I truly doubt that this was a troll post, but I'll bite. I have no idea of any demographic of the poster except he is a male, so my comments are general. He cannot see any outstanding characteristics in himself that would make him in that top 12-17% (depending on your source), so the unsaid underlying assumption is that he got in on something other than merit. Laying aside the arguments of fairness to the non-recepients of this selection system, this post demonstrates one glaring downside to the recipients: the inevitable self-doubt that arises. Unlike the unusually self-reflective response of this poster, the more usual response to self-doubt is defensiveness. Being defensive generally does not lead to cohesiveness with those around you and can lead instead to a chip on one's shoulder which is an inherent disadvantage in entering an institution that emphasizes cohesiveness.
Many arguments that have defended the non-merit based aspects of the selection process have emphasized leadership representing the diversity of the troops led. However, which diversity? Does gender trump religion? Does race trump sexual orientation? And, is the endpoint diversity or representation? Although it would be hard to fish up the Wall Street Journal article supporting this assertion, a bigger percentage of enlisted are from rural areas and by percentage of population more likely to come from southern states. I doubt that academy admissions represent those numbers.
Above posts emphasize (mainly for altruistic reasons) the seeming omniscience of academy selection committees in selecting the best candidates for future officers. However, an independent study posted on this forum of some of the academies, which the Air Force Academy participated in, showed that the academy's committee scores was the least indicative indicator among many of future success as an officer. This fact is really not surprising as the academy states it is evaluating the "whole person," but for the vast majority of candidates the committee has never met them in person. Certainly hard to evaluate the whole person from a distance on paper, unless the whole person concept is malleable based upon the demographics the academy wishes to pursue any particular year.
Again, these comments are not specific to this poster. I think, like those above, that the very humility the poster is demonstrating will more than compensate for any deficiencies in numbers. I just think the Academy selection committee would be hard pressed to know this on the information they receive. I am sure they got it right this time, though.
Plus, I don't know if I would want the current academy admissions to see my posts and knowing who I am. He has been cryptic enough for other cadets. If he is smart, he will continue to dodge those specific questions. Actually, giving CFA specifics and GPA's already shows a lot of info (more than I would feel comfortable doing).
