boys vs. girls?

For what it's worth, when I took DS to Annapolis last April for the Admissions presentation and tour, the (female) admissions representative stated that the Academy's mix was about 75/25 (I believe that's what I heard), and stated expressly that they were trying to make it closer to even. No details or questions on how close or when, but no doubt that's what she said. I couldn't help noticing that the promotional film, shown before I saw the admissions officer's presentation, seemed to focus on females. Does not, to say the least, make me feel any better about DS' chances as we sit and wait.
 
The way USNA makes it "closer to even" is to make USNA better known and more desirable to more women candidates. The main reason that there are "only" 25% women at USNA is that roughly 25% of applicants are women. Women compete extremely favorably against their male counterparts -- USNA does not need to lower standards to admit women.

It is true that. as more women are admitted, the number of men admitted goes down. But to assume that means that "lesser qualified" women will take the place of better qualified men is simply wrong. You may want to consider that the woman who is admitted may well be a stronger candidate than the man she is "replacing."

The issue to date is that fewer women than men have historically applied to SAs, resulting in fewer women being admitted. (And, in the days before women were permitted in combat, there was a quota for women to keep the number DOWN). If more women are introduced to USNA and encouraged to apply, there will be a larger pool of female candidates. Since women candidates do compare VERY favorably to their male counterparts, and since applications are gender neutral, an increased pool of female candidates will result in more women being admitted and, thus, fewer men being admitted. But the best candidates will still receive appointments.

It's just that simple.
 
I couldn't help noticing that the promotional film, shown before I saw the admissions officer's presentation, seemed to focus on females

> That's marketing and subliminal messaging. In the same videos, you will probably see a disproportionate minority representations as well. While there is an effort to make the student body at USNA more representative of the population we serve, this is being done by improving awareness about the opportunities USNA provides, which in turns to encourage more women and minorities to apply. I have not seen any lessoning of standards...in fact, if anything it increases the competition.

Women compete extremely favorably against their male counterparts -- USNA does not need to lower standards to admit women.

> +1 - My observation, both as a BGO and in interviewing new Associates for my law firm, has been that young women are often more mature and focused than their male counterparts. There are of course exceptions to any generalization, and some of the late bloomers have gone on to be great Naval Officers (and attorneys). The bottom line, and to answer the OP, yes, young men and women (sorry, not Boys and Girls) compete equally, and do so quite well.
 
The question is if you have two candidates with the exactly same achievements, scores and accomplishments, do they pick the women or minority in order mirror society. I personally have an issue with that. I am not saying they shouldnt be picked either. There has to be a tie breaker of some sort. However, dont flip a coin. The bigger issue is does Boy A with a score of 10 (made up score) lose out to Girl B even thought she has a 9 so that the stats look better. I am not saying the academies do this although I guarrantee you the civilians collleges do it. I would imagine that everyone who is in the academy deserves to be there so it isnt a question that they are lowering the scale to allow others in. The question is are there people who didnt get and were qualified. Now, anyone can say that there have always been people who deserved to be in and didnt because of various reasons. The isue now is, is the reason because they had the wrong skin color or sex. And I agree that historically, there have been people who werent admitted because of the color of their skin and their sex. Do we fix one evil by doing another? I really dont have answers to any of these things but it isnt as easy to say we have to right the wrongs that were done historically. For me personally,why should I pay for what was done historically. My family didnt come to the states until the 60s so I have no connection to what happened. The best should get in, i guess the question becomes what constitutes the best
 
The answer to the question is yes and no. The process to determine a class is established by Federal Law. The original intent was to establish geographical diversity, hence the MOC system. These applicants are evaluated on WCS regardless of any social factors; there is a lot more than just "boys and girls". The highest ranked applicant gets an offer. Then there are service connected appointments that work on a similar scoring system. After that, the next 150 applicants are selected by WCS, again independent of social factors. The remaining class can then be filled without regard to WCS as long as the are qualified. These 100-150 slots can be given to someone who theoretically has a lower WCS than a white male applicant for a multitude of reasons, recruited athlete, sponsored scholarship cadets, first generation college, economic disadvantaged, as well as race and gender. The Army does value diversity and it is important for the officer corps to attempt to mirror the forces they will lead but this is not done by lowering the standards. As said before, most of the effort is directed at educating these types of minorities in areas where a military career is not seen as an option. There is no 100% perfect system in anything we do, but the academy does a pretty good job in building a class of fully qualified applicants to start a career in leading our Armed Forces.
 
There's a lot of information out there on affirmative action at the academies, and it's been debated to death both here and and elsewhere. The bottom line is yes there are many people who don't get in who were qualified, and there are people who aren't found qualified under the same criteria but are still admitted based on their race (or sports performance). Even USNA's website at one time was open about the fact that there were lower SAT requirements for minorities and enlisted sailors. From what I've seen, gender is actually not a factor. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that it's reality. Regardless of anyone's beliefs on affirmative action, the Navy has decided that having a diverse Brigade is its top strategic imperative for the Academy, and it isn't hard to see why. Race is the most divisive issue in this country and to have the most prestigious military schools made up of nearly all Whites while African Americans and Hispanics are highly overrepresented in the enlisted ranks, would cause them way more controversies than NAPS does.

Is it fair? By definition no, but the Navy is trying to win wars and project power, and has decided that diversity is important enough that academic ability can take a backseat to it at times.
 
Last edited:
Another factor to consider is that high schools are really promoting STEM courses to female students much more than in the past. I’m surprised at my DD’s school the number of Sophomore and Junior girls in STEM tracts that are planning on applying to the academies in the next two years for various reasons including their strong engineering programs. There are also two with private pilots licenses already. Many more females are entering these career tracts than in the past.
 
For what it's worth, I regularly hire engineers and scientists. 15 years ago, there were 10 males for every female engineer in our group. Today, it is nearly even, which means that over the past 15 years, there have been more highly qualified women engineers & scientists that made the cut than men engineers & scientists (in the fields I work in). My second oldest son just graduated with a ChemE degree from a very prestigious program and his class was nearly 50-50 men and women. As he pointed out, the women in his class were much better at keeping up their end when working in teams, which benefits the entire group grade. The women kept their egos more in check (as he put it, less "___ measuring" and more teamwork). The bigger problem is just one of demographics - the older male engineers are more often in position of leadership, not because they are males but because they have 20-30 years of experience (and experience does count in terms of client relationships, etc.). And while women do tend to take a year or two out of their careers for having families, their careers are not significantly hampered by that important role.
 
They are not Boys and Girls. They are Men and Women who are charting their own course. Fair Winds and Following Seas to all. Parents may advise but sometime you must back off. STEM programs are great for any gender.
Everyone is an individual and therefore different, but from what i see of 18 year olds, they are boys and girls
 
Everyone is an individual and therefore different, but from what i see of 18 year olds, they are boys and girls

Those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and to defend this country in combat deserve the dignity of being regarded as adults.
 
Everyone is an individual and therefore different, but from what i see of 18 year olds, they are boys and girls

Those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and to defend this country in combat deserve the dignity of being regarded as adults.
Sure I understand what you are saying and those who serve are a different type of people, but in general 18 year olds are kids. Some more mature than others and I am not talking about those who serve in the military but all 18 year olds in this country. Some of them are adults, as I said, everyone is different. In general they act like kids, they do stupid stuff like kids and they have the maturity of a kid. When you bring up combat, you are putting something into the conversation that makes the conversation end because as you say an 18 year who defends this country deserves the dignity of being regarded as an adult. Most 18 year olds arent in the military and are adults only legally. Plus, they arent legal enough to buy alcohol, rent a car, stay at a hotel that includes a mini bar and cant gamble in Las Vegas
 
They are Men and Women who have chosen a life course. When they hold up that hand and take that Oath they do it willing and without reservations as an Adult. They will always be my Kids (eighteen or forty} but I do realize in the back of my mind that they are Adults.
 
Last edited:
Try an ' now and then. Two kids have raised their Hands and taken the Oath. They are Adults. They are not different people.
 
Back
Top