Admissions Board Qualified

[Vista123]

First, I want to thank ALL of the posters on this thread for their commentary (sometimes flowing like Akroyd and Curtain). A good debate brings out all interpretations of presented "facts". I did miss WhitlePigs's interpretations when he took his hiatus. I find this particular debate rich and compelling (even though it has no personal affect on son's progress-we havent even finished nomination applications)

I have only been following this process (which partially includes following this forum) for just over a year. I do not have the long term historical perspective. One data point I would like to add is this:

There is a closed (not open to the public) facebook page only for cadidates for the USNA class of 2017. It is moderated by BGO officers. This page is clearly also watched closely bu USNA as changes have been made to the facebook page based on USNA directives as posted by the moderators (for example USNA instructed that no one can post that they received an LOA). On this page the following is stated:

" LOA's are given out to about 5% of the class. Don't be discourage if you do not get one!"

If I do the math correctly (which is always a challenge for me) that puts an estimated LOA count to 60. I am not sure that is considered High numbers?

 

[usna1985]

^^^^

I wonder if USNA and USAFA will follow this strategy. Methinks they'll wait a year or so to see how it works for the folks on the Hudson.

 

[Whistle Pig]

WP: I think the advent of more and earlier LOA's was a direct result of WP's and AFA's more aggressive use of LOA's and the confusion that disparity was causing. I know I "lost" prime candidates to WP in particular due to that situation and the pressure that was exerted upon the candidates to make a commitment. While there have been "official" statements that the LOA process was being tightened, I was not observing that in this area while I have been an AC. I suspect the current situation will be with us for the foreseeable future.
Regarding the 3Q'd situation, keep in mind that not all 3Q'd candidates are equal. That seems especially true now that the floor is not as firm as it was for a while about ten years ago from my personal casual observation.

Thanks for expanding and clarifying what I was attempting to write, in haste. You affirm and edify my point about the changing scenario for USNA LOAs. Many thanks!

 

[time2]

"List serves"/parents forums, etc. have also been around for years. It is not a new practice, but using FB is just a different way to run one of those so-called 'closed groups'. The one we belonged to a few years ago basically talked about all of the same things being publically discussed here. There were no big revelations, so I guess it depends how many different places you want to discuss bascially the same things. For all of their talk about not repeating what they were discussing as being such a secret, the very same topics were on forums such as these being openly talked about.

 

[AJM7680]

I'm not aware that they "rank" people. They determine who's qualified and then, when the MOC noms come in, decide at that point how to slot candidates. Some depend on how the MOCs submit their slates (i.e., principal noms, etc.)

My understanding is that the board is the final determinant of the number of "points" a candidate receives. Wouldn't this final tally be considered a ranking?

We don't know the exact reason. I'm not trying to justify it (increased numbers of 3Qs-my addition) or even say it's the correct one. I'm just reporting the facts that I have seen. You and anyone else can make of it what you'd like.

It has been well publicized that the Naval Academy has reached out to previously underrepresented districts over the past several years. Some of these candidates may not be as well qualified as the typical candidate in past years. It would probably be discriminatory to selectively qualify these few less than standard candidates so the entire pool must be adjusted. It is extra work for admissions but a task they seem willing to perform to achieve a better cross section of the country.

It is a joke to attempt to figure trends from the very limited scope as presented on this forum

 

[Whistle Pig]

Simply having a WP point score would indeed "seem" to suggest ranking. And it may well be that. But not likely, for it sets up precisely what it seems you're suggesting ... cry of "unfair." In other words the top 1500 or so get offers of appointment, period.

And this is not the case. It's that simple. The WP score helps to 3Q and "rank" some subsets, most likely. But not in the, dare I say it, WHOLE class.

Now, you really want to upset that conceptual apple cart? Consider NAPS and to a lesser degree Foundation candidates. Hundreds who essentially avoid the WP scoring system for qualifying and for nominations.

 

[AJM7680]

Simply having a WP point score would indeed "seem" to suggest ranking. And it may well be that. But not likely, for it sets up precisely what it seems you're suggesting ... cry of "unfair." In other words the top 1500 or so get offers of appointment, period.

And this is not the case. It's that simple. The WP score helps to 3Q and "rank" some subsets, most likely. But not in the, dare I say it, WHOLE class.

Now, you really want to upset that conceptual apple cart? Consider NAPS and to a lesser degree Foundation candidates. Hundreds who essentially avoid the WP scoring system for qualifying and for nominations.

For you to make these statements, you would have to undrstand how points are awarded. For example, how many points are awarded for successfully completing NAPS or Foundation?

 

[Pima]

Now, you really want to upset that conceptual apple cart? Consider NAPS and to a lesser degree Foundation candidates. Hundreds who essentially avoid the WP scoring system for qualifying and for nominations.

I am confused are you saying that NAPS appointees don't go through the WP system?

I am not trying to be antagonistic, I am trying to learn. Your post appears to me to say, that they don't meet the USNA board, and immediately are sent to the NAPS board.

AFA, which I know is not USNA, does not do this. You must meet the academic standards set forth to meet the board, along with a nom. You have to be 3 Q. You meet the AFA board and from there they may determine to offer you a Prep or Foundation. Maybe you are talking red-shirt recruited athlete?

 

[Whistle Pig]

No, but the scoring is of no consequence when it comes time to appoint. NAPS assignees are not competitive for appointment using the traditional WP scoring system.

 

[Blackbird]

Pima,

I think Whistle Pig is pointing out that the WP scores of candidates from NAPS and Navy Foundation are not really relevant as they will receive an appointment regardless of their WP score unless they have some major issue (fail a class, DUI, etc).

 

[Pima]

Thank you for the clarification.

Next question, wouldn't they now use a different ranking system that may include the WP score since the noms are not being charged?

I get the appointment since it is MOC slates. I know that they don't appoint the 1st 200 or so that didn't get appointed, and that Prep is for academic foundation, but I am curious how they decide from those candidates if they don't look back at the WP. I.E. strong candidate everywhere else, fell short on the PAR. Do they take everyone and re-score?

Again, just my curiosity. I have always been under the impression that prep is more about academics, and not ECS, etc.

 

[AJM7680]

No, but the scoring is of no consequence when it comes time to appoint. NAPS assignees are not competitive for appointment using the traditional WP scoring system.

NAPS and Foundation candidates are typically those who score very high WP points in everything except their proven ability to perform academically. Completion of the remedial year and the points associated with it place them well into the realm of competitiveness.

In anticipation of your next queston, blue chip athletes, by definition, typically exhibit many attributes desirable for those aspirng to become officers. How many of these WP points does the typical blue chip athlete receive?

 

[Whistle Pig]

Correct.

With one caveat. WP scores for most who are offered NAPS slots are non-qualified, in many, perhaps most cases, when they initially apply to USNA.

It allows circumventing the WP system for various reasons.

 

[Whistle Pig]

NAPS and Foundation candidates are typically those who score very high WP points in everything except their proven ability to perform academically. Completion of the remedial year and the points associated with it place them well into the realm of competitiveness.

This is not accurate. There is no evidence of NAPSters having "very high WP scores in everything except ..." That simply is not the case relative to many who are outright rejected.

 

[AJM7680]

With one caveat. WP scores for most who are offered NAPS slots are non-qualified, in many, perhaps most cases, when they initially apply to USNA.

This goes without saying. To repeat my above statement, slightly different. The scholastic portion of qualifying is much much more than simple academic qualifications. It is the candidate who exceeds in these areas but whose academics are not quite up to par who typically are offered NAPS. Once their academic portion of the scholastic qualification is up to par, their overall qualification soars into the well-qualified range.

 

[Whistle Pig]

The problem is simply this, when one makes a claim like you have, it cannot"goes without saying." Must be backed up.

I'll stand by my earlier statement, without getting into a discussion further. What you've alleged is neither supportable nor true. NAPSters do NOT have measureably "very high" (which of course means "higher") than those who are declined admission. Simply is not true, accurate, nor verifiable.

What that is however, may well be merely "the company line." And to my knowledge it's never been validated. But if one claims so, the issue can be readily clarified. Show me.

 

[AJM7680]

I'll stand by my earlier statement, without getting into a discussion further. What you've alleged is neither supportable nor true. NAPSters do NOT have measureably "very high" (which of course means "higher") than those who are declined admission. Simply is not true, accurate, nor verifiable.

So, how would you interpret the following statement from the admissions website (boldface mine):

This program is designed to strengthen the academic background of incoming candidates. Navy and Marine Corps personnel who apply but are not appointed to the Naval Academy are automatically considered for admission to NAPS. The Academy also identifies a number of promising and highly motivated civilian candidates who are not successful on their first attempt at admission and offers them the opportunity to enlist in the Naval Reserve for the express purpose of attending NAPS to prepare for admission to the Naval Academy.

How would Admissions identify them as promising and, more specific, highly motivated, other than through the WP system?

 

[Whistle Pig]

2 thoughts ...

Says not a single word about WP ranking or scores. All subjective ... "promising" "highly motivated" ... And none would argue an extra year of chem and calc would "strengthen the academic background of incoming candidates." And any and all others too.

Now #2. How do YOU think Admissions would identify them. Can you even share how they would determine that candidate A is "highly motivated" and candidate B is merely "motivated?" How is "promising" vs. "no promise" scored?

Me neither. Nor can they. Pure jargon with nothing behind it. This is purely a parking lot for certain candidates beyond those noted coming from the Fleet and Corps. And even there, most who need no remediation but rather just refreshment are wisely counseled, go straight to the Brigade if they'll allow you. Avoid lots of issues that way. And the REAL issue, if you must know? Control. USNA circumvents all traditional requirements for appointment and controls all of these many slots.

Thanks, really, for showing us that information. Do not assume. The bold is mine and the last statement is from the WP Bible. That's Whistle Pig, not Whole Person.

Truly, this is how we all learn and get things clear. The more we know, the better we are, even when some of that knowledge we'd prefer not knowing. Did you ever consider how your parents "ordered" you front and center?

 

[Vista123]

When my son had his interview for USNA about six weeks ago there was an opportunity for parents to ask questions. My husband asked about NAPS and Foundation. He was told that my son was not eligible for those because those were only for enlisted, recruited athletes and some minorities.

I took it to mean that if you are promising and highly motivated you would also need to be enlisted, a recruited athlete or an under represented minority. Then your academics could be strengthened.

Though that's just how I interpreted it.

 

[AJM7680]

How do YOU think Admissions would identify them. Can you even share how they would determine that candidate A is "highly motivated" and candidate B is merely "motivated?" How is "promising" vs. "no promise" scored

The sole purpose of the Admissions board is to determine the ability to succeed (promising) and the motivation to succeed (highly motivated). This is summarized exclusively bythe WP score.

As to the remainder, in most areas conspiracy theorists abound. There are websites devoted exclusively to this phenomenon.