mainernavymom
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 36
In making appointments from the National Pool, is WCS the only selection criteria?
In making appointments from the National Pool, is WCS the only selection criteria?
I am confused as I have read many statements of this forum that appointments made from the National Pool are based solely on WCS (highest wins).
Yes, with the very improbable exception that the board does not find an individual not scholastically qualified who is WCS national pool competitive.In making appointments from the National Pool, is WCS the only selection criteria?
My DS who is 3Q'd and has a nomination was asking the same question. I did some research and found that about 50 percent of white males that are fully qualified get an appointment. If he would have checked the right box on his admissions application concerning race, his chances would be significantly better. For example if was a black male and fully qualified, his chances of admission would better than 90 percent.
I gave my son this information. I told him he would face this issue at almost any prestigious college or corporation he applies to. I also told him it's not fair, but if life was fair, I would have hair.
Here's the data:
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/pho...dmissions2.pdf
And the rules are very fair. To paraphrase the current Supt. who was asked a similiar question, "to give someone an advantage based on the color of their skin would be in violation of federal equal opportunity statutes, would it not?"well said...."it is their game and they make the rules". All any candidate can do is their absolute best.
And the rules are very fair. To paraphrase the current Supt. who was asked a similiar question, "to give someone an advantage based on the color of their skin would be in violation of federal equal opportunity statutes, would it not?"
Mongo ... the law means it is legal, not "fair." Man have you waded into a pit of snakes.And the rules are very fair. To paraphrase the current Supt. who was asked a similiar question, "to give someone an advantage based on the color of their skin would be in violation of federal equal opportunity statutes, would it not?"
Regardless of whether it is legal or fair is the question as to whether it is desirable as a matter of national policy. Should our military and officer corps reflect our nations population? As one who would be considered to be disadvantaged by a yes answer, I would still say yes.
Always good to remember that correlation does not imply causation.I did some research and found that about 50 percent of white males that are fully qualified get an appointment. If he would have checked the right box on his admissions application concerning race, his chances would be significantly better. For example if was a black male and fully qualified, his chances of admission would better than 90 percent
Mongo - review the linked data. The key statistic is number of fully qualified candidates by race that receive an appointment. The USNA clearly has a two-tiered admissions system created to meet the Navy's diversity goals.
Always good to remember that correlation does not imply causation.
Your answer:
The Navy's increased diversity goals are being met almost solely by targeting underrepreesenrted Congressional districts. Admissions is going into the schools in these areas, finding QUALIFIED candidates, getiing them interested, and then helping them navigate the admissions process. By definition, the acceptance rate has to be high. Admissions would be remiss and also lose their credibility if they interested qualified candidates and then did not have an appointment for them. The Supt's 50 appointments can only go so far.
2 clarifications:Your answer:
The Navy's increased diversity goals are being met almost solely by targeting underrepreesenrted Congressional districts. Admissions is going into the schools in these areas, finding QUALIFIED candidates, getiing them interested, and then helping them navigate the admissions process. By definition, the acceptance rate has to be high. Admissions would be remiss and also lose their credibility if they interested qualified candidates and then did not have an appointment for them. The Supt's 50 appointments can only go so far.
When all else fails and you have nowhere else to go, try the ad hominem approach.I hope you are right, but be careful about drinking too much of that Kool-aide.
Not sure what you are saying here. I suppose the enlisted corps should reflect the “polity” and the officer corps should then reflect the enlisted makeup. Our recruiters seem to be happy with their results so I don’t think anything is “grossly disproportionate”. Overall minority percentage figures are worthless. What one has to look at is the total numbers of those who are of the correct age, have the proper educational, physical, medical, and background check requirements commensurate with enlistment and then compare percentages. They are in the ballpark.The objective is NOT to reflect the nation's racial mix altho that would make a bit more logic. It is to reflect the mix of the enlisted fleet which is grossly disproportionate relative to the polity. No social outrage or call for policy to address that it seems.
I think to target ALL Congressional districts and ensure a geographic cross section as originally intended when the laws were made, is more “fair” than before and something that should have been done long ago.As noted it is what it is. The real challenge can come when advocates struggle to explain and defend it as being "fair" or reflective of our nation's populace absent the crutch of PC and the culture's company line.
One needs to be careful using the term "qualified." Supe Fowler slipped up showing in the admit stats in his years, thinking he was doing a great thing, that the minority appointments were the "best" among their minority peers but not so among the non target group appointees. Note those segments and stats are no longer shared. They are "qualified" too often one might conclude when the field is shortened or hoop lowered maybe?
2. One needs to be careful using the term "qualified." Supe Fowler slipped up showing in the admit stats in his years, thinking he was doing a great thing, that the minority appointments were the "best" among their minority peers but not so among the non target group appointees. Note those segments and stats are no longer shared. They are "qualified" too often one might conclude when the field is shortened or hoop lowered maybe?
Your answer:
The Navy's increased diversity goals are being met almost solely by targeting underrepreesenrted Congressional districts. Admissions is going into the schools in these areas, finding QUALIFIED candidates, getiing them interested, and then helping them navigate the admissions process. By definition, the acceptance rate has to be high. Admissions would be remiss and also lose their credibility if they interested qualified candidates and then did not have an appointment for them. The Supt's 50 appointments can only go so far.
Any more insight into how the Navy successfully targeted under represented Congressional districts? Need a clarification on the official definition of under represented Congressional district. I think these are Congressional district that does not fill its vacancies regulary.
Perhaps Navy is working outside the norm, but I doubt there is too much difference between Navy and West Point diversity outreach office manning and funding. I also think there not much difference between Navy and West Point Admissions office volunteers.