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.
Come on now everybody...we all know my kid was the best qualified candidate by any measure, period. And I know that because he is my kid