Article-Minorities Underrepresented in Nominations

Sorry, but all that filling out forms and doing things over and over for no apparent reason is part of being in any one of the branches of the military. That's the way it is. The sooner candidates start embracing that small portion of the suck, the better they'll be at all of it.

It's not like the movies. Nobody joins the military that they think they're joining.
With that said, I would do it all over again.

I'm ready right now, if the Corps needs me.
I'll need a larger uniform, though.
 
cb7893 said:
Are there sea snakes there?
Click to expand...

THParent said:
Sorry, but all that filling out forms and doing things over and over for no apparent reason is part of being in any one of the branches of the military. That's the way it is. The sooner candidates start embracing that small portion of the suck, the better they'll be at all of it.

It's not like the movies. Nobody joins the military that they think they're joining.
With that said, I would do it all over again.

I'm ready right now, if the Corps needs me.
I'll need a larger uniform, though.
Click to expand...

I still have trouble using anything but a black pen.
 
Korab said:
The panels these days are much more likely to advance a candidate of color or female because of their color or gender to correct what they see as a problem in the nomination process. Some of the senators and congresspeople are very vocal about their desire to "fix" the problem they perceive in academy admissions.
Click to expand...

Korab said:
The panels these days are much more likely to advance a candidate of color or female because of their color or gender to correct what they see as a problem in the nomination process. Some of the senators and congresspeople are very vocal about their desire to "fix" the problem they perceive in academy admissions.
Click to expand...
I've been on many panels over the years and have never seen anyone work for or against diversity candidates - most of the panels had grading rubrics/criteria to go by and it has appeared to be pretty damn fair.
FWIW, the last couple of years, my panels have been for a FEMALE USNA grad congressman and neither she nor her staffers have advocated for or against any group.
 
OldRetSWO said:
I've been on many panels over the years and have never seen anyone work for or against diversity candidates - most of the panels had grading rubrics/criteria to go by and it has appeared to be pretty damn fair.
FWIW, the last couple of years, my panels have been for a FEMALE USNA grad congressman and neither she nor her staffers have advocated for or against any group.
Click to expand...

I suspect that you are typical in this regard.
 
OldRetSWO said:
I've been on many panels over the years and have never seen anyone work for or against diversity candidates - most of the panels had grading rubrics/criteria to go by and it has appeared to be pretty damn fair.
FWIW, the last couple of years, my panels have been for a FEMALE USNA grad congressman and neither she nor her staffers have advocated for or against any group.
Click to expand...
If the panels are not factoring in race/ethnicity, then why do some of them have that question on their applications? I think it is quite disheartening for kids to fill out the application and be required to enter this information because it gives the perception that one of the factors they are being judged on is the color of their skin. I was taught that we should look past the color of people’s skin and value who they are as people.
 
Wahoo Fan said:
If the panels are not factoring in race/ethnicity, then why do some of them have that question on their applications? I think it is quite disheartening for kids to fill out the application and be required to enter this information because it gives the perception that one of the factors they are being judged on is the color of their skin. I was taught that we should look past the color of people’s skin and value who they are as people.
Click to expand...
Because it’s on the form doesn’t mean it’s used by the nominating committee to select nominees. On the contrary, it could be used for historic tracking purposes without affecting the outcomes.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a requirement by law to include it on a form but that’s above my pay scale.
 
Wahoo Fan said:
If the panels are not factoring in race/ethnicity, then why do some of them have that question on their applications? I think it is quite disheartening for kids to fill out the application and be required to enter this information because it gives the perception that one of the factors they are being judged on is the color of their skin. I was taught that we should look past the color of people’s skin and value who they are as people.
Click to expand...
I would imagine it’s so they can produce the stats on the class. Almost every job you apply for these days requests details on ethnicity and sex.
 
phil61526 said:
at risk of being shunned = I think we can all agree the whole nomination is an huge waste of time, money and effort and irrelevant in today's world.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that anyone who gained and accepted an appointment to a SA would agree with you. Is the process long and tedious? Yes, it is. It's not just getting into one of the best academic schools in the country (all SAs), and it's not just screening for predicting who will be a successful military officer. It's both. The government is going to put hundreds of thousands if not millions in education and training in each candidate that gains admission and commissions. How much homework would you do before investing that much money? An interview is going to HAVE to get done if nothing other than to see if the kid can put 2 intelligible sentences together, as well as get a feel for passion and motivation. Using the SAs current model of getting someone from each congressional district is a massive undertaking.

Part of the vibe of this thread speaks to "lowering the bar" to somehow get a broader and diverse ( and I'm NOT talking strictly race) class makeup. Garbage in, garbage out. Find me one parent who has not heard "Wow, that's incredible", or "My God, they must have worked so hard to get in" when the subject of where your kid goes/ went to school. I bet you can't.

Everyone can't be an astronaut just because they want to. Getting into a SA is hard for sure. Let's keep it that way. Anyway, my $.02.

phil61526 said:
Yes each service would not get exactly what they would want but they're military people they can adapt and overcome.
Click to expand...
But you at least try.
 
OldRetSWO said:
I've been on many panels over the years and have never seen anyone work for or against diversity candidates - most of the panels had grading rubrics/criteria to go by and it has appeared to be pretty damn fair.
FWIW, the last couple of years, my panels have been for a FEMALE USNA grad congressman and neither she nor her staffers have advocated for or against any group.
Click to expand...
That’s great for the kids in your district. One NY senator is a vocal advocate for doing what I said. Her appointments the last couple cycles have been 50/50 male to female - that’s as far back as I have bothered to look. 50/50 is way off from the averages in every other state. Are we supposed to believe NY’s applicant pool is different from every other state, or that the senator is actually doing what she advocates for?
 
Last edited:
With Covid and SAT being moving into the fall, cancelled repeatedly, and travel sometimes required, the CFA logistics taking up huge amounts of time, plus the applicants usual current demands, I think any way they could have streamlined it more for the nom offices would have been a plus. One thing they could consider is every nom office in the state to have the same 3 essay topics and let them choose 2 or some system like that. The topics didn't seem to vary that much but enough that separate essays were required. That would eliminate 4 essays.

It is good that they can use the same people for reference letters.
 
USNA 19 DAD said:
Everyone can't be an astronaut just because they want to. Getting into a SA is hard for sure. Let's keep it that way. Anyway, my $.02.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. As they say, anything worth having should be worth working for. Each year, some 3000 candidates manage to make it through the gauntlet to be full-fledged candidates at each DOD SA. They worked their butts off, but isn’t that the point?

If a few extra essays is that much of a hardship, perhaps military life isn’t for you. If your three MOCs having three different essay prompts is such a burden, perhaps military life isn’t for you. No one makes anyone apply to an SA (I don’t think). And no one makes anyone apply to three different MOCs. These are all choices, and they’re part of earning the oohs and ahhs that come from family and friends when you tell them the good news.
 
Wahoo Fan said:
If the panels are not factoring in race/ethnicity, then why do some of them have that question on their applications? I think it is quite disheartening for kids to fill out the application and be required to enter this information because it gives the perception that one of the factors they are being judged on is the color of their skin. I was taught that we should look past the color of people’s skin and value who they are as people.
Click to expand...
I am talking about the panels themselves, not the staffers who create the forms. I don't create the MOC interview forms,
I just do the actual interviews and score the applicants.
 
Korab said:
That’s great for the kids in your district. One NY senator is a vocal advocate for doing what I said. Her appointments the last couple cycles have been 50/50 male to female - that’s as far back as I have bothered to look. 50/50 is way off from the averages in every other state. Are we supposed to believe NY’s applicant pool is different from every other state, or that the senator is actually doing what she advocates for?
Click to expand...
She may make NOMINATIONS 50/50 but that does not make the appointments 50/50. While any member could ensure that one otherwise qualified applicant does get in, getting the rest to be successful means that they have to excel enough on a national level to come in as an additional appointee.

Strangely, my female USNA grad congressman does not impose any such limitation or quota on her nominations.
 
OldRetSWO said:
She may make NOMINATIONS 50/50 but that does not make the appointments 50/50. While any member could ensure that one otherwise qualified applicant does get in, getting the rest to be successful means that they have to excel enough on a national level to come in as an additional appointee.

Strangely, my female USNA grad congressman does not impose any such limitation or quota on her nominations.
Click to expand...
Correct, I meant nominations of course. And I understand the nominated kids have to stand on their own two feet with admissions. I don't know the strength of the respective applications, but I know when numbers don't make sense, and hers clearly don't make sense. There is something besides merit influencing nominations in her office. I can't speak to what effect race has in her office, as race can't be gleaned from names.

I'm not surprised your USNA grad congresswoman calls it straight. She would know better than anyone what is required for success. It seems like all the people with answers to the alleged problems with academy admissions have zero experience with academies, academy admissions, or the military. Funny how that works.
 
Korab said:
I'm not surprised your USNA grad congresswoman calls it straight. She would know better than anyone what is required for success. It seems like all the people with answers to the alleged problems with academy admissions have zero experience with academies, academy admissions, or the military. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...
Analogous to _______'s (OldRetSWO) First Law of Business Travel: The People who make Business Travel Rules rarely if ever travel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top