Competitiveness decreasing? (2017/2018 profile)

[civic29]

Pretty sure that SAT scores and achievements don't lie, and I doubt that I was given LOAs and two nominations in the state of VA based on my gender.

Oh well, nothing's to be gained by feeding the trolls

Yea don't worry about that dude, you probably out do his achievements anyhow.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

 

[buff81]

Yea don't worry about that dude, you probably out do his achievements anyhow.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

Careful there - you just dissed a West Point upperclass cadet who applied while deployed to Afghanistan.

As a direct admit, I think he was plenty qualified.

 

[Sledge]

Pretty sure that SAT scores and achievements don't lie, and I doubt that I was given LOAs and two nominations in the state of VA based on my gender.
Oh well, nothing's to be gained by feeding the trolls

There are many candidates that apply to the academies with high ACT/SAT scores and stellar leadership & extracurricular activities, but do not receive LOA's. I don't know your whole file, of course, but it has been stated many times by FFR's, that all other things being equal between a male and a female, the female will receive the LOA and/or appointment.

It'll "help" you later, too, when they are deciding who gets to be command staff/parachute team/First Captain/etc. - anything "visible" to the public.

 

[runningirlmom]

Careful there - you just dissed a West Point upperclass cadet who applied while deployed to Afghanistan.

As a direct admit, I think he was plenty qualified.

That may be and that's great for him, but he dissed all the deserving young ladies who have applied and been admitted as if it was just to meet a quota, not because they were qualified. He doesn't know their qualifications. He just made a blanket statement about it was the women who were bringing down the competitiveness without anything to back it up but his personal opinion

 

[Craig]

Quota

That may be and that's great for him, but he dissed all the deserving young ladies who have applied and been admitted as if it was just to meet a quota, not because they were qualified. He doesn't know their qualifications. He just made a blanket statement about it was the women who were bringing down the competitiveness without anything to back it up but his personal opinion

And hence one of the problems with quotas.

Father of 3/C DD

 

[civic29]

Careful there - you just dissed a West Point upperclass cadet who applied while deployed to Afghanistan.



As a direct admit, I think he was plenty qualified.

Oh, I thought he was another applicant dissing girls for applying. My apologies.
Honestly though, what he may be saying now that I re-read just to communicate. There are many, many male applicants (1900 full Q) to about (400 full Q) females when the population has almost a 50/50 split. There will always be top tier candidates from both, heck possibly a female has the highest WCS, but since there is no 50/50 split (1000 male, 1000 female) you have a different average WCS for both pools. Since the male pool is bigger you funnel some more out than for the female. For the female since there is a quota there is a possibility that some have lower scores than the much larger male pool. What I believe, and correct me if i'm wrong, sawndog is not insulting the pool of female candidates. He is stating what he believes to be true from an analysis of the pool size, quota requirements, and from experience, and no he is not insulting you if are a female applicant or saying that you have a lower score because you are a female. He is simply saying your chances are larger if your're a female due to quota and other reasons. Since I reread it, he defiantly isn't targeting anyone or trying to put anyone down.

Now everyone go eat some Christmas food!


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

 

[buff81]

That may be and that's great for him, but he dissed all the deserving young ladies who have applied and been admitted as if it was just to meet a quota, not because they were qualified. He doesn't know their qualifications. He just made a blanket statement about it was the women who were bringing down the competitiveness without anything to back it up but his personal opinion

West Point does not have quotas. They have goals. Big difference.

It is no secret that West Point wants to increase the number of female cadets but they will not offer an appointment to anyone if not qualified, no matter what goal group they fall in to.

 

[scoutpilot]

Wow! Really??? I'll put my DD's numbers up against any male candidate. Please do not offend all of these exceptional, patriotic young ladies with such a statement.

Your one daughter's score(s) does not speak for the whole of the female cohort admitted. It is no secret that allowances were made to increase the pool of females, which affected males with better scores.

 

[scoutpilot]

Pretty sure that SAT scores and achievements don't lie, and I doubt that I was given LOAs and two nominations in the state of VA based on my gender.
Oh well, nothing's to be gained by feeding the trolls

You are you. One person. He was talking about the whole pool of females, and he's not wrong.

 

[scoutpilot]

That may be and that's great for him, but he dissed all the deserving young ladies who have applied and been admitted as if it was just to meet a quota, not because they were qualified. He doesn't know their qualifications. He just made a blanket statement about it was the women who were bringing down the competitiveness without anything to back it up but his personal opinion

There is plenty to back up his opinion. West Point's own statements, for starters. The academy sough to increase the number of women admitted. It's virtually impossible to significantly increase the number of female applicants. That pool stays relatively constant. The only method left to the admissions department to meet that goal was to give preferential consideration to female candidates based on gender, so as to elevate their WCS over males of equal of greater scholastic and athletic achievement.

Nobody likes to be told they were the beneficiary of a quota (ahem..."goal") system, but WP has made no bones about the fact that they pursued a goal of a larger cohort of women for the class. That means excluding equal or better qualified males to accept more women.

It may be uncomfortable, but it's true.

 

[Sawndog]

There is plenty to back up his opinion. West Point's own statements, for starters. The academy sough to increase the number of women admitted. It's virtually impossible to significantly increase the number of female applicants. That pool stays relatively constant. The only method left to the admissions department to meet that goal was to give preferential consideration to female candidates based on gender, so as to elevate their WCS over males of equal of greater scholastic and athletic achievement.

Nobody likes to be told they were the beneficiary of a quota (ahem..."goal") system, but WP has made no bones about the fact that they pursued a goal of a larger cohort of women for the class. That means excluding equal or better qualified males to accept more women.

It may be uncomfortable, but it's true.

There was a question asked and this is my hypothesis to answer that question. I could be right, I could be wrong, and scoutpilot summarized perfectly on how I came to this conclusion. Thank you for those who took the time to analyze my statement a little deeper.

I apologize if I offended anyone from my desensitization. I am not dissing female applicants as I know there are plenty of them with very high qualifications. I made a statement and did not fully explain the reasoning, so some of you went on the defense, thinking that I made an uninformed, sexist statement as a "troll".

Despite the potential, relatively "lower standards" for females, standards are extremely high so I congratulate all of you who are competitive as cadet candidates, both males and females.

Something interesting to think about is as America's larger conflicts draw to a close, applicant pools should increase, therefore increasing competitiveness and standards. Despite the short-term decrease in qualification standards, I believe the qualification standards will increase over the next decade due to the lack of major conflict (such as OEF/OIF magnitude).

A side note: One of the most impressive cadets I've had the privilege of knowing at the academy is a female - 2LT Erin Mauldin, go look her up.

 

[Sawndog]

That is a pretty bold statement to make. Would like to see some statistics on this! Not sure the "very large increase" has a huge statistical impact. The 2018 entering class only had 17 more females than my DD's class.

Class of 2017 - 188 Females Admitted (15.8% of class)
Class of 2018 - 267 Females Admitted (21.8% of class)

A 6% increase in females admitted in the relatively smaller pool of applicants is definitely statistically significant.

Another interesting statistic that was pointed out earlier in this thread:
Class of 2017 - 1094 Varsity Letters
Class of 2018 - 1205 Varsity Letters

While we cannot distinguish the males/females in the total varsity letters, I feel it may attribute to them weighing heavier on females being varsity athletes. From my observations as a cadet, the major limiting factor for most female cadets who get separated is physical ability. In our profession, physical ability is very important. While I am not saying females are any lesser than men, men have physiological benefits in this profession compared to females. With an increase in females due to the "goals" of the Army, they need to make sure these females admitted can survive the physical rigor of the academy, hence a potential rise in varsity athletes.


Maybe we should get a Yuk to do his/her final stats project on this?

 

[MomWPgirl]

It is also well known WP is doing more in the area of outreach towards quality female candidates. In the last year I have been approached or asked about the WP curriculum etc by top notch female high school students athletically and academically. I believe more young women are seeing it as a worthwhile goal. Would think this outreach is targeting the females that have the right qualities.

 

[MemberLG]

Nobody likes to be told they were the beneficiary of a quota (ahem..."goal") system, but WP has made no bones about the fact that they pursued a goal of a larger cohort of women for the class. That means excluding equal or better qualified males to accept more women.

Except we need to remember that the determination of qualification is not strictly quantitative. And even a quantitative determination can be easily refuted by qualitative points. Does scoring higher on SAT make a candidate better than another candidate that scores 20 points lower? Does having 12 varsity letters makes a candidate better than another candidate that has 8 varsity letters? Are there schools where boys have more leadership opportunities than girls?

All of us favor what our strength are. A candidate with good SAT scores most likely believe that SAT scores should carry more weight in the admissions process. Likewise for a candidate with more leadership accomplishments. Fortunately, we don't get to decided.

Lastly, the admission office should be judged by the end product - Army officers - not if they accepted "most qualified" candidates or not.

 

[MomWPgirl]

Also interesting, I have spoken to some high school guidance counselors and teachers who have not promoted WP as an option to females because they viewed the "goal/quota" as a cap thus erroneously believing it was much more difficult for females to gain admission. Lots of misunderstandings about WP admissions in the general public that impact the number of female applicants I believe. Outreach efforts are improving this hopefully.

 

[Blondie1]

Regarding test scores: DS is at USNA, and while his math and overall score on ACT were a 29--they were not nearly as high as several other mids we know. And yet his grades and achievements at the academy--particularly in calc II and chemistry--surpass many who had higher test scores. Sometimes a test score is just a test score.

 

[scoutpilot]

Except we need to remember that the determination of qualification is not strictly quantitative. And even a quantitative determination can be easily refuted by qualitative points. Does scoring higher on SAT make a candidate better than another candidate that scores 20 points lower? Does having 12 varsity letters makes a candidate better than another candidate that has 8 varsity letters? Are there schools where boys have more leadership opportunities than girls?

All of us favor what our strength are. A candidate with good SAT scores most likely believe that SAT scores should carry more weight in the admissions process. Likewise for a candidate with more leadership accomplishments. Fortunately, we don't get to decided.

Lastly, the admission office should be judged by the end product - Army officers - not if they accepted "most qualified" candidates or not.

That's a red herring on several counts. For one, candidates can really only be measured quantitatively. Making allowances for opportunities or deciding that 8 is as good as 12 is not a qualitative assessment, but a quantitative adjustment. The admissions board cannot "know" each candidate and therefore cannot make a qualitative assessment. In the end, the WCS wins. Any adjustment to that is made for reasons deemed worthy by the admissions committee. To say that we must judge by the end product actually says nothing, because we cannot compare the two end products. We only get the class we admit. We can't hope to compare an imaginary class of better candidates with the actual admitted class. It's not possible.

 

[MemberLG]

That's a red herring on several counts. For one, candidates can really only be measured quantitatively. Making allowances for opportunities or deciding that 8 is as good as 12 is not a qualitative assessment, but a quantitative adjustment.

Good old WCS. We are lead to believe that WCS is quantitative. My position is that certain elements WCS are qualitative. I don’t know how the WCS differentiate between a candidate that is #1 in a small public school with national average SAT scores vs a candidate that is #2 in a large magnet public school with 200 points above national average SAT scores. Which candidate should get more WCS point? My understanding is that the WCS accounts for competitiveness of high school to give WCS point accordingly for the class. But, isn’t #1 better than #2? Not all varsity letters are the same or should they be considered the same? Does WCS differentiate between contact sports varsity letter to non-sports varsity letter? School official evaluations, very subjective, are given WCS point values (as far as I know). Assigning a numeric value to something that is qualitative does not make that thing quantitative.

The admissions board cannot "know" each candidate and therefore cannot make a qualitative assessment. In the end, the WCS wins. Any adjustment to that is made for reasons deemed worthy by the admissions committee.

The admissions office does make attempts to get to "know" many competitive candidates as they can - RC interactions interaction, interview, and follow up interviews.

To say that we must judge by the end product actually says nothing, because we cannot compare the two end products. We only get the class we admit. We can't hope to compare an imaginary class of better candidates with the actual admitted class. It's not possible.

To say that incoming classes are less competitive based on change in test scores or certain groups are accepted over more qualified candidates says nothing also as we can't really come up with a universally accepted requirements for "qualified" and also there is no comparison that supposedly that better "qualified" candidates not accepted over less "qualified" candidates would have been better officers.

If a candidate feels that he or should have been accepted over another candidate that was accepted, he or she is wasting time. Move on.

 

[MomWPgirl]

In our profession, physical ability is very important. While I am not saying females are any lesser than men, men have physiological benefits in this profession compared to females.

Agree with this. Female cadets have told me it is not enough to pass the female APFT if you want respect of many of your peers. Females should strive to max it. Even better would be ability to score high on the male scale.