USNA Class of 2028 Waiting and Speculating

mols.cast8 said:
I don't mean to be that person, but I got a nomination from my senator and my family has no relationship with him whatsoever. The process isn't rigged lol
Click to expand...
Thank your for your anecdotal statement. You may be interested to learn that the nomination process has had problems pretty much from the beginning. It's an interesting story if you look it up. Being completely dismissive of any concerns is quite obtuse of you. You are still a young pup, and have not yet seen how the sausage is made, especially when it comes to our government. Oh, I forgot, LOL.
 
USMC Crayons said:
At the end of the day, it needs to be standardized. We can't make an argument for "privacy" or "need to know" when the next district over (which is way less competitive) not only announces nominees, but has pictures of them up holding nomination certificates, newspaper releases, insta posts, etc. Come next door to us, and there is radio silence. You can't find a thing...almost like it didn't happen. If somebody can't see how that potentially doesn't sit well (even if everything is above board) I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. When you see candidates in our district that have a family relationship with a Rep and even appear in campaign ads and voila, a nomination is granted it doesn't sit well with candidates that are trying to make their best effort. Was that candidate one of the best to apply? Possibly. But in a Navy town where there was easily 100+ candidates for Annapolis alone, I find it more unlikely than likely that this candidate was one to be on the slate. We know the candidate that is now a midshipman, are we know the family. How is that not at a bare minimum a potential conflict of interest? There are several other scenarios like this that we know of (and we know the candidates personally). Ultimately, I know nothing will change (If we can't stop MOC's from insider trading to enrich themselves in the stock market, the nomination process is definitely not changing)I also know that getting a nom was potentially not going to happen. I just think it's fair that if this is more political than it should be, then people should be aware so they don't waste their time. It's easy for most of you commenting to brush this off as a non-factor, but your kid(s) actually gained admission to Annapolis and I am sure they are great Mids (or Officers at this point). I would love to see your perspective if you were on the other side of the equation.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, there is a check and balance in that it’s the SA that appoints the candidate. Not the MOC (unless principal for SA’s other that USNA).

I agree that perhaps some candidates on a slate are not perhaps the best fit for an appointment. That’s why a slate is presented.

Is there corruption in politics? lol. Ya. But to assume it’s rampant and ACTUALLY affects things at USNA, overall? No.

It’s kind of starting to sound like sour grapes, to me. Jealousy. Perhaps that isn’t the intention. You just don’t know that any of the candidates on the slate didn’t interview better. Or have better essays. You don’t have all the info. No one does except them and their committees. And your definition of BEST may not be another’s. And this is the MOC’s process/standards/requirements. Which could be different than the SA’s.
 
USMC Crayons said:
Thank your for your anecdotal statement. You may be interested to learn that the nomination process has had problems pretty much from the beginning. It's an interesting story if you look it up. Being completely dismissive of any concerns is quite obtuse of you. You are still a young pup, and have not yet seen how the sausage is made, especially when it comes to our government. Oh, I forgot, LOL.
Click to expand...
I also don't see you jumping on your soap box if your DS or DD had a appointment in there pocket, so your statements of fairness and transparency seem like personal bias. Your statements scream sour grapes and elitism. "Competitive District" is a oxymoron statement. All districts can be competitive because you are only competing against the ones on your slate. Not hundreds of applicants in one district and 1 in another. You have no idea how competitive a slate is in any giving district at any given year. The SA's pick the candidate for the appointment. The MOC's only give nominations. Are you implying that ALL nominations are given based on favors?
 
In our district, the MOC was a rubber stamp. The military members on the committee made the decisions. It was also publicized.

I agree it shouldn’t be kept secret. I can understand if the MOC wants to keep it secret, and also understand it is their right. I further believe that anyone that sought a nomination that seeks this information should receive it, with out FOIA.

I also believe filing a FOIA can be done to avoid repercussions. For instance, get a friend or attorney to do it.

I also believe some nominations are given for political reasons. But that doesn’t mean it translates to an appointment for the political nominee.

The SA isn’t appointing that person because of a relationship with MOC, unless it was a principal nominee and they are forced to by law. If the principal isn’t used, WCS/WPS is used.

The only time it could matter is if a candidate has the highest WCS/WPS and is denied a nomination for political purposes.

I understand the frustration. I just think it’s a fallacy to suggest a candidate isn’t in a SA because of lack of nomination because of political purposes.

As a trained auditor, I would need much more to reach that conclusion.
 
Just as a point of reference, we know someone high up in our state government (who has also served in a position high up in the federal government) who is very good friends with our MOC. This person has written letters of recommendation for my DS previously. When I asked our state government friend if they would be willing to write a letter of rec to our MOC for the nomination, the person refused telling me that the nomination is based solely on merit and not who you know. I was impressed with the response.
 
justdoit19 said:
Fortunately, there is a check and balance in that it’s the SA that appoints the candidate. Not the MOC (unless principal for SA’s other that USNA).

I agree that perhaps some candidates on a slate are not perhaps the best fit for an appointment. That’s why a slate is presented.

Is there corruption in politics? lol. Ya. But to assume it’s rampant and ACTUALLY affects things at USNA, overall? No.

It’s kind of starting to sound like sour grapes, to me. Jealousy. Perhaps that isn’t the intention. You just don’t know that any of the candidates on the slate didn’t interview better. Or have better essays. You don’t have all the info. No one does except them and their committees. And your definition of BEST may not be another’s. And this is the MOC’s process/standards/requirements. Which could be different than the SA’s.
Click to expand...
Are you actually reading my posts? Or just jumping to conclusions? If you did, you would see that I am questioning the significant differences in how our MOC's operate concerning noms. Is it not fair to address concerns of conflict of interest, secrecy and bias? Just let me know if I don't have permission to ask questions.
 
Ihavenoidea said:
I also don't see you jumping on your soap box if your DS or DD had a appointment in there pocket, so your statements of fairness and transparency seem like personal bias. Your statements scream sour grapes and elitism. "Competitive District" is a oxymoron statement. All districts can be competitive because you are only competing against the ones on your slate. Not hundreds of applicants in one district and 1 in another. You have no idea how competitive a slate is in any giving district at any given year. The SA's pick the candidate for the appointment. The MOC's only give nominations. Are you implying that ALL nominations are given based on favors?
Click to expand...
Care to make up any more assumptions, or are you done?
 
A1Janitor said:
In our district, the MOC was a rubber stamp. The military members on the committee made the decisions. It was also publicized.

I agree it shouldn’t be kept secret. I can understand if the MOC wants to keep it secret, and also understand it is their right. I further believe that anyone that sought a nomination that seeks this information should receive it, with out FOIA.

I also believe filing a FOIA can be done to avoid repercussions. For instance, get a friend or attorney to do it.

I also believe some nominations are given for political reasons. But that doesn’t mean it translates to an appointment for the political nominee.

The SA isn’t appointing that person because of a relationship with MOC, unless it was a principal nominee and they are forced to by law. If the principal isn’t used, WCS/WPS is used.

The only time it could matter is if a candidate has the highest WCS/WPS and is denied a nomination for political purposes.

I understand the frustration. I just think it’s a fallacy to suggest a candidate isn’t in a SA because of lack of nomination because of political purposes.

As a trained auditor, I would need much more to reach that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Thank you for a very well reasoned, articulate response.
 
bookjustice said:
...If someone were to get a nomination and declined from an academy, it would be embarrassing to have a press release and publication with my name all over it...
Click to expand...

This actually happened to a kid a couple of years behind my DC. Received a principal nom from our MOC. Very bright kid, fantastic academics, lots of community service, JROTC, great family. The local paper did a big spread about it with the full cooperation and enthusiasm of the kid's parents. Unfortunately, the story stated that the kid had received an appointment, rather than just a nomination, albeit a principal one. When I initially read the story, that factual inaccuracy jumped out at me. Sure enough, the kid was either unable to clear DODMERB or failed to pass the CFA and was denied an offer of appointment. Was very sad. I am pretty sure that, in retrospect, the kid and the family would have liked to deferred the publicity until the offer of appointment was in hand.

That being said, I do support the publication of both nominations and subsequent offers of appointment. I don't think that personal privacy should enter into the equation. If you want to apply, there should be an explicit or implied waiver of privacy and a consent to the publication, including photos.

As stated previously, I am also strongly against the concept of principal nominations and wish that Congress would pass legislation to amend the statute to remove that mode. It unnecessarily creates the potential for claims of bias in the appointment process and I am certain that the model has been abused in the past and continues to be abused to this day. I am also certain that such abuse is the exception, rather than the rule, but even one instance of personal or political favoritism is one too many in a process that should be as clean as the driven snow. You might still have bias in the nomination process, but at least the appointment decision would be clean.

Let Admissions assess the qualifications of the nominees. Period.
 
justdoit19 said:
Fortunately, there is a check and balance in that it’s the SA that appoints the candidate. Not the MOC (unless principal for SA’s other that USNA).

I agree that perhaps some candidates on a slate are not perhaps the best fit for an appointment. That’s why a slate is presented.

Is there corruption in politics? lol. Ya. But to assume it’s rampant and ACTUALLY affects things at USNA, overall? No.

It’s kind of starting to sound like sour grapes, to me. Jealousy. Perhaps that isn’t the intention. You just don’t know that any of the candidates on the slate didn’t interview better. Or have better essays. You don’t have all the info. No one does except them and their committees. And your definition of BEST may not be another’s. And this is the MOC’s process/standards/requirements. Which could be different than the SA’s.
Click to expand...
"Unless principal for SA's other than USNA"...

Sorry for sounding dumb, but does USNA not allow its MOCs and Senators to pick a slate winner? They force them to use the competitive method and send in all 10 nominees equally placed?
 
cashton314 said:
"Unless principal for SA's other than USNA"...

Sorry for sounding dumb, but does USNA not allow its MOCs and Senators to pick a slate winner? They force them to use the competitive method and send in all 10 nominees equally placed?
Click to expand...
USMA and USAFA are by law required to offer an appointment to PNom + 3Q. USNA is not, but they rarely pick someone other then the principal nom to be the slate winner as to not mess with Congress.
 
I asked this in another thread but I’ll ask here. Does Maryland do a principal nomination?
 
Does anyone know if appointments are handed out in order of say population or competitiveness in an area. I'm from Kansas so I am just wondering if I might hear back later since Kansas is less competitive for USNA then somewhere like NY or MD.
 
MustyRussy said:
Good evening everyone.

I am a candidate for the class of 2028 and have received and LOA, nomination (Representative), and am awaiting for DoDMERB clearance. I have spotted on the appointments forum that two fellow constituents (GA-6) from my district have received full offers of appointments already with an LOA. I am concerned that I could somehow lose an appointment spot if my district loses appointment spots despite my LOA. Is this in any way possible?

Thank you all!
Click to expand...
Congrats!! I see you got your appointment. Dist 6 does a great job! We are dist 6 too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top