Found a great chart showing percentages/stats, etc.

I'm no brain surgeon (mother of candidate; please note :)) but isn't this graph just showing the data on who got appointed and the number of candidates (not applications!) is significantly lower in the AA catagory as opposed to CA candidates....just as in all categories the Female candidates are much lower than male? Wouldn't that be a reason for this percentage being so high? I don't think we can even guess from this chart what guiedlines the admissions staff go by in terms of diversification.
THe more I read and learn from this forum, the more I can see how the Admissions staff have a truly difficult job. I'm not sucking up here.....nobody knows who I am :). And if they have to use WP's in one's application, we'd have to know how many points one gets for ethnicity to criticize. I cannot imagine that it would be a lot.....just saying.
 
mamrun said:
I'm no brain surgeon (mother of candidate; please note :)) but isn't this graph just showing the data on who got appointed and the number of candidates (not applications!) is significantly lower in the AA catagory as opposed to CA candidates....just as in all categories the Female candidates are much lower than male? Wouldn't that be a reason for this percentage being so high? I don't think we can even guess from this chart what guiedlines the admissions staff go by in terms of diversification.
THe more I read and learn from this forum, the more I can see how the Admissions staff have a truly difficult job. I'm not sucking up here.....nobody knows who I am :). And if they have to use WP's in one's application, we'd have to know how many points one gets for ethnicity to criticize. I cannot imagine that it would be a lot.....just saying.
Click to expand...

While you're correct on the fact we don't know the exact numbers in terms of how race plays into the WP score, when 100% of all African-American Females are accepted something doesn't smell right.
 
That's the whole shocking point the graph shows:
If there was no weight given to ethnicity, the percentages of "fully qualified offered" would all be within points of each other. Five or ten percentage points difference could easily be explained by the smaller group sizes of some categories. The fact that there is a 48.7 point spread (96.7%-48% using the 2014 class figures) means that ethnicity is given a whole bunch of weight.
Most senators and congressmen do not use principal nominations or a ranked slate. That means most applicant's WCS will be the determining factor in their getting an appointment. No one can find out their WCS. Its not published or ever made available to the candidate. But you have to figure all fully qualified candidates (3Qd, board qualified, with a nomination) WCS's cannot be that far apart BEFORE ethnicity is factored in.
So now calculate exactly how large a weight ethnicity is given to produce the numbers like is shown in the chart. Its shocking.
I would love to be wrong. If I am figuring incorrectly, please enlighten me.
 
USNA2015Candidate said:
I totally agree. I really wish that the entire process was a blind process, but unfortunately that's not the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

See Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1,551 U.S. 701, 127 S.Ct. 2738, 2768 (2007).

"For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way 'to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,' Brown II, 349 U.S., at 300-301, 75 S.Ct. 753, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
 
But on chart for 2014 the no. for Female AA that are fully qualified was 30 and 29 were offered an appointment.....while no. of CA fully qualified was 327 and 201 were appointed. I cannot see any nicky-hokey stuff here. I would think the %'s would be higher when you have a lot less applicants.,,,,,although like I said I'm not a brain surgeon w/stats.
And not that it should matter but I am a Conservative and caucasian; just saying.
 
mamrun said:
But on chart for 2014 the no. for Female AA that are fully qualified was 30 and 29 were offered an appointment.....while no. of CA fully qualified was 327 and 201 were appointed. I cannot see any nicky-hokey stuff here. I would think the %'s would be higher when you have a lot less applicants.,,,,,although like I said I'm not a brain surgeon w/stats.
And not that it should matter but I am a Conservative and caucasian; just saying.
Click to expand...

That that only account for so much of a % difference, though I was thinking the same thing for a time.

If you look at the number of fully qualified african americans and asian males, there is an 80 person difference. Yet, 88.4% of the african american males were offered appointments while only 59% of asian males were. If percentages seem misleading, think of it this way: Only 15 of the 129 fully qualified african american males were denied acceptance, while 84 of the 205 asian males were denied acceptance.

There is a slightly smaller % difference with the number of fully qualified hispanic males offered appointments versus asian males, but the gap still seems more than it should be.
 
The whole point of using percentages is so you can compare the groups of different size.
AA Female - 29/30 = 96.7%
CA Male - 759/1580 = 48%
 
Although the statistics don't fall in my favor, since I am Caucasian, I find that USNA is doing the right thing. The Naval Academy needs to be racially proportional of that of the fleet. It isn't right to say that Caucasians will make the best Naval/Marine Corp officers.
 
USNA2015Candidate said:
While you're correct on the fact we don't know the exact numbers in terms of how race plays into the WP score, when 100% of all African-American Females are accepted something doesn't smell right.
Click to expand...

Not really when you consider that the total numbers of AA females who apply is really small when compared to the whole.
What if the only AA females who even applied were fully qualified recruited athletes? I would be willing to bet that most of the AA female midshipmen are indeed D-1 athletes.
The numbers of AA females are so small - they probably get almost none who apply for the heck of it. Most, if not all probably need assurance that they are qualified enough to take the chance.

Years ago, there was a similar outcry about females who applied to MIT. They were accepted in a significantly higher ratio than males applicants.
When they really looked at the data a few things were discovered - most notably being, the female acceptees actually had higher test scores than the males. It was discovered that females as a group were much more self-selecting than the males.
Male applicants on the cusp were much more likely to give it a go and apply anyway, than female applicants on the cusp.

Seriously, if you are white - especially a white male - the statistics do fall in your favor. It's just that there are many more of you. Go to the yard, visit on parade day, I-Day, graduation day. It's easy to see that the vast vast majority of midshipmen are white and male.
Contrary to popular wisdom (on this forum) the Brigade is not becoming AA female.
 
Silly. A primer in statistical analysis might be a good place to start, but that's not the issue in that response. A lb. of Mortons salt might be useful.
 
Whistle Pig said:
Silly. A primer in statistical analysis might be a good place to start, but that's not the issue in that response. A lb. of Mortons salt might be useful.
Click to expand...


WP -Well said.

I'd still like to know, if anyone can explain it, why there are more candidates than applicants in certain columns of certain groups. In my job, Financial Analysis, when a data set has what appears to be a few faulty numbers - then the conservative assumption is that the entire set it faulty. Just saying.

Dave
 
JUST GREAT!!! I'm a white male, fully qualified. Going by last years stats, I have a 50.3% chance. Sure, better that 49%, but geez, its sad knowning my chances of getting into the USNA is as common as the flip of a quarter :rant2:
 
Pieterm, I say this in the most non-offensive way possible, but there's never been a worse time in history to be a white male! :shake:
 
% Applicants Offered

You might be missing the most important row in each of these yearly admission data charts. Using the 2014 Data as an example, look at the row labeled % of Applicants Offered, only 4% of AA Females are offered an appointment while the other categories are in the 8 to 12% range. So if only 100 AA Females and only 100 CA Males submitted applications, only 4 AA Females and 8 CA Males would make it through the entire process to receive an appointment. So is being a CA Male really a disadvantage for this particular comparision? Just waiting for an appointment puts you in a very elite group no matter what your race or sex is.

Yes, I am an engineer with an extensive stats background and waiting with my DD for hopefully a BFE!
 
Yes I do realize that. I was making a fesicious statement referring to previous modern history. :thumb:
 
AlMom said:
You might be missing the most important row in each of these yearly admission data charts. Using the 2014 Data as an example, look at the row labeled % of Applicants Offered, only 4% of AA Females are offered an appointment while the other categories are in the 8 to 12% range. So if only 100 AA Females and only 100 CA Males submitted applications, only 4 AA Females and 8 CA Males would make it through the entire process to receive an appointment.
Click to expand...

Your theory would ask us consider unqualified applicants, and their chances of appointments, to be included with qualified applicants.

No qualified applicant is competing against the unqualified applicants for direct appointment.

:cool:
 
When 4.3 out of 100 AA Females are fully qualified and all 4 are admitted while 16.3 out of 100 CA Males are fully qualified and only 8 are admitted, something's going on.

The most important thing to remember with statistics is to look at the numbers that actually matter. If all 100 of the AA Females were fully qualified and none of the CA Males were fully qualified then it would be right for the ratios of who's admitted to be equitable as well. (100 AA Females and 0 CA Males admitted.) That is what it means to not be race or sex prejudiced.

When I was at the Academy a couple yrs back the entire slate of Company Commanders was overturned by the Academy administration. The Midshipmen chosen as company commanders were selected by their Company Officers to be the best leaders of each company independent of the other companies. The slate was overturned because it did not effectively display the diversity of the Academy. Too many CA Males.

You can argue statistics, but when we choose leaders based off of anything other than their professionalism, dedication, work-ethic, character and demonstrated leadership there's a serious problem.
 
Last edited:
08Marine said:
You can argue statistics, but when we chose leaders based off of anything other than they're professionalism, dedication, work-ethic, character and demonstrated leadership there's a serious problem.
Click to expand...
Excellent point and another sad example of some misplaced priorities at the USNA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top