TV Commercial

Maplerock said:
USAFA and all academies should get the best kids they can get. Period.
Click to expand...
I must admit, I cringe every time I see the word "kid" posted as it relates to mature young adults. IMHO, many cadets are decade+ more mature beyond their chronological age. To more than a few, it's condescending. So personally, I never had a "kid" that went to USAFA.

Maplerock said:
USAFA and all academies should get the best kids they can get. Period. If that includes the proper mix of diversity, then wonderful.
Click to expand...
I think what's going on is few levels deeper than your viewpoint. Using your logic in combination with an analogies that I happened to be staring at, women must be inferior doctors in several disciplines.:rolleyes: Because 88% of all cardiologist are male. Additionally, 80% of all Ophthalmologists, and 96% of Orthopedic surgeons are male http://www.beckersasc.com/gastroent...ve-physicians-70-statistics-by-specialty.html . While 80% of the women are OBGYN's, only 20% of women make up academic department chairs http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/838036 . To me at least, it is obvious that 20% of the male OBGYN's are not somehow better leaders to get 80% of the spots http://www.beckersasc.com/gastroent...ve-physicians-70-statistics-by-specialty.html .

There are several reasons why white males dominate the service academies. AND, USAFA is spending money to get the word out because as you heard from the posts above, some recent cadets barely stumbled on the opportunity. So yea, I see why they are advertising. They should be.

2nd Disclaimer and before I am pigeon holed into an liberal ideology, I've have never voted for a democratic in my life. I'm smart enough to know that it's not as simple as some people want to believe.
 
Last edited:
Don't ding the commercial lol. For what it's worth or what it means to different people, I think it's reaching a broader audience than flyers or brochures ever would and could. Is USAFA desperate for applicants? I don't think so. But a few more valedictorians, boy/girl scouts, varsity athletes, super smart kids and yes, diversity individuals, now have another option to apply to instead of the usual Ivy, USNA or USMA route. We are from the east coast and until the middle of my cadet's sophomore year, we had never heard of, or knew that USAFA and USCGA even existed. Or that King's Point was the USMMA. Our school guidance counselor didn't even know that they were service academies. Try explaining USAFA to people that only know about West Point and Annapolis.
Since the commercial started airing late last year, I've had people come up to me and say "my son/daughter saw that commercial about your kid's school and is thinking of going there, tell me more about it." This year, our HS had 5 kids apply to USAFA, 3 got nominations and 1 appointment. Five years ago, nobody did. It's a recruiting tool, we know that. It's supposed to whet a high school student's appetite to look more into USAFA and also vaguely show the parents what their child is talking about. That peaked interest is what starts the ball rolling into starting that application process. And that is where the "fun" begins. I guess USAFA looks at the money spent worth getting the best and brightest kids from a wider audience base, even if it means taking them from the traditional bastions of Army and Navy.
Just an opinion from an ex-service academy naive parent who has learned so much from SAF over the years.
 
Maplerock said:
USAFA and all academies should get the best kids they can get. Period. If that includes the proper mix of diversity, then wonderful.

If you had to do a top level rescue mission would you send the best 20 for the job, or use a checklist to be sure all genders, races, and sexual orientations were represented? Oh wait! Hold the helo... I just recognized we need one more home schooler and someone from the Midwest on the extraction team.
Click to expand...

If you had to plan a top level rescue mission and every person in the room had the exact same background, chances are everyone would have the same ideas. It is well known that diversity makes us smarter. Academy grads are leaders. Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making are the most important skills for that job. It isn't just my opinion that diversity helps these areas, it has been studied and published on.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/
 
My DS is definite evidence that plenty of young people, including white males, don't understand the opportunities presented by service academies. He started considering the service academies after meeting a graduate from USMA. He made such an impression on my son. Yes, we are from WV, but our high school students are presented with a plethora of information on traditional universities, including the Ivy League schools. His counselors pushed him toward MIT and other top-tiered options. Once he researched the five service academies, he was very impressed with USAFA. He started the application process only days prior to the deadline for one of our senators. It doesn't mean he was less motivated than those who began their application a year ago. We were simply uninformed about USAFA. For what it's worth, he is valedictorian in a class of 227, with a 4.7 GPA and many AP courses, 4-year varsity athlete in two sports, etc. He is looking forward to being a cadet, even though he had never considered this option a year ago.

Also, for what it's worth, I saw a thread on the parent's board that discusses techniques to explain to others that the service academies are not a bad choice for our children. Perhaps the commercials will help communities to support our young adults as they begin this incredible adventure. I must say, my son has received nothing but positive feedback from our little town after news of his appointment was published in the newspaper by a MOC.
 
Christcorp said:
"Best" is such an arbitrary word. It's also very subjective. We have discussed on this forum so many times what constitutes the "Best". Best qualified; Most qualified; etc. We should be looking at it as trying to get the "BEST CLASS" of cadets POSSIBLE. And hopefully, they will graduate, get commissioned, and become the "Best Officer Year group" in the Air Force.

As of 2015, the air force consisted of:
313,242 Active Duty
60,425 Officers
252,817 Enlisted

When trying to describe the "BEST", you can't forget to include the word "Possible". There are too many possibilities to over simplify the objective of selecting "The Best". A 4.0gpa and 36ACT doesn't make someone "The Best". Being a 5 star national recruited athlete doesn't make someone "The best". (Don't worry, 5 star athletes don't look at the academies as an option".) Being white, black, hispanic, female, male, etc. doesn't make someone "The Best".

BUT..... when you combine all the human attributes together; academics, athletics, leadership, community, compassion, selflessness, integrity, discipline, maturity, and a host of other human qualities....... "Then you can find THE BEST". And an officer corp that represents the enlisted corp is PART of what makes "The Best"; for all of the qualities I mentioned above. And remember, the word "POSSIBLE" is equally important. Not all of "The best" are going to apply to the academies. Some will be at the traditional universities. Some won't go to college. I've met some people that never went to college that I would put in the category of "The Best".

As for the commercials, I see nothing wrong with them. Contrary to what some may think, the academies are not known to the majority of people. The majority know they exist, but most believe and think "It's not for them". I grew up exactly 96 miles from West Point and 209 miles from Annapolis. And NEITHER was considered an option for me. Not because of my grades; I was a very good student. It wasn't an option, because I was 17 years old, and I didn't have guidance counselors, parents, friends, teachers, etc. letting me know it was an option. I knew "JOINING THE MILITARY" was an option; but not that going to an academy, getting a degree, and getting commissioned was an option. And believe it not, MOST of the country still things that way. Those who know and understand what the academy truly is, think it's in line with Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. "Which academically it is". But most people don't realize that the Ivy League schools are an option for them. They automatically discard them as an option. Even though they more than qualify. Same with the academies. They don't think they are an option, so they discard it and look at other option. Those who don't know much if anything about the academies, think they are something you do ONCE YOU'RE IN THE MILITARY. I didn't realize the academy was an option until I was already enlisted, and too late because of age and marital status. I also didn't attend college immediately out of high school, because my parents said they couldn't afford it. And I never knew of any options for scholarships, grants, etc. I grew up thinking the only way you went to a good university; not counting "Community College"; was 1) You were wealthy; 2) You were #1-#2 graduating in your class; or 3) You were a SUPER-JOCK. And in new jersey where I grew up, we didn't have any "University of New Jersey". They had dinky schools like Princeton, Rutgers, and Montclair. Yes, in state students could go to the universities, but it still was a lot of money. So for me, I didn't KNOW of options. So, I enlisted. I went on to get 3 degrees. And I'm doing quite well actually. But I always wonder what my like would have turned out had I KNOWN of the academies, of scholarships, grants, and other options.

So, if commercials help the average kid; whether inner city, rural, or traditional suburbia know they have options, and the academies are some of those options, then that's great. That's why I've committed the last 25 years of my life to helping kids get into college. And many of them into the academies. Because I didn't KNOW I had options. And I want to make sure others know they DO HAVE OPTIONS. And if the advertising also helps get more diversity students in the selection pool, then that's great too. And don't worry about "Standards being lowered". The "STANDARDS" and what the quality of the appointees are; are "TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS". NO ONE is LOWER than the STANDARDS to get into the academy. But 90% of those entering, FAR EXCEED the standards. So I don't know what anyone could complain about. The standards are being well surpassed. Of course, the only complaints, are usually from those who CAN'T PROPERLY DEFINE "THE BEST". To most, "BEST" simply translates into GPA and ACT/SAT scores. That is so far from the truth.
Click to expand...
The criteria used by the academies to determine the most qualified candidates for admission is probable the best and most thorough of all colleges anywhere, and while it will always be an imprecise science, they do a remarkable job selecting incredible students. But the factors which are assessed are the same for men, women, black kids, white kids, or anyone else. The question is whether all kids should be judged equally, or is segregation in the process a better method. I prescribe to the former, but I understand that many here do not, and that is fine. If, however, there are an overabundance of very qualified applicants currently, and a large percentage of candidates who are deemed worthy by the standards developed and followed by the academies for decades, should we be advertising to encourage others to apply simply to because they fall withing one of the segregated classes?

If the goal is to maintain the same level of diversity in the officer ranks as we have in the enlisted ranks, perhaps the recruitment of those underrepresented classes should come from the enlisted ranks. Thus, we find people who are already pledging themselves to service, and have shown a commitment to become promoted to lead, and has demonstrated the other abilities to become good officers, then offer opportunities to do so through ROTC or academies, rather than trying to talk young people into serving and being an officer.
 
I have a good friend in advertising. Every fall I ask him the same question: Why does the Nebraska Beef Council (a quasi-gov't organization funded by Ranchers and cattle feeders) advertise eating beef during University of Nebraska football games? Wouldn't the $ be better spent in CA or NY or FL? His answer is that ads mostly serve the purpose of stroking those who produce or already consume the product being sold.

How hard do you want to try to sell steaks in Marin County, CA? How hard do you want to try and sell an SA to to a super scholar/ athlete/Eagle scout/ Patriot who hasn't the gumption to even be aware that the SA's exist?

If a free education, a guaranteed job with outstanding compensation and the worship of your fellow citizens doesn't sell itself, the ads are a waste of time for recruitment.
 
The world is changing. Advertising has to change to keep up. Most millennials and indeed most Americans buy products when they are advertised with people that look like them. We humans want to be able to see ourselves behind the wheel of that car, wearing those clothes and indeed attending that elite university. I have older children and have noticed that many the brochures of universities that have less than 5% minority usually have more than a quarter of their ads featuring minorities. Why? Because as humans, we are wired to want to be somewhere where we feel comfortable. One aspect of feeling comfortable is seeing others that remind you of home.... Please, look at the stats: minorities, women and any other underrepresented group will not be accepted if those universities' stats will suffer. They all want people who will graduate and go on to serve. In 2017, service academies, universities, like other businesses, are noticing and appreciating that the more people who see your product and see themselves with your product MAY buy your product. For the service academies, that means more applications. Some of those will turn into quality appointments. Whats wrong with that?
 
In the time that my DS has been going through the process of getting his appointment to the USAFA I have been most surprised by the number of people who have absolutely no idea about the SAs. This includes several of the counselors at his High School. We live in San Antonio which is home to a very large military community making this even more bewildering.
I saw the commercial and thought it was positive and informative. My hope is that taxpayers can be more aware of this great investment they are making in our next generation of military leaders and that it might inspire more to serve. It appears to me that the SAs are not as well known to our communities as many of us thought and these commercials could serve to change that. These institutions belong to our citizens and they should be informed of the opportunities and accomplishments the SAs represent.
Further it is only logical that the SAs reflect the diversity of our nation so I sincerely don't understand that complaint.
 
brovol said:
The question is whether all kids should be judged equally, or is segregation in the process a better method.
Click to expand...

Sorry Brovol, but it's not that simple. The question is; whether all kids should be judged FAIRLY? And the answer is: YES, they are.

Equally can NOT be done. There's too much "Inequality" in the data. And that's an unfortunate that can never be resolved.
1. Academically: Too many different schools, different classes available, different limitations, etc. The ONLY equalizer academically is the ACT and SAT. All other academics cannot be graded EQUALLY. Can't be done.
2. Athletics, Clubs, EC, etc. Again, too many variables to grade them EQUALLY. You'd have to give a FIXED amount of POINTS for each activity. E.g. 5 points for sports, 3 points for clubs, 2 points for community service, 3 points for leader/captain of that activity, etc. What happens to the kid that comes from a small school that doesn't have the quantity of activities available? Or few school sports? Or the home schooled kid? Or the kid who plays football and there's only 7 seniors and they can easily become ONE of the captains, vs the kid from a big school and there's 35+ seniors on the football team and the chance of being a Captain is slim to none? Same with the other clubs and activities. Or even the kid who has to WORK to help the family financially and only has time for "Summer Little league".

I could go on. The point is, EQUALLY and FAIRLY are two different things. The 12,000 initial applicants are NOT EQUAL to each other. They don't all have EQUAL opportunities, qualities, or capabilities. They don't all have EQUAL abilities. I have said it at least 237,534 times on this forum.

THE ACADEMY SCORES YOU ON WHAT YOU HAD AVAILABLE TO YOU, WHAT YOU DID WITH IT, AND HOW WELL YOU SUCCEEDED IN IT. That is the fairest and most equal way of scoring applicants. Do the MOST and the BEST with WHAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE. Do that, and the academy WILL SCORE YOU FAIRLY.
 
Cristcorp, your analysis complicates the question more than it needs to be. I don't disagree with the conclusion that the process can not be formulated so that it is a precise objective calculation, but I do disagree that it can not be fair and equal. It can be fair and equal if no special considerations are given to anyone, and every applicant is judged on the merits against each other; or at least within each congressional district. There will always be situations and factors which are not the same, and some applicants will be blessed with better or more fortunate circumstances, but when the whole candidate scores are added up, it is unfair and inequitable to have one who scores higher based on the established admissions criteria to be passed over for someone with a lower score, simply because of race or gender. We would all concede that before the civil rights movement it was horribly inequitable, unfair and immoral that white people had benefits and privileges not provided to black people, through "legal" and socially acceptable mandates, for no reason beyond being white. It was horribly wrong then to provide separate institutional advantage based on classification alone, and it still is today. The military should find a better way of achieving diversity.
 
I have seen that USNA commercial only during football games. They always show that one and one for the opposing team. It's has been the same one for at least last few years.

While we are on the subject of TV ad, may I share the new one for USMC?

 
Telling my age, but I can remember the time when doctors, lawyers, and other professions were not allowed to advertise, let alone have TV commercials.

Totally different day and age.:confused2:
 
Race/gender and highly qualified are not mutually exclusive. You do many servicemen and women a disservice when you assume that their numbers are lower simply because of their race and/or gender.
In my life BC (before children), I worked in silicon valley as a software engineer. Then, there were not many of us (female) and unfortunately that has not changed significantly. When I looked around at the other incoming engineers, I found many males that were state college graduates ( nothing wrong with that). However, the few women and especially minorities were usually graduates from private, elite colleges from the northeast... paid the same as the male, white state college graduates. Could that silicon valley business not find any females or minorities at the nearby state college? Or, as we ascertained, did we have to be better, stronger, faster to get the same break?
Am I saying that the service academy underrepresented all have better "numbers" than the majority? No, but I do submit that you would be wrong to discount any of them.
 
armywife03 said:
Race/gender and highly qualified are not mutually exclusive. You do many servicemen and women a disservice when you assume that their numbers are lower simply because of their race and/or gender.
In my life BC (before children), I worked in silicon valley as a software engineer. Then, there were not many of us (female) and unfortunately that has not changed significantly. When I looked around at the other incoming engineers, I found many males that were state college graduates ( nothing wrong with that). However, the few women and especially minorities were usually graduates from private, elite colleges from the northeast... paid the same as the male, white state college graduates. Could that silicon valley business not find any females or minorities at the nearby state college? Or, as we ascertained, did we have to be better, stronger, faster to get the same break?
Am I saying that the service academy underrepresented all have better "numbers" than the majority? No, but I do submit that you would be wrong to discount any of them.
Click to expand...
I don't assume they are lower. In fact I know that they are higher and lower, just like the white males. There is no superior race or gender. I am certain of that. I just wish that everyone felt the same way, and we didn't distinguish institutionally or otherwise based on race or gender. Those who believe they are doing a service by advocating certain races or genders being provided special consideration on things like academy appointments are actually furthering the proposition that we are not all equal or worthy of equal treatment.
 
Brovol. I'm not complicating anything. Matter of fact, I mentioned all the reasons why you can't score equally. Yet, you can score fairly. You seem to be the one who is convinced that it's not being scored fairly. And now you're saying race and gender is becoming "Deciding Factors" in selection.

I read in you post, and similarly in many other's posts, statements such as:

"it is unfair and inequitable to have one who scores higher based on the established admissions criteria to be passed over for someone with a lower score"

The problem with this is; your statement is based solely on speculation. You have no idea how the individual has been graded. You don't know the scores of any of those who received an appointment, or those who didn't receive an appointment. Even if you or your own child did or didn't receive an appointment, you still wouldn't know what your score is. You don't know one person's score. Not unless you personally were on the selection board. And if you were, I know for a fact that we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You ASSUME that because an individual had a 4.0gpa and a 33ACT, and didn't receive an appointment, and someone with a 3.8gpa and 27ACT DID receive an appointment, that the person who didn't receive an appointment had a HIGHER WCS. And your ASSUMPTION is based on the same fallacy that most critics have. "ACADEMIC GPA AND ACT/SAT ARE EVERYTHING".

Even if I was able to give you the benefit of the doubt, you also said: "no special considerations are given to anyone, and every applicant is judged on the merits against each other; or at least within each congressional district." My last post pointed out in detail why individuals aren't equal. And as such, you can't score them in such black and white. This isn't some liberal high school or college class where everyone gets an "A" in the class for participating. If you were in charge, how would you compare the academics (Because that's all most readers know how to understand) of 10 people on the Congressional Representative's Slate as such:
ALL 10 individuals have a 3.90 GPA;
3 had access to ALL advanced classes; IB, AP, Honors, etc. 1 took ALL IB classes, 1 took ALL AP classed, 1 took the state minimum required classes.
2 of the individuals were home schooled and didn't have access to ANY advanced classes. However, 1 of them did take mixed Junior College Classes on the side.
2 of the individuals took no advanced classes at all, even though they were available, but they did score a 36 ACT
The final 3 not only took IB classes, they were in the complete IB program that included 200 CAS hours, Completed the TOK, completed their Extended Essay and received the IB Diploma; yet only had 30-31 ACT scores.

So, you're saying to NOT give any of these individuals any special consideration. Judge all 10 of these individuals against each other. With all due respect..... How in Hell are you going to do that? And THIS is just the ACADEMICS section. I use that, because too many people are hell bent on believing that a HIGH GPA and ACT/SAT makes a person MORE QUALIFIED or the BEST. Now, let's try and grade the other areas in the WCS.
Physical fitness; athletics; community service; leadership; team player; extra curricular activities; integrity; professionalism; dedication; discipline, determination; values; honor; honesty; and believe me, I could add many other attributes that the applicant is graded on.

The problem is; you can't grade or judge candidates against each other without using "CONSIDERATIONS". It's simply NOT POSSIBLE.

Within a 50 mile range, as an ALO I had the most populated part of the state. And trust me, it's the LEAST POPULATED STATE in the Entire Country. And yet, there were 4 high schools in the main city, and another 6-8 throughout the rest of my area. Plus, the home schooled kids. And yet, in those 10-12 schools, we had every possible combination of opportunities, conditions, scenarios, and considerations you could possibly imagine. I know you mean well, but it's not that black and white. It's not possible to judge all of the kids from these 10 schools, who are all competing on the same MOC slates, without CONSIDERING so many facets. Like I said previously, Do the MOST and the BEST with WHAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE. So that means, I will give lower points to the individual who had advanced classes available, but didn't take any. And I WON'T penalize the individual who didn't take advanced classes because they didn't have any available. And there's plenty of other considerations I'll take into account.

Let's clarify a couple of things here.

1. Academy MINIMUM Standards are actually quite low. e.g. 25 ACT, gpa (depending on weight) is close to a 3.0.
2. 90+% of all applicants GREATLY SURPASS the MINIMUM standards.
3. BEST or MOST qualified is pretty subjective
4. Most non-academy admissions folks, only know how to grade/rank/score based on mathematics. As such, only know how to look at GPA, ACT, SAT.
5. Just like a job interview where EXPERIENCE gets points just like ACADEMIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS do; so does the academy applicant's "Life Experience" merit certain points and consideration.

Some of the main questions EVERY ALO asks an applicant, has to do with "How they handle ADVERSITY". "How they handle disappointment". "How they handle failure". "How they handle moral struggles". These are just a few. When I interview and hire people at my current job, I don't look only at their academic accomplishments. I also look at their experiences. I also go BEYOND the Resume and get into THE PERSON. If the job they are applying for is very people/customer/co-worker oriented; I'll trade an applicant with 10 years experience and a Bachelor's degree, who is pretty much an introvert, for the 2-3 years of experience, an Associate's degree, and has a very good "People Friendly Personality". Yes, I'm POSITIVE there are some individuals who were turned down, to this day believes that they were "BETTER QUALIFIED" or "MORE EXPERIENCED". Maybe they were. But they WEREN'T THE BEST FIT FOR MY ORGANIZATION.

And the same goes for the academy. I DON'T WANT everyone there to have a 4.0gpa and 36 ACT. The fact that the AVERAGE GPA is 3.86, means there are some who had a 3.5-3.6. And for what it's worth, that is still MUCH HIGHER than the MINIMUM STANDARDS. But I WANT THAT. And I WANT the 26-27 ACT scores. And I WANT the football player, the golfer, the cross country, the martial artist. I want the Math Geek, Band Geek, Computer Geek. I want the Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, Atheist. I want the straight and gay. I want the Black and White. I want the inner city and farm kid. I want the best POSSIBLE FIT for the ORGANIZATION! In my personal job, I only have 2,000 employees to consider when hiring the RIGHT FIT. But the Air Force has 350,000 employees. And these cadets could be many of those people's supervisor, leader, commander, etc. I want the cadets appointed to hopefully be the RIGHT FIT. Not everyone will be a good choice. But the vast majority are. 15% of the incoming class, no matter how selected, IS NOT GOING TO GRADUATE. These are facts. 30% of those who DO GRADUATE, will not stay past their 5 year mandatory requirement.

So as I began this diatribe (Sorry for being long winded). You said it's not fair that someone who scores HIGHER on the academy criteria is passed over by someone who scored lower. And again I say; that is strictly your speculation. You have no idea what they scored. You're ASSUMING that because someone said they had a 4.0gpa and a 33act and didn't get an appointment; and someone who did receive an appointment had a 3.8 gpa and 29 ACT, that the MORE QUALIFIED, or BETTER QUALIFIED individual got Passed Over. Well, you're assumption and speculation is ignorant. And ignorance is not a bad word. It simply means that you don't know something. And in this case, you DON'T KNOW. You have no idea what ANY PERSON's WCS is. Even if you or your kids received an appointment, you wouldn't know the total WCS. When my son received an appointment, not even I knew what his WCS score was. And as an ALO, if I don't know, why would I believe that you would know. The truth is; you don't. The odds are definitely in favor that there are SOME individuals who received an appointment who had lower WCS scores than someone who didn't receive an appointment. The odds are that way, because half of the appointments are competed for only in the person's districts and states. That is prescribed by FEDERAL LAW. That's not the academy's say so. So, you're only competing with 9 other people at the district. But even then, you don't KNOW what any of their WCS scores are. Not even the senator and representative know what the WCS scores are. So, unless you know what the WCS score of all 2500-3000 qualified candidates who were in the running for the 1200 slots are, you are only speculating at your theory. In my opinion, no selection process would be 100% perfect. It won't even be 100% fair. It can't be. Not with legal requirements and goals of the academy and military to contend with. But I can say, that of all the universities and colleges that I've helped individuals apply to and get in, the military academy process is about the best I've seen. In the civilian world, there are many schools where certain students simply wouldn't have ANY CHANCE of attending. And for many reasons you couldn't believe.
 
Actually, I've been seeing commercials for the Air Force Academy for about a year and a half now. It plays before every movie at the theater here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top