Reality Check

Maplerock said:
Contributors to these forums tend to be very encouraging and upbeat. That's a good thing.

Recently the numbers came out for the class of 2020, and it she'd a little light on what USAFA is looking for.

If you are a white male, coming directly out of high school, your chance of admission is quite low. By my calculation, about 30% of this year's incoming class is female, and about 30% is minority. Add to that the recruited athletes, enlisted personal that earn slots, the prep school kids, the turnbacks, and the repeat applicants coming from college, and the chance of a white male graduating from HS in May and entering BCT in June would be pretty small.

Does it happen? Yes. Should it discourage you from applying? No. It is just a reminder to have a good plan B,C,D, etc. Your chances of a direct admission from high school have never been smaller. I'd suspect the same is true for USMA, USNA, and USCGA too.

Not good news, not bad news, just information... and a reality check for the great students out there that think their grades and ECAs make them a shoe in. It doesn't work that way anymore.

Good luck to all the applicants for the class of 2021.
Click to expand...
It's "quite low" for everyone. Not just the white kids. Take a look at the class pictures and tell me what you see? "By my calculation", it looks like about 60% of your "white males".
 
Christcorp said:
Well, as with any stats, these can be a little misleading.

1. Whites make up approximately 65% of the US population.
2. Women make up approximately 51% of the US population.
3. That means, White "MEN" make up approximately 31% of the US population. Acceptance of white men to the air force academy is higher than 31%

Add to this, the question of:

Of all the recruited athletes, enlisted personal that earn slots, the prep school kids, the turnbacks, and the repeat applicants coming from college, that you mentioned; HOW MANY of them are "White Men"?

And for what it's worth, almost ALL Enlisted personnel receiving an appointment to the academy, WAS AT the prep school. That was one of the main reasons for the prep school. For enlisted personnel who have been out of an academic environment for a few years.

Also, you have to realize that we aren't looking at ALL of the data. You don't have all the data available. Only the stats they WANT you to see.
EXAMPLE: If the stats shown said:
74% White
13% Black
8% Asian
4% Other

25% Female

Does that mean you can deduce that if 1000 were appointed, and 740 are White, that 25% of that means there are 185 White Females??? And there are 32 Black Females? 20 Asian Female? 10 Other Female?

Not enough data. What if ALL of the 13% black, 8% Asian and 4% other were ALL female. That would mean that the 74% whites were ALL MEN. Obviously, this scenario is quite unlikely. I'm simply pointing out, that unless you have all of the raw data and metrics in which is being used, you can't always come up with an accurate assumption based on "SOME" data. That same list of data, could easily have of the 740 whites, that 250 of them are female. Thus, leaving ZERO females in the black, asian, and other categories. Yet, the numbers presented are still accurate.

I think you get my point.
I do!
Click to expand...
 
Alaskan said:
It's "quite low" for everyone. Not just the white kids. Take a look at the class pictures and tell me what you see? "By my calculation", it looks like about 60% of your "white males".
Click to expand...

Can you tell which are prior enlisted? Recruited athletes? Prep schoolers? Turn backs? Foreign nationals? I can't.

They're not "my white males."
All I said was that it is difficult for a high school graduating white male to win an appointment. Seems I've hit your nerve.
 
Christcorp said:
...But people need to know that little Johnny or Mary aren't going off to college. They are joining the military. It just happens to be, that their "job" for the first 4 years in the military is "Student". The military and developing leaders is the primary purpose. A college education is secondary.
Click to expand...

^^^ +1000

If people truly understood this, they would not attempt to dissect academy statistics for any other purpose than understanding the makeup of the officer corps. These stats are not a source of pride and do not enable anyone to compare an SA with a civilian college or determine odds of admission. When people ask what our son is up to these days, more often than not, I simply say he joined the military.

He's in the army. He is not at college.
 
With all due respect, I don't think it is at all wrong for a kid to want to know approximately where he or she stands in terms of being admitted, or what kinds of scores or numbers need to be received to get there. Indeed, I think it is responsible.

And in terms of understanding the numbers, like anything else, there is reading the lines, and then there is reading between the lines. Some may wish to believe that every candidate is assessed exactly the same by the academies, regardless of gender, race, or athletic ability, and then defend that believe by stating that there are no "published statistics" proving one way or another, but this thread is about"reality", and so let's keep it real. Does anyone really think that big-time football recruits are being assessed by admissions in the same pile of applications as everyone else? Or that when academies announce that they have admissions goals to increase minorities and women, and successfully do so even when the percentage of minorities and women applicants is a fraction of those who are neither minorities or women, that the average test scores, or other admissions criteria, are less for those who are admitted? Same with prior enlisted.

Now before many of you jump back on the soap box and suggest that this is sacrilege to say these things out loud (even though i am at the same time saying that it is not necessary a bad thing), there is nothing sexist or racist about making these points. Kids want to know where they stand, and how high the bar is.

Yes, everyone needs to try hard, and you can't control the numbers, or who else will apply. Everyone has heard these things many times, and all are 100% true. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't know what they need to do to accomplish the goal, or what the loose standard is.
 
Last edited:
VelveteenR said:
^^^ +1000
These stats are not a source of pride and do not enable anyone to compare an SA with a civilian college or determine odds of admission. When people ask what our son is up to these days, more often than not, I simply say he joined the military.

He's in the army. He is not at college.
Click to expand...
Your son is in both. Yes. He attends a unique college called a Service Academy and they path is much different than a typical college. But WP/USAFA/ etc are considered a college. It's why the SA's have college sports. Students take college classes, get college credit, have college professors, etc. The SA's are ranked as colleges by the likes of US News, Forbes, etc. If it was a vocational education, you wouldn't have recent graduates going off to MIT, Stanford, for their Master's degree or law degree or medical degrees. They don't except vocational credit but rather college credits.

Back to the stats. They are a source of pride. I look at the average ACT scores, the amount of letterwinners, how difficult or easy it is to get into the Academy, etc. It's why you hear "congratulations!" from many who understand what your son accomplished. :) Additionally, the stats (partially) do help people understand what their chances are to get in. It's no different that Stanford for example. People look at the admissions and see what the average ACT/SAT, read about what they are looking for, etc. USAFA is looking for someone who shows a history of leading, takes hard classes, and is athletic. They are also looking for diversity in skin color and gender + diversity in experiences. Stanford for instance is looking for smart students with an entrepreneurial spirit (think Bay area culture). They also are closely looking at diversity. Unfortunately for a lot of motivated Asian families, the bar is set higher for them because there is no shortage of extremely bright passionate college bound students on the West coast that have had their eye on attending Stanford for years. Hence a white male from MN for instance might be stared at closer because he is "different". So it cuts both ways. Schools want diversity for other reasons than being politically correct (yes, PC is one reason as well but their are non PC reasons too).

Furthermore, our government runs other colleges just like the SA colleges. Like the US Army / Naval War College and several other post graduate colleges. They also run the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) which is a college to train doctors and nurses.

That all said, a SA is anything but a typical college. And their #1 goal is to mold future military leaders which includes a quality college education. Our DS's #1 goal was to receive a World Class college education (studying books and attending class) all the while he looked forward to learning leadership and military skills. So SA's are a college on steroids with a heavy serving of military education.

All that said and to the other posters. Our family is white and our son is a male. I get why the SA's are looking to put in leaders that replicate the makeup of the country. They damn well should and I am glad they do. So long as the cadets are high caliber, diversify away!
 
Last edited:
The problem is, many people read the forums, read the stats, chat back and forth, and think they have an educated opinion about the appointment process. The issue is, not all of the information is either being discussed or maybe just not recognized.

For example:
1. Federal Law provides for each representative/Senator who gives out nominations, to have up to 5 cadets at the academy at one time, that is actually "Charged to them". That doesn't mean that there can't be more than 5 at the academy; just not more than 5 CHARGED TO THEM. Any cadet who was given an appointment from the National Pool, is NOT CHARGED to the Rep/Senator.
2. If a rep/senator has an available slot, they provide a slate of 10 nominations. If the rep/senator already has 5 Cadets at the academy CHARGED TO THEM, then that Rep/Senator CAN NOT give nominations that year.
3. If a rep/senator does provide a slate of 10 nominations because they have a slot open, then the academy MUST APPOINT ONE FROM THAT LIST. Doesn't matter if the most qualified on the list has a 3.4 gpa and 26 ACT. As long as they meet the "MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS", by law, the academy MUST APPOINT one from that list.
4. The Rep/Senator has 3 Choices on HOW to give that list of 10 nominees to the academy:
a) No particular order. Here's 10 names, and they ALLOW the academy to choose which one to give the appointment to.
b) Ranked order. The rep/senator ranks them in their preference, from #1 - #10. The 1st one is called the Principal Nominee. And the academy MUST CHOOSE this person. They MUST give them the appointment if that individual meets the minimum qualifications. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. Even if that nominee has a lower overall scored package than the others on that slate of 10 names. If that #1 principal nominee doesn't qualify, the academy must go to #2 and so on.
c). Sort of combination of the first two. But ONLY the 1st nominee (Principal) must be appointed if qualified. If not qualified, or they turn it down, the academy can choose anyone else from the list.
5. These appointments from the Rep/Senator's slates, account for approximately HALF of the appointments. The law is written because ALL states pay taxes that provide for the academies. (The big 3). Therefor, ALL STATES will get equal representation at the academy. "The ULTIMATE DIVERSITY".
6. The remaining half of appointments, the academy has just about complete say so on who gets in.

I bring this up, because you can look at all the stats you want. It means nothing. Not unless you know the stats of YOUR COMPETITION!!! Now MOST things work out in the end. If your package walks on water, but there's someone else on the same MOC nomination slate as you who has an even better package, and they get selected..... there's a good chance you'll get selected from the national pool. Assuming your package really is that good. On the other hand, you could come from a very non-military district (Yes, there are some where some representatives can't barely fill a list of 10 names); and you could get an appointment with a 3.4 gpa and 26 ACT and making the minimum standards.

There are so many variables in the appointment process, and unfortunately, most people simply look at gpa, act/sat, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. They don't realize there's a lot more to it. Then, after the first half is appointed, the academy tries to appoint the remaining to come up with the BEST CLASS. Most diverse; most representative; give reps/senators an appointee in case their original choice turned down the appointment, (Yes, about 20-25% of initial appointment offers are turned down. Of the 1200 appointments walking in the door, there were originally close to 1500 appointments offered). There's a lot more to this folks than a gpa, act/sat, race, gender, and stats.
 
Being a white male, I can almost sympathize with the argument presented by the OP.

I would like to point out that I think you dishonor those females and minorities that are appointed by implying they are less deserving than their white male counterparts.

My DD made a B in high school, was class valedictorian, scored a 35 on the ACT, maxed 4 of the 6 CFA categories on the Men's standard (Just never going to get the basketball throw done to any level of excellence and was off on the timed mile), was recruited for 2 D1 sports (and not just by USNA), has validated Chem I, Calc I, Stats, and Lit I, was one of those that successfully completed the Obstacle Course (USNA) the first time through. She was also very involved in ECAs in leadership roles and represented her school at Girls State.

She is the first female from her school to even apply to an SA.

I would argue that the reason the female and minority rates are rising is many of those candidates are now just discovering the opportunities an SA provides so the number of applicants from those pools is rising. As a Prop and Wings Officer I find it amazing how many guidance counselors are unaware of SAs and I would argue that historically the larger % of white males has some association with the number of white males (as a %) that even knew to apply.

I am all for removing any box that tracks diversity (I don't see how that really helps and I am certainly not looking to start a conversation around it)

However, IMHO, those that argue the system is rigged against the white male need to reflect on all the parameters the SA's use which include not simply taking 'the best' 1200 applicants, but having to factor in congressional/senate requirements along with other factors.

By any standard, my DD earned her spot regardless of the competition and it irritates me that others would imply she possibly got appointed simply based on her gender.

My DD won a number of track meets in a major metropolitan area in her primary event and that included in the male division as well. She is not afraid to compete head to head with anyone that wants to step into the arena with her.

So don't demean her accomplishments by throwing her into the 'Female' category or the 'Athlete' category. She earned appointments to USAFA and USNA and is vastly more qualified than her Dad who graduated from USAFA 29 years ago.
 
Here's the thing, everyone that gets an appointment, EARNED that appointment. Does it mean that those who didn't get an appointment don't deserve it? Of course not! There are many very deserving candidates who apply. There just aren't enough slots.

Are there quotas or is there special IC recruitment? If you think "no", then you're deluded. Does that mean those appointees who earned a spot aren't deserving because they fill the quota? Please - that's more than a little insulting. The ultimate goal of any service academy is to train leaders for our military. Everything else is secondary. They aren't going to bring in appointees who don't meet the minimum requirements (and those minimums are exceptional!)

I have a "white male" son. Does he think getting an appointment will he harder for him than it was for his sister? Yes, he does. Why? Because he's aware of the quotas and he's also aware that percentage-wise, there are more white-males that apply than any other group. That will make it tougher. But that doesn't mean he won't try should be decide that its the right path for him.

BTW, my son is also aware that this isn't exclusive to SAs. Other universities have quotas and recruitment, so he's got a tough row to hoe regardless. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it reality? Yes.
 
Applicant numbers would be interesting. If the latest incoming class at CGA is 30% higher females than the last class a few things could be happening...

1. 30% more females are applying. I'd say that's unlikely. (Even with recruiting)

2. 30% more of the female applicant pool is more qualified than past female applicant pools.

3. Academies are targeting female applicants. And if neither 1 or 2 are true, it means the standard is lower, in order to increase the numbers.

If you see any other way to accept more females without dropping standards, please let me know. I guess the flip side could be that they were specifically rejecting females in the past, but I can't see that being the cause of the recent increases.
 
The whole diversity topic is a double-edge sword. Diversity; or in the old day "Affirmative Action"; and the likes, are not good if standards have to be lowered or compromised. Same applies to women doing military jobs that traditionally have been exclusive to men. I'm all for anyone applying and doing anything; regardless of race, color, ethnicity, gender, etc. Assuming, standards aren't lowered or compromise.

Here's where the problem arises; concerning appointments to the academy. The minimum standards for admittance to the academy are pretty much useless. Why? Because just about every single appointee hasn't just met the minimum standards, but they've greated exceeded them. Hence, the 3.87 average gpa; 30-31 average ACT. The "Minimum Standards" are much lower than the average.

Some will say: "Just take the BEST applicant; regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc." OK, I can deal with that. The problem is, what constitutes "THE BEST"? With the exception of your gpa, ACT/SAT, and CFA, all other facets of an application and the "WHOLE PERSON" concept is subjective. Even the GPA and CFA are somewhat subjective. Some high schools weight; others don't. Some have the IB program, others have only 3-4 AP classes. Some are home schooled. etc. CFA scores differ between men and women. But even if the gpa, standardized tests, and CFA could be made Non-Subjective; that only counts for a percentage of the application. Remember, the academy is looking for future LEADERS. No future College Professors. They don't want someone with a 4.0 gpa, 36ACT, eidetic memory, and nothing else. Likewise, they don't want the individual who has all this leadership experience, community involvement, work ethics, etc. but can't do basic academia and has difficulty learning. E.g. 2.4gpa and 13ACT scores.

So how do you take the majority of "Subjective Areas" and decide who THE BEST candidate is. Lets assume they made sports mandatory and all applicants did sports in their teen years. Is high school BETTER than club? Is Team Sports better than individual sports like martial arts? Is football better than soccer? Is BAND better than the debate or 4H club? And community service??? Is church better than helping with "Meals on Wheels"? What about "Life Experience"? Is being raised in a single parent house, in the inner city, public school, overcoming economic and social challenges BETTER than being raised in a traditional family in the suburbs where the applicant had very little challenges to overcome because their parents were financially stable, local unemployment was 3% vs 14% in the city? Or vs the kid raised on the ranch/farm who worked 2 hours every morning BEFORE school; didn't have any real high school sports to participate in; and worked another 2-3 hours when they came home...... So they could then eat dinner and then do 2 hours of homework before getting to bed late each night and waking up at 4-5am to start all over again?

This is what diversity is all about. An officer corp, representative of the enlisted corp. Urban, Suburban, ranch, farm, rich, poor, men, women, black, white, christian, jewish, atheist, band, football, JrROTC, lived overseas, military brats, prior enlisted, etc. This is why I'm all for diversity. Diversity helps all others. Your background, if diverse compared to another, will give insight to that other person and they can build understanding and enhance their leadership skills with individuals of backgrounds different than theirs. As will your perspective and leadership style be enhanced and improved by your experiences with someone considered diverse from your background. Would you want an enlisted corp made up of 70% men and 30% women, to be lead by an officer corp of 100% men? Or even 100% women. (Before anyone says: "Yes, if their qualified"; sorry, I'm not buying it. The answer is no, and anything other is rationalization. The truth is, just like our children growing up and complaining: "You don't understand me". Well, adults are the same way. An employee wants to know that their employer understands them. Understands what they do, how they do their job, their motivations, etc. I recently had a boss who was a good administrator. And in all reality, that's all he needed to be. He didn't have to actually know HOW to do my job. However; because he had no background at all in what I and the other employees did, it was always difficult. He wanted something done by a certain time, but he didn't understand the details behind accomplishing the job. Same with the military. Good leadership requires many attributes. The top of this list is respect and motivation. Gaining the respect of those you are leading, and understanding what positively motivates people to do their best. It's hard for followers to believe in their leader, if the leader doesn't understand them. And the more diversity a leader experiences, especially diversity that is representative of those they will be leading, the better leader that person will become.

Diversity is very important. Especially to the military. We are uniquely different than traditional companies and work environments. But I don't believe in lowering or compromising standards in order to make the officer corp more diverse. Fortunately, those standards aren't being compromised. IF, the minimum GPA is 3.0 and the minimum ACT is 25, I would much rather have a diverse cadet wing/officer corp, where the average is 3.5 gpa and 28 ACT; than to have a non-diverse cadet wing or officer corp with an average GPA of 3.95 unweighted and 35 ACT. Just to try and make the point of accepting "THE BEST QUALIFIED". Especially considering that other than the gpa and ACT/SAT and CFA; just about everything else in life is subjective. Especially in an application.
 
Christcorp said:
I bring this up, because you can look at all the stats you want. It means nothing. Not unless you know the stats of YOUR COMPETITION!!! Now MOST things work out in the end. If your package walks on water, but there's someone else on the same MOC nomination slate as you who has an even better package, and they get selected..... there's a good chance you'll get selected from the national pool. Assuming your package really is that good. On the other hand, you could come from a very non-military district (Yes, there are some where some representatives can't barely fill a list of 10 names); and you could get an appointment with a 3.4 gpa and 26 ACT and making the minimum standards.

There are so many variables in the appointment process, and unfortunately, most people simply look at gpa, act/sat, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. They don't realize there's a lot more to it. Then, after the first half is appointed, the academy tries to appoint the remaining to come up with the BEST CLASS. Most diverse; most representative; give reps/senators an appointee in case their original choice turned down the appointment, (Yes, about 20-25% of initial appointment offers are turned down. Of the 1200 appointments walking in the door, there were originally close to 1500 appointments offered). There's a lot more to this folks than a gpa, act/sat, race, gender, and stats.
Click to expand...
If someone only looks at ACT/GPA, gender, etc etc then they are clueless about ANY college process. It doesn't matter if it is a SA or any other more selective college. Sure, some colleges are all about the bottomline (no interviews and a simple application). Yet other colleges like Dartmouth tout how many HS valedictorians they have (37% to be exact) see https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2016/03/2176-students-offered-acceptance-class-2020 . But I guarantee you the #1 person in their HS class is going to be stared at closely at Dartmouth's admissions. That's is a big deciding factor for their admissions process. Stanford looks for ingenuity. Harvard is big on proving you give back.

I agree with 99% of what you wrote especially because of the unique selection process of USAFA. You know is a lot better than any one of us reading this. But the sats DO mean something. If you have a lot more leadership experience than most, better GPA than average, better standardized tests than average, OF COURSE you have a better than average chance. If you have below average stats, then your chances are worse. It's simply benchmark statistics. Crush it beyond the averages and you are in far better shape without a guarantee. But I agree with what you wrote. No one knows for sure what the percentages of getting in are unless your family happens to be buds with a MOC (for instance) or a son of a general. Welcome to life. But for the rest of the applicants, you can have it all going on and you may suck-wind on your interview (for instance) OR be medically disqualified. That doesn't change the fact that the statistics do matter. If they didn't, why bother publishing them? OF COURSE they give an inkle on a person's chances (FAR from a guarantee).

Same-same for applying to Stanford or any other competitive school. The best stats can still mean a person will be rejected but that doesn't mean they stats are meaningless. :)
 
Last edited:
USAFA83GradWife said:
Here's the thing, everyone that gets an appointment, EARNED that appointment. Does it mean that those who didn't get an appointment don't deserve it? Of course not! There are many very deserving candidates who apply.
Click to expand...
I can think of examples of people that get an appointment that didn't deserve it. It happens all around us. It's life and it is what it is. That said, I'd predict almost of the appointments are earned. :)
 
My only concern is still, except for gpa, act/sat, and CFA, most everything else is subjective.

What constitutes that candidate "A" has MORE leadership experience than candidate "B". Candidate "A" was VP of their class; candidate "B" has been the Varsity FB team CAPTAIN for 2 years in a row. Candidate "C" was an Eagle Scout and Candidate "D" was in JrROTC or Billy Mitchell or CAP Leader. Even academic stats aren't very foretelling. I have a school where some of my candidates applied from that give the highest GPA the rank of "Valedictorian". If 4 people have the same GPA, then they have "4" Valedictorians. Another school doesn't rank their classes. A 4.0gpa student, taking the basic state required classes, has a higher class ranking, than a 3.95 student in the IB Program, where ALL of their classes are advanced classes.

That's why the academy has a BOARD to review applications and to decide if they get an appointment or not. It may be subjective at times, but it is the most fair. And to be totally honest, the vast majority of appointee's applications are pretty much non-questionable. That 3.9-4.0 gpa student, also has 30+ ACT, also has 200-300 hours volunteering, also was at boy's state / girl's state, also was a class or club officer, etc. Basically, most appointees had most all of the various attributes covered. The ones that require additional attention to, are the ones who did the BEST with what they had, but they didn't have the same opportunities as most. We have towns/schools in my state that don't offer IB, AP, or honor's classes. Schools that don't have the sports programs available. And we're not talking about giving kids/families a choice. We're talking where there's only one school. The nearest other school is 50-75 miles away. Every applicant doesn't come from a city/suburban area where there's 3-4 public high schools; 1-2 private schools; 1-2 community/state/private colleges nearby. The vast parts of the country's land is rural.

Bottom line is; determining which applicant is the "BEST" can be difficult and subjective at best. The stats shown are good if you want to compare yourself to a hypothetical. But I don't want people to look at the stats and think; "I'm not near those numbers, I don't have a chance". And they don't apply. Or equally; the individual who thinks their numbers are BETTER than the stats, and because they are also a minority, female, etc. that they think they will automatically receive an appointment. Then get discouraged or complain about how unfair the process is when they don't receive an appointment.
 
MN-Dad-2016 said:
I can think of examples of people that get an appointment that didn't deserve it. It happens all around us. It's life and it is what it is. That said, I'd predict almost of the appointments are earned. :)
Click to expand...

I can agree with that :) ... though deserve does not equate to earned. ;) You can earn it but not really deserve it. Not sure how to determine that, though.

I hear about "lowering physical standards for women" (is it really lowering when the whole point is to determine fitness?) or "lowering the academics for minorities" (is it really lowering when their HS isn't as good and its not in their control?) or ... name another "lowering." Good thing that the SAs are looking for a diverse set of people because you severely restrict your pool of applicants when you expect perfection ... to a pool of zero. Not everyone wants to be a pilot or in acquisitions or missiles or space ops or ... whatever. You NEED a diverse set of applicants to find the best person for a job.
 
Cerberi said:
Being a white male, I can almost sympathize with the argument presented by the OP.

I would like to point out that I think you dishonor those females and minorities that are appointed by implying they are less deserving than their white male counterparts.

My DD made a B in high school, was class valedictorian, scored a 35 on the ACT, maxed 4 of the 6 CFA categories on the Men's standard (Just never going to get the basketball throw done to any level of excellence and was off on the timed mile), was recruited for 2 D1 sports (and not just by USNA), has validated Chem I, Calc I, Stats, and Lit I, was one of those that successfully completed the Obstacle Course (USNA) the first time through. She was also very involved in ECAs in leadership roles and represented her school at Girls State.

She is the first female from her school to even apply to an SA.

I would argue that the reason the female and minority rates are rising is many of those candidates are now just discovering the opportunities an SA provides so the number of applicants from those pools is rising. As a Prop and Wings Officer I find it amazing how many guidance counselors are unaware of SAs and I would argue that historically the larger % of white males has some association with the number of white males (as a %) that even knew to apply.

I am all for removing any box that tracks diversity (I don't see how that really helps and I am certainly not looking to start a conversation around it)

However, IMHO, those that argue the system is rigged against the white male need to reflect on all the parameters the SA's use which include not simply taking 'the best' 1200 applicants, but having to factor in congressional/senate requirements along with other factors.

By any standard, my DD earned her spot regardless of the competition and it irritates me that others would imply she possibly got appointed simply based on her gender.

My DD won a number of track meets in a major metropolitan area in her primary event and that included in the male division as well. She is not afraid to compete head to head with anyone that wants to step into the arena with her.

So don't demean her accomplishments by throwing her into the 'Female' category or the 'Athlete' category. She earned appointments to USAFA and USNA and is vastly more qualified than her Dad who graduated from USAFA 29 years ago.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, little has been said which disparages the accomplishments of anyone. For every category of candidates there will be kids on the extreme high end of the application spectrum, high end, in the middle, and low end. But because there are a disproportionately large amount of white male applicants the academies really never need to go below the high enders, whereas if they are seeking to admit a higher amount of candidates from a category which is underrepresented there will he a higher likelihood that some will be admitted with "below average" numbers.

Without question, the top end candidates in any clarification would be admitted no matter what.

This is like folks arguing that the average stats for kids from completely non competitive districts are the same as they are in northern VA, or that it is insulting to the cadets from South Dakota to say that it is easier to get an appointment if you live in a remote area of South Dakota. It's "reality". Having said that, I am certain that there are some candidates from SD who would get an appointment even if they lived in northern VA.

Those that mention these things do so at the risk of violating the precious rules of political correctness . Folks on these forums are better than that though, I hope.
 
I have been enjoying this varied exchange of views.

From another perspective, that of someone who "consumed" the junior officer product from various commissioning sources over the years, I often found zero correlation between whatever statistics they racked up in HS or at USNA and actual performance in the field when they worked for me. Yes, there was generally a sound basis of intelligence and other baseline qualities you would want in a raw ensign or 2nd LT.

Many of my top JO and mid-grade leaders were so-so USNA mids or class bottom-crawlers, who barely got in, were perennial mandatory summer schoolers or came from an uncompetitive district. I never asked about that stuff, but sometimes they brought it up when they surprised themselves in a good way. They often had qualities of insight, emotional intelligence, soft skills, creativity, empathy, relatability, sheer grit, that don't equate to some stat or test score. It was just them, and it could be externally wrapped up in any flavor humans come in.

There are many admirals and generals who can point to their USNA class standing and starry career in HS. There are many who laugh and say they were lucky to get in and were happy to be in the bottom 5 of their class, and still have no idea where their nom came from.

From my viewpoint on the sidelines, overall, I think the Academies and other sources do a tremendous job of delivering quality JOs to active duty. After that, many other factors kick in. In our own family of sponsor alumni, we have seen career stagnation and failure from those who were USNA rock stars, and we have seen non-shiny mids burst into career nova. Fascinating to watch. We get our first glimmers on how they handle people when we see how they react to detailing.
 
Capt MJ said:
I have been enjoying this varied exchange of views.

From another perspective, that of someone who "consumed" the junior officer product from various commissioning sources over the years, I often found zero correlation between whatever statistics they racked up in HS or at USNA and actual performance in the field when they worked for me. Yes, there was generally a sound basis of intelligence and other baseline qualities you would want in a raw ensign or 2nd LT.

Many of my top JO and mid-grade leaders were so-so USNA mids or class bottom-crawlers, who barely got in, were perennial mandatory summer schoolers or came from an uncompetitive district. I never asked about that stuff, but sometimes they brought it up when they surprised themselves in a good way. They often had qualities of insight, emotional intelligence, soft skills, creativity, empathy, relatability, sheer grit, that don't equate to some stat or test score. It was just them, and it could be externally wrapped up in any flavor humans come in.

There are many admirals and generals who can point to their USNA class standing and starry career in HS. There are many who laugh and say they were lucky to get in and were happy to be in the bottom 5 of their class, and still have no idea where their nom came from.

From my viewpoint on the sidelines, overall, I think the Academies and other sources do a tremendous job of delivering quality JOs to active duty. After that, many other factors kick in. In our own family of sponsor alumni, we have seen career stagnation and failure from those who were USNA rock stars, and we have seen non-shiny mids burst into career nova. Fascinating to watch. We get our first glimmers on how they handle people when we see how they react to detailing.
Click to expand...
Capt, your insight is, as always, outstanding. That does put a great perspective on things.
 
I will say this - for all my classmates that lived on the edge academically all four years , who went to summer school every summer - those are the ones that I most admired. It was never easy for them (it wasn't lack of ability) they either didn't know how to study well, simply didn't 'get' STEM classes, or dug a hole early and couldn't seem to climb out.

I have tremendous respect for those folks because they never gave up on their dream. Regardless of the challenge - they kept at it. And I think you will find in life - those people go on to be quite successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top