USNA Class of 2027 Waiting and Speculating

Kentucky9 said:
My DQ’ed sons grandpa gained 15 pounds at Paris island in 1966….and his great grandpa ate better in the army from 1940-1945. My DQ’ed son attended Summer seminar and seal elite wrestling camp stuck it out and loved it. At no time was his “lazy 20/30 eye” an issue. Fell in love with the the naval architecture degree at summer seminar.

In a just world he would have the opportunity to challenge and “wrestle off” for a spot…instead of being denied access for such outdated standards. How much is a f-35 helmet?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry this happened to your son. My son also did the Elite Seal Wrestling Camp and fell in love with both the military and wrestling aspect of USNA. Unfortunately, he didn't get a nomination (it's VERY hard in our state). He still has hopes for the prep school through wrestling. He was also DQ'd but feels very confident that he can get a waiver since he has never, ever even had a reaction and passed a food challenge.
 
SnootyHen said:
60%!? Wow! That's significantly worse than I thought. It's good for those who did pass but kind of a sad statement on today's youth. They're fighting a tough battle to make the best choices they can and some have been dealt a rough hand from the get-go. But I wonder what what stats were 20 and 40 years ago. Is our population just becoming less physically capable? Thanks for sharing this! It gives me a glimmer of hope to hang on to knowing my son passed both DoDMERB and CFA.
Click to expand...
I don't believe they're necessarily less physically capable. I do question whether the medical accession standards are keeping pace with our evolving approach to healthcare. I can use my own candidate as an example. He's a three-time state champion athlete, yet due to a contact-sport related concussion many years ago, he was DQ'd by DoDMERB. DS has no residual effects, as demonstrated by later performance: 4+ GPA, NHS, class president, Boys State, etc. etc, but there was no request for AMI - just a straight-up, no questions asked DQ. The typical response when someone hears he was DQ'd is a jaw drop followed by, "What?! Are you serious?!"

Speaking with some degree of knowledge (I am in healthcare), twenty or forty years ago, a lot of coaches wouldn't have questioned the hit that caused the concussion, and random bouts of dizziness in the following weeks would have been shrugged off. Today, we are far more aware of concussions, including proper diagnosis and treatment. That's a good thing, but without question, increased concussion diagnoses = increased concussion DQs. The same can be said for mental health - we are much better at recognizing and treating these issues in children, but every single diagnosis made in the "real world" is an potential DQ in "DoDMERB world."

I fully agree with thoroughly medically vetting candidates, but at what point do the medical accession standards meant to move solid candidates into the system actually become a barrier keeping solid candidates out? And if we are keeping candidates out based on adherence to outdated models, how does that help anyone? I don't have an answer, but given the difficulty meeting enlisted and officer recruitment goals and overall number of disqualified candidates, I believe these are fair questions. It's also fair to point out that my family has no military friends or family to offer thoughts on this, so I don't know the counterarguments.

Apologies for the long post. These are just my random thoughts as a parent, healthcare professional, and taxpayer, watching this all unfold from the passenger seat.
 
Lexloci123 said:
I don't believe they're necessarily less physically capable. I do question whether the medical accession standards are keeping pace with our evolving approach to healthcare. I can use my own candidate as an example. He's a three-time state champion athlete, yet due to a contact-sport related concussion many years ago, he was DQ'd by DoDMERB. DS has no residual effects, as demonstrated by later performance: 4+ GPA, NHS, class president, Boys State, etc. etc, but there was no request for AMI - just a straight-up, no questions asked DQ. The typical response when someone hears he was DQ'd is a jaw drop followed by, "What?! Are you serious?!"

Speaking with some degree of knowledge (I am in healthcare), twenty or forty years ago, a lot of coaches wouldn't have questioned the hit that caused the concussion, and random bouts of dizziness in the following weeks would have been shrugged off. Today, we are far more aware of concussions, including proper diagnosis and treatment. That's a good thing, but without question, increased concussion diagnoses = increased concussion DQs. The same can be said for mental health - we are much better at recognizing and treating these issues in children, but every single diagnosis made in the "real world" is an potential DQ in "DoDMERB world."

I fully agree with thoroughly medically vetting candidates, but at what point do the medical accession standards meant to move solid candidates into the system actually become a barrier keeping solid candidates out? And if we are keeping candidates out based on adherence to outdated models, how does that help anyone? I don't have an answer, but given the difficulty meeting enlisted and officer recruitment goals and overall number of disqualified candidates, I believe these are fair questions. It's also fair to point out that my family has no military friends or family to offer thoughts on this, so I don't know the counterarguments.

Apologies for the long post. These are just my random thoughts as a parent, healthcare professional, and taxpayer, watching this all unfold from the passenger seat.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I wish my daughter never played soccer - or they should ban heading the soccer ball. Too many concussions. A soccer ball is like a bowling ball in the cold.

That being said - we have to remember that they appoint fully qualified candidates with outstanding records or talent. Everyone at the academy earned it. And there are top candidates that don’t make it that would have been as successful as my son or any other midshipman at USNA.
 
Looking back over the progressive changes in the standards - prior to about 2000, an eating disorder was typically not waived for accession, and if on AD, medical separation was initiated. Now, if the member maintains a healthy weight and is not experiencing disordered behavior, they are retained. With the advent of PRK and other corrective vision surgeries, thousands of military members who would have previously been disqualified from aviation have had those doors opened. I am seeing the same positive movement with the keratoconus issue. Any change to the accession standard requires appropriate data analysis and enough years of data and testing under military or simulated conditions to evaluate and establish the new standard across the armed services, a not inconsequential staffing task.
 
Lexloci123 said:
I don't believe they're necessarily less physically capable. I do question whether the medical accession standards are keeping pace with our evolving approach to healthcare. I can use my own candidate as an example. He's a three-time state champion athlete, yet due to a contact-sport related concussion many years ago, he was DQ'd by DoDMERB. DS has no residual effects, as demonstrated by later performance: 4+ GPA, NHS, class president, Boys State, etc. etc, but there was no request for AMI - just a straight-up, no questions asked DQ. The typical response when someone hears he was DQ'd is a jaw drop followed by, "What?! Are you serious?!"

Speaking with some degree of knowledge (I am in healthcare), twenty or forty years ago, a lot of coaches wouldn't have questioned the hit that caused the concussion, and random bouts of dizziness in the following weeks would have been shrugged off. Today, we are far more aware of concussions, including proper diagnosis and treatment. That's a good thing, but without question, increased concussion diagnoses = increased concussion DQs. The same can be said for mental health - we are much better at recognizing and treating these issues in children, but every single diagnosis made in the "real world" is an potential DQ in "DoDMERB world."

I fully agree with thoroughly medically vetting candidates, but at what point do the medical accession standards meant to move solid candidates into the system actually become a barrier keeping solid candidates out? And if we are keeping candidates out based on adherence to outdated models, how does that help anyone? I don't have an answer, but given the difficulty meeting enlisted and officer recruitment goals and overall number of disqualified candidates, I believe these are fair questions. It's also fair to point out that my family has no military friends or family to offer thoughts on this, so I don't know the counterarguments.

Apologies for the long post. These are just my random thoughts as a parent, healthcare professional, and taxpayer, watching this all unfold from the passenger seat.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, that while someone is DQ’ed, the SA can still pursue a waiver (unless not waiverable).

I think there is a co-mingling of this point. The DQ is the standard. The SA/waiver authority can still waive. Perhaps a waiver isn’t pursued, bc the candidate isn’t the one receiving the appointment. So the lack of an appointment isn’t related to being DQ.

This is EXACTLY why one candidates medical case cannot be used as an example of an expected outcome for another candidate. Each candidate is considered individually.

IOW, it’s not necessarily the DQ keeping the candidate from receiving the offer.
 
Capt MJ said:
Looking back over the progressive changes in the standards - prior to about 2000, an eating disorder was typically not waived for accession, and if on AD, medical separation was initiated. Now, if the member maintains a healthy weight and is not experiencing disordered behavior, they are retained. With the advent of PRK and other corrective vision surgeries, thousands of military members who would have previously been disqualified from aviation have had those doors opened. I am seeing the same positive movement with the keratoconus issue. Any change to the accession standard requires appropriate data analysis and enough years of data and testing under military or simulated conditions to evaluate and establish the new standard across the armed services, a not inconsequential staffing task.
Click to expand...
This is encouraging to hear. The last point makes particular sense. I imagine updating military standards is a lot like altering the course of one of the ships at sea - it's just too big and needs to much data to turn on a dime. Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
justdoit19 said:
Keep in mind, that while someone is DQ’ed, the SA can still pursue a waiver (unless not waiverable).

I think there is a co-mingling of this point. The DQ is the standard. The SA/waiver authority can still waive. Perhaps a waiver isn’t pursued, bc the candidate isn’t the one receiving the appointment. So the lack of an appointment isn’t related to being DQ.

This is EXACTLY why one candidates medical case cannot be used as an example of an expected outcome for another candidate. Each candidate is considered individually.

IOW, it’s not necessarily the DQ keeping the candidate from receiving the offer.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.

There might be a co-mingling of the concepts in general, but personally I understand the distinction. Confusion between the concepts is exactly why I didn't reference his waiver. But, you did kind of hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the DQ as standard. I guess that's one of the things my mind keeps coming back to. Why does a DQ remain the standard (at least on some issues) instead of a different starting point? I'm sure there are reasons, but as noted above - I'm approaching the question from a different perspective - that of someone in healthcare, looking at what appears to be a gap between what I see in the civilian world versus what I've seen through this process. That is why I said I don't know the answers or counterarguments. I know they're out there. I just don't know what they are.

And I certainly didn't mean to suggest candidates should be viewed through a group lens. I completely agree every candidate is unique. The only thing they have in common is that EVERY candidate who has gotten this far is arguably quite accomplished and should be proud of their efforts. This would include not only those appointed, but also those with DQs (waiverable and un-waiverable) and those who simply weren't selected. There's no shame in any of it.
 
Last edited:
Lexloci123 said:
Thanks for the reply.

There might be a co-mingling of the concepts in general, but personally I understand the distinction. Confusion between the concepts is exactly why I didn't reference his waiver. But, you did kind of hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the DQ as standard. I guess that's one of the things my mind keeps coming back to. Why does a DQ remain the standard (at least on some issues) instead of a different starting point? I'm sure there are reasons, but as noted above - I'm approaching the question from a different perspective - that of someone in healthcare, looking at what appears to be a gap between what I see in the civilian world versus what I've seen through this process. That is why I said I don't know the answers or counterarguments. I know they're out there. I just don't know what they are.

And I certainly didn't mean to suggest candidates should be viewed through a group lens. I completely agree every candidate is unique. The only thing they have in common is that EVERY candidate who has gotten this far is arguably quite accomplished and should be proud of their efforts. This would include not only those appointed, but also those with DQs (waiverable and un-waiverable) and those who simply weren't selected. There's no shame in any of it.
Click to expand...
If you haven’t seen this before, I think this is the current edition of the accession standard. It is updated regularly. The intro gives some of the reasoning behind the stringency.

 
Good Morning Waiters and Speculators!
Offers of appointment are closing in on 100, with #96 reported to date. On 3/6/22, the Class of 2026's SA forum appointment reports was at 94, but by 3/10 reached #102. If history repeats, it sounds like it could be a big week for the admissions team and Class of 2027 candidates.

Happy to be in the waiting game with all of you, and praying for the best possible outcome and path forward for all.🙏
 
justdoit19 said:
Keep in mind, that while someone is DQ’ed, the SA can still pursue a waiver (unless not waiverable).

I think there is a co-mingling of this point. The DQ is the standard. The SA/waiver authority can still waive. Perhaps a waiver isn’t pursued, bc the candidate isn’t the one receiving the appointment. So the lack of an appointment isn’t related to being DQ.

This is EXACTLY why one candidates medical case cannot be used as an example of an expected outcome for another candidate. Each candidate is considered individually.

IOW, it’s not necessarily the DQ keeping the candidate from receiving the offer.
Click to expand...

I think ROTC may be a better statistical pool on who’s getting DQ’d for what medical issues since scholarship recipient automatically go to waiver review where as where a candidate stands versus their nomination slate dictates whether they get a waiver request. Two very close candidates, one is 3Q, the other needs waivers, I would imagine the academy would pick the 3Q candidate and may not request a waiver for the non 3Q candidate.

Considering my daughter with noms from all three members of congress, and a LOA, was DQ‘d for a speech related learning disability which her IEP ended in 3rd grade, I have some opinions on the standards.

Adjustment Disorder seems to be a common DQ - with increased focus in the private sector on MH, this is a very common diagnosis to secure insurance payments for counseling. With an academy application, this can be disqualifying.
 
Lexloci123 said:
I fully agree with thoroughly medically vetting candidates, but at what point do the medical accession standards meant to move solid candidates into the system actually become a barrier keeping solid candidates out? And if we are keeping candidates out based on adherence to outdated models, how does that help anyone? I don't have an answer, but given the difficulty meeting enlisted and officer recruitment goals and overall number of disqualified candidates, I believe these are fair questions. It's also fair to point out that my family has no military friends or family to offer thoughts on this, so I don't know the counterarguments.
Click to expand...

The same can be asked of standardized testing. There is a plethora of research showing that the SAT/ACT models are not working with today's students. Some say it's a difference in how they are taught, some thing the bubbles baffle them. I am no an educator so I don't know why but I do know that my top of his class son with a very strong academic record can't take them to save his life. Some schools are backing off on their use but many still require them. Several of the schools where he applied want the scores if you took the test or a statement that you didn't take it. There is no option to take the test and then just not send the scores (for most but not all schools). So once they take them and don't do well, they're stuck with it in the same way as a 10 year old diagnosis for something that never amounted to anything.

Is it "fair" to either candidate to be held back by a known problem with the system? Maybe not. But at this point, each of these candidates is competing with the very best for only limited spots. When my friends ask if he's heard yet, they like to re-assure me that he's so smart and athletic and sure to get in. My response is always "He is. But so are all the other candidates." When you are competing with the best of the best, someone isn't getting a seat at the table and sadly it might be a single bad test score or a food allergy that never manifested that takes any of our candidates out. We just have to keep hoping as long as we still have a shot. I love the speculation and data as much as anyone, but I also know that at this point it's just brain work to keep us busy because it's out of our hands now.
 
SnootyHen said:
The same can be asked of standardized testing. There is a plethora of research showing that the SAT/ACT models are not working with today's students. Some say it's a difference in how they are taught, some thing the bubbles baffle them.

We just have to keep hoping as long as we still have a shot. I love the speculation and data as much as anyone, but I also know that at this point it's just brain work to keep us busy because it's out of our hands now.
Click to expand...
This is all such a fascinating process, how different everyone's experience has been to get here. Obviously that's what makes each incoming class so powerful and full of potential. We're in the opposite boat where the standardized tests will only help my son. Strong scores and good grades but he goes to such a competitive school they don't rank and if there was a top 20%, I'd put money on the fact they are all going to Ivies. You have to test in and can't stay if your GPA dips below 3.0 by the end of any given year. Every class is AP or honors as far as GPA calculations. So the bottom of the graduating class is still in the top percentages of HS graduates in the country by some valuation. Well that doesn't always translate to SAs but maybe. We just don't know, so we hope the test scores help his WCS in this case.

And at the same time we're in the exact same place where everyone we know says he'll get in except for those close enough to understand the the actual process. Throw in an unexpected medical situation out of our control and it does just make you completely unsure. There's no assurance and it is out of our hands. Love that he's so calm and happy about plan B though. The military has taught us so much about handling the highs and lows of this life and I have a lot of confidence all of these incredible candidates will land where they will thrive and do so much good, even if it takes a hot minute to see it that way.
 
SnootyHen said:
Is it "fair" to either candidate to be held back by a known problem with the system? Maybe not. But at this point, each of these candidates is competing with the very best for only limited spots. When my friends ask if he's heard yet, they like to re-assure me that he's so smart and athletic and sure to get in. My response is always "He is. But so are all the other candidates." When you are competing with the best of the best, someone isn't getting a seat at the table and sadly it might be a single bad test score or a food allergy that never manifested that takes any of our candidates out. We just have to keep hoping as long as we still have a shot. I love the speculation and data as much as anyone, but I also know that at this point it's just brain work to keep us busy because it's out of our hands now.
Click to expand...
Said the same thing this morning. Whittling down 16,000+ highly qualified candidates to a mere 1,300 offers of appointment, at some point preparation meets luck and it's like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's Golden Ticket.
 
Goal2004 said:
Congrats. I feel the same way, so grateful to this country, love that you said that.
I see you are in Florida, the support of our parents’ clubs is amazing, I highly recommend to look for the one your family belong to, according to your location. Soon the Welcome Aboard Events for plebes will start. Don’t miss it.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of “parents club” how do we find them ? Thank you so much for that info
 
Highly suggest becoming active in your parent club. They are all different and have varying levels of participation. Our board just elected new members this weekend. I had great support and made friends. I was also able to pay it forward when I became our club's plebe parent mentor and VP of the club.
 
Coffee22 said:
Good Morning Waiters and Speculators!
Offers of appointment are closing in on 100, with #96 reported to date. On 3/6/22, the Class of 2026's SA forum appointment reports was at 94, but by 3/10 reached #102. If history repeats, it sounds like it could be a big week for the admissions team and Class of 2027 candidates.

Happy to be in the waiting game with all of you, and praying for the best possible outcome and path forward for all.🙏
Click to expand...
Helpful. Thank u. My son is waiting eagerly but is surprisingly calm about it. He received LOA from WP in Dec and eventual appointment in BFE early Feb after DODMERB updated. He applied and received nomination to USNA, USAFA, USMA but has his hopes on USNA, after attending NASS last summer. His first love is USAFA, became Navy, and now leaning WP after appointment & overnight visit couple weeks ago. His academics, test scores, athletics & leadership, serve experience, and intangibles we believe are pretty solid. He’d be disappointed nonetheless if didn’t receive offer of appointment to Air Force OR Navy. Anyone have a sense of perspective on a student who received LOA at WP, and/or attended NASS, fully qualified otherwise and odds of getting into USNA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top