Ahhhh.....Perhaps that explains why the reporter had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get information about USNA admissions. The USNA was concerned about what the "rest of the world" might think. Just for clarification: If the USNA discovers that the rest of the world is not as excited as they are about one of their policies; does the USNA change their policy or do they just try to avoid letting the rest of the world know about those policies?
'Best and brightest' article from hometownannapolis.com
- Thread starter cabarle
- Start date
- Status
cabarle
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 91
My experience with the Navy has proven that despite some bad press, they're still going forward once a decision is made - whether prudent or not.
Again, call me a skeptic but I want to see some numbers and data.
I grew in up Baltimore City and went to one of the city wide schools. During my high school years, my school send several kids to service academy every year. Recently, none.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
It shows that of Rep Cummings had only 51 TOTAL applicants for all 4 academies, and he nominated 32 students:
- 28 hail from Howard County, two live in Baltimore City and two are from Baltimore County.
CUMMINGS NOMINATES 32 AREA STUDENTS TO SERVICE ACADEMIES
I think you are attempting to pound a square peg into a round hole. For Baltimore, gerrymandering, as you stated earlier, has prevented a true minority underrepresented district. Each slate has highly qualified majority and, as you have stated, no minority candidates are being appointed. This confirms that there is no two-tiered admissions process, does it not? This also confirms the need to go further to legally find qualified minority appointable candidates. Hence the hisorically underrepresented districts. Again, your example, Baltimore is definitely not one.
I did get side tracked as I was focusing on you statement about how improved recruiting at USNA has increased appointments for minority applicants. If I believe that improved recruiting at USNA has incrase minority appointment, I will be more inclined to believe theire is no two-tiered admissions process.
My point was, perhaps I did a bad job explaining myself, that if improved recruiting is one of the major reasons why appointments for minorities at USNA have increased, if should be reflected in increased appointments for minoirties in Baltimore - which is not so.
Christcorp
15-Year Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,382
Staying on topic about minorities; I believe diversity is quite acceptable and actually benefits the academy and eventually the military and it's personnel. I do believe however that the academies need to be more vigorous in their recruiting of diversity, and find equally qualified applicants. I don't believe that is should be necessary to lower the standards for admittance. I also hope that in their quest for diversity, they stop separating race and skin color and simply look at all diversity. Race/skin color is definitely part of diversity; but so is urban vs suburban vs ranch vs single parent vs 1st generation college attendee vs 2nd generation american vs ethnic vs living abroad vs etc..... That's what diversity is all about. Not just a person who is black, hispanic, or a woman.
Diversity is good. Race based traditional minority status is wrong. E.g. There's not a lot of diversity difference between a black and white student in Fargo North Dakota who both live on a ranch and go to the same public school. The living on a ranch in Fargo is a diversity, but not the black/white issue in Fargo. At least in my opinion. Not to say that race shouldn't be part of diversity. It should be. Especially when trying to have an officer corp that represents their enlisted subordinates. Just don't want it to be ALL about race and gender. Especially if they can't get enough equally qualified applicants, and must resort to lowering the standard to bring in quotas.
Diversity is good. Race based traditional minority status is wrong. E.g. There's not a lot of diversity difference between a black and white student in Fargo North Dakota who both live on a ranch and go to the same public school. The living on a ranch in Fargo is a diversity, but not the black/white issue in Fargo. At least in my opinion. Not to say that race shouldn't be part of diversity. It should be. Especially when trying to have an officer corp that represents their enlisted subordinates. Just don't want it to be ALL about race and gender. Especially if they can't get enough equally qualified applicants, and must resort to lowering the standard to bring in quotas.
One thing I think everyone needs to remember here is that the USNA does not post minimum requirements. Also, the "Best and Brightest" are subjective terms. They are not saying the "highest SAT and GPA". Best and brightest does not always correlate to grades and standardized test scores. That is why they consider the whole person and started doing BGO interviews to meet candidates. My BGO said his extremely intelligent roommate at USNA could not tie his shoes. I am a manager at a swimming pool over many lifeguards. One of my employees,a year older than me, had a 34 on his ACTand a perfect GPA with all AP classes at a competitive high school. He could have had an LOA at any SA of his choosing and would have been able to get the rest of the application completed to get an appointment. I had to fire him for talking on his phone too much and accidently draining the pool after he backwashed it. He is an idiot. But he would be considered the "best and brightest' and easily accepted. So, keep in mind those charts and all the numbers don't tell the whole story about each candidate.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
CDR Salamander weighs in with his thoughts:
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2011/02/diversity-thursday.html#links
One sad part is that this creates an original sin that will follow the Navy for decades. If you group people by their self-identified race/ethnicity - which the Navy insists on doing - select using different criteria than others and then track them, then face some mathematical facts.
If one group on average has been brought in with lower success indicators, then they will have lower performance metrics throughout their career - on average when taken as a group - unless of course you argue that there is no such things as objective success indicators, which if you do - then why have them at all?
Especially in very technical areas like the Navy has in abundance (nuke power, aviation, etc) where academic skills are almost as important as other intangibles for a successful JO tour, you will have one group that will fail initial training more, will qualify later, and will have trouble grasping concepts quicker than their peers in other groups selected with more rigorous selection criteria.
As a result, if evaluated against each other - the group let in with lower average success indicators will be ranked lower, advanced slower, and given less demanding (and therefor rewarded) jobs than the group let in with higher average success indicators. Individual results may vary - but on average this is the result.
As a secondary effect, throughout their career, people will be asking why aren't they being evaluated and promoted on a equal basis compared to other groups. A good question, because that is what is/will be happening - and was destined to happen from the beginning.
Some will cry racism, and they will be right. Not racism like they think though; the racism won't be now by those sitting on their boards or writing their FITREPS, but will be in their past when they were let in the door that led them down a career that they were not prepared to succeed in.
Solid, logical analysis as usual.If one group on average has been brought in with lower success indicators, then they will have lower performance metrics throughout their career - on average when taken as a group - unless of course you argue that there is no such things as objective success indicators, which if you do - then why have them at all?
Especially in very technical areas like the Navy has in abundance (nuke power, aviation, etc) where academic skills are almost as important as other intangibles for a successful JO tour, you will have one group that will fail initial training more, will qualify later, and will have trouble grasping concepts quicker than their peers in other groups selected with more rigorous selection criteria.
As a result, if evaluated against each other - the group let in with lower average success indicators will be ranked lower, advanced slower, and given less demanding (and therefor rewarded) jobs than the group let in with higher average success indicators. Individual results may vary - but on average this is the result.
As a secondary effect, throughout their career, people will be asking why aren't they being evaluated and promoted on a equal basis compared to other groups. A good question, because that is what is/will be happening - and was destined to happen from the beginning.
Some will cry racism, and they will be right. Not racism like they think though; the racism won't be now by those sitting on their boards or writing their FITREPS, but will be in their past when they were let in the door that led them down a career that they were not prepared to succeed in.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2011/02/diversity-thursday.html#links
I believe the Navy will evaluate these groups the same way it was determined to admit them into the USNA...not on how well they compare to other "groups" bust based on the needs of the Navy and the decree "That from bottom to top, O-1 to O-10, Ensign to Admiral, the racial makeup of the officer corps should reflect the enlisted ranks".
Perhaps, USNA is different from USMA, but USMA there is a minimum SAT scores and if an applicant is below the minimum SAT scores, the admissions office can ask academic departments for wavier(s).
Yes, the "best and brightest" are not "highest SAT and GPA," but you need to give some credit to admissions folks, to include MOC nomination process to weed out the "higest SAT and GPA" applicants that don't belong at SA. I am on my MOC's service academy nomination board and one year we did not give a nomination to a "highest SAT and GPA" kid because our determination was that he doesn't belong at a SA and he won't make a good military officer.
Yes "Best and brightest does not always correlate to grades and standardized test scores" but most cases they do. The admissions process is based on the average results, not exceptions. If you ever took a statistic class, you will know what a bell curve or normal distribution is. The admissions process is focused on the normal distribution, not the outliers.
Pure bunk. It has never happened and never will happen.
To analyze his credibility, see the part that I boldfaced. I think to a prerson, everyone on this forum from midshipman to current and past aviators, all levels of experience, have all stated that one's major means absolutely nothing in being an aviator.
I agree that "one's major means nothing in being an aviator." I was a Life Sciences major. I guess Biology, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, made me a better Mechanized Infantry Officer. My best friend from West Point is a pliot and he was a Political Science major.
Never and Abolutely are very strong words.
However, it will be very interesting if someone did a study to determine if there is any relationship between undergraduate majors and success in techinical positions.
Few things to consider
undergraduate major vs pass or fail rate for flight school, nuke school, submarine school, etc.
undergraduate major vs retention rate
undergraduate major vs promotion rate
My guess is that the study will be inconculsive.
Perhaps the study has already been done by the Navy and once they discovered that the rest of the world might not be as excited as they were with the results they chose not to publish them.
Perhaps the study has already been done by the Navy and once they discovered that the rest of the world might not be as excited as they were with the results they chose not to publish them.
DS said he was told by Navy ROTC contact and USNA Plebe during recent CVW that degree type will start to have a higher weighting than in the past. He didn't ask why so one can only guess and maybe one reason is that on the whole the engineer types do better after graduation regardless of what they do or they are more versatile after graduation and can fill a greater variety of positions. It's already been recognized that kids take 'easy' degrees to pad the GPA and allow more time for things other than academics to pad their leadership rating and in the end rank higher. Not very sporting so maybe it's finally time they see they level the playing field again a little bit.
OR MAYBE IT'S LIKE I TOLD HIM, THEY WERE TELLING HIM 'RECRUITER' STUFF AND DON'T BELIEVE IT!
Bullet
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 986
Certainly. Academic major means very little in the big scheme of things.
But that is not the statement he was making. The specific quote, and his point, deals with Academic skills and not academic major. Rather significant difference.
Just thought I'd point that out for ya...
Only the top half of the Academy class is capable of being a pilot? Where does that leave ROTC and AOCS?
Not sure what he was trying to say. And I read it several times.
On this forum, we always tell candidates to make sure they have a Plan 'B', with that plan normally being ROTC. For those whose Plan 'A' is ROTC, the backup plan might be OCS. I would think that, in general, these "success indicators" would be ranked with those at the Academy the highest, ROTC second, and OCS bringing up the rear. He is questioning the 'success indicators' of those at the bottom of the Academy pile. Where does that leave ROTC and OCS. Would they not "be ranked lower, advanced slower, and given less demanding (and therefor rewarded) jobs than the group let in with higher average success indicators." How can we, in good faith, recommend someone fgo ROTC or OCS if we believe this is true? And one, at the age of 17 is branded with a certain "success indicator" quotient which will follow him the rest of his career. "I'm sorry son but I see from your USNA application that you are not capable of working in Operations. You can take the First Lieutenant job." Give me a break. This guy would say anything to stir the pot.
Last edited:
blackhawkmom
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 198
outsider observation?
I thiink the point of this whole discussion should be more about---what do the ones appointed however they were appointed and for whatever reason they were appointed handle it once they get there. For those who are familiar with my posts -WTH. DS is a plebe --high school honor student-athlete--- leadership out the wazoo and disciplined like no other --yes i am his mother but his resume was outstanding. Is he from a area that may be considered underrepresented =probably. But now that he is there and is experiencing it all---IT REALLY doesnt matter why you got in or how. If the bottom line is to develop leaders by the end of four years the grooming process kicks all their hineys once in . An "A" student struggles in PT an athlete needs help in math -----what do they do? They become a team a band of brothers and sisters. They work it out together. When they are commissioned they better be able to relate to all races,mentalities and religions not to mention they better know how to relate to each group.Sally helps Joe with math and he in turn helps her with PT. The object of the SA is to grow and develop all qualities and to develope attitudes that they do it together ---no one is going to make it by themselves. So what if appointee one is a athlete--he will still need help with something--so what if candidate two is a math wiz she might need a peer to box with.. Bottom line---if they were all one race one GPA one SAT score ---robots not caring feeling strong committed leaders would never be produced. Diversity is real people and everyone needs to be able to know they have someone there with their back. Leadership is developed not given . And to be a great leader you have to be a good follower first. IMO
I thiink the point of this whole discussion should be more about---what do the ones appointed however they were appointed and for whatever reason they were appointed handle it once they get there. For those who are familiar with my posts -WTH. DS is a plebe --high school honor student-athlete--- leadership out the wazoo and disciplined like no other --yes i am his mother but his resume was outstanding. Is he from a area that may be considered underrepresented =probably. But now that he is there and is experiencing it all---IT REALLY doesnt matter why you got in or how. If the bottom line is to develop leaders by the end of four years the grooming process kicks all their hineys once in . An "A" student struggles in PT an athlete needs help in math -----what do they do? They become a team a band of brothers and sisters. They work it out together. When they are commissioned they better be able to relate to all races,mentalities and religions not to mention they better know how to relate to each group.Sally helps Joe with math and he in turn helps her with PT. The object of the SA is to grow and develop all qualities and to develope attitudes that they do it together ---no one is going to make it by themselves. So what if appointee one is a athlete--he will still need help with something--so what if candidate two is a math wiz she might need a peer to box with.. Bottom line---if they were all one race one GPA one SAT score ---robots not caring feeling strong committed leaders would never be produced. Diversity is real people and everyone needs to be able to know they have someone there with their back. Leadership is developed not given . And to be a great leader you have to be a good follower first. IMO
I'm sorry Mongo but that's just double speak. Whether someone chooses a SA, ROTC or OCS has nothing to do with their "success indicators". Those choices are made for many reasons other than academic skills. Not everyone wants a 24/7 military environment. Would a MIT NROTC grad have fewer success indicators because s/he didn't attend the USNA? I think clearly the author is saying that lower academic skills = lower success indicator.
Question: Does the Navy use success indicators?
Question: Does the Navy use success indicators?
- Status