That seems counterintuitive from an outsider perspective. AIM acceptance is roughly double the academy rate. While a student could improve their application between AIM and full admissions deadlines it seems implausible that someone unable to stand out enough for a 30% acceptance rate could improve enough in under a year to stand out enough make the cut on a 15% acceptance rate to the same place.Your title also asks about how selective AIM is. There are always way more qualified applicants than they can accept. However, if you aren't accepted for AIM, that does not automatically mean you wouldn't be selected to attend CGA. I don't know the specific selection process for AIM, but there are many people turned down for AIM (or who just don't apply or who couldn't attend) who get accepted to CGA.
Summer programs have a bit of a different intent than admissions round. They are mainly a marketing outreach tool....i.e. someone who has "always wanted to go to USCGA" and is going to apply regardless of AIM could conceivably not be accepted to AIM in lieu of someone from an underrepresented area of the country. Admissions is more about putting together a class of best available candidates (with geographic representation, etc).That seems counterintuitive from an outsider perspective. AIM acceptance is roughly double the academy rate. While a student could improve their application between AIM and full admissions deadlines it seems implausible that someone unable to stand out enough for a 30% acceptance rate could improve enough in under a year to stand out enough make the cut on a 15% acceptance rate to the same place.
If anyone can explain why that reasoning is wrong I'd love to hear it.
It makes total sense how those that never applied to AIM could still get in.
Geography. For some kids it is their one and only chance to see USCGA in person. Think West Coast, Midwest, Gulf. And USGCA wants cadets from those areas (all areas), as the Academy has a high percentage of cadets from the Northeast region. Regardless of whether they ever become swabs, they can pass the word to others in their area about their impressions.That seems counterintuitive from an outsider perspective. AIM acceptance is roughly double the academy rate. While a student could improve their application between AIM and full admissions deadlines it seems implausible that someone unable to stand out enough for a 30% acceptance rate could improve enough in under a year to stand out enough make the cut on a 15% acceptance rate to the same place.
If anyone can explain why that reasoning is wrong I'd love to hear it.
It makes total sense how those that never applied to AIM could still get in.
My cadet was not accepted to AIM (he was waitlisted but never pulled from the waitlist). There was not a virtual option when he applied. He was accepted EA. We come from an area that sends a lot of students to service academies, and he comes from a military family. Despite not being accepted to AIM, he took the opportunity to go up and visit during cadet for a day, and continued to show interest. To me it makes more sense to invite students who really don't have any idea what they are getting into or from underrepresented areas, so they can be better informed as to whether it is is good fit for them.That seems counterintuitive from an outsider perspective. AIM acceptance is roughly double the academy rate. While a student could improve their application between AIM and full admissions deadlines it seems implausible that someone unable to stand out enough for a 30% acceptance rate could improve enough in under a year to stand out enough make the cut on a 15% acceptance rate to the same place.
If anyone can explain why that reasoning is wrong I'd love to hear it.
It makes total sense how those that never applied to AIM could still get in.