1 vs 2 Nominations

Dadx4 said:
Respectfully disagree with this. Allowing one candidate multiple noms disadvantages others who would have received those noms but instead received none. Moreover, multiple noms provides an advantage over those who have only one because there are more opportunities for appointment. And, although many will disagree, there ARE intangibles in every competitive process. Having multiple noms yields a tactile impression that a candidate is very strong, even though it has no effect on WCS.
Click to expand...
The position assumes that the Sa admissions board is thinking the same as you are and that "it provides an advantage" or "yields a tactical impression". But that is completely unknown as SA's don't share that, one way or another. While there may be "intangibles" , again, there is NO way that anyone outside of admissions can determine how those are evaluated. It's speculation at best.

Every year there are any number of candidates that have multiple noms, that are not accepted. Clearly, it didn't help them. Conversely, there are those that an SA has given LOA's to.....LOA's!.....that did not receive a nom. You can't get in without a nom, but noms don't get you in.
 
A1Janitor said:
You didn’t disagree with him.

He said “Not getting more than on nom does not "hurt" anyone in the process.”

You responded with getting more than one nom hurts others who didn’t get a nom. That’s a different premise.
Click to expand...
Second sentence. "Moreover, multiple noms provides an advantage over those who have only one because there are more opportunities for appointment."
 
Dadx4 said:
Maybe, but they have a better chance than a candidate with the same WCS who has 3, 2, or 1.
Click to expand...

Maybe. If the WCSs are exactly the same in the same district - than yes. One guy with multiple noms with the same WCS as another on the same slate with only one nom MIGHT have a better chance. Not if there are better WCS candidates on the slate better is the obvious case where they both have the same exact chance - Zero from those nominating sources.

Two noms vs one between candidates in different states isn’t a discussion either.
 
Dadx4 said:
Second sentence. "Moreover, multiple noms provides an advantage over those who have only one because there are more opportunities for appointment."
Click to expand...

He was talking about people with one nom. Not multiple noms.
 
Sydney C. said:
I'm sorry, but this is 100% off base.

A.) Not getting more than on nom does not "hurt" anyone in the process. The overwhelming majority of all SA appointees EVER got only one nom.
B.) Having more than one nom allows the candidate to have any extra lottery ticket in the game but says nothing about the strength of his/her application.
C.) No one in admissions sits there and says "Oh boy look, Sally/Sam has two noms" and that somehow makes them a better candidate.
D.) SA's do NOT make policy about handing out noms. Period! Members of Congress are authorized BY LAW to nominate candidates for appointments. How they choose to do that e.g. principal vs. competitive slates is left to them to decide, BY LAW.

You can have four noms, but in itself isn't going to get anyone in.
Click to expand...



I can't disagree with you though on the best leaders. The issue at hand is 1 NOM vs 2 NOM and the increase of chances to get the appointment.
We have many kids in the world that would be great leaders BUT they need to have the opportunity 1st. The opportunities are typically given to the kids with the highest grades, best test scores, leadership etc... These are the processes we live in to narrow the field to the most qualified for the the opportunity. So again- Best leaders is another thread BUT this thread is about why 1 state operates different than another state? Why 1 Congressman operates different than another congressman in the Nom award ?

The calculus is another way to separate the genius from the not so. Additionally,, Yes the academies are about selecting the kids with the best test score, most community service , sports... This is the exact point system they work under to see if a kid is well rounded which would ultimately produce the best "THEORETICAL" leaders or have success at the SA
 
Last edited:
Year ago, I managed a team of business/software consultants that frequently engaged in these types of unyielding discussions. All were very intelligent people and all were equally passionate about their position on matters anywhere from world peace to the best pizza in town (lot's of passion on that one). I used to tell them that these conversations, discussions, fights, etc. were the most fun they would likely ever have in their working careers. I've kept in touch with many of them and invariably these debates are always brought up with great nostalgia. I have missed that for the last 15-20 years, but have found it again on this forum. :D
 
Maybe we could solve the multiple nominations debate from a practical standpoint. If we surveyed every candidate, parent, BGO, ALO, FFR, moderator, lurker, etc. on SAF, and the question was "if you had a choice on how many nominations to each service academy you or your candidate could receive, how many would you choose?

A. 0
B. 1
C. 2
D. 3
E. 4

Which would be the most common answer and why? I would bet my lunch that a significant majority would select E. If that is the case, why? If it doesn't offer an advantage, why would all of these amazingly gifted and intelligent individuals choose 4 over 3, 2, 1, or 0?
 
Dadx4 said:
Maybe we could solve the multiple nominations debate from a practical standpoint. If we surveyed every candidate, parent, BGO, ALO, FFR, moderator, lurker, etc. on SAF, and the question was "if you had a choice on how many nominations to each service academy you or your candidate could receive, how many would you choose?

A. 0
B. 1
C. 2
D. 3
E. 4

Which would be the most common answer and why? I would bet my lunch that a significant majority would select E. If that is the case, why? If it doesn't offer an advantage, why would all of these amazingly gifted and intelligent individuals choose 4 over 3, 2, 1, or 0?
Click to expand...

LOL That doesn’t matter at all. Of course one would prefer more nominations.

What one state does vs. another has no bearing on your son’s chances. I will leave the President and VP and ROTC out of it.

For MOC nominations ... it comes down to who is the best candidate on the MOC’s slate based on the WCS or principal nom. Comparing how other districts do it is immaterial.

For Senate nominations ... it comes down to who is the best candidate on the Senate’s slate. How other states do it is immaterial.

So the multiple nom discussion is limited to the candidates on your son’s MOC slate. If one of his competition gets a Senator nom - that COULD help your son if that candidate has a higher WCS score - and now given a different place to put him - thus clearing the way for your son to get the MOC assignment. If he has a lower WCS - he won’t get that MOC nom over your son.
 
Last edited:
A1Janitor said:
What one state does vs. another has no bearing on your son’s chances
Click to expand...
In our state some MOCs communicate with senators and others do not. There is no uniformity.
A1Janitor said:
multiple nom discussion is limited to the candidates on your son’s MOC slate
Click to expand...
No. Not at the NWL stage.
A1Janitor said:
LOL That doesn’t matter at all.
Click to expand...
Your opinion. There is a reason why more nominations are desired by all and the academies encourage candidates to apply to every possible source. It's simple. More means more.
 
TimFlyer said:
So here in our state my soon has gotten 1 nomination from the 1st Congressman.
The 2nd Senator sent him a letter saying " Your my #1 choice BUT we see you already have a nomination.

My 1st gut feeling is this is wrong. I understand it gives others a chance BUT if a 2nd nomination helps a kids chance getting the appointment then the system seems broken.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Breaking news! I finally figured out how to use the quote function, hooray!

To our OP @TimFlyer , what concerns me is the way you wrote this - Senator 2 saying "#1 choice". Did Senator mean that as in, principal nominee? If so, i'd have advised my child to ask if they could switch slates so that he is the Senator 2's principal nominee!!

!!!

@Dadx4 I vote 4!!!
 
At the NWL stage - it’s the top WCS regardless of number of noms. One nom gets you on NWL.

Apply to all you qualify for. Just in case you don’t get one you were counting on.

If other MOCs communicate with Senators - what does that matter?!? Are you saying that if one MOC doesn’t communicate with Senators - that could lead Senators to choose another MOC’s candidate over your son? Not sure this matters. If your son’s WCS isn’t good enough to win his MOC competitive district - not sure it would be high enough to win Senatorial, much less NWL.

This is all theoretical as I want your son to win an appointment.
 
A1Janitor said:
Apply to all you qualify for. Just in case you don’t get one you were counting on.
Click to expand...
If this is the true philosophy, why wouldn't the academies discourage candidates with Presidential Nominations from applying for MOC and Senate? For example, "Presidential Nomination recipients, it is not at all necessary to apply for congressional or senate nominations because all you really need is one."
 
A1Janitor said:
At the NWL stage
Click to expand...
At the NWL stage there is more latitude for academies to select a balanced class. If the top 150 WCS scores are females from states X, Y, and Z who play classical violin and goalie on the lacrosse team, I'm sure the academies would consider other factors besides WCS.
 
Dadx4 said:
If this is the true philosophy, why wouldn't the academies discourage candidates with Presidential Nominations from applying for MOC and Senate? For example, "Presidential Nomination recipients, it is not at all necessary to apply for congressional or senate nominations because all you really need is one."
Click to expand...

Because all people that apply for the Presidential don’t get it or know if they will get it? There is a cap on how many get presidential I thought? So if you don’t compete nationally under that special category, you still have your MOC and Senator route.
 
Dadx4 said:
If this is the true philosophy, why wouldn't the academies discourage candidates with Presidential Nominations from applying for MOC and Senate? For example, "Presidential Nomination recipients, it is not at all necessary to apply for congressional or senate nominations because all you really need is one."
Click to expand...

The Academy encourages candidates to apply for as many noms as possible in order to give the Academy more choices for charging the appointment, not for the candidate’s advantage. It’s easier to fit the pieces of the puzzle together when there is more than one side that fits next to another.

Dadx4 said:
At the NWL stage there is more latitude for academies to select a balanced class. If the top 150 WCS scores are females from states X, Y, and Z who play classical violin and goalie on the lacrosse team, I'm sure the academies would consider other factors besides WCS.
Click to expand...

The Academy is required by regulation to take the first 150 from the NWL based on highest WCS. After that they can choose anyone they care to select.

Stealth_81
 
HCopter said:
To our OP @TimFlyer , what concerns me is the way you wrote this - Senator 2 saying "#1 choice". Did Senator mean that as in, principal nominee? If so, i'd have advised my child to ask if they could switch slates so that he is the Senator 2's principal nominee!!
Click to expand...


Well the would be great BUT I did not see that fine print in the application process!!!! All we received were letters.. The 1st interview my son had was a Nom, 2nd was a thanks but you already have a nom so we are giving someone else..
I wonder if these MOC actually talk to put a kid on a slate that will get him the Appointment ?
Heck-- I'll end this thread if 1 nom at the top slate gets a kid the Appointment but it appears a lesser qualified kid could get on a slate that has better chances.

On another note: We applied to the USAF exclusively with the 3 Congressman. Maybe we could of put USAF for 2 and USNA for 1.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top