Discussion in 'Air Force Academy - USAFA' started by Stealth_81, Aug 4, 2016.
Note that the USAFA had a higher percentage of women (29.3%) than USNA (27.9%) this year.
Pretty much, every year, the profile is almost identical. ACT, SAT, GPA, Racial/Gender profile, etc. Seems like it's been within the same +/- 0.5% every year.
What I like to see, which most people overlook; YET; the topic comes up in threads throughout the year. The section that says: "OTHER DIVERSITY". Most people, when they think of diversity, they only think of Race and Gender. The truth is, the academy looks at many different types of diversity. And they don't even list everything in the profile. Just like they don't list every possibly high school activity. But in the OTHER DIVERSITY, it's nice to show 1st Generation going to college; single parent; English not primary language;. They don't show it, but they also look at a lot more in the diversity field. Farm/Ranch kid; inner city kid; kids born/living abroad; homeschooled; etc.
One I really like is the recruited athletes. 266 or 22.8%. Now, considering that the academies ARE the military; and that the military IS PHYSICAL and physical fitness and teamwork (2 of the major attributes of an athlete) and the fact that the academy is also a university that offers sports; this number shows that the "Recruited Athlete" biotching that many people have, isn't really that valid of a gripe. The 22.8% is not really that high. And when you consider that only 40-50 are football and another 10 or so for basketball, you realize that the vast majority; 200 +/- are for the other 25 D-1 sports. Basically, all the sports that aren't stereotypically harboring the "DUMB JOCKS" that many think are taking up slots from more "Deserving" candidates/applicants. They also don't show the breakdown, that some of the recruited athletes are also part of the Prep number they have. Which also shows that even if ALL of the preppies were recruited athletes, like some seem to think that's the purpose of the prep school; that would still show a large number of recruited athletes who didn't go to the prep school. And the truth is, not all of those 177 preppies are recruited athletes. I would guess that not even half. But even if half were, that would only make up 30% of the recruited athletes. So much for dumb jocks taking appointments away from more deserving applicants.
Anyway; each year, the stats are almost identical to the previous years. I just appreciate that stealth posted them. If for no other reason, that for me to emphasize that the academy is a very diverse institution. That they really do look at diversity beyond just race and gender. That while athletics is important for all applicants, the academy is also a university where D1 athletics contributes financially and there's no denying that there is an interest in recruiting athletes. But as everyone can see, the majority of recruited athletes did not go to the prep school. And the total number of recruited athletes only make up a little over 1/5th of the recruited class. I bring this up because, many of the recruited athletes will NOT be playing sports all 4 years. Many will be cut from the team in the first 6-12 months. So the academy is very diligent to ensure that if an individual is a recruited athlete, that they can definitely make it through the academy and become a successful and effective military leader. Because more than half of the recruited athletes won't remain D1 IC athletes. At the end of 4 years, that 22% of the class of recruited athletes, will probably make up around 10% of the class.
I think the fact that the academy is getting more diverse while the academic part of the profile stays the same kind of nullifies the argument that admissions chooses less qualified candidates simply because they are minorities. I haven't seen a whole lot of that argument on here but it is certainly one that people have for civilian colleges as well.
Question: does "qualified candidates" mean candidates who are 3Q + nom?
And that percentage has grown! When my class entered in 2008 we had only 21.5% women
Christcorp and Sneak, your comments are great arguments against the attitude that athletes/minorities/women only got in because of their minority status/athletic ability.
I found (and still sometimes find) it pretty disheartening when people assume I got in because I am an athlete and a woman. In my case I did go to USAFA initially for sports, but I only played for 2 years and fell in love with the Air Force. Were it not for tennis I never would have considered the military and I think that would have been a mistake.
Also, qualified candidate means they have met all admission requirements http://usafa.smartcatalogiq.com/en/2014-2015/Catalog/Admissions/Definitions-of-Terms
Usafa10's. My son was in your class. We were so glad that things worked out as they did. Back then, they actually gave appointments early, e.g. Oct-nov usually with presidential nominations, because moc nominations hadn't been done yet. My son received his appointment the first couple days of November. He was also recruited to play football, but that didn't happen until a few weeks later. After the high school football season finished up.
So even though he got to play football for the Falcons, and like you, he didn't stay playing all four years, it was good that he actually received his appointment prior to being recruited. This way no one could say that he got into the academy because of football. My son, like you, wasn't alone. Many have a hard time recognizing that a recruited player like you and my son, could also be ranked #1 in their high school. Have a 4.0gpa. 30+ ACT. Class officer. 300+ hours volunteer time. Boy state. Work. Other clubs. Etc. he finished the class of 2012 #7 academically, #30 overall. #1 in his department/major. Got accepted to grad school and finished his master's and PhD in 3 years.
And he isn't alone. One of his football friends, and friend of the family finished the academy, also class of 2012, majoring in chemistry and he too went on to grad school. He did play football all 4 years.
So you, my son, and so many other academy cadets/alumni were also IC division 1 athletes. They were recruited. And they weren't a bunch of dumb jocks or appointed because of their gender or race.
Nice to see diversity!
According to 2010 US census: Asians/Pacific Islanders make up approx. 5% of US population, Blacks 14%, & Hispanics/Lantino 17.5%
Class of 2020 has approx 9% Asians, 9% Blacks, & 9% Hispanics. Would be nice to see more recruiting of Hispanics, whereas Asian % is steadily rising each year? Just an observation.
What I saw was that the acceptance rate after being fully qualified was 60%. That's a lot higher than the 16% noted
I think they like to show off the 16% number to make the service academies seem extra selective and super hard to get into, but the 16% is derived from the total number of "people who showed interest" meaning anyone who filled out a SS/prelim application. A much more realistic number would be if they showed what percentage of candidates who completed an application received an appointment.
60% acceptance after being fully qualified (hmmm looks pretty easy to get in?) But getting fully qualified is not an easy process
Nominations alone, there are over 6000. Yes, there are some who get more than one nomination, but there's easily 6000 who went beyond the basic application. That makes the acceptance rate around 20%. More realistic. Thinking 60% is silly.
So out of that 6000, 3600 were disqualified. Sorry I'm just analyzing and doing some simple math.
No. The question was asked, what the acceptance rate might be of serious applicants. Those who finished or went through the application process. That's where the 20 percent come from. I don't think trying to skew numbers by saying 60% of qualified is accurate. Because there's also plenty of qualified individuals who don't receive nominations. Just like some who receive nominations aren't qualified.
This isn't the university of whereverthehell, where you can have asthma, one arm, married, children, 2.0 GPA, and major in theater, and get accepted. In most universities, the academic requirements are much lower, and if you can afford the tuition outright, you can get accepted. Btw. I've tested this. High end schools, if you are from a well to do financial background and don't need any assistance and are willing to pay 100%, you can get accepted to most anyplace. This is the military. Even enlisting, no college involved, then don't just take anyone who applied.
I took a lot of stats courses in my academia life. They can be very misleading and easily twisted. The fact is, of the 12,000+ who initially show interest, about 6,000-7,000 are serious. Of those, 1,200 are selected. That is around 18-20%. I believe that to be an accurate representation. If you try and break it down to qualified only, you give the illusion that the academies aren't as selective, because qualified can be subjective. Many medical issues are waivers, depending on the candidate. Same with the cfa. Same with academics. Not every individual with a certain cfa score is accepted, or medical condition is waivered. Too many variables. 18-20% of serious applicants are accepted, is much more accurate.
My apologies then. I guess that 60% would be the category of being triple qualified and having a nomination
No apologies needed. But even if you're using the 60% as 3Q and nominations, I contend that that is not a good number to use. It's quite misleading.
But if it makes you and others feel better; and feel that you have a "Better than average chance" of receiving an appointment because you're 3Q and have a nomination..... then go for it. You can use that number. If it's about feelings, then that is definitely a good number to use.
But when you realize that there ARE APPLICANTS, in states and districts, who WILL NOT RECEIVE an appointment; yet who will have a BETTER CFA, a BETTER GPA, BETTER Test Scores, and a BETTER OVERALL Application; than some applicants who DO RECEIVE an appointment; you will realize that the 60% acceptance rate doesn't mean squat. And YES, there will be individuals with a 3.9gpa's who don't receive an appointment, while a 3.6gpa DOES. And a 28 ACT will get an appointment while a 35 ACT doesn't. But if it makes you feel better, then believe what you want.
No matter what; please don't become over confident and complacent. Make sure you are applying to at least 3-5 additional schools. And if you think you are truly qualified for a military academy, then you are equally qualified for most prestigious universities in the country. So make sure you apply to those also. Just like I assume you're not applying to the military academies because it's "Free Tuition"; don't NOT apply to the prestigious schools because you don't think you can afford it. You'd be surprised how many scholarships, grants, and private money is out there for school. (Not LOANS you have to pay back). But the first step is to get ACCEPTED. If you aren't applying to the "Same Quality" of schools comparable to the military academies, then you are cutting yourself short. It isn't "Military academy or State University" as your only choices. Again; if you THINK you're qualified for an academy appointment, then you're qualified for many prestigious and higher end universities. Make sure you apply. Even if you THINK you have a 60% chance of receiving an appointment.
As an aggregate, you make a great point about the percentage of recruited athletes at USAFA. It's lower than a lot of people assume.
I found this point interesting: According to the Gazette, http://gazette.com/gazette-exclusiv...chools-to-fill-athletic-teams/article/1537071 "The Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., and the Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., have prep school ranks brimming with future sports team stars. Nearly two-thirds of the football players at Army and Navy have prep school roots." The Gazette didn't specifically address USAFA so I assume the percentages are lower. If 50% of the students at the prep school are recruited athletes and only 22% are recruited athletes that gain direct admission to USAFA, that suggests that the prep school is partially being used to fill sports teams. I'm not saying that is right or wrong but rather it would be obvious.
I too think it makes sense to have athletes minded leaders in the military! But will a D1 caliber athlete be a better leader or officer than another cadet who was a 1, 2, or 3 sports HS letter winner? My point would be let the best person win. I know some recruited athletes that standout academically as well. But considering that there are cadets attending in the 25% percentile (or less), are they being rounded up because there were recruited athletes? Another question... If it took a coach to help convince someone to apply to the AFA to play a sport, I wonder what the attrition rate would be (5 and dive??) as compared to other students or the dropout rate at the Academy? I also wonder if there is a bimodal distribution with ACT scores for recruited athletes or even a specific sport versus a non-recruited athletes? I will say there is a cadet perception that more Honor violations occur from specific sports. Is this true, what are the percentages?
To be specific, I am talking about averages and not absolutes. Of course there are going to be many recruited athletes who go on to do great things in the AF! I am positive some of the smartest were recruited. I expect many recruited sport graduates to love their new career even though being recruited gave them a reason to apply, etc etc. My questions revolve around the average statistics. I'd be interested in seeing a study with actual data so the topic can be put to bed forever.
I don't have a recruited athlete in my family, but found this interesting. Watching the Olympic 200 m IM (swimming). Young lady in finals- Maya Dirado- Stanford graduate, announcers noted her perfect SAT- and now Olympian. Recruited athlete does not imply less capability in other areas--
The military is definitely a complex system; as are athletes. Some have recognized that D1 caliber athletes applying to the academy or any school, didn't just decide one day that they wanted to go to college; and decide to take up a sport in order to get to college. Just like the individual who spent 4-6 years in CAP or JrROTC; or the person who spent 10 years in Scouts. Or the kid who busted his/her butt for 6 years of Jr and Sr high getting the best grades they could; so has the athlete spent many years improving and excelling in that skill. I think the main problem is, the stereotype that many have, that they "Played" sports and it was "Fun". Many people don't take sports seriously. To many, it's simply something that's fun, good exercise, and a way to spend time with friends. Some don't see it as a serious endeavor with many strong attributes that contribute to the personal development of an individual. I've written a list of many of the attributes, but I'm sure most just see the words and don't appreciate them.
But this isn't just something that happens to sports and athletes. I have fun playing guitar and piano. But I bet my paycheck, that the person who studies music, practices 4-5 hours a day, is working towards being a concern pianist or a member of the professional arts, thinks that music is a lot more "Serious" and valuable than someone who does it for fun. That can be said for the difference between any person who is a "HOBBYIST" and the person who wants to do it at a higher level. e.g. professional. Sports is the same way. There's a difference between City League Soccer, High School Level Soccer, and STING Soccer. There's a difference between Intramural sports vs D1 sports vs professional.
Just because something that one person may have done for "FUN" or for "Exercise" doesn't have as serious of a future for them, doesn't mean that it isn't as serious or possibly a future profession for someone else. And therefor, developed a lot harder and with more time and commitment vs the person who did it just for fun.
And for what it's worth, the military NEEDS people to "5 and Dive". They cannot have 1000+ each year out of the academy plan to make it a career. Think of it for the enlisted folks. You have a lot of privates; a smaller number of sergeants, and even smaller number of senior non-commissioned officers, one or two junior officers, a middle officer like a major, and then a senior officer. (Talking BASIC Manning here). If all 1000+ academy grads, and the many thousands of ROTC grads who received commissions in say the class of 2016, ALL decided to stay 20 years; lets say that was about 5,000 second lieutenants. Well, 20 years down the road, you can't have 5,000 generals. Or even 5,000 colonels. The military is designed around the knowledge that the majority of individuals; officers and enlisted alike, will NOT stay for 20 years. That most will get out after their 1st or 2nd commitment.
Thanks for your response. I know our DS (USAFA grad) and DD (future Army Dentist) didn't play sports for "fun". They poured their heart into their sports of choice. Of course some letter winners do it exclusively for fun. My question was how does a recruited athlete make for a better future leader? If this is a fact (vetted by statistics) then let's recruit even more. Heck, if this is the case, let's make it a prerequisite!
Re: NEEDING "5 and dive". I get what you are saying (everyone cannot be lifers). I think SA folks are different because of the price tag. If my personal checkbook was paying for a SA degree (measured in the hundreds of thousands of $$'s), I'd be trying to figure out what metric makes the best future military leader that are going in for a career. Therefore I'd pay very close attention to how many people "dive after 5" and why. I'm NOT suggesting that recruited athlete== "5 and Dive". But logic tells me that if you were talked into it (a coach or for a "free" education) you entered for the wrong reason. Yes.. Some are going to fall in love with the service. I'm talking averages. To me at least, that's terrible ROI (5 and dive). But without staring at the stats, I am only guessing based off of of my perception which could be way off. Additionally, my perception is there are precisely zero "dumb jocks" at USAFA. My beef is to cater to an individual who has no passion for entering the military. Or dumbing the standards because someone can play a mean game of hockey, football, basketball, etc. To be clear, I factually know there are some extremely bright recruited athletes that are going to become World Class military leaders. The 2015 top graduate and our Superintendent who I think is doing an incredibly job (both Rhodes scholars) proved that point.
Separate names with a comma.