WARNING!!!!!

[Luigi59]

This one of the better threads I've read on diversity. All of this information helps me understand this crazy application process I'm experiencing right now.Thank you all for your input.

If only it were true.

But it only is sugarcoating what "diversity" to the SA's really means.

It has NOTHING to do with "geographic" diversity (they have that already) or "economic" diversity (joke) - it has everything to do with racial diversity and the active promotion/recruiting/soliciting of racial minority candidates.

When Admiral Ruughead spoke about "Diversity is the #1 priority" at the USNA, he wasn't speaking about equal representation of candidates from all geographic areas, or equal representation of rich kids and poor kids - he meant one thing - race.

Why hide from the truth? If the policy is good for the military, why run from it? Why distance yourself from it? Embrace it if you believe in it, don't tell some fairy tail about "economic" diversity. There are no parts of ANY SA application that ask about income, tax brackets, welfare, 401Ks, investments, or property holdings. That is a HUGE red herring.

 

[flieger83]

If only it were true.

But it only is sugarcoating what "diversity" to the SA's really means.

It has NOTHING to do with "geographic" diversity (they have that already) or "economic" diversity (joke) - it has everything to do with racial diversity and the active promotion/recruiting/soliciting of racial minority candidates.

When Admiral Ruughead spoke about "Diversity is the #1 priority" at the USNA, he wasn't speaking about equal representation of candidates from all geographic areas, or equal representation of rich kids and poor kids - he meant one thing - race.

Why hide from the truth? If the policy is good for the military, why run from it? Why distance yourself from it? Embrace it if you believe in it, don't tell some fairy tail about "economic" diversity. There are no parts of ANY SA application that ask about income, tax brackets, welfare, 401Ks, investments, or property holdings. That is a HUGE red herring.

Luigi, I really like your posts for the most part but on this one, we'll part company because you are incorrect, at least re: USAFA.

The USAFA folks view diversity NOT to be a racial/ethnic "thing" rather, it's viewed as a "whole life" issue.

CC has given a very good description of it but suffice it to say, my last two diversity appointee's were "white anglo saxon's." Typical of them...one worked to support his family: dad disappeared when he was an infant, there were 6 kids...he worked full time and went to HS, did sports, and somehow pulled a decent GPA. All of that was looked at and he was classified a "diversity" candidate. He's now a cadet in the class of 2014. The other was VERY similar.

I don't know how the other SA's work and I won't speak for them...but USAFA is REALLY going "big time" on the diversity "thing" (non ethnic/racial) and it seems to be working.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Luigi59]

Luigi, I really like your posts for the most part but on this one, we'll part company because you are incorrect, at least re: USAFA.

The USAFA folks view diversity NOT to be a racial/ethnic "thing" rather, it's viewed as a "whole life" issue.

CC has given a very good description of it but suffice it to say, my last two diversity appointee's were "white anglo saxon's." Typical of them...one worked to support his family: dad disappeared when he was an infant, there were 6 kids...he worked full time and went to HS, did sports, and somehow pulled a decent GPA. All of that was looked at and he was classified a "diversity" candidate. He's now a cadet in the class of 2014. The other was VERY similar.

I don't know how the other SA's work and I won't speak for them...but USAFA is REALLY going "big time" on the diversity "thing" (non ethnic/racial) and it seems to be working.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

I like your posts, too, but your anecdotal evidence does not prove a "non-racial" diversity goal. All of the academies are doing the same thing - increasing the awareness and recruiting of under represented minorities (not poor white kids) - that is the definition of diversity today.

The evidence is out there (overwhelming amount of it), one only needs to to seek it out.

Direct quotes form Col Cleaves:

Congressional Workshops - "We continue to build and solidify relationships with Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) nominating sources, focusing on African- American and Hispanic constituents."

Recruiting Visits - "The Admissions Diversity Recruiting Division conducts approximately 40 seven- to ten-day trips targeting minorities and disadvantaged population centers with recent graduates who represent the diverse Air Force community."

Expanded Diversity Visitation Program – "This program brings 100 highly qualified, diverse applicants to the Academy for a two- to three-day visit. We match the applicant with a diverse cadet in order to effectively address areas of interest." (How many of those 100 are poor economically disadvantaged white anglo saxons, and how many of the "diverse cadets" were as well?)

There's nothing wrong with those goals, but to ignore the real-world evidence that race is the "diversity" we are talking about, is disingenuous.

 

[Christcorp]

Luigi; here is a link to the Air Force Academy's Cadet Wing Diversity Plan:
http://www.usafa.org/zoomienews/Stories/Admissions-June-2009.pdf

Here is a portion of the plan: You might not buy it; and believe that it's B.S. sugar coating, but you'd be wrong. I am an Old White Guy. I've had my issues with affirmative action, quotas, minority preference, and other forms of society trying to "Make Up for the past". But that is NOT what diversity in the academy is about. At least not at the air force academy.

The diversity plan highlights the importance of exposing cadets to a broad range of ideas and experiences. The goal is for cadets to live amongst many others with dissimilar backgrounds, which will then “compel them to examine their personal assumptions and philosophies in contrast to those of others.” Having a richly diverse environment will help enable cadets to see the best qualities, strengths and perspectives each individual, regardless of his or her background, brings to the organization. The plan further explains the importance of diversity in terms of our expeditionary military force because we operate in a global environment with many other nations and a wide variety of threats. Academy graduates need to be prepared to lead a widely diverse military force with people of every culture and view. Oftentimes, diversity is confused to comprise of only race, ethnicity and gender. However, the Cadet Wing Diversity Plan broadly outlines diversity as a composite of individual characteristics that includes personal life experiences, geographic background, socioeconomic background, cultural knowledge, educational background, work background, language abilities, physical abilities, philosophical/spiritual perspectives, age, race, ethnicity and gender.

 

[Luigi59]

Luigi; here is a link to the Air Force Academy's Cadet Wing Diversity Plan:
http://www.usafa.org/zoomienews/Stories/Admissions-June-2009.pdf

Here is a portion of the plan: You might not buy it; and believe that it's B.S. sugar coating, but you'd be wrong. I am an Old White Guy. I've had my issues with affirmative action, quotas, minority preference, and other forms of society trying to "Make Up for the past". But that is NOT what diversity in the academy is about. At least not at the air force academy.

So you believe that the USAFA was so far behind in their recruiting and attracting poor white kids that for "diversity" they spent the time, effort, and money to create a plan, hire people, and allocate funding to recruit more poor white kids?

We can debate the pros and cons of diversity-focused recruiting later, but we must recognize that when the military speaks of diversity in their officer corps, they are not referring to attracting poor white kids from Appalachia.

When the USNA replaced the color guard at the baseball game, they didn't remove 3 rich white kids and replace them with 3 poor white kids.

When Admiral Allen spoke about increasing diversity at the USCGA, he specifically recalled numbers of black academy graduates and how bad the numbers were. I don't recall him giving any examples of the wanting to increase the number of poor white kids from Appalachia, or Wyoming or Mississippi.

As a matter of fact, when the US DoD requested the Rand Corporation research and publish their findings about "Diversity and Service Academy Graduates" (2010) I couldn't find one (not one!) instance in the report of where "diversity" referred to ANYTHING other than race, ethnicity, or gender.

Have you read the report?

When the report mention the "priorities for investing resources to improve outcomes for diverse groups" they don't show any tax brackets or income levels, they only mention "White, Black, Asian, or Hispanic."

Yes, even for the USAFA. (The report covers all 3 DoD academies).

I couldn't find the section on economic diversity, perhaps you want to read it (with your eyes open, please).

Diversity of Service Academy Entrants and Graduates

 

[Apachecav]

Not everything is found in your books..... Some of the best Men I have had the honor of serving under would not have meet "The Check List" …Character counts, always has, always will,,,, the MOC appointment is meant to do justice where pinheaded bean counters without vision would truly bland us into mediocrity...

 

[scoutpilot]

Why are we now debating minority recruiting? The nomination system predates any effort at minority recruiting. The nomination system is still the best way, and within 10 years the USCGA will be using it as well.

 

[Christcorp]

Luigi; I can't speak for any "Hidden Agendas". I can only speak for the "Attributes" that admissions says they want listed and mentioned when doing up a package on a candidate. Also, I've seen a number of potential cadets who have been selected to go to the air force academy on a "Diversity visit". Many of them are "White" kids.

Matter of fact; don't take my word for it. I would never expect you to. Here is a thread in this forum, all about diversity visits here at the air force academy. You will see posts from current cadets as well as a couple who just graduated. One is a well respected poster here; "Hornet"; who just graduated last year. He specifically mentions seeing just as many white kids on these visits as there were minorities. You will also see posts from individuals who have received invitations for a diversity visit. And they openly admit that they aren't a minority. http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=14362&highlight=diversity

Now maybe the army and navy are extremely under-represented when it comes to minorities. I can't argue or confirm that. But the air force's diversity program is not just about race, ethnicity, and sex. Is the air force doing it right and the other branches aren't? I don't know. I haven't studied the other branches and their diversity goals. You could be 100% correct in what you say; for YOUR branch(es) of the military academies. But that doesn't mean it's that way for all. And I really believe that the air force academy is doing it correctly.

And that takes us back to "Nominations" and why they are so important. Especially MOC Nominations. They provide diversity geographically and socially. They also provide representation for those who are actually paying for the military academies.

 

[Mongo]

Any SA selection process is naturally going to favor those to whom are afforded the most opportunities, the upper middle class suburban candidate. Additionally, any effort to counter this to give extra consideration to any particular class of individual, whether it be race, economic, or geographic, would be considered discriminatory. Therefore, the sole method to increase diversity of all types and not run a risk of discrimination charges, is to follow existing law and ensure maximum Congressional district participation in the selection process. A dedicated effort will equally capture all diverse elements, from racial to economic and geographic.

An anecdotal aside. Traditionally, a 570M/530V SAT has been required to obtain a candidate number. Three or four years ago I noticed a trend upwards. These scores, especially math, no longer were a guarantee. This year is different. I represent an underrepresented district as a BGO. Each and every applicant has been granted a candidate number. One has not yet even completed the SAT. Two have math SATs below 500. They are all three white males. I feel that every effort will be made to find a qualified candidate in that district. Each and every individual, regardless of previously required minimum SAT scores, will be scrutinized carefully.

 

[NYBEAR]

Christcorp Quote----NYBEAR: Like I mentioned in my previous post, requiring a MOC nomination, isn't an unnecessary requirement. It does 2 very important things. It ensures a nationally diverse class of cadets, and it accurately represents "The Tax Payers Who Are Paying For The Academies and the Education".

Christcorp: Like I suggested in my previous post, requiring a MOC nomination, is an unnecessary requirement that unequivocally produces less qualified candidates at the 4 academies that require the nominations and does not necessarily produce the "geographic diversity" you suggest this Nation's
tax payers are entitled to and demand.
Do not the more qualified candidates from the more competitive districts who are not offered admission pay taxes? Should a less qualified applicant from a less competitive district be given the nod just because they also pay taxes?
Does merit mean anything? Let the Admissions committee decide if a "tough life" trumps the better credentials of the "New England Wasp", as someone generalized the class would be full of. Do not let a disinterested MOC decide that.

How can anyone rationalize the fact that some MOCs will not offer more than one nomination to any candidate and say the system is "fair"? Is it fair to have some candidates get multiple offers to several service academies because "they can", while another more promising candidate may be limited to one nomination and not be offered an appointment because he/she hails from a very competitive district.

 

[scoutpilot]

Christcorp Quote----NYBEAR: Like I mentioned in my previous post, requiring a MOC nomination, isn't an unnecessary requirement. It does 2 very important things. It ensures a nationally diverse class of cadets, and it accurately represents "The Tax Payers Who Are Paying For The Academies and the Education".

Christcorp: Like I suggested in my previous post, requiring a MOC nomination, is an unnecessary requirement that unequivocally produces less qualified candidates at the 4 academies that require the nominations and does not necessarily produce the "geographic diversity" you suggest this Nation's
tax payers are entitled to and demand.
Do not the more qualified candidates from the more competitive districts who are not offered admission pay taxes? Should a less qualified applicant from a less competitive district be given the nod just because they also pay taxes?
Does merit mean anything? Let the Admissions committee decide if a "tough life" trumps the better credentials of the "New England Wasp", as someone generalized the class would be full of. Do not let a disinterested MOC decide that.

How can anyone rationalize the fact that some MOCs will not offer more than one nomination to any candidate and say the system is "fair"? Is it fair to have some candidates get multiple offers to several service academies because "they can", while another more promising candidate may be limited to one nomination and not be offered an appointment because he/she hails from a very competitive district.

You operate under the false assumption that a nomination is a right. The MOC who is giving the nomination is elected by the taxpayers.

So, do you actually have any evidence that the nomination process "unequivocally produces less qualified candidates"? I'm guessing you don't.

As for "does merit mean anything"...merit means everything. Your problem is that you define merit as being grades and captain of the football team. It's far better that the CHARACTER and the DESIRES of the candidates are investigated by nomination boards. This isn't Stanford we're talking about. It's a professional military obligation. Why they want to be there is a big component of should they be there.

You strike me as someone who thinks he maybe got jilted in the process, because your grades were better than someone who maybe beat you out?

 

[aglages]

 

[NYBEAR]

You operate under the false assumption that a nomination is a right. The MOC who is giving the nomination is elected by the taxpayers.

So, do you actually have any evidence that the nomination process "unequivocally produces less qualified candidates"? I'm guessing you don't.

As for "does merit mean anything"...merit means everything. Your problem is that you define merit as being grades and captain of the football team. It's far better that the CHARACTER and the DESIRES of the candidates are investigated by nomination boards. This isn't Stanford we're talking about. It's a professional military obligation. Why they want to be there is a big component of should they be there.

You strike me as someone who thinks he maybe got jilted in the process, because your grades were better than someone who maybe beat you out?

You operate under the assumption that nominations are given out "fairly". I do not believe that they are anybody's "right", although with a good hook, it may just be somebody else's right. You strike me as a guy who got his nomination that way? I simply believe the necessity of obtaining a nomination is wrong.

I firmly believe that qualified and "not so qualified candidates" deserve to be able to apply and be considered for appointment by all Federal Academies. I do not believe that the sometimes arbitrary and capricious decisions by MOCs should have anything to do with who should be considered for appointment to any Federal Service Academy.

CHARACTER and DESIRES are better evaluated by admissions boards, not nominations boards.

And yes, I do know of several outstanding candidates who were not appointed to several academies over the years either because they did not receive a nomination or were not named the principal nominee, although better qualified but not as politically connected to the MOC.

An outdated system that needs to go away......USCGA has it right

 

[scoutpilot]

You operate under the assumption that nominations are given out "fairly". I do not believe that they are anybody's "right", although with a good hook, it may just be somebody else's right. You strike me as a guy who got his nomination that way? I simply believe the necessity of obtaining a nomination is wrong.

I firmly believe that qualified and "not so qualified candidates" deserve to be able to apply and be considered for appointment by all Federal Academies. I do not believe that the sometimes arbitrary and capricious decisions by MOCs should have anything to do with who should be considered for appointment to any Federal Service Academy.

CHARACTER and DESIRES are better evaluated by admissions boards, not nominations boards.

And yes, I do know of several outstanding candidates who were not appointed to several academies over the years either because they did not receive a nomination or were not named the principal nominee, although better qualified but not as politically connected to the MOC.

An outdated system that needs to go away......USCGA has it right

If by "a good hook" you mean I sat in front of a board and answered questions about myself, then yep I guess I had a "hook."

But you've shown your colors. You have a chip on your shoulder because someone you thought was better didn't get what you thought they deserved. I guess you were in the minority who thought they were the cat's pajamas. Everything you say on the subject is invalidated, because you not only have no objective evidence to present, but you also clearly have a personal bone to pick.

Thanks for playing!

 

[Christcorp]

NYBear: There are 2 points you've made a couple of times, which defeat your argument.

1) That a MOC nomination DOES NOT necessarily produce the "geographic diversity" you suggest this Nation's tax payers are entitled to and demand.

How can you even claim this, when you're talking about at MINIMUM, 1 appointee from 453 different congressional districts in the country. PLUS, another 2 appointees from each state. You can NOT get more geographically diverse than that. It's not possible.

You also said:
2) CHARACTER and DESIRES are better evaluated by admissions boards, not nominations boards.

Considering that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of congressmen and senators give a slate of 10 nominees, and ALLOWS THE ADMISSIONS BOARD to decide among the 10 which one is the BEST; your argument is totally flawed.

Now, could the academy simply process all 10,000 - 14,000 applicants individually, and select their appointees from that pool; while maintaining EQUAL GEOGRAPHICAL diversity, like the current MOC nomination process does? Yes, that's possible. But it's more efficient, and more in line with the state's rights, if the academy only has to consider half that amount. (4530 from the representatives and 1000 from the senators).

I think the problem here, is either a) as scout said, you were turned down, and you're bitter; or b) you honestly believe that there is some significant number of appointees/cadets, that you feel do not merit being at the academy. And that someone who has more merit didn't get in.

Well, hate to break it to you, but the academies; ALL OF THEM; want well rounded individuals. I have seen personally, individuals with 3.9-4.0 gpa's and 2100+ SAT's get turned down. It's NOT all about grades. And while we're at it, I also know quite a few 4.0gpa students who filled all the squares, get turned down from Harvard and the other Ivy league schools.

The academies have been admitting appointees to the academies for a lot of years. The air force, the youngest, has been doing it for over 50 years. When the AVERAGE appointee walking in the door, has a 3.86 unweighted GPA; When their ACT/SAT scores are:
Test Mid 50% Range Mean
ACT English 27-31 29
ACT Reading 28-32 30
ACT Math 28-32 30
ACT Science Reasoning 27-31 29
SAT Verbal Aptitude 590-660 629
SAT Math Aptitude 630-690 658

Then I tend to believe that the academies have quite a bit of experience in bringing in appointees; and ARE selecting those who merit being there. Will there be a district that has three 4.0gpa students who all got 2100+ SAT scores, and all had exceptional applications, but NOT all 3 can get an appointment? Yes, that is definitely possible and definitely happens. Is that fair? Yes. Why? Because the military academies are not a public or traditional private school, that can admit 45,000 students like Michigan State. If you threw away all diversity, forgot well rounded, and based the decision solely on academics and test scores, there would still be close to 500 or more with 3.95-4.0 unweighted gpa's that wouldn't receive an appointment. There just isn't that many spots.

You admit that geographical diversity has some merit, YET, you don't believe that an appointee from each of the 453 congressional districts is geographical diversity. How much more DIVERSE, geographically, can you get. Sorry, but your argument is what doesn't have merit

The appointment process is pretty simple. Take all initial applications and eliminate those not qualified. The ones that ARE qualified, have each congressman and senator send you a list of 10, that they think, are the most well rounded and qualified among THEIR PEERS. Then, the academy chooses 1 from each of those lists. That makes up LESS THAN HALF of the allotments. Add a few more from non-MOC type nominations. That's about half done now. The academy then takes the rest of those nominations, (9 from each senator and representative, and the remaining non-moc nominees), and puts them into a big pool. The academies then choose the remaining half of all appointees from this pool. In basically the manner that you are suggesting.

It appears that your problem is if you are the 11th-100th or whatever individual who didn't receive a nomination from your senator or representative. Well, if you think your application is/was better than one of the 10 that did get a nomination from that MOC, then you need to bring that up with your MOC. Not with the academies.

 

[Mongo]

Well, if you think your application is/was better than one of the 10 that did get a nomination from that MOC, then you need to bring that up with your MOC. Not with the academies.

Absolutely. For USNA, approximately seventy five percent of the MOCs submit competitive lists where it is not even an issue. For the other 25%, if cronyism is an issue, it should be addressed during the election process.

 

[NYBEAR]

Absolutely. For USNA, approximately seventy five percent of the MOCs submit competitive lists where it is not even an issue. For the other 25%, if cronyism is an issue, it should be addressed during the election process.

The fact that ONLY 75% of MOCS submit competitive slates is enough to tell any thinking person that the system is bogus and unfair? Why should 25% of the Service Academy applicants be treated any differently than the other 75%?

Has anybody read the other threads? There is so much confusion and worry about the nomination process. Unfortunately, the confusion and worry is all valid and warranted . No consistency in something this critical in a young person's life handled this way equals unconstitutionality in my opinion. Remember the equal protection clause?

Contrary to one persons opinion, the broken system , as it exists, worked very, very well for me. That does not make me a believer , however. I guess when it works for you, bottoms up goes the cool aid for some.

Why should a MOC, or more accurately. a panel of "citizens" (majority of whom have little knowledge of any Service Academy), have anything to do with deciding where a qualified applicant may apply to gain a nomination?

An example from my district last year, which I find outrageous:
One highly qualified candidate wanted to attend only USMA and listed only USMA on the MOC application. Received only a nomination for USNA. Never completed the USNA apllication so effectively wasted it. Went ROTC to a great college but was heartbroken that USMA could not consider the completed application , that was superior in every respect.

The ONLY valid argument to continue this archaic nomination system is for geographic diversity. I submit that the myriad problems and confusion and unjust results far outweigh the single benefit it provides. Geographic diversity, could be accomplished the same way every other National University accomplishes it each and every year.

 

[scoutpilot]

Why should a MOC, or more accurately. a panel of "citizens" (majority of whom have little knowledge of any Service Academy), have anything to do with deciding where a qualified applicant may apply to gain a nomination?

Stupid "citizens." They don't know what it takes to run the country, either. Better just prevent them from voting in case they might not make the perfect choice.

 

[Christcorp]

......Why should a MOC, or more accurately. a panel of "citizens" (majority of whom have little knowledge of any Service Academy), have anything to do with deciding where a qualified applicant may apply to gain a nomination?
We've already covered this. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of MOC's slates, have their appointee selected BY THE ACADEMY. NOT the MOC. Very few MOC's list a "Principal Nomination". And there's no way you're going to convince anyone, that ALL 10 APPLICANTS on that slate, are unworthy; and that the academy isn't picking the one with merit. Again, the MOC's are normally simply nominating. They aren't choosing who gets the appointment.

An example from my district last year, which I find outrageous:
One highly qualified candidate wanted to attend only USMA and listed only USMA on the MOC application. Received only a nomination for USNA. Never completed the USNA apllication so effectively wasted it. Went ROTC to a great college but was heartbroken that USMA could not consider the completed application , that was superior in every respect.
I'm not going to call B.S. on this, but I would have to see something more than just your story. Granted, I've only been involved with academy applications for about 6 years, but I've NEVER heard or seen a MOC GIVE A NOMINATION to an individual for some place he did not apply to. Not saying that it couldn't happen, but I've never seen that. If it's true, then why are you complaining here. You and others should be biotching at your congressman. S/He's the freakin ****** who nominated someone for something they didn't apply to.

The ONLY valid argument to continue this archaic nomination system is for geographic diversity. I submit that the myriad problems and confusion and unjust results far outweigh the single benefit it provides. Geographic diversity, could be accomplished the same way every other National University accomplishes it each and every year.
Nothing outweighs the state's right to equal representation. Nothing at all. This has already been addressed. I won't even argue this point again.

As for the 75% that Mongo was talking about, he isn't saying that 25% of all slates are made up of bogus applicants. If he was, then that would support your argument. But that's not what that means. What I read, and is similar in probably ALL branches of service academies; is that 75% of all MOC slates are 10 individuals that the MOC has deemed to be THE BEST OF HIS/HER APPLICANTS. That's the way it should be. That doesn't mean that the other 25% are total FUBARS. It means that maybe 1 of the 10 applicants was chosen because of an attribute that stood out and impressed the MOC. But that doesn't mean that the other 9 on the slate were unworthy.

Your problem is that you have way too much emotion and almost hatred in you. MOST MOC's talk to each other in the state. They do everything imaginable to get as many of their constituents a nomination as possible. Maybe that means that an individual will only get 1 nomination and not 3. OH WELL. Life's biotch, get over it. It's your MOC's rules. NO ONE ELSE'S. Not congress, not the military, not the academy. If you're in a heavily populated state, and your moc's want to try and get 10 different applicants nominations from each senator and each representative, then good for them. At least they're trying.

Your other problem is that YOU THINK YOU KNOW of a 100% fair system. Sorry; you don't. You might think you do, but you'd be wrong. Every school district in the state; every congressional district in the state; every state in the country; is different from each other. Different quality of schools. Different economic levels. Students with different levels of opportunities. Students/applicants/citizens with different experiences and perspectives on life. Different perspectives on the military. Sorry, but having 10,000+ applications come through the academy, and have the academy choose the TOP-1300/1400 applicants, is impossible. Can't happen. And I'd never want to see it happen. What would the criteria be??? I can tell you right now, that the military DOESN'T WANT ALL 4.0GPA and 2400SAT STUDENTS. NO, We don't want that. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton can have those. We want well rounded individuals who will/can become effective military leaders. The effectiveness of leadership between a H.S. graduate with a 4.0gpa and a 3.2gpa is totally irrelevant. Yes, we need academically successful students, but that 4.0gpa and 36ACT is not all that impressive.

I really think that's the problem. You believe that there's these finite scores that automatically can be assigned to a person and that would be a fair way to choose the top-1300/1400 appointees. Unfortunately, that isn't a good way of choosing 1300/1400 potential effective military leaders. Some of it is subjective. Sorry, but the Non-Academic achievements of the individual are just as important. Sometimes more. It's the state's RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to nominate appointees to the military academy. If you don't like that, then there is a process to change the US Code and while you're at it, the constitution. Our states have already lost much of it's rights to the federal government. You now want to give even more away. Well, in our country, we are all allowed to think the way we want to.

 

[flieger83]

VERY well said!

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83