Do I HAVE to apply for a nomination from BOTH senators?

I think to Bullet's point, a candidate with a nomination on a particular MOC's slate will compete with those on the slate. The notion of entry from the national pool is very iffy at best, now you are in a situation of competing for what ever slots remain open after the MOC's, Vice Presidential, Presidential, Prep, turnbacks, international student have taken slots in the class. This year, there appeared to be very few appointees given offers from this group. There will even be less next year. Any candidate stands a better chance competing within their MOC's slate.
Agree completely. Just as I stated in my last post, this pool is getting extremely small. Bullet's example, however, was someone "HIGHLY" competitive in the national pool. An individual who is indeed "HIGHLY" competitive, will get an appointment if he is listed anywhere from second to tenth on any single MOC's slate. Maybe we are disagreeing on the definition of "Highly" competitive. My way of thinking is that anyone below the national pool appointment cutoff level is not "highly" competitive.

The sole purpose of the national pool is to capture those more competitive individuals who are on the MOC's list of ten, qualified, and not offered a principal appointment. In this case, one only requires one nomination. Any one is as good as the other. Theoretically all nine alternates could receive appointments.
 
Last edited:
I think to Bullet's point, a candidate with a nomination on a particular MOC's slate will compete with those on the slate. The notion of entry from the national pool is very iffy at best, now you are in a situation of competing for what ever slots remain open after the MOC's, Vice Presidential, Presidential, Prep, turnbacks, international student have taken slots in the class. This year, there appeared to be very few appointees given offers from this group. There will even be less next year. Any candidate stands a better chance competing within their MOC's slate.

Perspective: Even in the national pool, there had to be a few hundred appointees. If all reps and senators had 1 eligible vacancy, (Some have none, some have more than one, let's assume all had at least one). That would be 535 appointments. Throw another 100 (Maximum) for presidentials. Throw another 20 (Maximum) for ROTC. That's 655 appointments. Throw in the yearly average of 50 prior military and 10 turn backs; we're up to 715. And we can add another 35 to account for any other categories that had some vacancies, or just to play it safe. That's 750 appointments. So, at the very least, there was around 400 from the national pool. That is this year with the drop in appointments. (I'm rounding off a lot of numbers. Actual numbers aren't that important for my point.)

This is just information. Not taking any sides. There's a lot of good information being given. And FalconFamily, you are correct. Even if there were 400 national pool appointments, next year will probably be about 100 less. Around 300 appointments from the national pool.

This is why getting as many nominations as possible is so important. Whether there's 1050, 1175, 1260, or 1310 appointments given, approximately 750 of them are going to be from SLATES. And if some members of congress have 2-3 slots open, because of people graduating or dropping out, they may choose to fill ALL their vacant slots. Some choose to hold at least 1 slot per year. I.e. If you filled all 5 allotted slots in one year, you wouldn't be able to give nominations for 4 more years. (Well, you'd still give nominations, but none would be slated slots. They'd all go into the national pool). So, when they get an extra slot back, not from graduation but from someone quitting, they sometimes hold it for that time when they have more than 1 applicant who walks on water.

Remember: The MOC has a Constitutional Rights to CHOOSE who the academy is going to take from their slate. If that individual is qualified, and the MOC says this is my principal nominee and you WILL give him/her an appointment, the academy MUST do so. Honestly; about 80% of MOC's defer their responsibility to the academy and simply give them a list of 10 names and tells the academy to choose.

Point is: On average, there are 750 appointments that are against slates. Moc, Presidential, ROTC, etc... Every one of these slates you can get on, gives you a better chance for an appointment. Remember; that slate for your MOC, you're ONLY competing against others in your district and/or state. Once that slot on the slate has been selected, you are now competing NATIONALLY. With up to approximately 4800 other qualified individuals. Not that they are all qualified; and not that some individuals weren't on more than one slate. Just speaking hypothetically of the maximum potential national pool. I.e. 535 MOC's, X10 names on each slate. Equals 5350 nominees. Average another 500 presidentials, etc.. You get the picture. Wouldn't you rather increase your chances by getting one of the 3+ MOC appointments that guaranteed, and can ONLY be had by someone in your district and/or state.

Anyway; just wanted to spit out a perspective for the OP and others who are thinking that they only need 1 nomination. FWIW: It's very common for those who get a presidential or other military related nomination to believe they don't need another nomination. That presidential nomination doesn't pull any more weight than another nomination. It's simply a slate. And if you don't get one of the 100 Presidential appointments, then you are heading for the national pool like everyone else.

On a side note: Many military related nominated appointments such as the presidential, can occur much sooner than others. E.g. You can receive your presidential nomination right now in July, and receive an appointment in October. My son, and many others have done exactly that. In those cases, where you have the appointment in hand, there is obviously no reason to continue on with nominations from the other sources. You have the appointment. But realize, my son didn't wait until October and an appointment before applying for a nomination with our senators and rep. He did that also at this time of year. (July). It's just that after he received his early appointment, he was able to inform the MOC's that he no longer needed an appointment slated against a Wyoming slot. He had one against the presidential. Our state appreciates this, because we are very small in population, and it allows another Wyoming applicant to receive an appointment. But had my son not received an early appointment, he would have continued on with both senator's interviews and our representative. He also applied for VP.

So as others have said, apply to all you are authorized to apply to. Your #1 goal is to get one of those 750 guaranteed slated slots. If you get to the national pool, having a lot of nominations won't help you. Where it helps is in getting one of the initial 750 slots. Best of luck.... mike.....
 
CC, as much of your post as I was able to wade through, you appear to be mostly correct. Yes, everyone should make every attempt for every principal nomination for which they are eligible.

However, a fallacy on these forums is that posters sometimes use invalid examples to illustrate valid concepts and then, when confronted, declare the example unimportant. The following is one of them:
You may have been number two on that Senator's list, HIGHLY competitive on the national pool. But but without another nomination source, you're left outside looking in because the Admissions Board has no nomination to put you against.
If one is highly competitive (above the cutoff) in the national pool, all they need is a single alternate nomination. However, you know, as well as I, that anyone deeming themselves highly competitive and following this route is doomed to failure. Everyone should pursue all avenues available.
 
Last edited:
Posters, I believe that this point has been made. Sitting here bickering endlessly back and forth does nothing for the forum. OK?

Stealth_81
 
I would think that folks would benefit from the clarity of facts. It's absolutely important for candidates to realize that they may be appointed (if the Academy chooses to do so) with an alternate nomination.
We would not want a highly competitive candidate to be discouraged if he/she knew of another highly competitive candidate in their district.
Each year the Academy is able to select 150 candidates with an alternate nomination - this is over and above the 'national pool' where the candidates are chosen to fill the class.

To further pursue the issue of clarity -
The MOC has a Constitutional Rights to CHOOSE who the academy is going to take from their slate. If that individual is qualified, and the MOC says this is my principal nominee and you WILL give him/her an appointment, the academy MUST do so. Honestly; about 80% of MOC's defer their responsibility to the academy and simply give them a list of 10 names and tells the academy to choose.
I am not sure the legal authority of an MOC to choose an Academy candidate is in the US Constitution. However it is in the US Code. The law gives each MOC the OPTION of choosing how to submit their candidates. Accusing a MOC of deferring their responsibility is a bit of a stretch and not fact based at all. I do believe that a MOC who refuses to submit any nominations for candidates would indeed be shirking their responsibility.

Most MOC's will submit a slate of candidates - for good reason. Some realize that the 'most qualified' in their district in October may not be the most qualified in Feb or March. This allows time for candidates to continue to improve their file during their senior year. Furthermore, most Congressmen realize they are not in the college admissions business. They prefer to allow those professionals determine who is most qualified.

The bottom line - apply for each and every Nomination for which you are eligible. Of course, you only *need* one nomination - however it's impossible to determine which one you need. If you happen to be awarded more than one nomination, that is great. You only need one but this gives the academy more flexibility in being able to offer you an appointment.
 
Just so everyone knows this as well, in some states, the senators will ask if you already have a nomination from your congressman or a presidential nom. I know for a fact in the state of California, if you are chosen for an interview by one of the senators they will ask you if you have already received a nomination to that particular academy you applied for a nom for, and if so they will say I am sorry, but you only need one nomination. So they will not conduct the interview and then move on to the next candidate, so some states are at a disadvantage in this aspect, due to their state working in this manner for nominations. I have personally had this happen to my in California, so I am not just guessing or assuming this situation. Just be aware of that, but that does not mean you should not apply or try for all nominations.
 
Last edited:
Just so everyone knows this as well, in some states, the senators will ask if you already have a nomination from your congressman or a presidential nom. I know for a fact in the state of California, if you are chosen for an interview by one of the senators they will ask you if you have already received a nomination to that particular academy you applied for a nom for, and if so they will say I am sorry, but you only need one nomination. So they will not conduct the interview and then move on to the next candidate, so there for some states are at a disadvantage in this aspect, due to their state working in this manner for nominations. I have personally had this happen to my in California, so I am not just guessing or assuming this situation. Just be aware of that, but that does not mean you should not apply or try for all nominations.

But I can provide a counter case. I received my first nomination in Nov 2005 from Senator Cornyn in TX. Before going to my Congressman's (McCaul) interview I called and told them I received Sen Cornyn's nomination. They said, don't bother coming (Had to do a 4 hour drive to Austin from Houston) because we won't give multiple nominations in order to maximize the number of candidates that can be sent. About a month later I got a letter in the mail from Cong. McCaul's office congratulating me on receiving his nomination. I'm guessing the offices must have talked in order to use the Senatorial one on an at large state candidate and had the district take me. I don't know.

Bottom line is, don't assume anything about the nominations and the process: apply for all of the ones you are eligible and worry about the details later of who gives what.
 
But I can provide a counter case. I received my first nomination in Nov 2005 from Senator Cornyn in TX. Before going to my Congressman's (McCaul) interview I called and told them I received Sen Cornyn's nomination. They said, don't bother coming (Had to do a 4 hour drive to Austin from Houston) because we won't give multiple nominations in order to maximize the number of candidates that can be sent. About a month later I got a letter in the mail from Cong. McCaul's office congratulating me on receiving his nomination. I'm guessing the offices must have talked in order to use the Senatorial one on an at large state candidate and had the district take me. I don't know.

Bottom line is, don't assume anything about the nominations and the process: apply for all of the ones you are eligible and worry about the details later of who gives what.


That is why I said at the end of my post, apply to all sources even if this is the case. But also to candidates, so not be surprised if this were to happen to you since it does happen in some states. Some people do not realize that and then are bummed to find out that they cannot receive one from their senators as well. It is a just a heads up warning. Since this has happened to multiple people who i attended NWP with this past year as well.
 
JAM: The "Constitutional" right I refer to, is the fact that the individual in question is a U.S. Senator or Representative. As prescribed by the constitution. In other words, they, not the academy, represent their districts and states.

Yes, the actual content describing how many cadets a MOC can have an the academy, and their nomination authority, is in USC 10. If you want, I can even quote the section: "TITLE 10 > Subtitle D > PART III > CHAPTER 903 > § 9342". Just don't read into my point. Point is: The MOC and other slated appointments are responsible for roughly 65% of all appointments. (750 appointments out of the 1150 appointments given). Unless you want to narrow it down to an exact number if it makes you feel better.

I hope the OP has learned, if nothing else, that there's a lot of reasons why you should apply to as many nomination sources as they can. There may be a lot of different people's reasons and perspectives, but the truth is, the more nominations you have, the better your chances are.

And Mongo; you don't have to wade through my posts. Hell, you don't even have to read them. That's cool. But if you're going to reply to me, please don't quote someone else. It just makes things more confusing. If you disagree with what I said, go ahead and quote that. But stealth is correct; you're rehashing what's already been discussed and explained.

I think everyone here has shown 1) There are plenty of valid reasons for applying to as many nomination sources as possible; and 2) There is NOT 1 NEGATIVE reason for applying to too many nomination sources.
 
Back
Top