USAFA application

Did this help?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 100.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
I don't think it is stupid to use a 6.0 scale, but too many posters that are just starting the process freak when they see how low their cgpa drops because of the AFA system.

It will not only happen with the AFA, but many colleges will also re-weight to their stds.

I do agree with usaffanatic a 6.0 scale is pretty close to getting to the term "grade inflation".

OBTW the other thing that messes with candidates cgpa is the grading scale. At some schools, an A is an A, be it 90 or 100 and they get the full pt. At other schools, the students cgpa is actually calculated the old fashion way. Grade % by weight of the class. I.E. a 90 in a 6.0 class = 5.4, not 6.0

The AFA when looking at the school profile will also take this into consideration regarding their cgpa.
 
Grading scale

I'm familiar with the grading scale for the schools in this NC school district and it may be similar for other school systems, I don't know. But, since there has been some confusion regarding this on this thread: here is some clarification for this particular case.

A = 93 to 100
B = 85 to 82
C = 77 to 84
D = 70 to 76
F = 69 and below

For the weighted calculation, honor classes receive 1 extra point and AP classes receive 2 extra points.

And like Falconfamily said, when USAFA looks at the high school transcript and profile they will recalc on their terms to hopefully allow for more of an "apples to apples" comparison among candidates. :smile: As well as relying on the SAT/ACT scores which allow for more objectivity across the board.
 
The admit staff really does do a good job of "leveling" the proverbial playing field. Besides school which weight/don't weight/rank/don't rank... they've then got the homeschool crowd, the dual-enrollment kids, the prior enlisted... It's just not all about the high school transcript.

And, as for the comment that athletes are subpar academically, it may be true in a very few cases, but truly, they have to meet the bar, just like the kid who's not a Division I athlete. Athletes at this elite level have to be good at time management, and team-work, with a little slice of leadership thrown in too.
 
the very definition of "blue chipping" is admitting a student DESPITE his or her lack of credentials WHEN COMPARED TO the other applicants.

even if this happens once at a service academy that's still a shame. USAFA's mission is to, again, create OFFICERS not ATHLETES. i'm not talking about the standards that athletes have to meet ONCE THEY GET IN, i'm talking about how unjust and unfair it is for the admissions board to lower the bar for even one recruited athlete, thereby taking that coveted spot from another candidate.

what's worse, each IC team is allowed to "over recruit", as they expect some athletes will get cut or decide to quit sometime during/after 4 degree year. again, this takes up even more slots for those who may be more deserving. i understand this mentality at a normal school, but there's no excuse for it at a service academy.
 
USAFA_2012 said:
the very definition of "blue chipping" is admitting a student DESPITE his or her lack of credentials WHEN COMPARED TO the other applicants.

even if this happens once at a service academy that's still a shame. USAFA's mission is to, again, create OFFICERS not ATHLETES. i'm not talking about the standards that athletes have to meet ONCE THEY GET IN, i'm talking about how unjust and unfair it is for the admissions board to lower the bar for even one recruited athlete, thereby taking that coveted spot from another candidate.

what's worse, each IC team is allowed to "over recruit", as they expect some athletes will get cut or decide to quit sometime during/after 4 degree year. again, this takes up even more slots for those who may be more deserving. i understand this mentality at a normal school, but there's no excuse for it at a service academy.
Click to expand...

Well, the academy doesn't use the same terminology that most colleges use. "Blue Chip" is an ego term used for recruits. All 50 football players brought in with a class is called "Blue Chip". Even though only about 20 will actually stay on the team for the entire 4 years. And with the exception of a couple, the rest of them competed EXACTLY like every other candidate. They had to get the same nominations, same recommendations, same academic scores, etc... But you still have a problem with the "COUPLE" of players who had a 3.8 gpa and 28 ACT because there's someone with a 3.9 and 30 ACT who didn't get an appointment.

So let me get this straight. Some people are worried because the want to make sure that their school which they consider to be competitive "Whatever that means", gets extra consideration over the applicant from a "Regular" school. The applicant who was class president/vp/or secretary should get more points than the applicant who was just in the student body. The person who was the president of the "XYZ" club should get more points than someone who was just a member of the club. The person who took AP classes or was in the IB program should get more points than the person who took regular classes. And lets not forget about those who think because they were Eagle Scouts, JrROTC, or CAP should get more points and consideration than the person who didn't achieve as high of a role in their activities. This is a common acceptance by all.

But for some reason, the applicant who also excelled in athletics; possibly captain of their team; possibly made all state/conference; and other similar accolades isn't suppose to be given any extra points for excelling in their activity.

So you're upset about a very small number of individuals who happen to be outstanding athletes but in your "opinion" aren't the highest scored applicant. Well what about Title 10 of the US Code that allows each MOC to have "X" amount of appointments. There is no doubt that there is an appointee in the "X" district in "Y" state that has a lower score than a non-selectee in a different state and/or district. Or what about the 100 presidential appointees. It's quite possible that at least the #100 person had a lower overall score than a non-selectee on a MOC nomination list.

Welcome to world of college entrance. The academy is no different than any other university in trying to come up with the most diverse yet representative student body possible. The mission of the academy is a lot more than just creating officers. That can be done in OTS and ROTC. But one of the most important things is that these future leaders, will be leading an enlisted corp of every diversity imaginable. Race, gender, color, religion, economic state, urban, rural, farm, etc... Well, the officer corp needs to be just as diverse. It is counter productive if you simply take the top 1100 applicants if those 1100 applicants all happen to be white men or all from california or some other non-diverse segment.

If an individual can be given more consideration because they excelled academically, leadership roles, diversity factors, etc... then they should also be given more consideration if they excelled in athletics. And whether you want to agree or not, athletes have a lot more in common with the military structure and methodology than the majority of non-athletes. That's why more than 90% of cadets played varsity sports in high school. The two almost go together. Plus the fact that the military primary mission requires the best physical conditioning and team work. Something that athletes excel in. So believe what you want, but very few of the athletes at the academy got any special consideration when applying. The overwhelming majority went through the exact same process that everyone else went through. They had to get their nomination just like everyone else. There are a few that may have gotten extra consideration; but athletics isn't the only place considering is given.

Here's a quote posted by the NCAA about athletes and universities. Some none athletes definitely have some/many of these attributes, but athletes by nature have ALL of these things. And for the military; ALL of these are important. So for that, the athlete is probably a better fit than many none athletes. Fortunately for the academy, more than 90% of the student body was in athletics in high school and most have these qualities.

From the NCAA - Athletes have:
Attention to detail , Awareness of diversity, Challenging yourself , Commitment,Communication, Competition , Confidence , Cooperation , Coordination , Decision making , Dedication, Determination , Diligence, Discipline, Endurance, Fitness, Flexibility, Focus ,Following plans/directions, Give/take feedback and criticism ,Goal-directed ,Improvement , Integrity,Individual/group effort, Keeping records, Leadership, Learning from failure ,Management, Multi-tasking , Organization ,Overcome obstacles , Pain/fatigue management, Patience,Performance, Persistence , Positive attitude, Prioritizing , Problem solving,Punctuality , Pursuit of excellence , Respect , Responsibility, Scheduling, Self-directed ,Self-esteem, Set goals , Strategies , Stress management, Supervision ,Tactics (offense/defense), Teaching , Teamwork , Thinking on your feet, Time management, Training motivation, Work ethic .
Click to expand...
 
State of Residence comes into play also

Along with the other remarks State of residence also comes into play. A student with a:
(32 ACT/ 4.0 Unweighted GPA/ NHS president/ 2 sport varsity athlete/ 100 + hours community service/) has gotten a TWE just because he lives in North Virginia

However a student in Wyoming as gotten a direct appointment with a (24 ACT/ 3.9 Unweighted GPA/ NHS member/ 2 sport varsity athlete/ 400+ hours community service/ All conference football/ eagle scout/ Class president)

As you can see by this comparison although Academics are off by miles between these 2 they are not the only thing that comes into play. USAFA is looking for the complete package, and obviously they think the Wyoming student has enough in the other areas of his application to round him out. So before jumping to conclusions just realize most of the athletes at service academies have worked just as hard for a spot and often put in the extra year at a prep school.
Just a little clarification the WYO 24 ACT is just a composite... individual score were average of 26
 
Like I mentioned above, Title 10 of the US code allows each state/district so many cadets at the academy. So the applicant from Wyoming isn't competing with the applicant from Virginia. Not initially.

And the Wyoming academics really aren't that far off from the Virginia student. The ACT score composite is a bit lower, but the GPA is in line.

But as you mentioned correctly, the academy looks at everything. I have personally seen 4.0gpa with 2200+SAT/35ACT not get accepted because that's all they had. I've also seen some nationally ranked 4-Star athletes not receive appointments because their academics weren't good enough or they had nothing else to offer but athletics. I know many of the coaches; especially football. Graduating and becoming a commissioned officer is their #1 priority with their players. It is not uncommon for a star athlete to not play; to be restricted from taking summer leave or spring break; to make up their academics.
 
AS ALWAYS-Great advice from Christcorp

I can honestly say that I have always agreed with the posts that I have read from Christcorp. In regard to athletics, I agree that most competitive sports require that one possess all of the qualities that will be the foundation for making a good/great officer, and all of the military academies understand how important superior physical training and teamwork are to ones success in the world of the military. I think that there are many character traits that make people "leaders" and most of the qualities that are typically seen in great leaders don't ONLY revolve around top academic/SAT scores. Many a brilliant scientist, researcher, analyst, programmer etc. can understand incredibly challenging mathematical, scientific, or economic equations, but could not possibly convince anyone to "follow them into battle" or "obey a command that might seem logically improbable or impossible to accomplish."
Yet, the natural born leader, may be able to make a decisive and well-thought-out decision quickly, and without hesitation. His or her troops will follow them, because they believe in the leadership that they are seeing executed day in and day out. I am grateful to the academies for understanding the incredibly complex nature of the challenging selection process. Their job is more difficult than any job of administrators of any college or university in this nation. They are doing much more than encouraging great academicians; they are training and preparing our future military leaders. I give them my utmost respect...:smile:
 
Simply amazing post, Christcorp.

I feel like some of your explanations should be saved for future reference when another member inevitably asks the same questions.
 
Let'sGoFly--one more item for your future planning. The Academy runs a summer session program for high school students who are interested in becoming AFA Cadets. I'd encourage you look into that program and plan accordingly.

You have a wide range of responses to your question and I believe you can sort out the emotional responses from the well informed. Christcorp is on the money. No doubt there is a "minimum" bar that all applicants must clear. But above bar, there is not a golden metric to hit. Above the bar, your record will compete against 2-3000 very competitive individuals.

Good luck to you. Keep an open mind. Work hard and enjoy your high school years.
 
Christcorp, i see what you're saying and i agree with a lot of it. however; i'm not sure what illusion you are under if you think that most IC's had a 3.8 GPA in high school....i'm referring to those who had LESS THAN A 3.0 GPA :eek: yes, that happens. and it happens way too much.

the academic gap that exists with some incoming athletes is more than negligent. mind you, this is not the case with the majority of them (i hope), but the number is still large enough to be significant.

the reason for this is simple: money. the academy is willing to compromise standards if it means that good athletes will bring an audience and therefore a paycheck to the academy through its athletic program. at civilian school's this is perfectly acceptable. a civilian institution's mission is to (in large part) make money -- and that's fine. but a service academy adopting the same mentality is simply being untrue to its stated values.

this is the problem i've been griping over the entire time. a service academy should have no place doing this because a service academy's mission is to produce the best officers and leaders possible. moreover; the scaling factor of a candidate over another is only HIS POTENTIAL TO SUCCEED THROUGH THE ACADEMY, thereby becoming a quality officer.

yet, applicants with greater potential to succeed are too often denied admission because their slot was taken by an athlete with the potential to bring in money. and that is a crying shame.
 
Last edited:
The illusion that I'm under, is that I know personally many of these athletes. And I know what they had for a resume to get in. I admitted that there are a couple that might hit closer to the "minimum standards", but that is no where near the majority. Not even close to a large percentage. You can look at this forum alone and see all the recruited athletes who were taking AP/IB classes; graduating in the top of their class; etc... I'm also an ALO and see many of the scores.

There are a couple that go to the prep school; and may even get a coveted nomination from the academy; but the overwhelming majority went through the same exact process as everyone else. Competing for a nomination; high GPA/SAT/ACT; leadership; etc... Out of a 50 man football recruiting class at the academy, there might be 3-4 that came in either directly or via the prep-school that had "special attention". So yes, the majority of them were in the 3.8 type of gpa standings. If you want, you can even look back at the graduating classes and see how many recruited athletes also excelled at the academy academically. Many went on / going on to grad school and further education. I never said that there weren't a couple that are getting special attention, there are. But it's in no way as prolific as you are making it out to be. No more than any other "Diverse" group being given consideration.

Point is; you can't base receiving an appointment strictly on gpa and SAT/ACT scores. The academy and the military want well rounded individuals and a diverse officer corp; to coincide with the diverse enlisted corp that they will be leading. And I'll take a 3.6gpa star athlete, taking AP/IB classes, with a 26ACT, who has leadership positions, volunteering, EC, etc... over the 4.0gpa, 36ACT, 2400SAT, who is only a brainiac and has little to any "Team" activities. Fortunately for the academy, 90+% of all cadets have varsity level sports on their resume. And the majority of them have an excellent application and resume. So, the argument boils down to a very few athletes. But if you're going to go there, at least include the special consideration also given to minorities, females, inner city, low economic, 1st generation immigrant, etc...

P.S. On a side note; I also believe that inter-collegiate athletics is important to a university. Even the military academies. Not just for the money. (At the academies, most of the athletic money is self generated). Athletics have a very positive effect on the student body; attitude; and success of a school. It's great for advertising and notoriety. But again; you would be very surprised to know how many STAR athletes are denied to the military academies because they can't meet the standards. Academically; physically; medically; etc...
 
Last edited:
I have known of only one student-athlete that I would have considered to be sub-par academically in the four years my kids have been at USAFA, but this young man was such a great leader, it didn't matter that his h.s. gpa was closer to 3.4 than 4.0. And I believe he graduated with a 3.2 gpa and is now flying with his hair on fire, inverted. :)

Christcorp has it right. For my sons, both athletes, the sheer amount of extra dedication is just astounding. These kids are not only holding their proverbial own in one of the top 10 schools in the country, they do so while practicing hours and hours a day, missing classes for travel, playing through injury and illness.

I commend these student athletes( and the parents who helped them get there. ).
 
Let me add; because fencermother is too modest; both of her boys (Recruited Athletes) had very high academics in high school, and even though they were recruited, they had to go through everything the same as all the other applicants in their district/state.

And these athletes are the NORM.
 
I am a recruited athlete and can definitely attest to the quality most athletes have. Just from my recruiting visit, the kids there with me were top of the line academically as well as athletically. I will say that I did get some special treatment in that I got an academy nomination, but my academics are also very good. What I usually see(again I am only an appointee, so I have not seen every athlete there and will not try to pretend like I know all about it) is that athletes tend to be extremely well rounded which I would think makes for a great officer.
 
Every time the football team goes to a bowl game, the amount of free recruiting advertising is incalculable. Potential enlisted and officer recruits are exposed to the many virtues of the Air Force visually and the announcers are usually very complimentary of the student athletes exposing a side of cadet life that a very small portion of the population experiences. Christcorp's description of a well rounded cadet is right on about making the best officer to lead enlisted men. If you have never played sports at a competitive level, you don't know what goes into it and how the experiences and lessons gained from athletics form your personality.
 
look, i'm a current cadet living with and among other cadets; athletes and non-athletes alike. i see them in class, march with them in formation, eat with them in Mitch's, and observe their behaviors otherwise.

at this point you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, but I'M TELLING YOU, what i said earlier is still true, to some extent. i think what we disagree on is exactly to what extent. you can sit from afar, look at charts and tables and what not, and tell me all about my cadet wing. but i'm in it. i'm telling you that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. period.


i agree that MOST athletes are subject to the same (or similar) rigorous academic standards in order to be appointed, but my academy experience has also taught me that there are SOME (and some is still way too many) athletes who were accepted under different circumstances, which IMO is unfair to the other applicants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top