Discussion in 'Naval Academy - USNA' started by mainernavymom, Jan 22, 2012.
In making appointments from the National Pool, is WCS the only selection criteria?
From what I have read, achieving the Navy's diversity goals is a more important factor in making appointments than the WCS.
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).
The "Right" Box
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:
Yes, with the very improbable exception that the board does not find an individual not scholastically qualified who is WCS national pool competitive.
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?"
Look at the data
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.
It really isn't fair, but it is was it is.
Mongo ... the law means it is legal, not "fair." Man have you waded into a pit of snakes.
In this case its imposition is a perhaps well intended if severely unfair use of the law attempting to relevel a field deemed "fair" for all others. It is what it is but suggesting it is fair especially in the context of a place portrayed as a meritocracy is like trying to redefine the length of the football field because one team is slower.
The Supe did not get gold shoulder boards by pointing out the differance in length of the 2 fields. Rather because of his capacity to persuade otherwise and assure it is merely illusion and need for new glasses.
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.
In an ideal world, yes. But since we don't live in an ideal world, no.
Based on our track record, I would say we don't get the excution right.
Always good to remember that correlation does not imply causation.
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.
I hope you are right, but be careful about drinking too much of that Kool-aide.
1. 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.
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.
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?
When all else fails and you have nowhere else to go, try the ad hominem approach.
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.
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.
We both know that SAT scores are biased. If we select a cross-section subset of second year midshipmen who have all done equally well Plebe year and knowing that the sole purpose of SATs is to gauge that first year success, white males will have scored higher than females, whites higher than minorities, greater household incomes better than lesser incomes, and sons and daughters of college graduates better than those that are not. Is it “fair” to somehow not compensate for this disparity? Several of the schools I represent as a BGO are in an underrepresented area. To only target underrepresented areas containing minorities would be discriminatory, therefore my schools are also targeted. In the past, a 570M/530V was almost mandatory in order to receive a candidate number and enter the application process. This year, I have two candidates who are both sub 900. Both are white males. Neither is an athlete. Their record is getting an in depth look to see if there are other factors than SATs which will cause them to succeed Plebe Year and also make competent officers. I applaud the extra work Admissions is doing on their behalf.
Admiral Fowler did not slip up. It was intentional. Almost one third of each class is required to attend a year or more of additional preparatory academic coursework in order to prove their ability to succeed at the Academy. The vast majority of the uncertainty in these cases are low SATs. The previous breakdown presented an “elitist” view and offered little or no hope for these individuals, discouraging them before they even applied. As with Fleming’s FOIA and subsequent articles, pull out these scores and very little has changed.
How does Navy qualify candidates academically?
For West Point, candidates that do not score certain points on SAT/ACT gets referred to respective the academic department for determination.
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.
Here are the last two US Navy Diversity Annual Reports:
http://www.history.navy.mil/Diversity/2009 DON Annual Report on Diversity.pdf
Separate names with a comma.