TV Commercial

Let's clarify some thing.
1. Most, I won't say all, ALOs tell their applicants to put in their essays and any other place in their application they can find, their diversity. What makes them different and unique vs their competition. The challenges and adversities they had to overcome, etc. Obviously race and gender aren't required. That's a known quantity. The academy admissions encourages and welcomes this diversity input. E.g. 1st member of family to apply to college, single parent, having to raise siblings, working the farm or after school job to contribute to family income, 1st generation immigrant, parents died and raised by grandparents or orphanage, etc. Applicants are encourages to fit this info into their applications.
2. Every candidate is treated as an individual in their application. And based on their application, including the info provided in #1 above, will be assessed and scored accordingly.
3. Every applicant is give special consideration, based on their application. It just so happens that some applicants have had more challenges, adversities, and other diverse unique situations of their life compared to some others.
4. Due to economic and social conditions, there are more minorities from heavily populated areas vs places like wyoming, dakotas, Idaho, etc. So it may appear that the academy is aiming for more minorities, when in fact they are aiming for more people with similar backgrounds economically and socially. More just happen to be minority. (I've seen quite a few who were appointed because of similar diversity who were white).
5. The academy advertises on tv and such to dispel the stereotype that the academy is just for the common suburban student raised in a traditional family, social, and economic environment.
6. The academy advertises, so they don't have to be forced with the possibility of compromising or lowering standards. They want to increase to qualified pool of applicants.

When I hire personnel, I narrow the list to who is QUALIFIED. But when it's time to choose, I don't do so based on MOST QUALIFIED meaning just academics and experience. Most QUALIFIED also includes the best fit for my organization, that will create the best synergy among all employees and better the organization.

The academy is no different. Once they've narrowed down the pool to roughly 3,000 candidates, who also have nominations, they then choose approximately 535 from the MOC slates. No choice here. They MUST choose from that. They do the same for another 120 or so from the military pools such as presidential, rotc, etc. Then, the remaining 500 or so come from the national pool. All of these remaining 2500 or so ARE QUALIFIED. They was already established. No standards are being lowered. All considerations on the non-tangible attributes in their applications have been scored. The academy then selects those remaining 500 or so.

The academy could probably find 500 easily just from California, Texas, Virginia, and Florida. Being they proportionately have the most applicants. But the academy wants a diversified class. That's where all the non-tangibles come in.

The bottom line is, all of these appointees are QUALIFIED. The problem is, many critics believe that their definition of Most Qualified isn't the same as the academy. And when a 3.9 gpa and 34 ACT applicant doesn't get appointed, they think it's not fair. Or they were scored unequally. We do the same with our every day lives. We don't always buy from the store that is the biggest. Or get our car worked on by the dealership who is technically the Most Qualified. We include Non-Tangibles like customer service, convenience, and price. Well, there's a lot of non-tangibles is the application process that affect the selection. But again, a ALL appointees are QUALIFIED.
Not really sure how these things are relevant to whether there should be a separate standard for underrepresented applicants, but thank you for the insight. Everyone understands that all of the appointees are qualified. I believe that the MOST qualified, BY WHATEVER THE STANDARD IS, should get the spot in each district, and off the NWL. Simple as that.
 
And now for our commercial break, this Cadet brings you all a fun fact.

Fun fact! USAFA is filming a new commercial even as we speak and they use actors instead of real cadets.
What??????? Using actors when they have all those perfectly good Cadets to show off??? Now I'm really ticked off. And you thought I was going on and on before. Who is going to argue that actors are better because they will give a better impression of the academy than real Cadets, and make for a more effective commercial? LOL.
 
I just saw a commercial on TV for the Air Force Academy. Not an Air Force commercial, but an actual Air Force Academy commercial. I have never seen a commercial for any of the service academies before. I am surprised that USAFA would spend money on advertising, when there is more than an abundance of applicants. What gives? Seems conspicuously wasteful.

Going all the way back to the OP, my belief is completely independent of the talks about diversity; I think it is much simpler than that. Although it is clear that the commercial itself is promoting diversity, the presence of the ad is not a reach out to all Americans. That would be a horrible waste of money. What I think we are seeing is a result of "Addressable TV advertising," where some of the ads you see (a bit of research says 2 or so minutes per hour) come from browsing and other data collected on you and your family. For instance, I didn't see any ads regarding the AF or Navy until I had started researching them. I did not research or apply to any other service academies, and did not see any advertisements for them (aside from the sporadic GoArmy ads- which upon reflection, came around the time I was looking into the National Guard).

In a nutshell, I think the ads are to keep the SAs you already know about fresh in your mind. Someone who knows about marketing could tell you why, but my psychology class would say that the "mere exposure effect" has something to do with it.......
 
Going all the way back to the OP, my belief is completely independent of the talks about diversity; I think it is much simpler than that. Although it is clear that the commercial itself is promoting diversity, the presence of the ad is not a reach out to all Americans. That would be a horrible waste of money. What I think we are seeing is a result of "Addressable TV advertising," where some of the ads you see (a bit of research says 2 or so minutes per hour) come from browsing and other data collected on you and your family. For instance, I didn't see any ads regarding the AF or Navy until I had started researching them. I did not research or apply to any other service academies, and did not see any advertisements for them (aside from the sporadic GoArmy ads- which upon reflection, came around the time I was looking into the National Guard).

In a nutshell, I think the ads are to keep the SAs you already know about fresh in your mind. Someone who knows about marketing could tell you why, but my psychology class would say that the "mere exposure effect" has something to do with it.......
I'm sorry, I'm trying to regain my focus, but I'm still upset that they are doing another ad and are using actors instead of real Cadets. Who's fault is this, Trump's or Obama's? Actors....actors....
 
I'm sorry, I'm trying to regain my focus, but I'm still upset that they are doing another ad and are using actors instead of real Cadets. Who's fault is this, Trump's or Obama's? Actors....actors....
It's probably all those immigrants taking all of our jobs again!:eek2:
 
On a more serious note, I don't think it really matters who produces the advertisements, as long as it gets the desired result. If professional actors can more effectively convey the message that the Air Force wants to send to the public than current cadets, then who are we to question that? I mean, USAFA isn't exactly a Performing Arts school...
 
I am sorry. I assumed everyone would be able to identify conspicuous sarcasm.. there I go with my assumptions again.
Wasn't sure, didn't want to assume anything. You know what happens when you assume...LOL.
 
Not really sure how these things are relevant to whether there should be a separate standard for underrepresented applicants, but thank you for the insight. Everyone understands that all of the appointees are qualified. I believe that the MOST qualified, BY WHATEVER THE STANDARD IS, should get the spot in each district, and off the NWL. Simple as that.

Brovol: You either have a problem with your attention span of my long winded posts, or you simply can't understand. So I will say this in response to you in 5 words and in 2 words: to make it SIMPLE for you.

"Not really sure how these things are relevant to whether there should be a separate standard for underrepresented applicants"
THERE ARE NOT SEPARATE STANDARDS!!!!!


"MOST qualified, BY WHATEVER THE STANDARD IS, should get the spot in each district, and off the NWL"
THEY ARE!!!!!

Is that clear enough?????
 
For the rest interested in this topic, you MUST STOP looking at this from the MOST/MORE QUALIFIED perspective!!!

Those 2 words are not exclusive to each other. They don't even belong together. Both words are ADJECTIVES. A woman in her 2nd trimester is NOT MORE PREGNANT than a woman in her 1st trimester. Just like a Lieutenant graduating from the academy is NOT MORE QUALIFIED than a Lieutenant graduating from ROTC. They are BOTH Lieutenants.

QUALIFIED is a FINITE term. YOU ARE...... or YOU'RE NOT!!!
MORE is INFINITE. It applies to CAPABILITIES. NOT Qualifications.

If a job requires that you be able to lift 50 lbs to be qualified, it doesn't make one candidate MORE QUALIFIED because they can lift 75 lbs. The additional CAPABILITY is IRRELEVANT. Now; in SOME areas, CAPABILITY is significant. As such, being "MORE" IS RELEVANT. If an administrative job requires that you can type 40 words per minute to be QUALIFIED, but you are CAPABLE of typing 60 words per minute, then you are MORE CAPABLE; and as such, will be scored higher and possibly hired over the person who is only capable of typing 40 words per minute. Even though BOTH are QUALIFIED.

But for academy Admissions, we are speaking of 17 and 18 year olds. There are very few CAPABILITIES that the academy cares about. That's why they have a MAXIMUM on the CFA. It doesn't matter if you can do 100 pull-ups. At 17 and 18 years old, the academy cares more about POTENTIAL; and less about capability. With training, work, motivation, and persistence, an individual can BECOME MORE CAPABLE.

So, when considering appointments at the academy, STOP looking at it as being MORE QUALIFIED than someone else. There's absolutely no logic to that term. You can't be MORE QUALIFIED than someone else, unless the QUALIFICATIONS are evolutionary in nature. Example: Some jobs require continuing education, continuing certifications, and similar to REMAIN QUALIFIED.

I can't tell you how many times I've had internal employees who didn't receive a job promotion confront me upset because they felt they were "MORE QUALIFIED" than the person who got the promotion. I ask them; "What makes you MORE QUALIFIED"? They usually reply with reference to having more years of experience, more education, more years with the company, etc. I ask them again; "How does that make you MORE QUALIFIED? To be QUALIFIED, you are required to be able to do X, Y, and Z". You're BOTH Qualified in that regard"? Then the individual starts to understand that they may be MORE Experienced; or MORE Capable of certain tasks; or MORE Knowledgeable of certain aspects; but they realize that they AREN'T MORE QUALIFIED. That's why MOST jobs or anything that you APPLY FOR, has "MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS". Have you ever noticed that they don't put in "MAXIMUM QUALIFICATIONS"? ....... Minimum Qualification: Be able to lift 50 lbs - - - Maximum Qualification: Lift No More than 100 lbs. So, I guess if you CAN LIFT 110 lbs, YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED??? That would blow you away. That's why they don't list MAXIMUM qualification.

But don't get me wrong. Being MORE Experienced, MORE Capable of certain tasks, and MORE Knowledgeable can and usually DO have a major impact on whether a person is hired over someone who is LESS Experienced, Capable, etc. But we are talking about 17-18 year olds. They have NO EXPERIENCE, almost NO KNOWLEDGE, EQUAL CAPABILITIES, etc. The academy is looking more for POTENTIAL. A 17-18 year old hasn't really ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING in life. Not yet. But all that time on sports teams, in clubs, in leadership positions, Challenging themselves with the most difficult classes available, ext. SHOWS THEIR POTENTIAL.

Here's a question to make you think..... If the academy wanted appointees who are the MOST/MORE QUALIFIED, then why do they have an AGE LIMIT of 23 years old? Why don't they allow individuals who are married? That doesn't have anything to do with them being QUALIFIED. Matter of fact, the older person, and the married person, is probably MORE Experienced, MORE Knowledgeable, and overall, probably MORE QUALIFIED. (LOL- Had to go there). The question is Rhetorical and I'm not looking for any replies. I KNOW THE ANSWER.

So, if you stop putting MORE & QUALIFIED together in a sentence; referencing each other; it will be much easier to understand.
 
Last edited:
Brovol: You either have a problem with your attention span of my long winded posts, or you simply can't understand. So I will say this in response to you in 5 words and in 2 words: to make it SIMPLE for you.

"Not really sure how these things are relevant to whether there should be a separate standard for underrepresented applicants"
THERE ARE NOT SEPARATE STANDARDS!!!!!


"MOST qualified, BY WHATEVER THE STANDARD IS, should get the spot in each district, and off the NWL"
THEY ARE!!!!!

Is that clear enough?????
Your position is clear. It ain't accurate, but at least you said it this time.
 
For the rest interested in this topic, you MUST STOP looking at this from the MOST/MORE QUALIFIED perspective!!!

Those 2 words are not exclusive to each other. They don't even belong together. Both words are ADJECTIVES. A woman in her 2nd trimester is NOT MORE PREGNANT than a woman in her 1st trimester. Just like a Lieutenant graduating from the academy is NOT MORE QUALIFIED than a Lieutenant graduating from ROTC. They are BOTH Lieutenants.

QUALIFIED is a FINITE term. YOU ARE...... or YOU'RE NOT!!!
MORE is INFINITE. It applies to CAPABILITIES. NOT Qualifications.

If a job requires that you be able to lift 50 lbs to be qualified, it doesn't make one candidate MORE QUALIFIED because they can lift 75 lbs. The additional CAPABILITY is IRRELEVANT. Now; in SOME areas, CAPABILITY is significant. As such, being "MORE" IS RELEVANT. If an administrative job requires that you can type 40 words per minute to be QUALIFIED, but you are CAPABLE of typing 60 words per minute, then you are MORE CAPABLE; and as such, will be scored higher and possibly hired over the person who is only capable of typing 40 words per minute. Even though BOTH are QUALIFIED.

But for academy Admissions, we are speaking of 17 and 18 year olds. There are very few CAPABILITIES that the academy cares about. That's why they have a MAXIMUM on the CFA. It doesn't matter if you can do 100 pull-ups. At 17 and 18 years old, the academy cares more about POTENTIAL; and less about capability. With training, work, motivation, and persistence, an individual can BECOME MORE CAPABLE.

So, when considering appointments at the academy, STOP looking at it as being MORE QUALIFIED than someone else. There's absolutely no logic to that term. You can't be MORE QUALIFIED than someone else, unless the QUALIFICATIONS are evolutionary in nature. Example: Some jobs require continuing education, continuing certifications, and similar to REMAIN QUALIFIED.

I can't tell you how many times I've had internal employees who didn't receive a job promotion confront me upset because they felt they were "MORE QUALIFIED" than the person who got the promotion. I ask them; "What makes you MORE QUALIFIED"? They usually reply with reference to having more years of experience, more education, more years with the company, etc. I ask them again; "How does that make you MORE QUALIFIED? To be QUALIFIED, you are required to be able to do X, Y, and Z". You're BOTH Qualified in that regard"? Then the individual starts to understand that they may be MORE Experienced; or MORE Capable of certain tasks; or MORE Knowledgeable of certain aspects; but they realize that they AREN'T MORE QUALIFIED. That's why MOST jobs or anything that you APPLY FOR, has "MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS". Have you ever noticed that they don't put in "MAXIMUM QUALIFICATIONS"? ....... Minimum Qualification: Be able to lift 50 lbs - - - Maximum Qualification: Lift No More than 100 lbs. So, I guess if you CAN LIFT 110 lbs, YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED??? That would blow you away. That's why they don't list MAXIMUM qualification.

But don't get me wrong. Being MORE Experienced, MORE Capable of certain tasks, and MORE Knowledgeable can and usually DO have a major impact on whether a person is hired over someone who is LESS Experienced, Capable, etc. But we are talking about 17-18 year olds. They have NO EXPERIENCE, almost NO KNOWLEDGE, EQUAL CAPABILITIES, etc. The academy is looking more for POTENTIAL. A 17-18 year old hasn't really ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING in life. Not yet. But all that time on sports teams, in clubs, in leadership positions, Challenging themselves with the most difficult classes available, ext. SHOWS THEIR POTENTIAL.

Here's a question to make you think..... If the academy wanted appointees who are the MOST/MORE QUALIFIED, then why do they have an AGE LIMIT of 23 years old? Why don't they allow individuals who are married? That doesn't have anything to do with them being QUALIFIED. Matter of fact, the older person, and the married person, is probably MORE Experienced, MORE Knowledgeable, and overall, probably MORE QUALIFIED. (LOL- Had to go there). The question is Rhetorical and I'm not looking for any replies. I KNOW THE ANSWER.

So, if you stop putting MORE & QUALIFIED together in a sentence; referencing each other; it will be much easier to understand.
You should work in politics christcorp. Your speeches deflect brilliantly, and use a lot of words without actually making any points. I never intended for this topic to get nasty, and still don't. I know you are a good poster here. If you are representing that there is not a distinction in the application decision between a white male and a minority female at USAFA, all other things being equal, I absolutely challenge your knowledge on that issue, and the accuracy of that claim. I believe there is, and I don't believe that USAFA denies it. But we can agree to disagree on that point.

The other point was whether a separate admissions standard for underrepresented applicants would be fair, equitable, or otherwise acceptable. It is interesting that you debated throughout the day yesterday (see above) that it was fair and equitable (almost as if you were defending a USAFA admissions policy that you say they don't have). If you believe that admissions should give an underrepresented applicant more points so as to increase minorities in the officer ranks, it's strange that you didn't say the Academies should change what they are doing.

But perhaps we should lay this issue to rest for now. I know my position has been clearly stated more times than most could tolerate, and you now have said that the Academies make no special consideration, standards or policies for minorities or female applicants, but if they did it would be a good thing. Let's move on.
 
On a more serious note, I don't think it really matters who produces the advertisements, as long as it gets the desired result. If professional actors can more effectively convey the message that the Air Force wants to send to the public than current cadets, then who are we to question that? I mean, USAFA isn't exactly a Performing Arts school...
Haven't you see the spirit videos? Tell me Hollywood could do better than that.
 
Since this thread is entitled "TV Commercial" it seems appropriate to resurrect the "Tastes great; Less filling" debate to represent the on-going dialogue.

I would have to be on the taste great side, because this thread certainly isn't less filling.
 
Brovol. I'm simply stating that every applicant gets points, is scored, evaluated, etc. on everything in their application. Including their diversity. I'm simply stating that diversity isn't restrained to just race and gender. That's why I say that all applicants are given special consideration. Unlike a job app where the employer only cares about thinks that affect the job being applied for, the academy cares about everything in your life. Hence the reason for a WCS Whole Candidate Score. Rich, poor, black, white, male, female, urban, ranch, public school, home schooled, football, band, and the list goes on. Same standards for everyone to be considered....... Each individual considered on everything.
 
On a more serious note, I don't think it really matters who produces the advertisements, as long as it gets the desired result. If professional actors can more effectively convey the message that the Air Force wants to send to the public than current cadets, then who are we to question that? I mean, USAFA isn't exactly a Performing Arts school...
Does anybody remember when the Navy made this recruiting commercial using professionals?
 
For the rest interested in this topic, you MUST STOP looking at this from the MOST/MORE QUALIFIED perspective!!!

Those 2 words are not exclusive to each other. They don't even belong together. Both words are ADJECTIVES. A woman in her 2nd trimester is NOT MORE PREGNANT than a woman in her 1st trimester. Just like a Lieutenant graduating from the academy is NOT MORE QUALIFIED than a Lieutenant graduating from ROTC. They are BOTH Lieutenants.

QUALIFIED is a FINITE term. YOU ARE...... or YOU'RE NOT!!!
MORE is INFINITE. It applies to CAPABILITIES. NOT Qualifications.

If a job requires that you be able to lift 50 lbs to be qualified, it doesn't make one candidate MORE QUALIFIED because they can lift 75 lbs. The additional CAPABILITY is IRRELEVANT. Now; in SOME areas, CAPABILITY is significant. As such, being "MORE" IS RELEVANT. If an administrative job requires that you can type 40 words per minute to be QUALIFIED, but you are CAPABLE of typing 60 words per minute, then you are MORE CAPABLE; and as such, will be scored higher and possibly hired over the person who is only capable of typing 40 words per minute. Even though BOTH are QUALIFIED.

But for academy Admissions, we are speaking of 17 and 18 year olds. There are very few CAPABILITIES that the academy cares about. That's why they have a MAXIMUM on the CFA. It doesn't matter if you can do 100 pull-ups. At 17 and 18 years old, the academy cares more about POTENTIAL; and less about capability. With training, work, motivation, and persistence, an individual can BECOME MORE CAPABLE.

So, when considering appointments at the academy, STOP looking at it as being MORE QUALIFIED than someone else. There's absolutely no logic to that term. You can't be MORE QUALIFIED than someone else, unless the QUALIFICATIONS are evolutionary in nature. Example: Some jobs require continuing education, continuing certifications, and similar to REMAIN QUALIFIED.

I can't tell you how many times I've had internal employees who didn't receive a job promotion confront me upset because they felt they were "MORE QUALIFIED" than the person who got the promotion. I ask them; "What makes you MORE QUALIFIED"? They usually reply with reference to having more years of experience, more education, more years with the company, etc. I ask them again; "How does that make you MORE QUALIFIED? To be QUALIFIED, you are required to be able to do X, Y, and Z". You're BOTH Qualified in that regard"? Then the individual starts to understand that they may be MORE Experienced; or MORE Capable of certain tasks; or MORE Knowledgeable of certain aspects; but they realize that they AREN'T MORE QUALIFIED. That's why MOST jobs or anything that you APPLY FOR, has "MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS". Have you ever noticed that they don't put in "MAXIMUM QUALIFICATIONS"? ....... Minimum Qualification: Be able to lift 50 lbs - - - Maximum Qualification: Lift No More than 100 lbs. So, I guess if you CAN LIFT 110 lbs, YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED??? That would blow you away. That's why they don't list MAXIMUM qualification.

But don't get me wrong. Being MORE Experienced, MORE Capable of certain tasks, and MORE Knowledgeable can and usually DO have a major impact on whether a person is hired over someone who is LESS Experienced, Capable, etc. But we are talking about 17-18 year olds. They have NO EXPERIENCE, almost NO KNOWLEDGE, EQUAL CAPABILITIES, etc. The academy is looking more for POTENTIAL. A 17-18 year old hasn't really ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING in life. Not yet. But all that time on sports teams, in clubs, in leadership positions, Challenging themselves with the most difficult classes available, ext. SHOWS THEIR POTENTIAL.

Here's a question to make you think..... If the academy wanted appointees who are the MOST/MORE QUALIFIED, then why do they have an AGE LIMIT of 23 years old? Why don't they allow individuals who are married? That doesn't have anything to do with them being QUALIFIED. Matter of fact, the older person, and the married person, is probably MORE Experienced, MORE Knowledgeable, and overall, probably MORE QUALIFIED. (LOL- Had to go there). The question is Rhetorical and I'm not looking for any replies. I KNOW THE ANSWER.

So, if you stop putting MORE & QUALIFIED together in a sentence; referencing each other; it will be much easier to understand.
I couldn't just leave a "like" click. I loved your succinct analogies and descriptions. As a bonus, I learned something. :)
 
Brovol. I'm simply stating that every applicant gets points, is scored, evaluated, etc. on everything in their application. Including their diversity. I'm simply stating that diversity isn't restrained to just race and gender. That's why I say that all applicants are given special consideration. Unlike a job app where the employer only cares about thinks that affect the job being applied for, the academy cares about everything in your life. Hence the reason for a WCS Whole Candidate Score. Rich, poor, black, white, male, female, urban, ranch, public school, home schooled, football, band, and the list goes on. Same standards for everyone to be considered....... Each individual considered on everything.
You mean my son who had every possible benefit (white male, above average income parents, groomed to be the best he could be, had all the resources to maximize objective test scores, had mentoring parents, etc) got "penalized" because he was a WHITE MALE (not get points)? Gee, the world isn't fair. If he didn't get in with the other white male majority, I would be calling foul and blaming others because he had a few more ACT points over the average USAFA applicant. After all, the ACT prep class I bought ($1000) gained him an extra 3 points over the mean which obviously means he is "more qualified".

It be clear, this was a sarcastic post. :)
 
Back
Top