CGA opposes changes to admissions system

USCGA nomination process

I almost hate to say anything, as this topic could easily go ballistic.....

Before everyone jumps to immediate opposition, think about two things.....

#1. You are correct that Congress isn't diverse, but that isn't the issue. The issue is USCGA diversity. Congress isn't diverse, nor is it very representative, because the founding fathers set it up that way! They wanted majority rule...which is NOT the same as representative rule. Those are two very different things. If you really get into political science you can study the difference.....

#2. I think this is really the more important point........let's admit it, the USCGA is not geographically, racially or gender diverse. It also does not attract many applicants from the interior, (midwest, great plains, and/or mountain states). It is apparently the goal of Congress, who does represent us in our political system, to make the USCGA more accurately reflect the demographic makeup of the U.S. as a whole. And again, lets admit that the USCGA is not doing well in this regard. And by most indicators, they are not improving. Congress has expressed their displeasure in the past, but nothing appears to be changing. Eventually they lose patience and start passing legislation to "improve" things.

You can either adamantly oppose any change, which is usually futile, and if this is your approach, when the change comes, you will have no input....or you can accept the change and try to direct it in a more acceptable form. I personally think that simply opposing any change is short-sighted. If an organization decided that opposition to change is their official stance, then they have no recourse or influence when the change is imposed on them. I believe an organization is more effective if it accepts that change will happen, and then be proactive, not reactive.

Anyhow, that is my opinion, and fortunately in this country we all have the right, and I feel the obligation to listen to both sides of an argument, accept that the other side thinks they have legitimate concerns and solutions, try to understand why the other side feels the way they do, then everyone should come to a mutually acceptable solution. If all we do is outright reject any or all opposing arguments, you normally lose in the long-run. And, as a firm supporter of the USCGA, I don't want to see that happen.

Just my opinion.......and I will leave it at that. Have a good one everybody!

when I went through the nomination process as I was applying for USAFA, it become quickly apparent that nominations are little more than another political tool congressmen like to have in their back pocket. I have a friend (now an AFA cadet) who worked for his representative as a summer job in high school, and because of that got a principal nomination which guaranteed him an appointment. Granted, he's an extremely intelligent and articulate young man, but I don't like the idea of members of congress getting to essentially handpick cadets based on their personal agendas.

My 2 cents.

Actually, I AM from the midwest....so there are exceptions. I actually found out about the USCGA because it was mentioned on my both of my senator's websites for service academy nomination information

It's likely this would not change for awhile....hasn't changed yet...

mnolan hits on some very good points, I hope everyone picked up on them.

Everyone must also remember - the USCGA is NOT opposed to increasing diversity or opposed to increasing the percentages of under-represented minorities at the USCGA Not at all!

Admiral Allen has made it clear that it WILL happen.

The debate focuses entirely on how it will happen - Congressman Cummings believes that a nomination process will diversify the Corps of Cadets "better" of "faster" while USCGA Admissions believes that there are better ways to do.

I'm still trying to figure out how a "USMMA" system of nominations, allocating appointments proportionally based on US Census (19 appointments for California, 10 for Florida, 5 for Maryland, 1 for North Dakota, 2 for Idaho, etc) is going to increase the qualified applicant pool and increase the diversity Congressman Cummings seeks.

Have to agree that USCGA should manage the appointments themselves and continue to hit targets that are established. Perhaps Congress should share with the SA's and the public, just what defines successfull representation/diversity in his view. Knowing that, then the SA's would know how close to that goal they are and put systems in place to hit the target.

USCGA should be granted the opporutnity to come to that goal within a timeframe on its own. But what's the number??

Eagle said:

Have to agree that USCGA should manage the appointments themselves and continue to hit targets that are established. Perhaps Congress should share with the SA's and the public, just what defines successfull representation/diversity in his view. Knowing that, then the SA's would know how close to that goal they are and put systems in place to hit the target.

USCGA should be granted the opporutnity to come to that goal within a timeframe on its own. But what's the number??

Click to expand...

I believe the goal of all of the academies is to "match" the minority representation of the officers to the enlisted.

The percentage of USCG active duty enlisted who describe themselves as minorities is 32%

The USCGA Class of 2013 was 16% minority, up from the 11% for 2012.

The current CGA Scholars program is 43% minority and that will help with the numbers for 2014, as will increasing the number of CGA scholars from 60 to 70 next year (already approved). The USCG believes the expansion of this program will serve as a means to further increase the opportunity for diverse candidates to achieve an appointment to the Coast Guard Academy.

The CSPI also has a 48% minority status right now which will also increase the number of minority officers.

Weather said:

Don't forget the 46 LOAs for 2014, which makes the remaining slots even more competitive.

Click to expand...

What is a LOA?

Bear said:

What is a LOA?

Click to expand...

It stands for Letter Of Assurance. It is a conditional appointment.

They usually say something like "you are guaranteed an appointment as long as you....(meet the condition)."

The conditions can be:

• obtain a nomination (not applicable to CGA)
• pass the PFE or CFA
• finish the application
• maintain good grades
• meet DODMERB medical criteria
• etc

Luigi 59,

Thank you for posting info on this important topic. I had heard rumors of this potential change - but, had not seen info on proposal before.

Professionally - I cannot state that the proposed change can assist with greater ethnic diversity at the USCGA. I do not know if any single effort could increase diversity. If I knew what would - then the ethnic diversity at my own Academy would be better than it is now.

Personally - I was born and raised - literally - across the street (if you can call I-95 a street) from the USCGA. Academically, I would have not been qualified for admission to the USCGA (probably the primary reason I went to Norwich University!) but, I also think that the opportunity was not presented/encouraged to me. I do know 2 classmates from New London High - who were encouraged to seek a USCGA appointment. Was it because they were both white? I do not know.

What I do know;

If, back then, a nomination were required to be considered for a USCGA appointment - neither me or my family would have known where to begin the process.

Over the past couple of years - I have had the honor and pleasure of sitting on my own congressional districts service academy nomination committee. I know for a fact that our district does not take into account political issues in the review of candidates for nomination. However - how do these students know where to begin the process of being considered for nomination? I do not know.

Due to the nature of my professional work - I visit a lot of schools - with large populations of students of color. Many of them would not know how to begin the nomination process.

I attend a lot of Congessional Academy Info Forums - I am actually sitting in a community college lunch room - ready to travel to the nearby high school where a congresswoman will be hosting her event. Who are in attendance at these forums? Mostly white students - very few students of color/their families. How did those students know about that event? How come all of the students sitting around me - the vast majority - students of color - not know about this important event? I do not know.

Diversifying - both gender and ethnic populations - is a very important action item for all service academies, senior military colleges and state maritime academies to address.

My biggest concern with this subject;

Adding a nomination process - has the potential of draining resources from the USCGA - money/time/personnel - who would have to be dedicated to monitoring/completing the processes involved with this new admissions requirement.

At several of the Academy Info Forums/high school college fairs - I am not seeing USCGA reps...and I understand why. If the USCGA could attend these programs - like the one I just completed this morning - a community college transfer fair - with high numbers of students of color in attendance - they might be able to present info about the USCGA to under-represented populations - and to encourage them to consider USCGA as an option.

Fuji

Roy "Fuji" Fulgueras
Director of Admissions
Massachusetts Maritime Academy
Fuji@maritime.edu
1-800-544-3411
FAX 508-830-5077
http://www.maritime.edu
http://twitter.com/MMAAdmissions

HR 3619 -- Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010

Oct 23, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 385 Ayes, 11 Nays, 36 Present/Not Voting.

The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEC. 218. ACADEMY NOMINATIONS.

(a) Appointment- Section 182(a) of title 14, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

‘(a) Corps of Cadets; Number; Nomination-

‘(1) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets (determined for any academic program year as of the day before the last day of the academic program year) is 1,000, excluding those foreign nationals admitted for instructions pursuant to section 195. Subject to that limitation, cadets are selected as follows:

‘(A) Not more than 10 individuals, appointed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order of merit as established by competitive examination, from the children of members of the Armed Forces who were killed in action or died of, or have a service-connected disability at not less than 100 per centum resulting from, wounds or injuries received or diseases contracted in, or preexisting injury or disease aggravated by, active service, children of members who are in a ‘missing status’ (as defined in section 551(2) of title 37), and children of civilian employees who are in ‘missing status’ (as defined in section 5561(5) of title 5). The determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs as to service connection of the cause of death or disability is rated, is binding upon the Secretary.

‘(B) Not less than one, nominated at large by the Vice President or, if there is no Vice President, by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

‘(C) Not less than one, nominated by each Senator.

‘(D) Not less than one, nominated by each Representative in Congress.

‘(E) Not less than one, nominated by the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia, the Delegate in Congress from the Virgin Islands, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, the Delegate in Congress from Guam, the Delegate in Congress from American Samoa, or the Resident Representative from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Each Senator, Representative, and Delegate in Congress, including the Resident Commissioner and the Resident Representative, is entitled to nominate 10 persons each year. Cadets who do not graduate on time shall not count against the allocations pursuant to subparagraphs (B)-(E). Nominees may be submitted without ranking or with a principal candidate and 9 ranked or unranked alternates. A nominee not selected for appointment under this paragraph shall be considered an alternate for the purposes of appointment under paragraph (2).

‘(2) The Secretary may appoint, each academic program year, individuals who are either--

‘(A) alternates nominated pursuant to paragraph (1) (C), (D), or (E); or

‘(B) applicants who applied directly for admission.

‘(3) In addition, the Secretary may appoint, each academic program year, individuals who are--

‘(A) children of members of the Armed Forces who--

‘(i) are on active duty (other than for training) and who have served continuously on active duty for at least eight years;

‘(ii) are, or who died while they were, retired with pay or granted retired or retainer pay;

‘(iii) are serving as members of reserve components and are credited with at least eight years of service;

‘(iv) would be, or who died while they would have been, entitled to retired pay, except for not having attained 60 years of age; or

‘(v) have been awarded the Medal of Honor;

the total number of whom cannot exceed 5 percent of the class to be admitted; however, a person who is eligible for selection under subsection (a)(1)(A) may not be selected under this subparagraph;

‘(B) enlisted members of the Coast Guard or the Coast Guard Reserve, the total number of whom cannot exceed 5 percent of the class to be admitted;

‘(C) graduates of the Coast Guard Scholars program, the total number of whom cannot exceed 30 percent of the class to be admitted; and

‘(D) individuals who possess qualities that the Superintendent identifies to be of particular value to the Academy and the Service, the total number of whom cannot exceed 20 percent of the class to be admitted.

‘(4) An individual shall be qualified for nomination, selection, and appointment as a cadet at the Academy only if the individual--

‘(A) is a citizen or national of the United States; and

‘(B) meets such minimum requirements that the Secretary may establish.

‘(5) The Superintendent shall furnish to any Member of Congress, upon the written request of such Member, the name of the Congressman or other nominating authority responsible for the nomination of any named or identified person for appointment to the Academy.

‘(6) For purposes of the limitation in subsection

(a)(1) establishing the aggregate authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets, the Secretary may, for any academic program year, permit a variance in that limitation by not more than 5 percent. In applying that limitation, and any such variance, the last day of an academic program year shall be considered to be graduation day.’.

(b) Transition- This section shall provide for the nomination, selection, and appointment of individuals, pursuant to section 182 of title 14, United States Code, who will matriculate in academic program year 2012 and thereafter, except that for--

(1) academic program year 2012, no less than 135 cadets of the corps (or 14 percent of the corps, whichever is smaller) shall be from nominations made pursuant to section 182(a)(1)(B)-(E);

(2) academic program year 2013, no less than 270 cadets of the corps (or 27 percent of the corps, whichever is smaller) shall be from nominations made pursuant to section 182(a)(1)(B)-(E); and

(3) academic program year 2014, no less than 405 cadets of the corps (or 41 percent of the corps, which ever is smaller) shall be from nominations made pursuant to section 182(a)(1)(B)-(E).

The Secretary is hereby authorized to take any additional action the Secretary believes necessary and proper to provide for the transition to the nomination, selection, and appointment process provided under this section.

36 Members voted present? That's fairly unusual. What else controversial was in the bill?

[HR 3619 -- Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010

Oct 23, 2009: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 385 Ayes, 11 Nays, 36 Present/Not Voting.

The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate.]

Luigi59,

I believe the Senate has its own version of this bill, S.1124. This means that the House bill (H.R. 3619) and Senate bill will have to be reconciled, and the final language of the bill is still to be determined. I did not see the nomination provision in S. 1124. There is, however, a section on authorized levels of strength and training:

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND TRAINING.

(a) ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH- The Coast Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength of active duty personnel of 49,954 as of September 30, 2010, and 52,452 as of September 30, 2011.

(b) MILITARY TRAINING STUDENT LOADS- The Coast Guard is authorized average military training student loads as follows:

(1) For recruit and special training, 2,500 student years for fiscal year 2010, and 2,625 student years for fiscal year 2011.

(2) For flight training, 170 student years for fiscal year 2010 and 179 student years for fiscal year 2011.

(3) For professional training in military and civilian institutions, 350 student years for fiscal year 2010 and 368 student years for fiscal year 2011.

(4) For officer acquisition, 1,300 student years for fiscal year 2010 and 1,365 student years for fiscal year 2011.

Here is a useful link for the Senate version of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01194:

777flier said:

Luigi59,

I believe the Senate has its own version of this bill, S.1124. This means that the House bill (H.R. 3619) and Senate bill will have to be reconciled, and the final language of the bill is still to be determined.

Click to expand...

The Senate cannot originate a revenue bill. We'll have to see if they make any changes to HR 3619 (which would send it back to the House) or whether they'll enroll it.

Congressman Cummings is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

Congressman Cummings oversees the implementation of the U.S. Coast Guard’s $9.6 billion budget.

Congressman Cummings controls the purse.

He has made diversity at the USCGA a priority, and is determined to add a Congressional nomination to the USCGA appointment process.

He is co-sponsor of this bill.

Connect the dots, it's gonna happen.

Luigi59,

Yes, from everything I've been reading, it does look like its going to happen. But the 'fat lady' has not sung yet, though (<:

It also doesn't have full support, however it was "crafty" to put it in the "CG Authorization Act."

Levels of Strength and Training

It appears that HR3619 (SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND TRAINING) indicates an increase in the number of Coast Guard personnel in training over the next few years. How does that jive with a reduction in CGA class size to 265 as Captain Bibeau was quoted as saying in "The Day"?

I don't think you'll be seeing the Coast Guard increase in size....more likely, decrease.

2014?

So is any of this going to have an impact on the class of 2014?

WaterDog said:

It appears that HR3619 (SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED LEVELS OF MILITARY STRENGTH AND TRAINING) indicates an increase in the number of Coast Guard personnel in training over the next few years. How does that jive with a reduction in CGA class size to 265 as Captain Bibeau was quoted as saying in "The Day"?

Click to expand...

I would assume that Coast Guard "training" entails much more than just the Coast Guard Academy.

The CG "only" needs between 180-200 new Ensigns each year. As more officers choose to stay in longer and the graduation rate stays the same (last year the CGA graduated 240), the entering 4/c numbers will be reduced.