DS recently had his nomination interview. He is applying to two SAs, but was asked which ONE he was interviewing for when he arrived for the interview. The scheduling emails had not indicated that you only got one choice. Anyway, the set-up was four rooms, one for each SA. DS said there was no possibility to interview for his 2nd choice SA since all the interviews were on a tight schedule. We live in a competitive area in New England, and there were a lot of people for the interviewers to get through. So is this normal? Should DS be following-up with the congressional office? What happens if, for example, he gains admittance only to his 2nd choice, but only gets a nomination for the other one. Oh! And when he goes for the next congressional interview, should he say his 2nd choice is his 1st choice? Really not sure how to proceed. Thinking this would be so much more manageable if we lived in Montana or Idaho or somewhere. If you've read this far, then thank you.
Forced to Choose one SA for nomination interview.
- Thread starter Darcydoo
- Start date
- Joined
- May 22, 2018
- Messages
- 5,867
Each MOC is free to manage their nom process as they see fit. It's not unusual for a MOC to ask candidates to rank their choices. Beware trying to game the system. Be honest about your first choice so that you're not put in a position that you may later regret.
And beware taking cheap shots at Montana and Idaho. It takes only one candidate with better credentials than yours to make a district competitive. No matter how highly you think of your son, someone (or more) in Idaho or Montana could be better qualified. And should your son make it to an SA, that cadet/mid from Montana or Idaho could very well run circles around him.
And beware taking cheap shots at Montana and Idaho. It takes only one candidate with better credentials than yours to make a district competitive. No matter how highly you think of your son, someone (or more) in Idaho or Montana could be better qualified. And should your son make it to an SA, that cadet/mid from Montana or Idaho could very well run circles around him.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 22,782
This happens every year in variations.
Often Senators and Representatives coordinate within a state using a “spread the wealth policy,” such as they agree to not duplicate nominees across their slates, or give a nom to one SA, even if the candidate has applied to 4 SAs, regardless of their ranking. It can also happen that a candidate applies to SA A and SA B and is given a nomination to SA C, which they haven’t applied for. Or they get a nom to their 2nd choice school and no nom to their 1st choice. The candidate has to do some hard thinking.
The MOCs can conduct their application, evaluation and decision process any way they wish, including interview/no interview, nom distribution, nominations no one at all or up to 15 for each slot open at an SA in a given cycle.
There are many, many, many threads on saying something is the first choice when it’s really the second. I am of the school of thought that if someone has a truly strong desire to go into a particular service and feels that is their best fit, and working backward, that service SA or ROTC is their favored primary and alternate plan, then they should be consistent in that messaging in interviews and essays. They don’t have to keep straight what they have told to whom.
Gaming the first choice across 3 MOCs can yield unintended results.
If the candidate truly doesn’t care what service, what uniform, what culture, what officer specialties, then that should be their message, though more professionally expressed.
Candidates should of course have applied for the VP nom and any other noms they are eligible for.
Candidates should always have alternate plans in good shape, because every year, there are good candidates who do not obtain a nom, and cannot be offered an appointment.
Of general note, USCGA is not required to use the nom system. USMMA has slightly different nom authorities. Candidates can apply to any Representative in their state of residence., regardless of District.
I don't think there were any cheap shots in my post when mentioning Montana or Idaho. It's simple arithmetic that those candidates have less competition because those states are far, far, far less populated, and every state has two senators. Even when asking for advice, there's an accusation of "gaming the system." I'm not sure why the hostile reply for mentioning straight-out facts. I see that a lot on these pages.
Thank you for your informative and polite response. So, it sounds like, since we are in such a populated area with a lot of applicants, there may be no point in even finishing the application for the 2nd SA if he is not even being permitted to concurrently compete for a nomination for the 2nd SA? Would you agree with that?
If one MOC here is forcing candidates to make one choice, is it likely that all the MOCs from this state are following the same course of action, seeing as you said they sometimes have an agreement not to repeat names?
DS is very keen on his major and is only interested in the two SAs, not 4, so it's not true that he wants to go anywhere, just either of those 2.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 22,782
The joys of anonymous internet communication - no eye contact, vocal tone or body language to contextualize word choices. Much grace is required by all, as well as assumption of positive intent unless clearly stated otherwise.
I used “gaming the system” as I would have (and did) in corporate strategic planning - increasing the odds of achieving a desired outcome by analyzing the system or rules in play and making choices among available options designed to mitigate risk and optimize results, consistent with my goal and vision. I was using the phrase in its most benign and neutral sense. In this particular setting, desired outcomes could be upended with unexpected results if #1 choices are spread across multiple SAs - or that approach could pay off for the candidate who is fine with any nom. For the candidate who is all in for one path, my risk analysis using my own bias, says, “go for it.” I also look ahead to the possibility of a re-applicant situation next year, and the consistency of choice and determination being demonstrated by a candidate who is focused on one service via the SA path.
I recognize the phrase can also be used to imply shady doings. There are no shady doings here, because I am assuming, with positive intent, the candidate would diplomatically and truthfully indicate in the interview, their logic for ranking the SAs in the way they chose, if asked.
I used “gaming the system” as I would have (and did) in corporate strategic planning - increasing the odds of achieving a desired outcome by analyzing the system or rules in play and making choices among available options designed to mitigate risk and optimize results, consistent with my goal and vision. I was using the phrase in its most benign and neutral sense. In this particular setting, desired outcomes could be upended with unexpected results if #1 choices are spread across multiple SAs - or that approach could pay off for the candidate who is fine with any nom. For the candidate who is all in for one path, my risk analysis using my own bias, says, “go for it.” I also look ahead to the possibility of a re-applicant situation next year, and the consistency of choice and determination being demonstrated by a candidate who is focused on one service via the SA path.
I recognize the phrase can also be used to imply shady doings. There are no shady doings here, because I am assuming, with positive intent, the candidate would diplomatically and truthfully indicate in the interview, their logic for ranking the SAs in the way they chose, if asked.
Last edited:
A1Janitor
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2018
- Messages
- 7,168
First, I don’t think he meant gaming the system in the negative way it is normally used. It is a common term used often here to describe this very topic. Maybe a more polite to say it would be better, but it does provide a good search term to use to read the other threads.
You are merely trying to maximize his odds to get into an academy. The problem of course is that there are risks to how you proceed. Any answer you get, and any path you select, could be a risky one.
If the Senators work with the representatives to not duplicate, then you apply to the senators for the academy you need a nom for.
If they don’t, it’s trickier. Maybe talk to the Senators’ staff and see if one of the academies is easier to get a nom than the other?
You are merely trying to maximize his odds to get into an academy. The problem of course is that there are risks to how you proceed. Any answer you get, and any path you select, could be a risky one.
If the Senators work with the representatives to not duplicate, then you apply to the senators for the academy you need a nom for.
If they don’t, it’s trickier. Maybe talk to the Senators’ staff and see if one of the academies is easier to get a nom than the other?
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 22,782
I think the only way to know what the MOC approach to collaborating on slates in any given cycle is for your son to ask the staffers. They may or may not tell him.
I always recommend completing and submitting the applications and all rrlated requirements, including the “apply for all noms for which you are eligible.” Make the SA tell your son “no.” That way, he would not be a “withdrew application last cycle” in a re-application scenario. And, odd things happen. A candidate on a slate your son did not get on might drop off for some reason, and your son ranked very high, and he gets asked if he wants to be on that slate rather than another. None of this collaboration is written down on stone tablets carried down from a mountain top. At times, it can be very fluid.
The VP noms. That is the SA’s discretion to manage and award. They seem to go to candidates they want, late in the cycle, but who did not obtain a nom. That’s a chance at a nom.
The SAs have a small number of discretionary noms, not limitless. You may want to re-read the pinned posts at the top of the Nominations forum.
The nominations process is one of the most challenging elements of the application journey.
So, as you advised, I went to the top of the Nomination forum to check out the FAQs. I hope you don't mind if I ask for some clarification on some things I'm not sure what they mean. This quote here:
"The good news is that candidates from competitive districts tend to have strong records and thus compete very well in the National Pool. Thus, it's possible that 6, 7, 8 or - theoretically— even all 15 nominees from a slate in a super-competitive district will ultimately receive appointments. One "wins" the slate and the others are charged to other entities, such as the SecNav/SecAF, etc."
So, my understanding is that even though there is a slate of 15, only one person gets the nomination, correct? So the candidate in the #1 spot will get it unless they drop out entirely, correct? So then, it's the last part I don't understand. What does it mean to say "others are charged to other entities"? My DS has no other means of nomination besides the MOCs, so I'm not sure if it's referring to candidates with options beyond that. Or, well, I don't know the or part either.
Also this:
"Some will ask you if you already have a nom to the SA from ANY source and, if so, not even consider you. Some will get together with the other MOCs in the state and ensure no one gets more than one nom to any particular SA. And some will get together such that a candidate will receive only 1 nom to 1 SA, period."
Given that we are probably up there among the most competitive regions in the country, it seems unlikely that DS would ever even be able to compete for, much less win, a 2nd nomination, and much, much less a 2nd nomination to a 2nd choice. I'm thinking that spending the time finishing the 2nd application has a 0% chance of amounting to anything. You mentioned the issue of being labeled a withdrawal, but I am sure he has no interest in the prep schools or in re-applying if he's already started college elsewhere. He's eager to get to the next stage. Anyway, if all those things happen, he could be interested in OTS someday, but would a withdrawal affect OTS when it's so far in the future?
Lots of questions. Thanks for taking the time.
"The good news is that candidates from competitive districts tend to have strong records and thus compete very well in the National Pool. Thus, it's possible that 6, 7, 8 or - theoretically— even all 15 nominees from a slate in a super-competitive district will ultimately receive appointments. One "wins" the slate and the others are charged to other entities, such as the SecNav/SecAF, etc."
So, my understanding is that even though there is a slate of 15, only one person gets the nomination, correct? So the candidate in the #1 spot will get it unless they drop out entirely, correct? So then, it's the last part I don't understand. What does it mean to say "others are charged to other entities"? My DS has no other means of nomination besides the MOCs, so I'm not sure if it's referring to candidates with options beyond that. Or, well, I don't know the or part either.
Also this:
"Some will ask you if you already have a nom to the SA from ANY source and, if so, not even consider you. Some will get together with the other MOCs in the state and ensure no one gets more than one nom to any particular SA. And some will get together such that a candidate will receive only 1 nom to 1 SA, period."
Given that we are probably up there among the most competitive regions in the country, it seems unlikely that DS would ever even be able to compete for, much less win, a 2nd nomination, and much, much less a 2nd nomination to a 2nd choice. I'm thinking that spending the time finishing the 2nd application has a 0% chance of amounting to anything. You mentioned the issue of being labeled a withdrawal, but I am sure he has no interest in the prep schools or in re-applying if he's already started college elsewhere. He's eager to get to the next stage. Anyway, if all those things happen, he could be interested in OTS someday, but would a withdrawal affect OTS when it's so far in the future?
Lots of questions. Thanks for taking the time.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 22,782
Here goes. I’m going to give a Noms 101 note first, then reading homework, then go back to your post specifics.
The typical candidate can apply to 3 MOCs plus VP. Others may be eligible to apply for additional.
MOCs can have 5 appointees per SA, spread out over 4 years. As appointees graduate, this creates the space for the incoming classes. The MOC usually have one appointee per class being charged to them, and occasionally a year when they submit 2 slates, and 2 appointees are charged to them. Don’t forget either 1 or 2 likely graduated in May of this year, as they do every year. The MOC staff and the SA keep careful track of this.
Now, of the up to 15 nominees on a slate, one will be the appointee charged to the MOC nom authority. Here’s the key - the SA can go back to that slate and choose other fully qualified nominees to offer appointments to, but they are charged to other nom authorities the SAs manage, not the MOC.
In any given District there will be the one appointee (or possibly 2 in certain years) charged to the Representative. “Slate winner” is often used to refer to that appointee. There may be others chosen from that slate using the nom authorities Admissions controls. There may be appointees with Presidential,VP, ROTC or other service-related nominations. They may or may not have been on that slate or a Senator’s slate.
Now, go to this link and read pages 5-8.
I haven’t found the updated edition yet at open sources with the slate of 15 mentioned, but the other info on nom
authorities is good.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20191218_RL33213_f3a4006314d3a115f3b527e698866af2075056c5.pdf
Do that - then see my notes below.
——————————————————
YOU: So, as you advised, I went to the top of the Nomination forum to check out the FAQs. I hope you don't mind if I ask for some clarification on some things I'm not sure what they mean. This quote here:
"The good news is that candidates from competitive districts tend to have strong records and thus compete very well in the National Pool. Thus, it's possible that 6, 7, 8 or - theoretically— even all 15 nominees from a slate in a super-competitive district will ultimately receive appointments. One "wins" the slate and the others are charged to other entities, such as the SecNav/SecAF, etc."
ME: The “national pool” is an informal term. All the fully qualified nominees on a slate other than the slate winner go into a category or pool from which Admissions can choose other appointees and charge them to other nom authorities they control
YOU: So, my understanding is that even though there is a slate of 15, only one person gets the nomination, correct? So the candidate in the #1 spot will get it unless they drop out entirely, correct? So then, it's the last part I don't understand. What does it mean to say "others are charged to other entities"? My DS has no other means of nomination besides the MOCs, so I'm not sure if it's referring to candidates with options beyond that. Or, well, I don't know the or part either.
ME: No. See my notes at post start. One nominee from the slate gets the appointment charged to the MOC. There is hope for all the other fully qualifed nominees on the slate. If your DS receives a nom and is fully qualified, he gets another shot at consideration for an appointment in the “national pool,” where Admissions can use the nom authorities it controls.
YOU: Also this:
"Some will ask you if you already have a nom to the SA from ANY source and, if so, not even consider you. Some will get together with the other MOCs in the state and ensure no one gets more than one nom to any particular SA. And some will get together such that a candidate will receive only 1 nom to 1 SA, period."
ME: This is the collaboration and variations seen from some MOCs.
YOU: Given that we are probably up there among the most competitive regions in the country, it seems unlikely that DS would ever even be able to compete for, much less win, a 2nd nomination, and much, much less a 2nd nomination to a 2nd choice. I'm thinking that spending the time finishing the 2nd application has a 0% chance of amounting to anything. You mentioned the issue of being labeled a withdrawal, but I am sure he has no interest in the prep schools or in re-applying if he's already started college elsewhere. He's eager to get to the next stage. Anyway, if all those things happen, he could be interested in OTS someday, but would a withdrawal affect OTS when it's so far in the future?
ME: A withdrawal won’t affect OCS or OTS down the road.
Do some browsing on the dozens and dozens of threads of the service prep schools and the sponsored prep scholarships. They are considered golden tickets, in that if the candidate successfully completes the course, they will be offered an appointment. The SA is saying “We are saving a seat for you in the Class of 2030, but we want to ensure your success there.” At NAPS, MAPS and USAFAPS, they gain immersion experience in their service culture, customs, disciplines, uniforms and grooming, standards, inspections, schedules, hard work, bed-making! They receive focused academic prep tailored to their SA. They have enlisted status, so that is an instant source of a service secretary nomination. They soak up been there-done that knowledge from prior enlisted classmates. They bond, and come to their SA as a tight group of ready-made friends. They are a year away from home, tougher and more mature, with a toolkit ready to go. They are fit and will pass the PRT with no problem. They are respected by plebe classmates fresh out of high school. They tend to do extremely well in leadership positions. Proud prepsters have gone on to outstanding careers reaching the highest ranks in their service. If a candidate truly wants the SA experience as their path to service as an officer, they grab that golden ticket , count thrmselves truly blessed, don’t worry about the extra year and get to work. A good portion of each class are re-applicants and a year or two older than direct admits out of HS. Prepsters are not teetering at grave’s edge. That prep year is a massive boost in readiness to excel at the SA.
See the Class of 2028 profile:
378 out of 1183 had prior college or prep.
It is, however, fully your son’s decision how much he wants to invest in the SA path, in terms of effort and focus.
At one extreme, some leave everything on the court, every cycle, and apply year after year until they age out. Some go to college and take the ROTC path, with or without scholarship, with a plan to reapply to the SA with the ROTC nom, if they earned it, to add to other noms they are applying for. Some fall in love with their college and ROTC unit and let their SA dream go, having realized they will receive a commission in a way that turned out to be their best fit. Some apply once, and fully qualified with a nom or not, if they don’t get offered an apointment, move on to another dream.
The cadets and midshipmen who attend SAs by and large are there because that is exactly where they want to be above all other places, and they did whatever it took to get in, even though most days are spent embracing the suck.
The typical candidate can apply to 3 MOCs plus VP. Others may be eligible to apply for additional.
MOCs can have 5 appointees per SA, spread out over 4 years. As appointees graduate, this creates the space for the incoming classes. The MOC usually have one appointee per class being charged to them, and occasionally a year when they submit 2 slates, and 2 appointees are charged to them. Don’t forget either 1 or 2 likely graduated in May of this year, as they do every year. The MOC staff and the SA keep careful track of this.
Now, of the up to 15 nominees on a slate, one will be the appointee charged to the MOC nom authority. Here’s the key - the SA can go back to that slate and choose other fully qualified nominees to offer appointments to, but they are charged to other nom authorities the SAs manage, not the MOC.
In any given District there will be the one appointee (or possibly 2 in certain years) charged to the Representative. “Slate winner” is often used to refer to that appointee. There may be others chosen from that slate using the nom authorities Admissions controls. There may be appointees with Presidential,VP, ROTC or other service-related nominations. They may or may not have been on that slate or a Senator’s slate.
Now, go to this link and read pages 5-8.
I haven’t found the updated edition yet at open sources with the slate of 15 mentioned, but the other info on nom
authorities is good.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20191218_RL33213_f3a4006314d3a115f3b527e698866af2075056c5.pdf
Do that - then see my notes below.
——————————————————
YOU: So, as you advised, I went to the top of the Nomination forum to check out the FAQs. I hope you don't mind if I ask for some clarification on some things I'm not sure what they mean. This quote here:
"The good news is that candidates from competitive districts tend to have strong records and thus compete very well in the National Pool. Thus, it's possible that 6, 7, 8 or - theoretically— even all 15 nominees from a slate in a super-competitive district will ultimately receive appointments. One "wins" the slate and the others are charged to other entities, such as the SecNav/SecAF, etc."
ME: The “national pool” is an informal term. All the fully qualified nominees on a slate other than the slate winner go into a category or pool from which Admissions can choose other appointees and charge them to other nom authorities they control
YOU: So, my understanding is that even though there is a slate of 15, only one person gets the nomination, correct? So the candidate in the #1 spot will get it unless they drop out entirely, correct? So then, it's the last part I don't understand. What does it mean to say "others are charged to other entities"? My DS has no other means of nomination besides the MOCs, so I'm not sure if it's referring to candidates with options beyond that. Or, well, I don't know the or part either.
ME: No. See my notes at post start. One nominee from the slate gets the appointment charged to the MOC. There is hope for all the other fully qualifed nominees on the slate. If your DS receives a nom and is fully qualified, he gets another shot at consideration for an appointment in the “national pool,” where Admissions can use the nom authorities it controls.
YOU: Also this:
"Some will ask you if you already have a nom to the SA from ANY source and, if so, not even consider you. Some will get together with the other MOCs in the state and ensure no one gets more than one nom to any particular SA. And some will get together such that a candidate will receive only 1 nom to 1 SA, period."
ME: This is the collaboration and variations seen from some MOCs.
YOU: Given that we are probably up there among the most competitive regions in the country, it seems unlikely that DS would ever even be able to compete for, much less win, a 2nd nomination, and much, much less a 2nd nomination to a 2nd choice. I'm thinking that spending the time finishing the 2nd application has a 0% chance of amounting to anything. You mentioned the issue of being labeled a withdrawal, but I am sure he has no interest in the prep schools or in re-applying if he's already started college elsewhere. He's eager to get to the next stage. Anyway, if all those things happen, he could be interested in OTS someday, but would a withdrawal affect OTS when it's so far in the future?
ME: A withdrawal won’t affect OCS or OTS down the road.
Do some browsing on the dozens and dozens of threads of the service prep schools and the sponsored prep scholarships. They are considered golden tickets, in that if the candidate successfully completes the course, they will be offered an appointment. The SA is saying “We are saving a seat for you in the Class of 2030, but we want to ensure your success there.” At NAPS, MAPS and USAFAPS, they gain immersion experience in their service culture, customs, disciplines, uniforms and grooming, standards, inspections, schedules, hard work, bed-making! They receive focused academic prep tailored to their SA. They have enlisted status, so that is an instant source of a service secretary nomination. They soak up been there-done that knowledge from prior enlisted classmates. They bond, and come to their SA as a tight group of ready-made friends. They are a year away from home, tougher and more mature, with a toolkit ready to go. They are fit and will pass the PRT with no problem. They are respected by plebe classmates fresh out of high school. They tend to do extremely well in leadership positions. Proud prepsters have gone on to outstanding careers reaching the highest ranks in their service. If a candidate truly wants the SA experience as their path to service as an officer, they grab that golden ticket , count thrmselves truly blessed, don’t worry about the extra year and get to work. A good portion of each class are re-applicants and a year or two older than direct admits out of HS. Prepsters are not teetering at grave’s edge. That prep year is a massive boost in readiness to excel at the SA.
See the Class of 2028 profile:
Class Portrait
Class Portrait page for Admissions at USNA.edu. Updated Tue Nov 19 04:44:57 EST 2024.
www.usna.edu
It is, however, fully your son’s decision how much he wants to invest in the SA path, in terms of effort and focus.
At one extreme, some leave everything on the court, every cycle, and apply year after year until they age out. Some go to college and take the ROTC path, with or without scholarship, with a plan to reapply to the SA with the ROTC nom, if they earned it, to add to other noms they are applying for. Some fall in love with their college and ROTC unit and let their SA dream go, having realized they will receive a commission in a way that turned out to be their best fit. Some apply once, and fully qualified with a nom or not, if they don’t get offered an apointment, move on to another dream.
The cadets and midshipmen who attend SAs by and large are there because that is exactly where they want to be above all other places, and they did whatever it took to get in, even though most days are spent embracing the suck.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,533
OP: If a candidate does not complete their 2nd choice SA application-they will have a zero chance of an appointment to that SA. A candidate who completes their 2nd choice application-has a higher than zero chance.
There are many fully qualified candidates but only so many seats each cycle. This is the primary reason to have plans B & C fully though out and completed. You can not change the process. It's best to work on what is in the candidates control. Good luck.
There are many fully qualified candidates but only so many seats each cycle. This is the primary reason to have plans B & C fully though out and completed. You can not change the process. It's best to work on what is in the candidates control. Good luck.
Wondering a similar thing here. My first senator only interviews for your #1 academy. I put USNA as #1 as I want to go to USNA marginally over USAFA. From what I have seen on SAF, my state coordinates and for example I saw people saying their 2nd Senator and even congressman interview was cancelled after getting a nom from Senator #1. My question is, what if Senator #1 gives me a nomination to my second choice academy. Will my other nomination interviews be cancelled? What do you think?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,533
We have no idea. It's up to the MOC who (Staff) scheduled the interview. The MOC I help will interviews all that apply regardless. We ask their SA Preference and try to make that fit...but sometimes a Nom is offered for a SA that was not their first or even any of their choices. In my congressional district the SA by order of preference is: 1. USNA, 2. USMA, 3. USAFA, 4. USMMA. Often we don't fill up slates 3 and 4 because not enough want those in this district.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 22,782
Both @MidCakePa and I used the term “gaming” in the corporate sense, because I know he has background in that area too. I went looking this morning for something I heard regularly in executive decision-making sessions - “Let’s run a Monte Carlo on it.” Game theory and its language are definitely embedded in many parts of corporate culture, as can be seen from the illustration below. But not everyone is accustomed to hearing that usage. I would definitely say “random variables” are part of the nomination application experience!
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 22,782
I thought you were definitely a “user” too but didn’t scroll back to check.
A1Janitor
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2018
- Messages
- 7,168
My twin brother taught an undergraduate Econ game theory class. For his his PhD in econ, he took the first class. He didn’t take the second because it was meant for PhD in mathematics, and it was beyond his level of math (BA).
He has studied Nash and Horowitz, and has refereed papers on game theory that uses his models in his expertise.
We both are both die hard survivor fans. Lot of game theory there like the prisoner’s dilemma.
GoatBoat5
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2024
- Messages
- 17
Appreciate the above posts! DD has settled into a "go for it" and only listed 1 SA on all the MOC's (plan B is prep and plan C is prep). Historical web search show our MOC's have used 1SA/Nom each only. Her first interview this weekend was quick, less than 10 min so she was worried it was too quick. Not yet invited to interview with the other 2 MOC's 
. Enjoyed watching the vibe going into the building, anxious but squared away young people, helping each other point to the right door, offer a pen or where to sign-in. Nice to see our future leaders so naturally helping each other - good luck everyone! Go Navy!
. Enjoyed watching the vibe going into the building, anxious but squared away young people, helping each other point to the right door, offer a pen or where to sign-in. Nice to see our future leaders so naturally helping each other - good luck everyone! Go Navy!
- Joined
- May 22, 2018
- Messages
- 5,867
Spot on, @Capt MJ. The thing about all these models is that they entail probabilities (no such thing as a sure thing) and the actions of others (which we don't control). The goal is always to put yourself in the best position to win, while being able to live with whatever loss may emerge.
When I think of "gaming the system," I think of increasing the magnitude of the possible reward, while simultaneously accepting the greater risk of failure. It's the classic risk/reward tradeoff inherent in so much decision-making, whether it be business or the military or MOC nominations.
In my business courses, I teach the findings of Kahneman and Tversky, the brilliant Israeli psychologists who gave us Prospect Theory and whose work is at the center of what we know as behavioral economics. Absolutely fascinating stuff they came up with. I highly suggest "Thinking, Fast and Slow," Kahneman's very readable summary of their work.
Last edited:
Can’t over emphasize enough, the fact that the congressman/ senators can run the process anyway they choose and they do tend to vary by state. My DS had to make decisions with each of the applications on what the primary school was he was asking for the nomination to. In our state at the time, they didn’t generally give out more than one nomination to a candidate. He applied to the congressman, both senators and the vice president to make sure that he had options. Ironically, my DS got a rejection letter from one senator telling him that he was not going to nominate him because the other Senator was nominating him and vice versa so sometimes the coordination isn’t always there…But, it worked out he got where he wanted and graduated. Good luck!