Civilian college to academy

I apologize if I came off that way. I was trying to give the parts of my background that I thought remedied my bad sat so that I could get better advice; not show off my resume or self promote. And I know academics is just a part of what the academies, or the military in general, are looking for. Far more important is leadership ability, which pretentiousness directly contends. If I was some arrogant candidate who thought I was the end-all-be-all, I wouldn't be here asking if I even have a chance at getting my application looked at. My real worry is that they (the MOCs), or their staffers, initially get rid of any applications with a score less than 'X' and that my application wouldn't even be glanced over.
I got the 500k a year from whistle pig. I'm not going to delve back into the "why I should go to OCS" debate again. If the MOCs want to challenge it, Ill deal with it then.
 
Another option to consider is a program the Navy offers where if you have 3 years or less untill graduation, they will pay you a monthly salary the remainder of you college time. Upon graduation you do an OCS type thing if I recall. This way you get some money now to help with the expenses. You get your commission (which is the ultimate goal) sooner. You'll be close close to making LT by the time you would graduate from the Academy. the money can be upwards of $5,000/mo. If I recall, there is a link on the navy recruitment page.
 
I am not opposed to OCS (or any other commission source), I think it is an outstanding program for those who are ready to start a career. My grandfather went to army OCS and is now a general, naturally I think it is a great program. That being said, I think the academies present an unparalleled experience with regards to training, tradition, and brotherhood. I am rather young for my position (I started college at 16), and am willing to sacrifice a little time to become the most prepared I can be before accepting a commission. Rank and pay is of little importance to me. 4 years is a small price to pay with regards to a career that will likely last 20 or more.

I see how some could say it is a waste of my time to spend 4 more years in school, but I cant understand how any one could think it was a waste of the governments resources for me to attend an academy.
 
William,

Here are some of your posts
The consensus is that in the end what matters is the person not the source. I whole heartily agree with that in general, but I know my self... I will be a better officer for having spent 4 at USNA.As a doctor, 4 years experience is better than 4 years of extra schooling.However now I'm going for unrestricted officer positions, so being the best trained I can be before I'm in charge of the lives of enlisted men and women is important to me. Even if it slows down my career by 3 years (Ill only be 3 years older than most plebes, not 4).
Click to expand...

The best officers can't be taught how to lead. It is in their human nature. An avg officer can be a better officer, through training, but never the best. It is like the real world, personal skills matter and you can't teach that.

I look forward to getting to have a new major, it will make me more well rounded. Matter of fact, I prefer to study something completely new to me.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, my highest priority is serving as an officer...not going to the academy. I've looking into all the commissioning sources {INCLUDING GRAD SCHOOL ROTC) and know what they all entail.
Click to expand...

This is not meant antagonistically at all, if you want the SA go for it, because nothing stinks more in life than being 50 and looking back with an IF.

However, reading your posts I saw it differently than most; maybe it's that Mom thing. What I see is someone who is not ready to enter the real world. I think you may feel that way due to the fact you started college when you were 16, I am guessing you will graduate at 20, yes, I know you said you are 20, but do the math, 4 yrs and that makes you graduating at 20. Maybe it is nothing more than your fear that your age will be an issue since you are so young regarding leadership. Theoretically, you could be in charge of people and have yet to take your 1st sip of beer legally.

Everything I posted stated you don't want to enter AD right now, but would prefer to wait until you are older, otherwise, Grad school ROTC would have not been even discussed at all and OCS would be your path.

I wish you the best. You are right, you are not taking anything away from anyone else if appointed. You earned it.

Xposted. You just stated what I was inferring. It is not about the academy so much, as it is about your age.

I am rather young for my position (I started college at 16), and am willing to sacrifice a little time to become the most prepared I can be before accepting a commission.
Click to expand...

That is not a reason for the SA's to take you and not a reason for you to attend. JMPO, but you'd probably be a better asset to them if you went ROTC grad since you now have that under your belt as a young officer, than paying for you to attend 4 yrs. at an SA so you can be more prepared to accept a commission from an age aspect. If you look at your posts, the most common issue you have in it, not including defending your position, is 1 key statement. AGE. You are concerned about that. Maybe what you should be asking is:

I am 20, and if I go to OCS, graduate at 20, will I be respected as an officer?
The answer is yes. You maybe teased about your age, but nobody is going to "card" you. Nobody under your command is going to disobey you because you are younger than them.

You must also ask if you believe you are mentally mature enough to lead at 21, or do you feel the only reason you really want an SA is to get that time to mature?

I know you wanted this to be about SATs, you have received that answer, and now the thread contorted itself to this.
 
Last edited:
Pima,
Concern about my age or maturity is not the issue for me. ROTC grad school was mentioned because its the option my parents are fighting for. AROTC with an SMP option would give me tuition for grad school plus pay me back for undergrad loans, plus 2 years time in service before I commission. That certainly looks like the best option on paper.

I hate being cliche, but the truth is the academy is a calling. I think you got it spot on with "if you want the SA go for it, because nothing stinks more in life than being 50 and looking back with an IF"

I was pressured to be a lawyer or a doctor when I was younger, so the academy wasn't on my radar. I already regret not going for it when I was of "standard" age.

"That is not a reason for the SA's to take you and not a reason for you to attend"
That wasn't my reason.

"the academies present an unparalleled experience with regards to training, tradition, and brotherhood" That is my reason, or at least part of why I am so attracted to it.
 
william2337,

I have read this read this thread through and my suggestion is that if USNA is what you truly want and desire, quit debating it with anonymous posters on an internet forum, put together the best record and application that you can and GO FOR IT! Good luck to you.
 
Mihoser's right and Sunk@theDocks is funny!

Let me attempt to summarize my views, which at present are merely opining. Not practice.

1. Apologies for my failure to read more carefully OPs original status. I'll work at doing better going forward. Still, as I noted, they are of no consequence to my points

2. While they became personal to him, that was not intended. Rather it was to use his question to illumine what I believe is the more important and overriding question, and one he overtly preferred not be considered. Understandably, but unavoidably.

3. Perhaps it's in the thread somewhere, but I have failed to grasp why OCS is out when it is the obvious best answer IF the objective is first and foremost to become a commissioned naval officer.

4. I confess this leads me to questioning motivation. And while many think motivation should not be questioned because it cannot be assessed, in fact, judgement of motivation is critical, imo. And perhaps even more so than behaviors. So I had to wonder and still wonder.

5. The BGO response noting that others had done similarly what the OP was considering (while none could cite one who'd actually finished college (or about to) and THEN applied to USNA, and notably for the first time ever), and possibly implying that it was a laudable thing struck me as odd, and imo, contrary to the notion that this would not be in the best interest of the Navy. Even though, as another(s) noted, it MIGHT be in the best interest of the Naval Academy. And this would follow that the primary objective of the Naval Academy is to attract and appoint "the best and the brightest" totally absent of the context of those candidates. I did and would continue to argue this is NOT the objective of the Academy, nor is it the duty or function of BGOs to ID and encourage such. That is a misread, imo.

6. Rather the USNA's role is that of a teammate, a "link in the chain." To complement and add to the pool of leadership, and not to compete with other avenues of leadership preparation

7. And it is a gross miscarriage of public resources to assume that the mission is simply to fill those positions with the best they can find and appoint. This smacks of precisely the attitude and mess of our federal govenors and their view of taxpayer funds. "They send 'em, we spend 'em."

8. And from the consumer side, recognizing there are so many outstanding, even superior candidates who are NOT being appointed because of these types of decisions (or non-decisions, i.e. that considering candidates who have successfully completed their degree requirements already and simply do not wish to go to OCS and/or simply want a USNA degree in addition to), well, I believe that becomes critical.

9. It is now fully apparent that as candidates have risen dramatically (nearly 60% in 5 years) by traditional measures, appointees qualifications have declined in rather equally dramatic and statistically significant measure. Thus the general notion, at least using traditional measurements and assessment tools, that USNA is about attracting the "best and brightest" is no longer defensible. And of course this point does not even consider Foundation and NAPS candidates. Thus, pertinent to this scenario, it is no longer pertinent.

10. Lastly, mine and all of this, is majoring in the minors. Situations like this one would seem to be rare, few and far between. And thus of no real consequence except for 2 things:

A. Despite the arguments, indeed $500k of public funding is devoted to the education AND commissioning of each Midshipmen. I'd suspect with the hidden costs, it is more. Expending that sum of public money on even a possibly outstanding candidate (other than he already has a degree or its equivalent) is frivolous and irresponsible, especially when there is a much more cost effective means of commissioning, and one which the Navy would argue attracts and prepares equally outstanding officer-leaders.

B. That in taking the position that anyone and everyone matching the benchmarks of qualification should be recruited, vetted, and appointed, no matter these other options and no matter that in doing so, those doing so remove other totally viable, perhaps even stronger candidates, is simply irresponsible, insensitive, and simplistic in participating in the bigger-picture mission.

I promise, that is my final word on this one. Beyond this.

I realize fully this POV flies in the face of what has been done and perhaps might be done going forward. My guess is that this may not even be considered or discussed. This forum informs both novice and experts about this candidacy-to-appointment journey (and beyond.) So here's that the fundamental point might merit some consideration among those experts and their superiors.
 
And perhaps not coincidentally, an All American athlete? I'm wondering if we're bragging or complaining? I guess it depends upon whether I'm the tennis coach ... or the next in-line recruit who gets bumped and unappointed. And the really great news is ...unlike Stanford or UCLA or ... no need to utilize a scholarship chit to get her. Let her play and get another the next year, right?

There we go, a classic example perhaps of the potential abuse of this. Given similar circumstances, I wonder if Tim Teabow'd gotten an appointment coming into his senior season at FL?:confused::rolleyes::thumb::shake:
 
Last edited:
Just for the sake of the sake, I had a plebe year roomie who had finished three years in the AROTC at Michigan State when he decided to do what he really wanted to do which was to attend and graduate from a SA. He was not an all-american jock, just a solid student.

You have had several responders tell you the same thing... sit down with your most trusted counselor(s) and analyze your situation, weigh your options, develop a course of action, then proceed to do your absolute best to attain your objectives. If it is to attend and graduate from a SA, proceed immediately to become the absolute best candidate you can be and pull out the stops pursuing your nomination and appointment.

Be prepared to take advantage of your opportunities as they arise, as many of them will pass your way only once. As someone noted earlier you don't want to become one of those senior citizens who spends most of his time rocking on the nursing home porch running through his "what ifs" and "if onlys" - it gets pretty depressing.

Best wishes!
 
If you can get over a 3.8 as a physics major then you should have no problem improving your SAT score. Stop worrying about all the what ifs and simply register for the exam.

william2337 said:
I've read the "What are my chances?" sticky and I realize that no one here can give me a definitive answer, but I would like to get peoples opinion on my situation. I'm 20 and about to start my senior year at the University of Colorado-Denver. I very much want to join the navy as an officer and have looked into both USNA and OCS. I don't want to start a "you should just go to OCS" discussion as I am set on the academy.

My dilemma is that my SAT scores are very low (520 verbal and 670 math). The reason for my low scores is that by the time I took the SAT I had already taken over two years of college courses (at a university not AP), which allowed me to apply as a transfer student as opposed to a new freshmen. The only reason I took the SAT was because my school made me (I had already been accepted to my number one choice). My high school gpa was 4.33.

I am a physics major (3.82 GPA), the only classes I have less than A's in are one physics class and three chem classes (all B's). I am the project leader for a research lab at my school, which I started and found funding for. I have hundreds of hours of volunteer work and several extra curricular's.

My question isn't am I going to get accepted, but rather does my clear success in an actual university negate my low test scores from an admissions perspective? My understanding is that those tests are designed to predict success in college, so it would make since that the SAT really wouldn't matter since my college transcript is impressive. Agree or disagree?

Note that on top of several years of math/physics/chem/biology, I have taken my fair share of humanities.

I intend on retaking the SAT or ACT, the problem is that I might not be able to get my scores back by the deadlines for all of my potential nomination sources. That being said, I am more worried about the opinion of my Congressmen than the academy (right now at least).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top