How much can being white hurt you in admissions?

A1Janitor said:
How do you correlate the averages to specific applicants slates?

How do you know that candidate A is better than candidate B in the eyes of admissions? Because A had higher grades?

How do you know the competition on each slate and their WCS and their color etc?

Are you an applicant? Are you a parent?
Click to expand...
1) not necessary. we have a lot of data and can see patterns over time. any particular "slate" (perhaps this is usma-speak for admissions cycles or classes? Haven't heard it before, which is surprising if it's a standard admissions evaluation grouping) matters less than the large trends.
2) because USMA's priorities and evaluation schemes say so. If candidate A gets better CQPA than candidate B, then A is better than B. Or else USMA's evaluation scheme is wrong or meaningless. We can see trends in what makes the As and Bs at the academy in admissions. And USMA intentionally recruits a lot of future Bs for diversity and sports when they have opportunity to admit As. why would they do this-- recruit and admit a group they know will do worse and then presumably (if the evaluation schemes mean anything) in the Army, when they have the opportunity to admit a better performing group? this is an important question for the Army. it deserves critical scrutiny and not blind faith in "admissions" or the latest west point general-in-charge.
3) what's with the slate thing again? the data files have stats at the *applicant* level by class on race, sex, high school grades, athletics, test scores, extracurriculars, grade performance at USMA (if lucky enough to be admitted), and qualification status. again recommend checking it out yourself.
4) not relevant to the conversation, but since you asked, a grad
 
Last edited:
Forgive me - I am just a slow parent of some midshipman.

I haven’t seen or analyzed the data. And I would be interested to have my twin brother look at it. He has his PhD in econ and is considered one of the top 3 in the world in his specialty - operations research.

When we get a chance, we will analyze.

Clear up the applicant level issue for me. Does your analysis compare the applicant level for the nominating slates? Because I am sure there are plenty of top students that don’t get in (because others on their slate were higher) while other lesser candidates do get appointed because their competition was weak.
 
First, I would like to say thank you for all the people who have voiced their insight on this issue.

Personally, as an applicant and posing the question from the opposite side of most people (in so far as I'm receiving the benefits as a "diversity" student) I do have real concerns about the measures taken by the SA's and Universities as a whole.

I don't want to list off my resume because I know that even if I have great test scores, great leadership experiences, and great athletic achievements, thousands of other applicants have the same and even better test scores, leadership experiences, and athletic achievements. I'm just another fish in the ocean.

My big concern is where if I were to receive an appointment, and go an academy, I don't want to go there knowing that my race was what made me a more competitive applicant. It's like being told that you're only good enough if we compare you to other people who look like you. But if we compare you to that white kid across the street, well then you probably wouldn't have made it.

Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong. And I keep being told to just take advantage of what is in place because the world is unfair and you need to learn to work with the system even when you disagree with the system. But I'm applying to the Academy because I understand the importance of integrity and honor. By taking advantage of a system that I would never agree with feels like a complete abandonment of those values.
 
A1Janitor said:
Forgive me - I am just a slow parent of some midshipman.

I haven’t seen or analyzed the data. And I would be interested to have my twin brother look at it. He has his PhD in econ and is considered one of the top 3 in the world in his specialty - operations research.

When we get a chance, we will analyze.

Clear up the applicant level issue for me. Does your analysis compare the applicant level for the nominating slates? Because I am sure there are plenty of top students that don’t get in (because others on their slate were higher) while other lesser candidates do get appointed because their competition was weak.
Click to expand...
ah nominating slates. No there is nothing in the files on the nominating source or order in the files. That would have been a helpful data point but alas, here we are. We do note, as JL123 did earlier, that a significant (on order of 20 or 25%) of additional appointee class nominations make the nomination order question less weighty since USMA has discretion with those appointments to bring in whoever they want.

Please do take a look. If nothing else you both will find it an interesting opportunity to drill down into admissions at a level not often presented.

but being a squid sympathizer... say 10 Rockets and that is forgiven.
 
tradrunner said:
First, I would like to say thank you for all the people who have voiced their insight on this issue.

Personally, as an applicant and posing the question from the opposite side of most people (in so far as I'm receiving the benefits as a "diversity" student) I do have real concerns about the measures taken by the SA's and Universities as a whole.

I don't want to list off my resume because I know that even if I have great test scores, great leadership experiences, and great athletic achievements, thousands of other applicants have the same and even better test scores, leadership experiences, and athletic achievements. I'm just another fish in the ocean.

My big concern is where if I were to receive an appointment, and go an academy, I don't want to go there knowing that my race was what made me a more competitive applicant. It's like being told that you're only good enough if we compare you to other people who look like you. But if we compare you to that white kid across the street, well then you probably wouldn't have made it.

Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong. And I keep being told to just take advantage of what is in place because the world is unfair and you need to learn to work with the system even when you disagree with the system. But I'm applying to the Academy because I understand the importance of integrity and honor. By taking advantage of a system that I would never agree with feels like a complete abandonment of those values.
Click to expand...
The system and situation are what they are. You didn’t cause it or ask for it. If at some time in the future you are in a position to help change the system for the better (like Clarence Thomas), then by all means address the issue and talk about it and work to try to fix it. If you are not in that type of position but are doing some other sort of work, then (in my opinion) you would be better off not to dwell on it. The reason I say this is because some people become so preoccupied by the injustice of the situation that it ruins their whole lives. They develop bitterness and anger and go everywhere with a chip on their shoulder. It becomes their dominant characteristic and overshadows all their other work.
The better way is to aim for humility, hard work, and excellence. In time people will not regard you by your gender/color, but they will regard you by the work you do. Even if they used to judge you in a superficial way based on your outward appearance, eventually they will know you by your character and your actions. This is what you need to focus on now. If you believe you can earn a spot at a service academy on your own merits, then be content with that. As you work hard along the way with honor and humility, others will recognize it, too.
 
My brother said it is interesting. But flawed so the analysis is wrong.

The question is does some better white candidate on a slate lose a slate to a less qualified minority. Nobody has that data.
 
usmadata said:
when they have the opportunity to admit a better performing group?
Click to expand...
This particular statement bothers me. High school metrics may be one component to determine who will be successful at a SA. So are test scores. But they sure aren’t the only factor and many factors cannot be measured or analyzed by any data analyst.

The ‘it’ factor. The grit factor. The Who you surround yourself with and build a support team factor. How you manage your time in high school is one thing. How you step up your game and manage it at a SA with all the burdens on your time are another animal entirely.

I say control what you can. Stay out of the weeds, put your best self forward.

No matter how you feel about the process during the application cycle, when and if you do get in—- everyone has to work together. Everyone is a shipmate. You aren’t checking boxes trying to navigate through the SA process. And you aren’t asking fellow shipmates if they checked the “prefer not to say” box. You’re too busy trying to keep your head above water.
 
From observation out in the force, CQPA doesn’t correlate to who will be a good or bad officer. There are plenty of folks who graduate the Academy with a low CQPA and turn out to be incredibly good officers. I have a couple 2.0 and go recruited Corps squaders that I graduated with that I would absolutely go to war with. There are also officers who graduated towards the top of their class with high CQPAs that turn out to be duds including one or two that graduated in the top 10 of my class I would love to never work with again. Point being, CQPA means nothing when you graduate. It’s a metric for how well you perform at the Academy in that particular environment. If it was the end all be all, the Academy would have maintained the OML branching system. The Army recognized though that you can’t quantitatively capture what a cadet brings to the table to best fit the best talent into the right job and has changed the process.

Continuing with that, one of the biggest lessons I took from the Academy was everyone brings something to the team. If that’s a different strength like athletics (physical fitness is a huge part of what we do in this profession) or experience that you bring to the Academy from a different upbringing or path to admission such as prior service, that’s all added benefit. Figuring out how to leverage the different talents everyone brings to the table is part of the skill set you need to figure out as an officer, and it starts at the Academy. My experience in terms of academics, athletics, etc. is very similar to what @VelveteenR describes. The elite academics exist there that would rival an Ivy League if you go look for it, but ultimately that isn’t the purposes of the Academy. If it was, we wouldn’t have the majority of our professors be green suiters and there would be a much higher research focus like research universities hold. Instead we have operational officers teaching the majority of our common core classes, because they bring a different perspective in shaping cadets to be officers that other universities don’t have.

For the candidate who is worried about the devaluing of his slot if admitted because diversity could play a role into making him more favorable, for what it’s worth, all that’s happening is a door opening for you. You’ll never know why you got the slot. You still have to do the four years of work at the Academy, and the years of work after that to be a decent officer leading your soldiers. If you don’t perform, the Academy will show you the door.

I can also say that as a former cadet that would have checked a couple diversity categories, I have the confidence I more than earned my spot on merit to be there, and my performance at the Academy graduating in the top 5% of my class validates that. Focus on what you can control, and if this is the chip on your shoulder that makes you work harder so that you give your all in everything, it isn’t the worst chip to have it it makes you a better officer. It won’t change that much when you graduate. I’m routinely the only woman in the room in my given community at any given time. I don’t focus on that, and 99% of the men I work with don’t care either that I’m in a minority group. We’re all members of a team trying to do a job that needs to get done. Your performance in doing that job is what matters.
 
You will see countless, and I mean countless times on this forum that you can only control things that you can control. You can't control what race you are. Since you can't control it, I suggest you stop even thinking about it and concentrate the things that you can control.
 
If it was just test scores and grades then Cal Tech would produce great officers, but be careful what you ask for because Cal Tech is 40% Asian and 24% white. Also, Cal Tech would clearly not produce the best officers because their selection criteria and goals are wildly different from USMA. Test scores and grades fit into tables easily and are great for simple snap judgements, but you need a much more textured, supple definition of "qualified" to decide who might make the better officer and a better military in the long run. Monocultures are not healthy : choirs can't be all sopranos, football teams can't be only linemen, and an army takes a lot of types of people to fill a lot of roles.
 
MidCakePa said:
Wading into this swamp of a thread for the last time…

DD, a USNA firstie, checks off two of those boxes. I’d bet a couple paychecks that her high-school transcript and standardized-test scores would beat those of 95% of her white male classmates. Her USNA class rank — both academic and overall — as well as her leadership billets further attest to her qualifications well beyond anything she may have done in high school — or her gender or race.

Not that she gives a rat’s behind! She’d be embarrassed if she read this. For her, it’s all about raw ability and personal performance. She’s no box-checker, just an accomplished mid and future officer who’s earned everything she’s gotten from USNA.
Click to expand...
No one has suggested that females, minorities, sports recruits, or priors all have lower grades than others. That would be crazy.

I will admit my sports recruits to a SA had lower grades and test scores than others. And many of their team mates also had lower grades and test scores than others. Got to love prep school

The point was that females, minorities, sports recruits, and priors do make up a significant % of the pleb class. This had nothing to do with your daughter. It has to do with the OP and their worry that there will be less seats for them.

There will be less. It is tougher So they need to hedge their bets and consider other options other than just a or one SA.

A parent of a 6th grader asks me what is the one thing they can do to help their child , that will increase their chances to a SA

Help them get really good at one sport.
 
usmadata said:
ah nominating slates. No there is nothing in the files on the nominating source or order in the files. That would have been a helpful data point but alas, here we are. We do note, as JL123 did earlier, that a significant (on order of 20 or 25%) of additional appointee class nominations make the nomination order question less weighty since USMA has discretion with those appointments to bring in whoever they want.

Please do take a look. If nothing else you both will find it an interesting opportunity to drill down into admissions at a level not often presented.

but being a squid sympathizer... say 10 Rockets and that is forgiven.
Click to expand...
I did take a peek. And I didn’t understand a bit of it. I guess I don’t think with that side of my brain.

I also would never get into any SA.

But that’s a lot of data!!
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
No one has suggested that females, minorities, sports recruits, or priors all have lower grades than others. That would be crazy.

I will admit my sports recruits to a SA had lower grades and test scores than others. And many of their team mates also had lower grades and test scores than others. Got to love prep school

The point was that females, minorities, sports recruits, and priors do make up a significant % of the pleb class. This had nothing to do with your daughter. It has to do with the OP and their worry that there will be less seats for them.

There will be less. It is tougher So they need to hedge their bets and consider other options other than just a or one SA.

A parent of a 6th grader asks me what is the one thing they can do to help their child , that will increase their chances to a SA

Help them get really good at one sport.
Click to expand...
A big point is being missed
The “minorities” (ie sex,race, and other) are not competing for fewer seats, there are fewer of them applying. That is why the SAs push to get more of those candidates to apply. The SA isn’t looking for less qualified candidates just to make up that demographic, just more candidates.

I also believe folks often overlook the importance of interviews, essays and LORs. Those often make a bigger difference than people think.
As was mentioned, those can best show examples of “grit” and other desirable (or less desirable) traits in a candidate that a 36 ACT and a perfect CFA (Or the opposite scores) would not reveal.
Those are the evaluations no one here can “chance me” for candidates.
So again, candidates need to submit their best possible application and strive to replicate a resume of the class profile.
Also be true to themselves and why they want to attend an SA and serve in the military. That will come out in the interviews, essays, and LORs as well.
You will know you have done all that you can to hopefully earn a seat in the next incoming class.
 
Last edited:
tradrunner said:
First, I would like to say thank you for all the people who have voiced their insight on this issue.

Personally, as an applicant and posing the question from the opposite side of most people (in so far as I'm receiving the benefits as a "diversity" student) I do have real concerns about the measures taken by the SA's and Universities as a whole.

I don't want to list off my resume because I know that even if I have great test scores, great leadership experiences, and great athletic achievements, thousands of other applicants have the same and even better test scores, leadership experiences, and athletic achievements. I'm just another fish in the ocean.

My big concern is where if I were to receive an appointment, and go an academy, I don't want to go there knowing that my race was what made me a more competitive applicant. It's like being told that you're only good enough if we compare you to other people who look like you. But if we compare you to that white kid across the street, well then you probably wouldn't have made it.

Maybe I'm looking at it all wrong. And I keep being told to just take advantage of what is in place because the world is unfair and you need to learn to work with the system even when you disagree with the system. But I'm applying to the Academy because I understand the importance of integrity and honor. By taking advantage of a system that I would never agree with feels like a complete abandonment of those values.
Click to expand...
Most people don't point out minorities and assume they arrived via the race train. Apply with your qualifications. The admissions process is above your pay grade so don't worry about what your diversity status might have to do with getting in. When you get in you prove your worth by excelling. When you get commissioned you prove your worth by superior performance. There are plenty of white officers who couldn't lead a platoon to the CIF for gear issue. Those you lead will not care how you got in or for that matter from which school you graduated.
 
StPaulDad said:
Monocultures are not healthy : choirs can't be all sopranos, football teams can't be only linemen, and an army takes a lot of types of people to fill a lot of roles.
Click to expand...
This is why the Germans and Japanese were so easy to defeat in WWII?
I am all for diversity because it is a matter of FAIRNESS and following our country's higher principles but for the military, I've seen no actual performance data that shows a difference in this regard.
Lets be diverse because it's the right thing to do.
 
Total waste of time for a candidate to even ponder. Focus on presenting your unique story and cherish the potential
opportunity to be classmates with a diverse group of people from all over the nation and world. My son most appreciates serving alongside women and a very diverse group of shipmates. The experience makes all better people.
 
Casey said:
I don’t focus on that, and 99% of the men I work with don’t care either that I’m in a minority group.
Click to expand...
Smart, articulate, measured temperament, brimming with understated self confidence…We’re you Gary Cooper in a previous life?

Speaking here for the majority, @Casey, you are absolutely an under-represented minority in most of the institutions I deal with.
 
Humey said:
My only issue is when they say "diversity makes us stronger" How does it make us stronger? Can they quantify it?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure who "they" is, but I've been bristling at this comment ever since a read it. Thankfully, cooler heads than mine have responded.

The US is diverse. It's simple fact. God did not place us into homogeneous groupings speaking the same language as he did in South Asia, the Balkans or the Caucasus, nor are we all under the same roof, so to speak, as a result of imperial expansion, Russian and Chinese style. We and/or our forbearers all ended up here one way or the other. For all our faults, it has worked out pretty well. What's the alternative to promoting diversity in the institutions that represent us, defend us, educate us, sign our paychecks, etc.? Refer to the list above.

How would I "quantify" how diversity has made us stronger. Look at the STEM faculty bios of every college and university in America. Look at the rosters of Fortune 500 companies' upper management; especially in those companies that didn't even exist 10 or 15 years ago. Look at the Marines who processed refugees at Bagram and obituaries of fallen service members for at least the last 110 years.

No nation on earth can even begin to compete with our soft power, which derives directly from our diversity. It's why everyone wants to come here.
 
I have been resisting for days now and can’t believe this still has traction. One of the first things I heard in boot camp was we are all green. No black, white or purple just Marines. Let’s move on, this is one of those topics that we all have to just agree to disagree on. If we dwell on this the only people we are hurting is us not the enemy. And we are here to hurt the enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top