The Army's Disservice To Women

MemberLG

10-Year Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
2,935
From Washington Post, June 21st

West Point is considered a progressive institution where women have been enrolled for almost 40 years. But the number of female cadets has remained low. The academy’s first integrated class, the Class of 1980, was 10 percent female. In the more than three decades since then, the representation of women has not risen above 16 percent. Why do so few young women attend this prestigious — and taxpayer-funded — academy when, as of 2011, women earn 56 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded nationwide?

Participants at a recent conference on women at West Point put this question to the academy’s administrators, professors and staff. Their answer was not that the applicant pool contained few qualified women or that the academy was admitting all qualified women who applied. Instead, we were told, the admissions office follows an explicit “class composition goal” for women, which was set at 14 to 16 percent for class years 2008 to 2013.

To calculate the academy’s goal for women, leaders apparently rely on Army demographics. Because women make up roughly 15 percent of the active Army, the leadership has decided that the West Point admissions office should aim to enroll no more women than would constitute 16 percent of the class. As a document we received from a member of the West Point board of visitors observes, this method for setting the class composition goal ensures that the academy’s “demographic future will replicate the Army’s demographic past at best.”

The crucial question is whether the goal functions as a tool to increase the historically low number of female cadets or as a quota on — that is, an allocation for — the number to be admitted. Under Supreme Court case law — the most relevant cases are Regents of University of California v. Bakke, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger — college admissions quotas, whether designed to operate for or against members of a protected class, are automatically suspect and are almost sure to be struck down as violations of equal protection of the law. Although those cases involved quotas based on race, there is every reason to believe that the court would strike down a backward-looking, rigid sex-based quota like this one as well.

My two cents, the admissions office could have gave a better answer.

My answer would have been that the number of admitted female candidates are reflective of number of female applicants. Female qualified vs admitted is about 2% less than males, but I suspect that number can be easily accounted by soldier applicants.

Class of 2016 profile

Men Women Total
Applicant Files Started... 12,101....3,070.. 15,171
Nominated....................... 3,553.......732.... 4,285
Qualified (in academics and
physical aptitude)........ 2,191.......438.... 2,629
Admitted..................... 1,002.......191.... 1,193

We had some previous discussions about legality of SA admissions goal/quota. My guess is that since SAs are different from normal colleges, so different set of rules.
 
My understanding of the class composition goal model is that the goal % is a goal and not a ceiling. It is a goal, not a quota.
If there is a female that would put WP over the 16% goal for women, I find it unlikely that they would not offer that female an appointment solely because she would put the class composition of women over 16%.
 
This may or may not be an Army or WP thing. Don't forget about the gate keepers, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (MOC). Here is my experience with the whole process. DD applied to WP for the 2016 Class. Med qualified, competitive in all areas. Interview could have gone better ( DD had wisdom teeth removed 24 hours earlier and could not reschedule and did not tell the interview folks so she may have come across as a drunk chipmunk). That being said DD did not get a nomination. Colorado is considered very competitive I believe. When the names of the nominees were released in the local paper I found it very interesting that no female’s names were listed. To be fair, it is possible that all kids nominated were not in the paper as the nominee could choose to not have their name listed as nominated. The scenario that all females would choose to not have their names listed seems unlikely so that leads me to believe that 1) there were no females nominated or 2) only a very small number of females were nominated and all chose to not have their names listed in the paper. I find it very difficult to believe we had no qualified female applicants that warranted a nomination to WP from southern Colorado. I inquired with the MOC's staff and received no response verbally. I then e-mailed the MOC/staff for the following information:
Total number of nominations applied for from this MOC.
Number of male applicants to this MOC of nomination.
Number of female applicants to this MOC for nomination.
Number of males nominated by this MOC.
Number of females nominated by this MOC.
I also asked for this same information for the previous 3 years.
Hardly state secrets or nuclear launch code stuff right?? WRONG!!!!!
I was told by MOC staff that this information is subject to privacy laws and not available. I assured the staff member I was not looking for names of applicants, or any personal information just the raw numbers above. Staff said no. I said fine I'll just submit a Freedom of Information request for the requested information. His response was "members of congress are exempt from the FOI act.
MOC 1 / Constituents 0...... Game over.
 
This may or may not be an Army or WP thing. Don't forget about the gate keepers, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (MOC). Here is my experience with the whole process. DD applied to WP for the 2016 Class. Med qualified, competitive in all areas. Interview could have gone better ( DD had wisdom teeth removed 24 hours earlier and could not reschedule and did not tell the interview folks so she may have come across as a drunk chipmunk). That being said DD did not get a nomination. Colorado is considered very competitive I believe. When the names of the nominees were released in the local paper I found it very interesting that no female’s names were listed. To be fair, it is possible that all kids nominated were not in the paper as the nominee could choose to not have their name listed as nominated. The scenario that all females would choose to not have their names listed seems unlikely so that leads me to believe that 1) there were no females nominated or 2) only a very small number of females were nominated and all chose to not have their names listed in the paper. I find it very difficult to believe we had no qualified female applicants that warranted a nomination to WP from southern Colorado. I inquired with the MOC's staff and received no response verbally. I then e-mailed the MOC/staff for the following information:
Total number of nominations applied for from this MOC.
Number of male applicants to this MOC of nomination.
Number of female applicants to this MOC for nomination.
Number of males nominated by this MOC.
Number of females nominated by this MOC.
I also asked for this same information for the previous 3 years.
Hardly state secrets or nuclear launch code stuff right?? WRONG!!!!!
I was told by MOC staff that this information is subject to privacy laws and not available. I assured the staff member I was not looking for names of applicants, or any personal information just the raw numbers above. Staff said no. I said fine I'll just submit a Freedom of Information request for the requested information. His response was "members of congress are exempt from the FOI act.
MOC 1 / Constituents 0...... Game over.

Congressional staffers are idiots. That has nothing to do with the Privacy Act... there is nothing identifiable in there. I guess I'll just have to elbow the next staffer I see on a Metro train in DC for you. Getting elbowed is all they're good for.
 
"Why do so few young women attend this prestigious — and taxpayer-funded — academy when, as of 2011, women earn 56 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded nationwide?"

It is hard for me to believe that an educated person would ask this question. What the # does the percentage of bachelor's degrees earned by women nationwide have to do with the percentage of female cadets at West Point?
 
"Why do so few young women attend this prestigious — and taxpayer-funded — academy when, as of 2011, women earn 56 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded nationwide?"

It is hard for me to believe that an educated person would ask this question. What the # does the percentage of bachelor's degrees earned by women nationwide have to do with the percentage of female cadets at West Point?

Exactly, there really is no correlation between the two and should not be compared.
 
"Why do so few young women attend this prestigious — and taxpayer-funded — academy when, as of 2011, women earn 56 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded nationwide?"

It is hard for me to believe that an educated person would ask this question. What the # does the percentage of bachelor's degrees earned by women nationwide have to do with the percentage of female cadets at West Point?

Exactly, there really is no correlation between the two and should not be compared.

Well maybe that "educated" person didn't go to a service academy...:yllol:

And absolutely agree with you...
 
Probably for the same reason so few women join the military as enlisted.
 
Perhaps they did and they wanted to answer the question the trogodites of the 10's might ask...How many women go to college that aren't after their Mrs. degrees.

It actually answer the logical question: If WP has only 14% female, how many female goes to other universities. If that answer was low like 15% than WP would be no different than other university, but since the number is high 56% then WP is different!
 
Back
Top