what counts as a minority?

Vista123 said:
...
I am unclear on the significance of there being one Indian (from India, not Native American) ex-West Point grad on the admissions board?
Click to expand...

I just threw that in there as one of those "oh maybe since there is an Indian on the admissions board, maybe they 'select out/help' other Indians applying" sort of things.
[To imply that Indians are underrepresented]

:)

-TheChicagoan
 
WP has class composition goals.
Goals not quotas - big difference.
Goals are what WP would like to achieve. Quotas have to be met.
There are no quotas at WP.

Class composition goals are set by the Supe.
These goals will slightly vary year to year but typically the class composition goals are:

Leaders: 20-25%
Scholars: 20-25%
Athletes: 20-25%
Minorities: 20-25%
Soldiers: 12-15%
Women: 14-16%

In regards to the minorities goal, BillSL is correct. WP targets URMs (underrepresented minorities).
These URMs and the % goal set for each are:
African American 12-15%
Hispanics 9-12%
American Indians 1%

Focus by the admissions dept is on African Americans and Hispanics as the American Indian goal is usually met.
There are many outreach programs to reach and educate these URMs about West Point. The purpose of these programs is to find and recruit highly qualified URMs in order to meet the class composition goal for each.

Class of 2015 URM results -
10% are African American
9% are Hispanic

If you qualify as an URM, then you will be assigned to the Minority Admissions Officer. He/She will manage your file and not the RC.

There is a goal set for women, but in terms of admissions, women are not considered a minority and not assigned to the Minority Admissions Officer.

Fun fact: USNA and USAFA do not set class composition goals.
 
Seems like a step backward when the amount of melanin in your skin can play such a big factor in your admission chances.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
buff81 said:
You're missing the point then, Luigi59.
Click to expand...

No, I clearly see it. I just don't ignore it or or sugar coat it. It is what it is - the color of your skin is a factor in gaining admission.

We are giving preference according to skin color, but unlike the past where "too much melanin" was used to reject, today "not enough melanin" plays a similar role.

Yes, I clearly see that skin color plays a part in academy admissions, as it did 75 years ago.
 
This is one topic that will always remain a "hot button issue" with many. I am speaking as a parent of a candidate who is currently on the NWL for the second year in a row. Not only is the waiting game brutal to all those left in limbo, but it equally harsh when the reality sets in that the color of his skin, or his placement in or out of a underrepresented category will directly impact his chances of obtaining an appointment. It has taken some time, but I have come to accept the fact that while there are many very qualified candidates there are just not enough slots available to accommodate them all.
What I still have difficulty understanding is the WCS (whole candidate score)! From day 1 everything, admissions wise, has been focused on the WCS - 60% academic, 30% leadership qualities (organizations, EC's, captaincy's...) & 10% physical (CFA & DoDMERB qualified). There is no mention of minority status, skin color... That is decided by West Point! Do I understand? Somewhat! I realize the benefit of diversity - a well rounded class. Do I fully agree with it? No! I have always imagined the Service Academies as being institutions where "the best of the best" attend. By instituting this "quota" system you dilute the class - there is no way getting around it or candy coating it! The merit of the candidate should be the only qualifying or disqualifying factors!
I'm not the first to bring this up, I won't be the last. I have heard many explanations on admissions procedures, but I haven't heard one that truly makes complete sense! Maybe this is a question that does not have a clear black & white answer (no pun intended)! Good luck to all still on the NWL
 
They cut too much slack on minorites and athletes.I completely agree with Luigi59, in an attempt to move forward, it's just the same as it was years ago, just from another side. Im black and im not even a big fan of "goals". If I was the most qualified african american applying (Im definitly not btw), but I was only an average candidate, Id get a major bump in the admission process. It would bother me for a long time if I felt like I got in because I was a tad darker than someone while maybe a more qualified person didn't get in. Now its not the "best of the best" getting in but the "best and a few others"
 
This is a hot button topic and the original question has been answered. If one looks hard enough they can always see every side.

On one hand: I do see the value of addressing racial and ethnic diversity in the corps. I think it is important that our military personnel from leadership through enlisted are exposed to different life perspectives and ones heritage plays an important role. Throughout history we see the destruction that ethnocentricity in a military can cause. Therefore the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society is of importance.

On another hand: seeking racial diversity is considered by many a political issue. With that in mind, the argument that I particularly dislike is that this is going on at all colleges and universities. While I would agree that this is truly commonplace, I would also propose that most posters on this forum do not believe that the service academies are like State Universities. Service academies should be, given their reason for being, held to a higher standard and not be swayed by popular politically correct opinions.

See, this can be debated all day-even on your own.
 
hormiga13 said:
They cut too much slack on minorites and athletes.I completely agree with Luigi59, in an attempt to move forward, it's just the same as it was years ago, just from another side. Im black and im not even a big fan of "goals". If I was the most qualified african american applying (Im definitly not btw), but I was only an average candidate, Id get a major bump in the admission process. It would bother me for a long time if I felt like I got in because I was a tad darker than someone while maybe a more qualified person didn't get in. Now its not the "best of the best" getting in but the "best and a few others"
Click to expand...

With this attitude and outlook, I think you will do well. Good luck!
 
Luigi59 said:
No, I clearly see it. I just don't ignore it or or sugar coat it. It is what it is - the color of your skin is a factor in gaining admission.
Click to expand...

(I use the term "affirmative action" to refer to the class composition goals.)

Correct me if I am wrong... but the whole idea about affirmative action is not, IN THEORY, to give people preference due to their skin color, but rather the person's BACKGROUND. In THEORY, a hispanic would have a different background than an african american, which would have a different background than a caucasian, which would have a different background than a native american, and so on.

I've seen arguments that the THEORY is good but, in practice, it may not really work that way - I think I read SOMEWHERE (don't remember where, don't know if it was true, etc) about how minority students who make use of affirmative action are in fact not so different (background-wise) from those non-minority students who can't make use of it (they attend similar schools, parents have similar jobs, etc). This is beyond the point... WP should decide whether it is still advantageous to have class composition goals or not.

Anyways... the whole idea is to get all these different people with different backgrounds and put in the same place - in this case, WP - to try to get something nice out of the mix (and other reasons in the Officer Corps). IN MY OPINION: for SOME reason, they decided to use skin color as a factor to differentiate people's backgrounds.

I believe it is the same idea as the nominations - they serve, among other things, to provide the Service Academies with some nice geographical mix. Besides using where the candidate LIVES, they use what the candidate considers his/her skin color as well. They also like getting soldiers into the SAs. Why? They have a different background... I see that as SOMEWHAT the same idea behind the minority outreach program.



VonFritz said:
I have always imagined the Service Academies as being institutions where "the best of the best" attend.
Click to expand...

So maybe some candidates are not "the best of the best"... but the idea of Service Academies (and colleges in general) is NOT to educate "the best of the best". There are SO MANY other goals... And the idea of "the best of the best" is very, VERY relative, in my opinion. One is not "better" than the other because they do better in school and sports and whatnot. Each single person has something to offer to the world... WP's Admissions Committee sets some requirements to attend the USMA (because, even though every person is great in some way or the other, that won't make them a good Officer, necessarily). However, I believe they understand that there are SO MANY other things that go beyond what can be objectively analyzed. For some reasons, they use skin color for it. They also use geographical location.

One person is NOT better than the other - they are DIFFERENT. They may be better in SOME aspects - and some of those aspects ARE considered in the admissions process. But not all of them... it's impossible to do so.


Can class-composition goals be somewhat "unfair"? Of course they can, depending on the perspective. But I don't believe that is the intention. As with everything ELSE in this world, this works well on one hand, and awfully on the other. I don't think a perfect system will ever be found. But meanwhile, I believe we should understand the idea instead of simply shooting it down.
 
BillSL said:
. . ..

I've seen arguments that the THEORY is good but, in practice, it may not really work that way - I think I read SOMEWHERE (don't remember where, don't know if it was true, etc) about how minority students who make use of affirmative action are in fact not so different (background-wise) from those non-minority students who can't make use of it (they attend similar schools, parents have similar jobs, etc). This is beyond the point... WP should decide whether it is still advantageous to have class composition goals or not.

Anyways... the whole idea is to get all these different people with different backgrounds and put in the same place - in this case, WP - to try to get something nice out of the mix (and other reasons in the Officer Corps). IN MY OPINION: for SOME reason, they decided to use skin color as a factor to differentiate people's backgrounds.

. . . .
Click to expand...

IN MY OPINION, using the skin color to determine diversity doesn't work to match up with the goal of promoting diversity.

During my Beast, I had two white roommates - far from from typical one was an Army brat that has been all over the world and other one was from a small town in South. I (non-white) was from a big city. So my room had a good diversity without any skin color.

My yuck year roommate, a URM by his skin color, but a backgroun of "typical" white kid from a suburb.

I worked with a candidate that got no attention because he marked "other" for his race and when we corrected it got all the attention and more.

Went to interview a candidate that the admissions office identified as URM, he was a "typical" white kid from a suburb.

I think the real under represented group is poor "white" kids. But these poor "white" kids are considered as same as the rich "white" kids.

As long as we think diversity is about different skin color, we will never have true diversity.
 
I get the feeling from some of the posters on this thread, that because you are a minority, for some odd reason you cannot possibly be as good as a non- minority(scholastically,S.A.T etc.). I just want to point out that every appointee to West Point is 3Q'd, meet the requirements of background check etc.. The admission to West Point is not a contest! The admission process is subjective to a point , and certain non-minority candidates with higher s.a.t's will be passed over for a candidate with a lower score, but better leadership qualities. Every year at this time, the same old argument comes up as candidates realize that they may not be getting an appointment. My dd will attend West Point in the fall, she is bi-racial, african american and caucasian, she has a 4.8 gpa, never got a B from kindergarten only A's, taken as many AP classes as one can possibly take, getting 4 or 5's on those ap exams, all the while playing varsity volleyball and basketball and volunteering at the hospital,she is also ranked number 2 out of 800 in her class of 2012. I could go on and on about my daughters accomplishments but i wont, because my point is that if you see her at West Point and you automatically put her in the category of URM and think that she was just given a spot to meet a goal then you will be mistaken.
 
MemberLG said:
IN MY OPINION, using the skin color to determine diversity doesn't work to match up with the goal of promoting diversity.

During my Beast, I had two white roommates - far from from typical one was an Army brat that has been all over the world and other one was from a small town in South. I (non-white) was from a big city. So my room had a good diversity without any skin color.

My yuck year roommate, a URM by his skin color, but a backgroun of "typical" white kid from a suburb.

I worked with a candidate that got no attention because he marked "other" for his race and when we corrected it got all the attention and more.

Went to interview a candidate that the admissions office identified as URM, he was a "typical" white kid from a suburb.

I think the real under represented group is poor "white" kids. But these poor "white" kids are considered as same as the rich "white" kids.

As long as we think diversity is about different skin color, we will never have true diversity.
Click to expand...

You make good points.

I just wanted to explain that "different skin color" is apparently being used just like, say, household income would (same idea to promote background diversity). Whether it works or not... well, you don't think it does. For some reason, WP Admissions still think it does.

Thing is... I don't think it would work if WP set a load of "goals": household income, skin color, residence, etc. So they just set a few...
 
I am minority in America but wow, I guess I'm not a minority when it comes to West Point admissions. Either way, I used to sometimes wonder what role "affirmative action" played in admissions. I debated this topic with my classmates once during plebe year in class and its a really tough question. I've seen arguments (I see great arguments here for both sides) and there is still nothing that has changed my mind that considering race, for whatever reason, in admissions is fair or justified. I fully understand the academy's point of view and I won't criticize it or resent it because I see why its so important. Its just that fundamentally, it comes down to comparing skin colors and thats just hard for me to accept. A white cadet in my squad during CBT once said to my face that I had gotten in partially because of my race...I obviously didn't feel so great about that haha. And so I think we're all aware of this issue, and obviously some of us will feel cheated or insulted. I will never know, but I know I would be quite disgusted if I found out that I was admitted with my race considered. Either way, its still a topic that really intrigues me and affects me personally in a different way.

And I really like MemberLG's point about the true definition of diversity...never saw it that way! Really, can we define diversity solely on the basis of race? Last semester, I had two southern white guys as roommates. We got along great and we still do. Even though I was a "minority" they often jabbed me about the fact that I was from the north (Michigan) and we always had harmless fun arguing over the Civil War and northern aggression whatever etc. I never interacted with southern people until I got here...shouldn't that be considered "diversity" like MemberLG mentioned?

I'm really interested in what a class would look like if race played zero role and selection was based solely on merit...I guess race-wise it would be mostly white. But then again, I think minorities simply don't apply to West Point as much as whites do and I think the same holds true for enlistment.
 
Last edited:
I believe the difference is in the term Ouotas vs Goals.

If it were a Quota the WP would simply offer appontments to the top 12% or so from a certain minority group no matter how they compared to the overall applicants.

Goals, to me, means that they seek out minorities with equal qualifications and work with them get through the process.

I think it is impossible to say that some minorities receive appointments due to race without seeing all the applications side by side for a comparison.

Looking at Billdanc's daughters resume it would be hard to claim she was appointed to WP based on race. If her application was being compared to a non minority's application of equal stats and they were competing for the last appointment, the fact that she was a minority may be the tipping point, but to be fair if both applicants were non minority there would be something else the would give one of the edge over the other.

It seems that WP is putting great effort into recruiting minorities that have the qualifications to be appointed to WP, they are not just trying to fill quotas by appointing non qualified minorities.

I do feel for the Minority cadets that have to deal with the comments and behind the back whispers that they must have received their appointment because of their race. It always seems to come down to applicants looking for a reason why they did not get an appointment, minority cadets seem to be an easy target for their frustration when that fact is while thousands apply only a small percentage get selected. There are some very qualified, terrific students no matter what race they are that do not get an appointment, if they did, WP would be the size of Penn State.
 
buff81 said:
Explain what you see, please.
Why would West Point want to set a % goal for minorities in each class.
Click to expand...

You can debate the "why" all you wish.

I was stating what it "is" not "why it is."

And the evidence (even your own stats that you posted) clearly shows that skin color matters in academy admissions. Not just WP, but all of them.

Which, imho, is a step backward. We should judge every candidate on the strength of their application and give no preference (nor any discrimination) on the color of skin.

Because to advocate or give preference to the candidacy of one race, you must discriminate against another. There is no other choice. And I believe that we are long past judging people based on skin color.

At least I thought we were.

Hence, my comment about things remaining the same.

FTR, in no way am I saying that the URM candidates are not qualified. EVERY ONE OF THEM, regardless of academy, is supposed to be qualified (USNA stats revealed by FOIA requests not withstanding) regardless if they are white, black, red or green.

But if the "tipping point" that gets them an appointment over an equally qualified candidate is the color of their skin, then we haven't advanced at all.
 
Billdanc said:
. . . .The admission process is subjective to a point , and certain non-minority candidates with higher s.a.t's will be passed over for a candidate with a lower score, but better leadership qualities . . . .
Click to expand...

The admission process is also objective to a point. Objectively, a candidate with the highest WCS wins, the WCS is 60% Academic, 30% Leadership, 10% Phyical.

So numberwise, in order for Candidate A with higher SAT to be passed over by Candidate B will lower SAT, either the SAT score difference is not great or Candidate A's leadership "grade" must be significantly lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top