Hmmm, I am beginning to suspect that the OP may live under a bridge...
Why? Very prominent users have defended both sides of this topic. Not sure there really is a clear cut answer.
The title of the post, coupled with the poll, combined with the tone of your posts in this and other threads, all contribute to an overall sense of trollishness. Perhaps that is an unfair and unwarranted characterization on my part, but it is what it is.
The simple answer to the poll question is that there is absolutely nothing unethical in the acceptance rated posted by USNA. They are trying to compare apples to apples, which is not really possible, since there are only two other universities in the country that have equivalent application requirements. So instead of stating the acceptance rate of applicants that are fully 3Q with a qualifying nomination, which would not be comparable whatsoever to a traditional university, they are reporting the acceptance rate of individuals who submit an application at all, which is eminently comparable.
For instance, at Colorado School of Mines, academically gifted high school students are invited to apply based solely on their prescreened value as determined by the College Board. No application fee, no letters of recommendation, and no essays are required. The applicant only provides their identifying information and a transcript. That's it. Similarly streamlined processes exist at a multitude of four year universities across the country. Those universities report acceptance rates of applicants who follow that abbreviated process. Other, slightly more discriminating, universities require an essay or essays. Still more rigorous admissions offices require letters of recommendation. However, even the most onerous application requirements imposed by traditional universities are not at all comparable to what is required by USNA, USMA, USAFA, or USCGA for that matter.
When considering the acceptance rates at the SAs, it is essential to remember that a material aspect of the declination process is the rigor and duration of the application process itself. Applicants are declined based on their own failure to fully complete all of the myriad steps of the process. They are declined based on their inability to qualify scholastically. They are declined based on their inability to qualify athletically. They are declined because of their inability to qualify medically. They are declined based on their inability to obtain a nomination. They are declined based on their inability to pass a personal interview. Seemingly endless links in the application process chain, all of which must be forged together in order to achieve an appointment. Failure to connect any one link will result in declination of the application.
So roughly three quarters of initial applicants effectively reject themselves, before the SA ever has to consider the merits of the fully complete and qualified application of someone who is 3Q with a nomination. While the SA may not make a merit-based admissions decision with regard to the vast majority of submissions, those individuals were still applicants for admission. And, in order for comparable admissions numbers to be disseminated to the general public, those self-limiting applicants must be factored into the equation.
