Food for thought... and discussion

All good points, and thank you for the discussion. The 93% mark seems high. Does that factor in the prep school drops before moving up to the academy?

And, it would be eye opening to see the success rate for graduation if all cadets and mids had been able to attend the prep school.
 
For that class (14) Foundation lost one prep due to a medical issue so even with that factored they would still be at 91%.

In most years Foundation has between a 95-98% success rate between those who begin the program to those appointed losing 1 or 2 a year to mostly medical issues or a change of heart in accepting appointment including choosing to attend another academy.
 
And to be clear these numbers are for the USNA Foundation Prep program only, as stated NAPS has a statistically equal grad rate as direct admits based on IDay thru graduation.
 
Maplerock said:
All good points, and thank you for the discussion. The 93% mark seems high. Does that factor in the prep school drops before moving up to the academy?

And, it would be eye opening to see the success rate for graduation if all cadets and mids had been able to attend the prep school.
Click to expand...

Graduation rate is not the ultimate metric. My proposition is that there is no good way to determine if we made the right or wrong choice if we admit a recruited athlete vs a great kid (not what sure what makes a great kid. We can start another discussion on high vs low SAT, popular vs unpopular, working 40 hours a week to support the family vs rich kid). Like it or not, we are guessing when we send kids to SAs. Can't say if a SA graduate doesn't serve 30 + years in the military, the tax payers didn't get return in their investment. When we deal with human beings, there is no absolute. I think the admissions folks do a good job. Perhaps they could better or they could do worse.
 
I believe it boils down to this... The three main validations for SA Prep schools:

1) Allowing AD enlisted who are years removed from academic rigor to prepare for SA admission.

2) Fostering opportunities for diversity (all types) and special situation candidates with reasonable potential to prepare for SA admission.

3) Red-shirting high-potential athletes who otherwise are not ready for direct admission to SAs.


1 & 2 are stated goals of the programs and (mostly) agreed upon as valuable.
While 3 is an unstated, but quite real, goal of the programs and (mostly) debated upon in terms of value.
 
MedB said:
I believe it boils down to this... The three main validations for SA Prep schools:

1) Allowing AD enlisted who are years removed from academic rigor to prepare for SA admission.

2) Fostering opportunities for diversity (all types) and special situation candidates with reasonable potential to prepare for SA admission.

3) Red-shirting high-potential athletes who otherwise are not ready for direct admission to SAs.


1 & 2 are stated goals of the programs and (mostly) agreed upon as valuable.
While 3 is an unstated, but quite real, goal of the programs and (mostly) debated upon in terms of value.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I question how effective they are. More of my prior-service classmates (with actual service time) were accepted directly to the academy. The only exceptions that I can even think of were minority applicants who applied within a year of enlisting.

I have no idea what classes they take at prep schools though.

As for diversity, the only reason students need to go to a prep school, for diversity purposes, is that they are not as prepared as their classmates to perform at an academy. Is a year going to change that? I don't know. I have trouble believing
a single year is going to make a huge difference. It would also beg the question, how many non-minority applicants who are prepared from day one to perform at a service academy are not given a shot, due to a diversity selection that has more ground to cover in prep school to be able to succeed? The root of that issue is found far earlier in a student's life than "college application" time.

Reason 3 is more trouble than its worth and displays (especially in the big three academies) as desire to be on TV and make money... even if it affects training.
 
MedB said:
I believe it boils down to this... The three main validations for SA Prep schools:

1) Allowing AD enlisted who are years removed from academic rigor to prepare for SA admission.

2) Fostering opportunities for diversity (all types) and special situation candidates with reasonable potential to prepare for SA admission.

3) Red-shirting high-potential athletes who otherwise are not ready for direct admission to SAs.


1 & 2 are stated goals of the programs and (mostly) agreed upon as valuable.
While 3 is an unstated, but quite real, goal of the programs and (mostly) debated upon in terms of value.
Click to expand...

Some of Category 3 candidates fall into Category 2.

What if a kid only enlist to get into a SA?

The challenge we have is that when talk about that we should only accept best candidates, we can't agree on what is "best"? The reality is that what we will consider as the "best" depends on our personal bias.

If my kid's strength is academics, I will lean towards academics

If my kid's strength is leadership, I will lean towards leadership

If my kid's strenghth is sports, I will lean towards sport.
 
LineInTheSand said:
I have trouble believing a single year is going to make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it depend but it depends on the individual.

My DS had strong academics and leadership but no sports (didn't get a nomination because of the lack of sports at least that's what I think).

In the three months at AFA Prep he went from 126 lbs to 150 lbs. Failed the first PFT but passed the rest and his score is still rising so I think yes a single year can make a difference.

There is no doubt in my mind that he falls dead square into the diversity category but he succeeding (high GPA/MPA and Academic NCO) and having a great time there.

I go back to a study that Hornet posted on an old is Prep worth it. Bottom line it is but it has a low success rate so changes are needed.
 
There are many great arguments for both sides. But I do want to chime in with my personal experience and why I'm grateful for the prep school program as a diversity program.

Long story short: I wanted to go to the Air Force Academy, but my application was sub-par to many if not a lot of candidates.
I applied anyway.
I was rejected.
I was offered a prep school appointment.

Academics: Homeschooled through grade school, and I completed high school through an online program from home. 27 ACT 3.6 GPA. The reason I did school from home rather than through a public schooling system was because I raised my two youngest siblings while both of my parents worked. We didn't have a lot of money and I wanted to spare my parents the cost of childcare.

Extracurriculars: I was very active in my church, holding many leadership positions there. I was also involved in a lot of community service through my church and through a community service club I started through my online school.

Athletics: I ran cross country for one year (senior) of highschool. Otherwise I had no sports and no access to a gym as I did my school from home and couldn't afford a gym membership. Just to give you an idea... I got 3 pullups on my CFA and I'm a male...

With this resume, I clearly had a disadvantage when compared to candidates that had 4.0 GPA 30+ ACT and equivalent SAT scores, multiple sports throughout high school, team captain positions, eagle scouts, boys/girls state, and more... I had no chance to make it straight into the academy.

But the prep school offered me a chance to improve in the areas I lacked and prove that I was capable to make it through the academy. I am INCREDIBLY grateful for the prep school, and I would have been very sad if my choice to do school from home and help out my parents had prevented me from getting into the academy.


Like I said before, when I entered the prep school my physical fitness was really bad. Maxes for men: 21 pullups, 72 pushups, 94 situps, 8'8" jump, 1:35 run

My PFT score was 180/500. From memory:
3 pullups, 40 pushups, 70 situps, 7'4" jump, 1:50 run

Now my PFT score is 398/500 and my best in these areas:
21 pullups, 60 pushups, 130 situps, 9' jump, 1:50 run

I couldn't begin to express the amount of leadership opportunities I've had here. It's unbelievable how many there are. I am VERY grateful that I was accepted to the prep school and given the opportunity to come here.

The only thing that continues to be a struggle for me is academics. I am holding about a 2.3 GPA right now. The saying that your GPA from high school to the academy drops a whole grade point is definitely accurate for the majority of my friends and I.


I wouldn't say there is no need for a prep school. It may need some refocusing, but otherwise I believe it is an excellent system.
 
kp2001 said:
Some would argue that the athlete is more/better prepared for the challenges that lay ahead of them in life.

I will give you an interesting anecdote that I have been exposed to recently. (disclaimer, this comes from a small sample size).
-I currently train under a very well respected eye surgeon who has trained many, many residents and many fellows. He and I have discussed things that he looks for when selecting future ophthalmology residents.

(Currently those applying for ophthalmology are very high caliber students: went to great medical schools, are in the top of their medical school class and on average score in the top 1-2 percentile on the medical licensing exams, and apply to around 50-80 programs just to try to land one spot....just providing that for background.)

He stated that he loves to see athletes when looking at the applicants. He has found that those who were athletes are more "coachable" and have a background of being directed in very certain ways that translate well to the operating room and learning microsurgical technique.

So, although I didn't always feel this way, and I probably would change my tune if I was an applicant or applicant parent I do feel there is a benefit for the current set-up.....even if it means that someone who feels they are more qualified gets passed over.

As an aside.....does anyone have any data on career progression for those who went through the Prep schools vs those who didn't....
Click to expand...

That's really interesting. I had not thought about "coachable" translating into teaching medical techniques.

When speaking of athletes, do you know if he is referring to those who participated at an inter collegiate level, or does this also include those who participated at a high school level?
 
Now I haven't been admitted to a prep school yet but I also am thankful for them and will offer my background.

Was emancipated at 16 worked 30 hours a week since I was fifteen and 40+ hours a week since emancipated. And enlisted in the Navy at 17. In high school I did well/ok 3.85 GPA top 20% in my class about 24 credits in college I graduated a year early played football every year since I was a freshman so 3 years (since I graduated early couldn't play that last year). But I believe not nearly as competitive as a lot of applicants. Now I have put in 3 years in the military and am 20 and NAPS offers me a perfect way to get back into a more schooling frame of mind. And prepare me for USNA. So that last categorie of AD to prep schools is real but yes not very common. But I believe what they started for does still hold up today as relevant. To give those individuals a chance that maybe you don't see on paper but understand through personal experiences offers a lot and will make a good naval officer.
 
Superintendent Vice Admiral Ted Carter in the last 12 minutes supports what has been posted above in a recent talk at Johms Hopkins

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top