.

A BGO is either going to give the candidate a thumbs up or thumbs down. The BGO can rank the candidate in the top percentile group, however. I'm sure that would help. But BGOs are encouraged not to make overuse of that. I'll bet the vast majority of candidates do not get ranked in the top percentile and, yet, they still earn appointments.

Where a BGO can make a big difference is by coaching the candidate. Something, in my opinion, is beyond the scope of the BGO's job description. Yet, it's not that uncommon. Too many BGOs take the acceptance rate of their candidates very personally - as if every one that gets an appointment is a notch in his (the BGO's) belt.
 
^ +1 memphis. The first thing my bgo told me was he was there to help all of his applicants, not to necessarily judge them, but to provide them with advice on the process!
 
ummmm........I think you misread Memphis' last paragraph.
 
Spud said:
ummmm........I think you misread Memphis' last paragraph.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think he did misread it. In my opinion, the BGO's responsibilities are simply:
1) Facilitate an awareness of the Naval Academy in their local community with the intent of attracting outstanding candidates.
2) Answer questions about the academy and the admissions process.
3) Evaluate the suitability of the candidate for the Naval Academy via the mandatory BGO interview.
 
^^^

I think that's about right. I will add that some BGOs are very invested in their candidates -- not b/c it's a "notch on the belt" but b/c we see some great kids with terrific qualifications and we want them to be successful in attaining their dream. We thus feel the pain if things don't work out.
 
usna1985 said:
^^^

I think that's about right. I will add that some BGOs are very invested in their candidates -- not b/c it's a "notch on the belt" but b/c we see some great kids with terrific qualifications and we want them to be successful in attaining their dream. We thus feel the pain if things don't work out.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question, would you help one candidate more than another simply because you, as a BGO, feel one is more qualified than another?

If the answer to that is no - then I don't see where there is anything wrong with being "invested" in a candidate - provided you are equally invested.

The candidates should sell themselves and should not need an "agent" to give them insider tips nor need anybody to grease the skids for them. Now, having said that, I'm sure some candidates are more engaged with their BGO than others. They may email the BGO and ask questions or solicit for recommendations. That's fine. That's the doing of the candidate!

My wife is a BGO but I would not enjoy it as much as she does. I like helping those I choose to help and giving them tips to increases their chances of being successful - because I think they deserve it! She does not have that luxury specifically because she is a BGO.
 
I'd squeeze in one more responsibility of a BGO to the Big Three that Memphis listed:

Educate a candidate on the roles and responsibilities of a jr. officer in the fleet or Corps (after all, that's the whole purpose of the Boat School) and what to expect during Plebe Year and the upper class years.

I'm am always floored with the well meaning ignorance of candidates as to what they are getting into. One young lady said she really wanted to go but did not want to kill anybody. When I said she'd be blasting away at the firing range first thing Plebe Summer, she looked really worried but cheered up when I said she ought to try Air Force instead.
 
Spud said:
I'd squeeze in one more responsibility of a BGO to the Big Three that Memphis listed:

Educate a candidate on the roles and responsibilities of a jr. officer in the fleet or Corps (after all, that's the whole purpose of the Boat School) and what to expect during Plebe Year and the upper class years.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure all BGOs are even qualified to have a good perspective of the responsibilities of a junior officer since some of them have never served in the military - not to mention never attended the Naval Academy. There was a time when all BGOs were required to have been USNA graduates - but that was back in the days when BGO interviews were not a requirement of the admissions process. I never once talked to a BGO when applying in 1973-74. They need many more BGOs today than they did in the past and no longer have the luxury of requiring all of them to be USNA grads ... or to have served in the Navy, for that matter.

I'm am always floored with the well meaning ignorance of candidates as to what they are getting into. One young lady said she really wanted to go but did not want to kill anybody. When I said she'd be blasting away at the firing range first thing Plebe Summer, she looked really worried but cheered up when I said she ought to try Air Force instead.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anybody wants to kill somebody. But, if serving in the military, they have to be willing to kill somebody.

The Air Force doesn't kill the enemy - but the Navy does? I'm not so sure how true that is. I think a SWO or a submariner is not going to have many opportunities to kill the enemy - certainly, not up close. Pushing a button and launching a cruise missile that travels a 100 miles is probably not that difficult from a psychological point-of-view. Yet, if a submariner ever has to "kill" somebody, especially if from a SSBN, we're all in trouble. :smile:
 
*Someone needs to watch Hunt for Red October!

Didn't people get shot/killed etc?

Howard
 
Which begs the question, would you help one candidate more than another simply because you, as a BGO, feel one is more qualified than another?
Click to expand...

The answer is "no." First, I don't "help" candidates. The only role I play is answering their questions and writing up an interview memo. Obviously, if I consider someone more qualified, he/she will get a better write-up - with my reasons stated in a factual manner. I don't have to "like" the candidate to give him/her a strong endorsement. However, that's where it ends. The rest is up to the candidates. I don't call or write Admissions. I don't call or write MOC committees. I don't help candidates complete their packages.

The ONLY time I've ever proactively contacted Admissions to make my views known was when I had a candidate repeatedly lie to me.
 
Memphis9489 said:
Which begs the question, would you help one candidate more than another simply because you, as a BGO, feel one is more qualified than another?
Click to expand...

Not a BGO, but an FFR.

Anytime a BGO/FFR/ALO interacts with a candidate, they are helping that candidate over another candidate they don't interact.

BGO/FFR/ALO provides a guidance to retake the SAT to a candidate as the SAT scores is within the national average but below for the candidate's Congressional district. Another candidate from the same district with no contact to BGO/FFR/ALO doesn't retake the SAT because he thinks he is okay as he scored close to the national average.

I always tell my candidates that my job is to assist, not judge.
 
Anytime a BGO/FFR/ALO interacts with a candidate, they are helping that candidate over another candidate they don't interact.
Click to expand...

I interact with a candidate in conducting the interview (where I may include a recommendation to retake the SAT, etc.) or if the candidate contacts me. For 90% of my candidates, the only interaction is setting up and conducting the interview. I tell every one that he/she is always free to contact me with questions, but I don't initiate contact outside of the above.

Because of the schools I cover, I rarely have trouble qualifying my candidates. Thus, it's a "numbers" game where some great candidates simply lose out and that's discouraging. That said, I have not done more or less for those who get in than for those who don't -- nor is there anything I could or would do differently.

The above said, there have been VERY few times when I have felt that someone who was appointed was not as strong as someone who was turned down. And in such cases, I know there are things such as teacher recs that I don't see that could have an impact in a close case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top