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.
What's not to understand? He's simply pointing out that when you lower the quality of the candidate pool for
entry (which I take as regardless of source), it is safe to say that you will have an impact on the quality of the pool of individuals at each step in their follow on careers.
Glad to be of assistance in helping you understand a simple example of statistics. Something I learned at a State U, btw...
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'm with you so far.
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.
And here is where you lose me. What in the Sam Hill does commissioning source have to do with
anything he is talking about here? He's talking about the pool of candidates entering the Academy each year, and the possible effects from lower
their standards. The pool of candidates entering other institutions of higher learning are not part of his equation, only yours. And ROTC and OCS would also have to deal with the consequences (and so would the US military) if they lowered their standards for whom they accept into their program.
He is questioning the 'success indicators' of those at the bottom of the Academy pile.
OK, back on track. I agree with you here; he IS questioning the standards for the lower half of the Academy's pool of candidates
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."
Annnnd, the wheels come right back off. Where does this leave ROTC and OCS? I don't know, nor does it matter. ROTC and OCS are an entirely different pool of commissioning candidates than the Academy. CDR Salamander is making a point about the Academy's admission standards; why do you insist on bringing in other commissioning sources into HIS argument?
You wouldn't be making that silly argument that ROTC and OCS are only for the "less qualified" candidates, and turn our "less capable" future officers, would you?
How can we, in good faith, recommend someone fgo ROTC or OCS if we believe this is true?
Simple. It isn't true, despite your twists in logic in an attempt to confuse simple statistics.
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.
All of us on these forums have said multiple times that sometimes it takes a while to finally catch up in life and excel. We are all not thoroughbreds right out of the gate. Some stumble early, make a few mistakes, are at first slow to pick up the pace. But that doesn't mean in life that the proverbial "light bulb" won't suddenly illuminate above their heads, and the next thing you know, they will be running at full speed, passing those whom we all thought they never had a chance to surpass.
For that reason, and that reason alone, CDR Salmander's argument is severely flawed. And perhaps that is why it may be OK to sometimes give a kid a break when their not up to the standards of their peers at age 17, and give them that proverbial "golden ticket" entry into the Academy. Based on a hope that they one day WILL get it. And for that one reason alone, I can agree with the USNA's policy to allow underachievers a second chance.
But please, don't start throwing in ROTC and OCS as your argument that these sources will produce lower quality officers than an Academy grad. Produce a better 2nd Lt (or Ensign), and perhaps a better 1 Lt (or Lt J.G.)? I'd agree to that somewhat. But after about 2 years in service, commissioning source plays little in an officer's success. Not having the academic skills, or a solid ability to learn these skills, necessary to understand the technical challenges they will face in this modern military? That is where failure is assured.
This guy would say anything to stir the pot.
Kettle....