ACT Score Worrying & New

I felt my remarks above were incomplete without at least a small amount of data with respect to USAFA. The following excerpt pasted from:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Visitors United States Air Force Academy 14 January 2014

upload_2017-7-11_14-40-4.png
 
We can disagree; and we can even believe we are talking semantics. I get that. But the purpose of the academies are not the same as traditional universities.
.
There are all kinds of colleges that have different missions. I'm not denying that their mission is a heck of a lot different than say, the UofMN. Because that isn't up for debate; of course they are!

There are technical colleges that emphasize a hands on approach. There are business colleges, engineering colleges, several colleges inside of flagship University like colleges of biological sciences or college of liberal arts, junior colleges, for profit colleges, religious colleges, online colleges etc etc etc. They all have one thing in common, they are colleges yet vastly different in their mission and approach. Because a college always is: "An educational institution or establishment, in particular one providing higher education or specialized professional or vocational training. Yes, there are "military colleges or universities" which includes USAFA, the Citadel or Virginia Military Institute. Like other colleges, their mission is very unique all the while having a lot of other things that are similar. 1st and foremost, it is to obtain a 4 year college education while simultaneously teaching leadership and character development under a military setting. If you like, I can point to USAFA websites where they use the words "college" or "university" to describe USAFA (just as USNA used the word "Scholarship"). Some things just aren't up for debate and have nothing to do with semantics.

I think it is fair to assume every person that applies to USAFA understands that it is very different from a traditional college. My only points were twofold. Yes, it is a college/university (albeit a military college). And yes, by definition, you get a "scholarship". To suggest otherwise goes squarely against the meaning of the words. If you are still in denial, then you also disagree with the dictionary as well as the Academies that call themselves a college/University and offer scholarships.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with the dictionary. I just disagree with your "interpretation". The military has MANY different schools. Technical; PME (Professional Military Education); etc. Some training they even outsource to non-military providers. Some of these classes/schools are "Accredited"

The air force academy, University of Minnesota, and Ohio State are all accredited from the same (The Higher Learning Commission of The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools). That's about the only thing they have in common. There are individuals who already have an associates or even a bachelor's degree who want to attend the air force academy. If accepted and given an appointment, do you think they can walk in with transcripts and "TRANSFER" them to the academy? NO. Not going to happen. At the MOST, the academy may allow such a student to test out of some basic pre-req type classes. But that individual is still going to do a full 4 years at the academy. They are still going to take close to 140 credits at the academy. They are still going to spend 70% of their time in a "Military Environment" (Not a "College Campus Environment).

Yes, the academy has a "University". Yes, the university is an Accredited school. Yes, you will get college credit and an accredited degree from the school. That is about where it ends with having anything in common with a traditional university.

When I joined the military, I went to basic training and then close to a year of school. That year of school got me just about enough college credit (From an Accredited College) to receive an associate's degree. But there's no way that I or my parents thought that "I WENT OFF TO COLLEGE".

If that's what some what to perceive it as; that's fine. If it makes some parents feel better that their child "Went Off to College" instead of "Joining the Military"; that's fine. The cadets know the difference. The faculty know the difference. The alumni know the difference. I've already conceded that the academy; and by extension their ALO's and brochures have to communicate to perspective applicants and their parents in a language that they can understand. That's why academy recruited athletes have a "Signing Day". There's really no such thing, but it makes the kids feel important. Like the few other kids in their school who had signing day and were recruited at a traditional school. The academy speaks of "curriculum; spring break; christmas break; summer break; labs; college credit; and many of the other vernacular that "Civilians" use when speaking of "Going off to College". They have to. Not because the academy is the SAME as a traditional university. But because the academy is competing for applicants.

The truth is: On a forum like this, there's a lot of applicants who have a serious desire to SERVE THEIR COUNTRY. But there are MANY APPLICANTS; probably the majority; who look at the academy as a "Free Education" opportunity. They are comparing it to their OTHER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. And the academy has to use this in their marketing and "Recruiting". The military doesn't tell you everything when trying to get you to sign up. They tell you what you want to hear. Does the academy have a University? Yes they do. Is it an accredited university with a degree program? Yes it is. Is the academy IN BUSINESS to give you a "College Education". NO THEY AREN'T. If that's all they needed, they'd use ROTC and traditional universities Exclusively. The academy is IN BUSINESS to develop Military Officers and Leaders. Can they take advantage of having a university for their benefit? Yes they can; and they do. one example is that they can raise funds by having NCAA sports. One of the main reasons the military academies came into existence is because they needed and wanted educated individuals who could become effective military leaders and officers. But they wanted an environment where they could control not only the academic environment, but also the social and professional environment of the military member.

There are a lot of people who don't believe the military academies are needed. They think traditional universities and ROTC can take care of all of the educational requirements. Then, the individual can go to OTS/OCS and learn to be an officer. Not every ROTC cadet gets to go on active duty. The academy, ROTC, and OTC bring in a diversity of military officers. They all bring in different perspectives and experiences. They compliment each other and the military. None are BETTER than the other, but none would be as good as they are if NOT FOR THE OTHERS.

Anyway; if a person wants to believe that for the MOST PART, the military academies are like MOST OTHER traditional universities; then fine.... believe it. Doesn't bother me. I know what their primary mission, goal, and purpose are. It's not to give high school graduates a College Degree. Providing a college education is a benefit for both the recipient and the military. But that's just icing on the cake. That's not why they exist.
 
I don't disagree with the dictionary. I just disagree with your "interpretation".
It seems as though you want to stay the course and change the meaning of a definition. Kind of like Bill Clinton..... "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." :biglaugh:

The air force academy, University of Minnesota, and Ohio State are all accredited from the same (The Higher Learning Commission of The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools). That's about the only thing they have in common.
While none of this changes the meaning of the definition of a "college", there are about 1,000 things in common (down to living in dorms, sitting at desks inside of a classroom, as well as the curriculum) and other characteristics that are dramatically different. Some selective universities are even closer. Some military colleges are much closer to the Academies. But every last one of them are colleges for one specific reason: they fit the definition.

If accepted and given an appointment, do you think they can walk in with transcripts and "TRANSFER" them to the academy? NO. Not going to happen. At the MOST, the academy may allow such a student to test out of some basic pre-req type classes. But that individual is still going to do a full 4 years at the academy. They are still going to take close to 140 credits at the academy. They are still going to spend 70% of their time in a "Military Environment" (Not a "College Campus Environment).
.
In actuality, a lot more transfers that you assume. When entering the Academy, our son tested out of a two semesters of calc, two semesters of chemistry, two semesters of biology, some English comp, a history class or two etc and three of four other classes that I honestly cannot remember. But more than a year's worth of classes. The end result was that he could minor in Chinese, take other more advanced classes that interested him, and work on a medical research project at a nearby medical device company. Some departments are stricter with transfering (like Chem) and others not so much (Bio). Like other Universities, a few departments said no and he had to petition (the academy has a documented procedure just like any other college). That normally always means you have to show them a syllabus. Yet in other classes he literally had to take an exam to prove he knew the material. So yes, a lot of classes transferred. He could have petitioned even more classes but didn't. Every one he petitioned transferred.

Our son was a biology, chemistry, and calc tutor at the college at 11th and 12th grade. No, the Academy wasn't going to bore a student if they mastered the material. I propose if he was fluent in organic chemistry before he arrived (he wasn't), he could petition the department to get that credit too. So it depends on the department and the student. But we agree, it not as automatic as many other colleges. With all of this said, we learned that USAFA has it's rules just as other colleges do. As an example, many of the more competitive colleges mandate you take a minimum of 2 years of credits in their institution even though they will allow you to transfer 100% of the credits, It just so happens that USAFA mandates 4 years of attending their college. That is very different than every other institution. So when the definition of college means 100% of the classes transfer and you don't need to attend 4 years at the same institution, then by definition, we will agree that USAFA isn't a college. Until then, it is a college.

Re: "70% of their time is in a military environment". It depends on the student. Our son was in the Wings of Blue. A tremendous about of waking hours (40?? a week) were spent traveling, jumping, or at the airfield. Other cadets are D1 athletes and travel and practice for 40 hours a week too. So a solid 25% of the cadets would suggest that their waking hours (school, studying, and sports) are closer to a traditional college than you suggest. Some cadets are practicing hockey in a stadium that happens to be located on base and they go to college classes taught by a lot of ex military officers. Yes, they have military responsibilities. But for some cadets, their military exposure are well under 1/2 of others. But yes, USAFA is a dramatically different type of college.

If that's what some what to perceive it as; that's fine. If it makes some parents feel better that their child "Went Off to College" instead of "Joining the Military"; that's fine.
I think this is where you are getting stuck and enjoy adding in statements like "Little Johnny or Jane..." inside of several of your posts. Give me and others some credit. OF COURSE he joined the military. OF COURSE USAFA isn't a typical college campus experience. The meaning of college doesn't mandatorily mean that students have the same experiences as U of Iowa student that "went off to college" (living off campus, partying, do as they please, quite etc). Then call a spade a spade: USAFA is a "Military College" because they joined the military. Therefore yes, we sent "little Johnny" to a military college where he decided to join the military.

I'll boil it down to the lowest common denominator: you cannot get a "college degree" without attending college. For that matter and in 2017, you can "go to college" without leaving your bedroom (online). And if someone pays for your school based off of merit, it's called a "scholarship".;) Period. All the other paragraphs are simply noise.
 
Last edited:
MN-Dad; you're a great poster and contributor to this forum. I respect your opinions and your input. No matter how much we disagree, please remember none of this is personal or a lack of respect.

Now; the one thing I know is; the military is constantly changing. It has it's own evolution. Most military personnel see this. Not just at the academy, but also on active duty. None of us thinks the military is the SAME as when I first came in. In some ways we think it's better; some ways worse. Many think it's a "Kinder-Gentler" military.

Point is, we have our own perspectives. I'm not sure when you attended the academy or were on active duty. I don't memorize everyone's profile.

I do know that when I first came into the air force, and spent my first year just about in school, it didn't FEEL like I was in college. Yes, I had a regular scheduled academic day made up of classes. Yes, my classes accrued college credits. Yes, my classes lead to a college degree. But that's about the ONLY think it had in common with the universities my friends were attending.
COLLEGE FRIENDS:
1. Friends didn't have formation in the morning
2. Friends didn't formally attend their meals
3. Friends didn't have mandatory formations and duties on weekends
4. Friends weren't restricted from coming and going
5. Friends weren't restricted from boyfriends/girlfriends visiting/sharing a room
6. Friends weren't threatened with Jail time for breaking certain rules
7. Friends didn't have curfews. etc........................

Basically; a college student can do anything they want. They DON'T HAVE TO go to classes if they don't want. As long as a college student PAYS for their class; and has enough points in the class to pass; the school basically doesn't give a rat's A$$ what the student does with their life. And when they graduate, the school will totally forget they even existed.

ALL Planes are a form of Transportation...... But NOT ALL Transportation is done with Planes.

All military academies have accredited classes and degree programs....... But NOT ALL accredited degree programs are at the military academies.

Are there similarities; in the academics? Of course there are. I think the difference we have between us is:
I think there are MORE DIFFERENCES between traditional universities and the academies than similarities.
You think there are MORE SIMILARITIES between traditional universities and the academies than differences.

P.S. If you want to get "Legal" and look at definitions. The academies DON'T give scholarships. You are in the military, and THEY PAY YOU to be there. They happen to WITHHOLD some money for food, lodging, medical, etc. Matter of fact, when you go on leave, they pay you MORE to cover your food. Even the NCAA recognizes that the academies don't give Scholarships. That's why the teams aren't limited to "How many Scholarship Athletes" can be on a team. At the academies, there are no limits. Because NONE are on scholarship.
 
Last edited:
I thought I would join the debate. There are different definitions of scholarship and how it applies to universities and colleges. There are merit and non-merit based scholarships. There are public and private funded scholarships. Generally a scholarship is considered an award that provides all or partial funding for educational needs (tuition, books, housing, meals, etc.). Most scholarships that are awarded do come with special stipulations tied to the use and continued funding such as minimum gpa). A similar means of award are grants that are usually need based. Grants like scholarships are given without a mandate of repayment. Like scholarships they usually come with some stipulations for use and continued funding.

As has been shown in these threads there can be very different interpretations of the definitions and how they apply in the case of a SA. In my opinion there is no comparison of a "normal" college setting to that of a SA. SAs like most highly reputable schools look for the best students who also exhibit leadership skills that set them apart from the great mass of applicants. However, outside of a recruited athlete only SAs look at the fitness aptitude as part of the total person candidate in the application process. The SA "scholarship" is not free. It comes with a repayment feature that includes years of military service. This is part of the application process for admittance to the school. This too sets it apart from other schools and scholarship programs where a ROTC program is for a few students and is the only one requiring a post-graduation commitment. In short, I have no issues using the term scholarship with a Cadet to a SA, but it is important to also agree it is a different take on the typical thought of a college scholarship.

My DS is considered an active member of our military as a Cadet at USAFA. This is different than most scholarship students at any Ivy League school. He has less freedom of choice and wishes to serve his country after graduation. I must agree that I do not consider it the same as a student at a non-SA school on scholarship. He must join clubs and perform military duties outside of the classroom to earn his "scholarship" which also different than the "normal" college student. I think these are important distinctions to note about a student at a SA. I didn't think these items were hidden from us during his application process.

I will also state unequivocally that the academic reputation of USAFA played a part in my DS' interest in applying. If USAFA had a poor academic reputation he may well have looked at a top level school and pursued ROTC as his route to military service. From this perspective I think the academic reputations of the SAs are very important in their recruitment success.

Again, all of the above is just one parent's perspective on the debate.
 
MN-Dad; you're a great poster and contributor to this forum. I respect your opinions and your input. No matter how much we disagree, please remember none of this is personal or a lack of respect.
Agreed. It isn't personal. :)

But there is no wiggle room because the definition is not subjective. There could be a million differences. All valid discussions if you want to compare the difference between college experiences as compared to a traditional college. We may disagree on various points of how colleges differ. But to say USAFA isn't college, is incorrect. At the end of the day (and I will repeat myself), you cannot get a "college degree" without attending college. And if someone pays for your school based off of merit, it's called a merit "scholarship". Therefore by definition, you have been giving inaccurate information.

If a USAFA grad got their Masters degree online, how productive is it to say "your online program is NOT A COLLEGE"?
 
Last edited:
If you look at my original post, concerning this disagreement, and realize the "Context" of the statement; you'll realize that we're talking Einstein's law of relativity. "It all Relative". I was stating a "State of Mind". NOT to have the state of mind of: "Little Johnny is Going Off to College". That state of mind associates, compares, and presumes that there is little difference between "Going off to College" at the academy; and "Going off to College" at Ohio State.

With the exception of the 20% +/- of your time taking a class, taking a test, and receiving a diploma; there is VERY LITTLE ELSE in common between a military academy and a traditional university.

But again; if an individual or parent feels better thinking they "Went off to College", then so be it. My point is, you will adapt better and have a better chance of succeeding at the academy, if you realize you "Joined the Military" vs "Went off to College".
 
If you look at my original post, concerning this disagreement, and realize the "Context" of the statement; you'll realize that we're talking Einstein's law of relativity. "It all Relative". I was stating a "State of Mind". NOT to have the state of mind of: "Little Johnny is Going Off to College". That state of mind associates, compares, and presumes that there is little difference between "Going off to College" at the academy; and "Going off to College" at Ohio State.
It took a long way to get here. Yes or no, is USAFA a college? Also, yes or no, did cadets receive a scholarship that paid 100% of their tuition?
 
Yes, Usafa provides education that is from an accredited university and you can receive a bachelor of science degree from there.

No, usafa does not give cadets a scholarship.

But..... if you say or agree that the Air Force gives a scholarship to enlisted members when they enter to go to their technical school, which is also an accredited college that they receive college credit for, then I will agree that we are speaking semantics and are looking at the same house from different windows.
 
Yes, Usafa provides education that is from an accredited university and you can receive a bachelor of science degree from there.

No, usafa does not give cadets a scholarship.
Progress. I'm glad you agree that our ""Johnny went to college". More specifically, a military college mind you where he joined the Air Force.

Re: scholarship. To reiterate. I quoted the english definition of the word scholarship.

scholarship:
noun
Financial aid provided for a scholar because of academic merit. Money awarded to a good student to enable him to go on with further studies. Scholarships can also be gived for atheletic merit (or in USAFA's case, both). http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/scholarship program

But..... if you say or agree that the Air Force gives a scholarship to enlisted members when they enter to go to their technical school, which is also an accredited college that they receive college credit for, then I will agree that we are speaking semantics and are looking at the same house from different windows.
Ahh... I suspect we have arrived at the reason why you don't prefer to call USAFA a scholarship; you want to be placed in the same bucket.

To answer your enlisted question. Based off of the definition in which you or I don't get to change, so long as the enlisted member financial aid (paying for technical school/college) was merit based, then yes, it is a "scholarship". But if they gave the $$'s out randomly or to everyone who applied, then no, it isn't a scholarship but rather a VERY nice benefit. For instance, Honeywell paid for my 4 years of college (it took me 10 years to finish). Cost to me, $0.00 which was a VERY nice benefit. If I quit, the college reimbursement benefit would stop. But Honeywell didn't give me a scholarship, because it was NOT merit based. I didn't apply nor did I compete for the $$'s. If Honeywell simply gave me money and I didn't work there, it would be called a grant.

There are some people who define a scholarship as non-merit based. But they are attempting to customize the definition of "grant" or even a gift to mean a "scholarship". Nor is FAFSA (needs based) a scholarship. But you can have scholarships that are needs based (competing on merit based off of ethnic, income, or other criteria).

Many times semantics are important because it is how we difine the meaning of words. If you want to attract the best and the brightest, then it's best to call USAFA what it is; a University/college. Because in reality, the best and the brightest normally are not going to enlist right away because 1st and foremost, they want to go to COLLEGE even when they want to serve. So if the talented student has listened to their parents for 18 years, "college" is going their #1 priority. Joining the military or not, extremely smart college bound students want to attend a darn good college where their focus is on teaching academics.

Evidently the USAFA's mission agrees:"They educate, train, and inspire men and women to become officers of character motivated to lead the United States Air Force in service to our nation. " It's why getting into the Academy is focused on grades and test scores. It's why the ranking is heavily skewed on grades.

Of course, you are going to attract more talent when it is a "full ride" scholarship. To argue against the obvious on a forum that attracts the eyes of future applicants is not productive. That's my exclusive point. :)
 
Last edited:
I felt my remarks above were incomplete without at least a small amount of data with respect to USAFA. The following excerpt pasted from:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Visitors United States Air Force Academy 14 January 2014

View attachment 1144

This is undoubtedly true. Frankly, it is one of my jobs as a Prop & Wings Officer to go into schools and make folks aware of the opportunities and specifically go to schools that have many of the students that fit into the categories listed and which USAFA feels are under represented. However, it in no way implies that they will compete on any different criteria or their ethnicity/sex will get them awarded any points in the WCS.

I would agree that it's easier in some districts to get an appointment with a 27 on the ACT, but that is not reflective of ethnicity or sex but more of what candidate pool (geographic/district) they are competing.

The Navy sends recruiters to water polo and swimming events as a part of their plan to find SEAL candidates not because they can find white swimmers (which make up the majority of high school swimmers and water polo players) but to find swimmers that might be interested in becoming SEALS

I don't go and meet with guidance counselors and coaches in inner city and all girls schools to help find candidates based on race/gender, I go to those schools to make their best and brightest aware of the opportunities USAFA provides regardless of race/gender.

My daughter was the first graduate from her all girls catholic school to send a person to an SA - she was also the first to ever apply. Now that the counselors understand what the SAs and ROTC are about, there is increased interest from that pool in applying. And for this year - one of the candidates from her former high school is a minority female - very bright with solid ACT scores (31), leadership skills she is unlikely to get an appointment because the other candidates in the area are stronger candidates) and also - her grades/test scores are too high to make her a viable Prep School candidate.

USAFA and USNA are actually making efforts to reach out to 'liberal' enclaves and they aren't looking to lower any standard or asking them to compete in a separate category - but they are looking for bright/athletic folks that can also provide a different viewpoint to the world.

And though the SA's and the military aren't perfect, it is widely accepted that US military is one of (if not the) best organizations for being merit based vs any other criteria.

It is hard to appreciate how few people really are aware of the service academies and what they offer.

So no, I don't believe being a minority candidate offers an advantage per se. And I think it's offensive to suggest that candidates/appointees/cadets/mids that they will get in/got in with a 'wink' to their gender/ethnicity.
 
It's obvious I don't have any problem discussing and debating. But I have learned in my many years when certain positions and principles cannot be conveyed in a means that can be comprehended as intended. This is one of those times. You want to concentrate on the academy as a college. I concentrate on the academy as the military. Obviously, those positions are not going to change. So, I will let this debate end here and the thread to move on as intended.

You can have the last word if you want. I don't consider the tuition at the academy a scholarship. Neither do I consider an enlisted education a scholarship. Even though it is from an accredited college. Neither does the NCAA and many other entities. If a cadet quits or gets kicked out after 2 years, they are subject to paying back the cost as well as possibly being required to serve as enlisted. A scholarship is based on generosity. It's given based on criteria, and if the individual doesn't live up to certain requirements or changes their mind, the scholarship is simply rescinded. The academy's education is paid for in lieu of wages to the individual. That's why the cadet is only getting paid about $1000 a month, and they are required to work a minimum of 5 years after graduating. The cadet can be made to pay back the cost of the education if she or he doesn't live up to their part of the contract. In other words, a cadet is earning their college education. They are working for it.

But it's obvious that you don't see it that way. That's fine. That's why the academy and military market and advertise the academy the way they do. So it can be presented in a way the common citizen can understand. That's why when speaking to potential cadets who are also being recruited for sports, words like "blue chip", recruited athlete, signing day, etc are used. These don't actually exist, but it's terminology the kid and parents can understand.

A cadet is working for their college tuition. If they don't live up to their end of the agreement, they have to pay back the money. Possibly forced to work off the balance as enlisted. That is what differentiates this from a scholarship. Many schools do have "work programs" to help kids pay for college. If you want to compare the academy to that, I'll agree to that. But not a scholarship. That term is used strictly for those who don't understand. You are free to have the last word on this. I won't reply any further to this thread unless it's in reply to the OP and questions about the ACT or SAT. It's been fun.
 
FYI (per the Internal Revenue Service Publication 970)

Payment to Service Academy Cadets
An appointment to a United States military academy isn't a scholarship or fellowship grant. Payment you receive as a cadet or midshipman at an armed services academy is pay for personal services and will be reported to you on Form W-2, box 1...
 
I think this discussion has about run its course and has certainly veered wide from the intention of the OP, but I have enjoyed this interchange very much and would love to have Christcorp or MN-Dad chime in on this. I work for a public school district in Texas. One of the areas the state is asking local school districts to track for state accountability purposes is whether a high school senior "enlists in the military". I have all kinds of issues with the need to track this information, but when I asked for a definition of enlisting in the military, the commissioner did not have a good response. I told him my USAFA son is enlisted in the military and all counselors could track service academy appointments as enlistments. But I was told - No, that counts as going to college and his 400,000 dollar appointment letter counts in their scholarship totals. I also inquired about National Guard, the reserves, the Coast Guard (I think they are officially military, but some people still think DOT). No one had a good answer.

So, what say you? Appointment to the Service Academies (including Coast Guard and Merchant Marine) - should that constitute "enlistment in the military"?
 
IMHO, there is a distinct difference between enlistment into a branch of the military and appointments to a service academy, as the SAs serve as commissioning programs.

And yes, many schools count the value of a SA education in their scholarship totals, but I see this as more of a marketing number than a legal distinction.
 
ChristCorp said: It's obvious I don't have any problem discussing and debating. But I have learned in my many years when certain positions and principles cannot be conveyed in a means that can be comprehended as intended. This is one of those times. You want to concentrate on the academy as a college. I concentrate on the academy as the military. Obviously, those positions are not going to change. So, I will let this debate end here and the thread to move on as intended.......'

ChristCorp - what I don't get is - you say are/were an ALO and yet your message on 'scholarship or not', 'college or not' strikes me as being contrary to the message USAFA wants to send to potential candidates, their parents, and school counselors.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but when you attempt to add weight to it by pointing out your credentials as an ALO (past or present) - you should at least acknowledge the message USAFA is trying to send to these groups. I have yet to meet a classmate or serious candidate that was not aware USAFA is a military school (no doubt USMA/USNA grads will disagree) with a military commitment required if you attend past the 2 year point, so your essays to define USAFA in your view seem both pointless and contradictory to USAFA's message, so I give MN Dad credit for trying to educate on at least the commonly accepted definitions of the terms being bantered about.
 
FYI (per the Internal Revenue Service Publication 970)

Payment to Service Academy Cadets
An appointment to a United States military academy isn't a scholarship or fellowship grant. Payment you receive as a cadet or midshipman at an armed services academy is pay for personal services and will be reported to you on Form W-2, box 1...
The IRS is talking about is the income that you earn. The pay isn't a "scholarship" because you have to pay taxes.
 
However, it in no way implies that they will compete on any different criteria or their ethnicity/sex will get them awarded any points in the WCS.

So no, I don't believe being a minority candidate offers an advantage per se. And I think it's offensive to suggest that candidates/appointees/cadets/mids that they will get in/got in with a 'wink' to their gender/ethnicity.
No "wink", "implication", or "suggestion". It is simply a fact that, by policy candidates in specific groups may be appointed without regard to order of merit. To state otherwise is deceitful. The offense you take should be directed at the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically Title 10 USC 432-4347 which establishes the rules for appointments to service academies.

From USMA Admissions presentation to the Board of Visitors explaining Title 10 USC and admissions process:

"The remaining 200 - 400 seats are admitted as additional appointees, either in order of merit or out of order of merit to help achieve class composition goals. Minorities and recruited athletes make up the majority of the additional appointees for each class."

The reality is that falling into certain categories gives a candidate a clear advantage in gaining an appointment. The data in my previous post support this: Of the 705 candidates falling into the specified categories appointed, 347 had a WCS score below 6000. With about 400 additional appointee appointments available, any candidate falling into a category that is short of class composition goals is at a distinct advantage to those who do not fall into that category.
 
You can have the last word if you want. I don't consider the tuition at the academy a scholarship. Neither do I consider an enlisted education a scholarship. Even though it is from an accredited college. Neither does the NCAA and many other entities. If a cadet quits or gets kicked out after 2 years, they are subject to paying back the cost as well as possibly being required to serve as enlisted. A scholarship is based on generosity. It's given based on criteria, and if the individual doesn't live up to certain requirements or changes their mind, the scholarship is simply rescinded. The academy's education is paid for in lieu of wages to the individual. That's why the cadet is only getting paid about $1000 a month, and they are required to work a minimum of 5 years after graduating. The cadet can be made to pay back the cost of the education if she or he doesn't live up to their part of the contract. In other words, a cadet is earning their college education. They are working for it.

But it's obvious that you don't see it that way. That's fine. That's why the academy and military market and advertise the academy the way they do. So it can be presented in a way the common citizen can understand. That's why when speaking to potential cadets who are also being recruited for sports, words like "blue chip", recruited athlete, signing day, etc are used. These don't actually exist, but it's terminology the kid and parents can understand.

A cadet is working for their college tuition. If they don't live up to their end of the agreement, they have to pay back the money. Possibly forced to work off the balance as enlisted. That is what differentiates this from a scholarship. Many schools do have "work programs" to help kids pay for college. If you want to compare the academy to that, I'll agree to that. But not a scholarship. That term is used strictly for those who don't understand. You are free to have the last word on this. I won't reply any further to this thread unless it's in reply to the OP and questions about the ACT or SAT. It's been fun.

You have a right to believe what you want. But that doesn't mean you are right. If you are hung-up on the fact that you have to "pay it back" if you quit, then call it a 2 year scholarship. I see it as a scholarship because it matches the definition AND because the Service Academies also call it a scholarship. I don't get to change the definition of the word.

Our daughter is now a Dentist by way of an HPSP (S stands for scholarship) and has been in the military the day she took the scholarship. https://www.goarmy.com/amedd/education/hpsp.html She applied for it and it was merit based. While in dental school, she was a 2nd lieutenant for the past 4 years. Three weeks ago, she was at a taping ceremony to become a captain. In her 4 years of dental school, she saluted precisely zero people. She had exactly zero amount of military training even as a newly minted captain. (She is getting her deferred officer training as we speak). She paid taxes on her $26K stipend (you do not get 2nd lieutenant's pay). But not what Uncle Sam paid for her annual $75K worth of tuition plus medical and dental.

My point is military scholarships come in all shapes and sizes. Sure, if she quits tomorrow, she will owe the government over $400K. She doesn't have to pay back ($$) her scholarship but rather contractually agreed to perform dental work on a base for 4 years. With her pay, BAC, and living expenses, her employer pays her almost $100K a year starting salary (excluding re-signing bonuses). I don't know.. That sounds like a darn good scholarship to me!

She could have been marching every day in dental school and be made to wear military uniforms 24-7. As I explained, she did non of that. But what I just explained is just background noise. Because at the end of the day by definition, she was "in the military". And it was a merit based "scholarship".

So no, while in college she wasn't getting paid "working for her tuition". Like my daughters HPSP example, I view the pay at the Academy as a stipend. Less than my daughters $26K a year living expensive because room and board is included.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top