Discussion in 'Military Academy - USMA' started by momoftwins, Jul 15, 2007.
Going from memory alone, it looks like SATs are down a little from previous years.
Reading between the lines, they basically only list one EC and then break out team captains. They must hold athletic team captains in great stead.
The SAT average for the USMA Class of 2010 was 1276. The stats reported in the above link are from the Superintendent's Welcome on R-Day. More complete statistics for the Class of 2011 will be released later.
The average SAT score went down for applicants to all colleges after the release of the new SAT in 2005.
Perhaps, anyone your age should not "Go from memory alone"
Let's break apart the idiocy you just posted:
In a few weeks the USMA will post a more comprehensive class profile. You can then statistically break it apart if that sort of thing is fun for you.
Anyone who knows anything about the SAT's should know that the test was changed in 2006. Therefore you cannot compare scores from the old test and the new test. Therefore we only have TWO years of statistical data from which to draw. Therefore it is difficult to make any assumptions on the raising and lowering of SAT's.
I have no idea what the average SAT was last year - the 2010 class profile breaks it down by percentiles, but I am willing to guess it is not statistically different.
Are SAT's important? yes. But, they are only a part of the equation.
As mentioned above a more comprehensive class profile will be posted shortly. It will include a complete breakdown of eagle scouts, class presidents etc.
Athletics - as a matter of fact, yes - West Point does "hold athletic team captains in great stead". They do so for good reason.
Varsity athletics and being a team captains show leadership. As a team captain you are a peer leader of a team. West Point develops leaders.
As one can see from the condensed class profile posted (thanks! Momoftwins!), it is very difficult to get an appointment without having earned a Varsity letter.
Applicants to multiple service academies need to realize that while they are all very similar - there are concrete differences. These differences are reflected in the mission of not only the academy but the mission of the service.
This kind of ethnic/gender/racial statistical breakdown always cracks me up.
Of the 17% women, how many are Hispanic or African-American? Does it really make a difference? Unfortunately to some who feel the Army should "look like America" regardless of the competence of the individuals, it makes a big difference.
Each percentage is of the whole. No way to tell how many women are Hispanic or African-American.
Of course ethnic/gender breakdown is important. These schools are funded by the taxpayers. All of the taxpayers. Women taxpayers included.
The integration of the Army is a relativly recent pheomenon - two generations old and the inclusion of women is even more recent, just a generation old. The gathering and publicaton of this data shows that the Army is making an effort to continue to NOT exclude those who were once excluded.
Right or wrong, important or not, the goal of the Army is to have the Officer corps "look like" the enlisted corps. In otherwords, if the % of enlisted women is 20%, the Army would like to have 20% of the officers be women.
The make up of USMA, should resemble officer corps and so the "goal" should be 20% women. (Please note the 20% is a hypothetical number)
Some people may look at these numbers and think - wow - if I am a woman then I have an edge, or if I am a Hispanic woman I have an edge. Not so fast. Women are accepted at about the same rate as men. Even though over 50% of all high school grads who plan to attend college are women, not nearly that many have the desire or qualifications to attend USMA.
Not sure how I ruffled your feathers but I was just making a few general comments. For the past many years, including the last two with the SAT change, the SAT composite for the three major academies have all hovered right around the 1300 range and the other two have been 20 or so points less. This I have annually pulled from US News college profiles. You are probably correct, it is too soon to do any useful comparisons.
As to the sports captain comment, I was merely making a positive comment. If one desires a WP appointment, it would behoove him to start scmoozing his coaches.
As one who has led minorities in the military, I would change the above stated "unfortunately" to "fortunately".
I think the reason that number was chosen to be in the spotlight in the profile is that if you look at the corps as a diverse group of people of varying interests, talents and backgrounds - then the ONE big thing that unites them is athletics. West Point recognizes the value of participating on and if possible, leading an athletic team. Being a team captain shows you are capable of leading your peers and that you are looked on highly as a person of character by your coach and team.
(My apologies for the harshness of my earlier comment )
If "leading minorities in the military" was a "fortunate" experience, I have to assume you led people who were capable and competent and completed the mission successfully. I have done the same in the private sector. What is unfortunate is we have people in Congress and other positions of leadership who are more interested in raw numbers than what the numbers actually represent.
"Going from memory alone, it looks like SATs are down a little from previous years."
Probalby best not to rely on your memory.
For the nine years data readily available on WP's website preceeding the class of 2011 the average combined SAT score is 1273. The high is 1282 and the low is 1262 (two years apart).
WP, when reporting their statistics to US News and Princeton Reviews, etc. must bump their SATs a little so they don't look so bad compared to AFA and USNA.
This is the kicker - No one, and I mean no one is getting into a service academy without being qualified. Period.
This is part of the function of prep schools - but even there you need to show you have the potential to become qualified to attend prep school.
You can split hairs all day and talk about this kid or that kid who didn't get in who is "more qualified" - but they have brought something to the table. It goes way beyond having the highest SAT scores. Ivy League does this too. I heard that half of the applicants who applied to Harvard this year with perfect SAT's didn't get in. Why? Someone else, brought something more to the table.
Is it ok to accept a qualified kid who will play football or baseball for the school because you need a quarterback or shortstop?
Schools are looking for a diverse mix of kids in all facets of life. West Point wants a group of kids with a mix of Scholars, Leaders, Athletes and Soldiers to make a balance class.
What I meant was that I felt fortunate in having minority contemporaries by my side while I was leading minorities.
They furnish the raw numbers with good intent and the people in the trenches usually make it work.
"WP, when reporting their statistics to US News and Princeton Reviews, etc. must bump their SATs a little so they don't look so bad compared to AFA and USNA."
Statistically there's no significant difference between the three SA's as far as standardized testing is concerned, so I doubt anyone at West Point thinks they have to bump anything; especially in comparison to AFA or USNA.
And in a world were nine out of ten applicants rejected by the Ivy's have essentially perfect scores (1600) on their SAT's, and knowing several of those young men and woman who have gained admittance to those same lauded universities, the value of a couple of points, or even a couple hundred points on the SAT, completely escapes me.
So is asian now a majority? why is that not listed? or is there presence too small to be significant?
"So is asian now a majority? why is that not listed? or is there presence too small to be significant?"
Asians are indeed a majority; and by a wide margin. 61% of the world is Asian.....
The next largest group are Africians, which make up about 14%.
Separate names with a comma.