How much can being white hurt you in admissions?

[Humey]

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.

"LTG Caslen says, in response to LTC Heffington’s concerns about a degraded Academy, of his cadets:

They are the most diverse group in the history of West Point and we are stronger for it.

You are confusing two different points. Should our military be diverse to reflect society, absolutely? Should command positions reflect society also, yes. But if you are going to make a comment that we are stronger for it without qualifying it, then you are basically saying "we are the best because we are the best" Will a diverse military be beneficial to our society and help create support within the civilian population, I absolutely believe that. Does a bigger pool of people allow you to take advantage of their skills that may not be there in a smaller pool, absolutely What i argue is with the comment that it we are stronger for it. I am not saying we arent stronger for it nor am i saying we are stronger for it.. To me, it is a meaningless comment to make people feel better because it can't be quantified. This isn't a racial issue for me nor is it an issue of homogenous vs diverse groups. I personally think anyone who wants to join and is qualified should join. Anyone is who is good enough to be an officer should be an officer based on whatever criteria there is. However, if you are going to make a statement, back it up with something, not because it makes us feel better.

 

[professorm804]

I'm glad someone started a thread for this because I've been pondering the same thing myself. I've read a lot that LOA's are given to one of the following:

a) candidates who are extremely high performing or
b) minority candidates (race and/or sex)

Now, I know someone can hypothetically fall into both categories and the Academies look for applicants who are both high-performing but also to meet their diversity quotas for each year.

It's quite clear that there are already different standards for men and women (in the CFA) but there must also be different standards for blacks, hispanics, and asians during the admissions process.

Hypothetically, if USMA or another service academy, needed a few more black students to increase their black admissions stats for the year, they might deny the spots to several white applicants who had better test scores, better CFA scores, or better WCS. UNLESS, by being a certain race or sex, you get extra points to your WCS.

As a black person, I don't find my race to be a military or strategic benefit. I don't think that by being black helps me to better lead others.

Obviously this is a societal issue as mentioned by the OP with civilian schools having the same race-based admissions systems in place. But I find them to be quite offensive. I look at what I have accomplished but can't feel any sense of true achievement because the world has lowered the bar for me just because of my race. There really is no equality and anywhere I end up I will inevitably feel like I was offered an appointment/ acceptance because I am black and somehow that makes me more qualified.

I want to serve, I want to do great things but like Justice Clarence Thomas said, "I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much any one denied it" and "I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value."

It's not that deep. You get in or you don't get in. The idea that you get special treatment based on your race is misguided at best and purposefully deceitful at worst. Minority cadets (such as I) are held to the same standards as White cadets. Feel however you want to feel, but I know that I earned my appointment here and I don't need some outside source (such as society) to justify that!

 

[jl123]

Once a candidate reports for R-Day there are no advantages or disadvantages to being an athlete, scholar, black, white, Asian, etc. Every Cadet meets the standard or suffers the same fate.

In admissions, any candidate eligible for more categories of appointment has a greater chance than candidates eligible for fewer categories. That is why children of career military have a greater chance - they are eligible for a Presidential nomination and appointment while others are not.

Underrepresented minorities have a greater chance of appointment in the Additional Appointee category - however, that does not necessarily reflect on their qualifications. Many AA's are highly qualified and would win other districts, just as many district winners would not win districts other than their own.

Unqualified candidates do not get into West Point, and if admissions occasionally makes a mistake, they do not graduate.

 

[cb7893]

You are confusing two different points. Should our military be diverse to reflect society, absolutely? Should command positions reflect society also, yes. But if you are going to make a comment that we are stronger for it without qualifying it, then you are basically saying "we are the best because we are the best" Will a diverse military be beneficial to our society and help create support within the civilian population, I absolutely believe that. Does a bigger pool of people allow you to take advantage of their skills that may not be there in a smaller pool, absolutely What i argue is with the comment that it we are stronger for it.

My only issue is when they say "diversity makes us stronger" How does it make us stronger? Can they quantify it?. Does our enemy go " we cant fight the Americans, they are so diverse, there is no way our all (chose your homogeneous group) can defeat them. Don't get me wrong, i have no issue with diverse military and it should reflect our society.

I'm not confusing anything. I simply disagree with you. I believe that diversity does makes us stronger in terms of both soft and military power, and you don't. Our soft power around the world is unquestionably magnified by our diversity, but we're discussing military power. You believe that diversity in the military is essentially good for morale--of the defenders and the defended. I agree with that. But, I also believe that our military power, at the operational level is greatly enhanced by our diversity. How does it compare to the numbers of ships, airplanes, troops? Who knows? And it would be waste of time to compare. IMO it's not insignificant.

Here are a couple of examples:

Several years ago, my son was the communications officer for an SF battalion whose AOR is Latin America. There was/is a good number of native Spanish speakers among the officers and enlisted from literally everywhere south of the Canadian border. Look at the mission set of Army Special Forces and use your imagination. In one way or another each component of that mission depends on building trust and rapport. Often times that requires more than four years of Spanish and a semester abroad.

My son went through Ranger School with a GB who was born in an Asian country, native Chinese speaker, graduated with a degree in Finance from a super elite school. He quit his job at Goldman Sachs to enlist as a Green Beret candidate. That's about as diverse as it gets. The attrition rate among 18x's is >70%. If he failed, he would have been just be another soldier stuck who knows where. Google "US soldiers train with Taiwanese military". Does that count? Or is it just ships and airplanes that matter?

There are two enlisted soldiers my son serves with. Each one is first generation American. One is from a country that is an adversary and the other from a country that is loosely allied with that adversary. Their backgrounds and language skills make them uniquely qualified to do what they do in service to this country. My white bread son is easily replaceable by any trained/qualified O-3. His soldiers are only replaceable by others with similar unique backgrounds.

I'm not sure how much the rest of the world--friends and adversaries--fears, admires or envies the diversity of the US military, but they certainly can't replicate it.

 

[usmadata]

Unqualified candidates do not get into West Point, and if admissions occasionally makes a mistake, they do not graduate.

It is tough to square that with an 80% graduation rate, with the attrition coming mostly from low-test-scoring cadets.

"If the Academy moved up recruiting standards so that it no longer admitted applicants with SATs below 1000, and therefore by correlation with GPAs below ~2.4, and therefore with high separation rates (as shown for classes 2010-2017, with highlighted numbers totaling 1000):
[graphic]
Then we could assume a drop in separation rates from 99% for all those with CQPA < 2.3 to the separation rate of ~11% for those with CQPA 2.4 and better – in this case, changing the number separated from 1000 cadets to 224 cadets, or an improvement of 775 cadets, or about 97 / year."

ceteris paribus of course

 

[bopper]

As a black person, I don't find my race to be a military or strategic benefit. I don't think that by being black helps me to better lead others.

Is it beneficial for black soldiers/sailors/airpersons to have officers that look like them? That may have had similar experiences like them? That can see them as human beings?
Similar to if there were no women officers. Women would not feel that they could be officers. There would be no body with the experience of growing up female or black that can provide insight as how the lower ranks experience things.

 

[Humey]

I'm not confusing anything. I simply disagree with you. I believe that diversity does makes us stronger in terms of both soft and military power, and you don't.

Again, I didn't say I don't believe it's true, I just don't accept the comment because it isn't proven one way or another. The problem is that you go in take the opposite position that since i don't believe the statement that i am against having a diverse military.
Also, your examples are too specific. Obviously having a native Russian speaker is going to be better than someone who took Russian in college for 4 years (however it takes). That is true for Chinese or any other language and having military personnel stationed or visiting countries who are native speakers or educated speakers will of course obviously be beneficial. However, that is like saying because the US had soldiers who spoke German and Japanese during WWII, the US won the war on the ground. Obviously knowing German and Japanese was highly beneficial in intelligence gathering. My point, saying because we are stronger for it without anything to back it up is meaningless. It is just a feel good statement. And honestly, i am done with this argument because it goes nowhere.

 

[jl123]

It is tough to square that with an 80% graduation rate, with the attrition coming mostly from low-test-scoring cadets.

"If the Academy moved up recruiting standards so that it no longer admitted applicants with SATs below 1000, and therefore by correlation with GPAs below ~2.4, and therefore with high separation rates (as shown for classes 2010-2017, with highlighted numbers totaling 1000):
[graphic]
Then we could assume a drop in separation rates from 99% for all those with CQPA < 2.3 to the separation rate of ~11% for those with CQPA 2.4 and better – in this case, changing the number separated from 1000 cadets to 224 cadets, or an improvement of 775 cadets, or about 97 / year."

ceteris paribus of course

The diversity issue aside, that would eliminate many soldiers and recruited athletes. More of a strategic issue than a simple issue of attrition.

Given the elements of getting through West Point, 80% seems pretty good, especially compared to retention rates many years ago which were in the 70% range.

For perspective, 4 year graduation rates:
Harvard - 86%
Yale - 84%
Stanford - 74%
Michigan - 81%
UC Berkeley - 76%

 

[Anguswarrior112]

I have read and heard about how being a white male can be a disadvantage in service academy admissions, and college admissions in general. So I have two questions.
1. Is this true?
2. If yes, is there an option that says something like "prefer not to state," and would it be beneficial?
Thanks.

This is something that you don't worry about.

1. You have no control over what your born as.
2. Focus on your academics and the scholar-athlete aspect.

Focus on making yourself a good applicant, that is all you need to worry about.

 

[usmadata]

Underrepresented minorities have a greater chance of appointment in the Additional Appointee category - however, that does not necessarily reflect on their qualifications.

This is a contradiction. Why else would they have greater chance of appointment in the non-OML ranked categories?

Unqualified candidates do not get into West Point, and if admissions occasionally makes a mistake, they do not graduate.

Tautology, as Admissions decides who is qualified and admitted. Since 20% of cadets don't graduate, there are clearly some mistakes (and how ought we distinguish mistakes from unqualified cadets?), perhaps up to ("occasionally") 20%.

But what should be more of interest to us is that group of cadets that *does* graduate, but *is not as good* as what the Admissions team could have selected had they been "orientated" purely towards a "best-at-Army" Corps of Cadets. Instead, the Academy opts to dedicate a significant portion of each class to athletic marketing and promotional diversity. This represents opportunity cost to the Army and nation. For what? For photo-ops and perhaps a few extra games won every year?

 

[Heatherg21]

This is a contradiction. Why else would they have greater chance of appointment in the non-OML ranked categories?


Tautology, as Admissions decides who is qualified and admitted. Since 20% of cadets don't graduate, there are clearly some mistakes (and how ought we distinguish mistakes from unqualified cadets?), perhaps up to ("occasionally") 20%.

But what should be more of interest to us is that group of cadets that *does* graduate, but *is not as good* as what the Admissions team could have selected had they been "orientated" purely towards a "best-at-Army" Corps of Cadets. Instead, the Academy opts to dedicate a significant portion of each class to athletic marketing and promotional diversity. This represents opportunity cost to the Army and nation. For what? For photo-ops and perhaps a few extra games won every year?

Your statement that “20% don’t graduate” and insinuating they don’t graduate due to them possibly not being qualified or “mistakes” by the SA is a big reach in my opinion.

Plenty of cadets, plebes, midshipmen etc say yes, take the oath, experience military life and decide it isn’t for them. That’s the whole purpose in PROTRAMID and ethics courses and the 2/7 signing.

That doesn’t directly correlate with them being not qualified or admissions mistakes. It implies the system worked. Applicants were accepted and through the planned progression of each SA the cadet/midn decided it wasn’t for them.

 

[JP4]

This is an interesting discussion. From what I can tell from the responses above there are a few buckets of spots available and your chances do in fact vary by what bucket(s) you qualify.

The strictly merit bucket sounds like everyone has the same chance as in the criteria applied to them is the same. Should not help or hurt to be a certain race.

The legacy bucket seems limited and may favor some races over others depending on the make up of past generations of classes.

Sports bucket sounds like it depends on what sports these academies play. In theory all sports are open to all races so there should be no specific advantage. Is that how it is actually applied? Who knows?

For the Additional Appointments mentioned above it appears race is definitely a factor and you are disadvantaged for being white.

I don't know how many spots are in each bucket and which overlap or not. It would be nice if these places listed each acceptance by test scores, gpa, recruited athlete, etc. so there is no mystery as to what requirements are applied to who. Applicants know which buckets they qualify for and can see what qualified in the past.

That said, this discussion and the comment above on sports reminded me of the two recent cheating scandals where it appears a majority of the cheaters in each scandal were athletes. It seemed odd to me at the time that so many were allowed to stay. Favoritism?

More Than 70 West Point Cadets Allegedly Caught Cheating on Math Exam

Fifty-nine of the accused have admitted guilt and will remain at the school under a form of probation.

www.military.com

At Least 100 Naval Academy Students Cheated on a Physics Test. 18 Have Been Expelled

Despite the large number of Midshipmen who were caught up in the scandal, the school said that the students all acted alone.

www.military.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/08/20/naval-academy-cheating-scandal-expelled/

Clearly being an athlete can not only help you get in but also survive incidents of bad behavior that would allow you to otherwise be expelled.

I think one of the problems of favoritism is that if you match the criteria for a favored group there may always be questions of how you got where you did. So many of the responses above say that if you get in you deserved it and you are just as good as anyone else if you graduate. I think that is overly optimistic. It sounds like something you wouldn't necessarily know until later or much later and even then someone who got preference may show through their performance down the road that they are an excellent fit even if when they first started their qualifications were not quite as high as a few that were not selected in their place.

Then I wonder this. If, in this specific instance, race doesn't help (or hurt) with admittance, why are things like this happening down the road?

Navy's Personnel Boss Says Getting Rid of Photos in Promotion Boards Hurt Diversity

Data from the DoD shows that both the Navy and Marine Corps officer pools are struggling with diversity along gender and racial lines.

www.military.com

They got rid of photos because they thought it discriminated against some races over others. Now they want them back specifically for "diversity." In this context that means discrimination against white males.

 

[Small Team Bacsi]

“Who knows?”

Absolutely no SA coach of any sport is recruiting based on race or legacy or etc and often not on SATs.

They are trying to get the best possible sports recruit they can convince to come to a SA and hopefully will be able to do the academic work. And get by the admissions people and accepted.

Job security and new and better contracts often comes after winning.

As far as the we can’t absolutely prove that diversity makes our military or country stronger?

I’d suggest you could not absolutely prove we need 5 different SAs. Or 3 different prep schools.

I am not sure you could prove we really need a coast guard or a USMC and those functions could not be done cheaper and just as well by merging them into USN or Army.

I am not sure we could prove we need any SA . A good argument could always be made that the Mustang plus ROTC model would turn out quality officers a lot cheaper.

some things like ,diversity makes us stronger, or we really need SAs ,or even a USMC we might just take on gut feel and faith and our version of common sense.

 

[Devil Doc]

This is an interesting discussion. From what I can tell from the responses above there are a few buckets of spots available and your chances do in fact vary by what bucket(s) you qualify.

The strictly merit bucket sounds like everyone has the same chance as in the criteria applied to them is the same. Should not help or hurt to be a certain race.

The legacy bucket seems limited and may favor some races over others depending on the make up of past generations of classes.

Sports bucket sounds like it depends on what sports these academies play. In theory all sports are open to all races so there should be no specific advantage. Is that how it is actually applied? Who knows?

For the Additional Appointments mentioned above it appears race is definitely a factor and you are disadvantaged for being white.

I don't know how many spots are in each bucket and which overlap or not. It would be nice if these places listed each acceptance by test scores, gpa, recruited athlete, etc. so there is no mystery as to what requirements are applied to who. Applicants know which buckets they qualify for and can see what qualified in the past.

That said, this discussion and the comment above on sports reminded me of the two recent cheating scandals where it appears a majority of the cheaters in each scandal were athletes. It seemed odd to me at the time that so many were allowed to stay. Favoritism?

More Than 70 West Point Cadets Allegedly Caught Cheating on Math Exam

Fifty-nine of the accused have admitted guilt and will remain at the school under a form of probation.

www.military.com

At Least 100 Naval Academy Students Cheated on a Physics Test. 18 Have Been Expelled

Despite the large number of Midshipmen who were caught up in the scandal, the school said that the students all acted alone.

www.military.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/08/20/naval-academy-cheating-scandal-expelled/

Clearly being an athlete can not only help you get in but also survive incidents of bad behavior that would allow you to otherwise be expelled.

I think one of the problems of favoritism is that if you match the criteria for a favored group there may always be questions of how you got where you did. So many of the responses above say that if you get in you deserved it and you are just as good as anyone else if you graduate. I think that is overly optimistic. It sounds like something you wouldn't necessarily know until later or much later and even then someone who got preference may show through their performance down the road that they are an excellent fit even if when they first started their qualifications were not quite as high as a few that were not selected in their place.

Then I wonder this. If, in this specific instance, race doesn't help (or hurt) with admittance, why are things like this happening down the road?

Navy's Personnel Boss Says Getting Rid of Photos in Promotion Boards Hurt Diversity

Data from the DoD shows that both the Navy and Marine Corps officer pools are struggling with diversity along gender and racial lines.

www.military.com

They got rid of photos because they thought it discriminated against some races over others. Now they want them back specifically for "diversity." In this context that means discrimination against white males.

Nice post.

You wrote, "That said, this discussion and the comment above on sports reminded me of the two recent cheating scandals where it appears a majority of the cheaters in each scandal were athletes. It seemed odd to me at the time that so many were allowed to stay. Favoritism?"

Yes, but favoritism for the team and not the individual. The W-L record is the reason.

The article with VADM Nowell stating the need to bring back photos for the sake of diversity is embarrassing. He says, "we can show you where, as you look at diversity, it went down with photos removed." Why not just have a check box for race, ethnicity, gender, or no gender? Have photos or don't. If there is a quota system then admit to that fact and have the candidates for admission and promotion identify their status up front.

I'm all-in for diversity, inclusiveness, and equity. If not, I would have been out of a job years ago. This year my school went to the 4 point instead of 100 point grading scale. Yesterday was the last day of the first quarter and I updated my grade book. In place of a zero for an assignment not turned in, we are required to put in NTI. The system has a 0 next to NTI which looks like it would average in as a zero. I have students with several NTIs and a B, so I took out the NTI and put in a zero and the grade stayed the same. When asked about this the answer was, "The NTI stays in the grade book and a missed assignment looks better than a zero." Oh, okay.

About 90 percent of my students are bused in from the wrong side of the Highway. A bunch of them are recent immigrants. Several of them can't understand a word I'm saying. One girl has another student interpreting for her during class but she has been absent this week. The non-English speaker came up to my desk yesterday to ask a question. It was the first time I had heard her voice in nine weeks. I have no idea what she said but she seemed satisfied when I said yes and nodded my head. Students like that need and benefit from the equity tools we have in place otherwise they would not pass. The high flyers however are suffering in a neutered system.

I'm currently in conversation with colleagues concerning the difference in the pass rate for a certification exam. Students in the western part of the county have a higher pass rate than our students. Those kids drive BMWs to school and ours live in two bedroom apartments with five other siblings, grandma, and two parents. Those who say socio-economic status has no bearing on learning are either lying or ignorant.

Admissions and promotions should be based on qualifications. Not everybody can be number one. If we are all considered to be the best then none of us are.

 

[usmadata]

That doesn’t directly correlate with them being not qualified or admissions mistakes. It implies the system worked. Applicants were accepted and through the planned progression of each SA the cadet/midn decided it wasn’t for them.

Thanks for the input. We've started doing an in-depth analysis of separation and trends which (hopefully) will be complete by end of the weekend and posted.

In the meantime, what evidence would you accept as indicating that the admissions system *isn't* working as well as it could (or should)? Higher attrition rates? Lower attrition rates? Particular reasons for separation? Particular groups being separated at higher or lower rates than others?

Cheers,

 

[shock-n-awe]

Quote: “as Admissions decides who is qualified and admitted. Since 20% of cadets don't graduate, there are clearly some mistakes (and how ought we distinguish mistakes from unqualified cadets?), perhaps up to ("occasionally") 20%”


So the 80% WP graduation rate seems unsuccessful by some people.
Some of the 20% go on to become a later graduate outside of their actual class, ie “turn back”. Can be a summer grad, December grad or the next class. That can happen for many different reasons like academics, honor violations, and medical to name a few. I personally know 3 Cadets from the last class that were turn backs but will still graduate. Some decide along the way that ARMY and WP really isn’t what they thought it would be and no longer is what they want, and separate. Some may have family issues and must separate. Sadly, some may die.
Admissions knows not everyone will graduate and builds the class size accordingly so as to graduate and commission the amount of officers needed in the pipeline on an annual basis. ROTC and OCS factors in as well.
So attrition is a factor.
So if 1000 Cadets are needed to graduate in a given year and WP is so good at selecting the best candidates to successfully complete their program, why don’t 1000 graduate? Because there are too many variables that play in to some not graduating.

If RANGER school or any other competitive and extremely challenging school had a 100% graduation rate, it would be unsuccessful in my opinion.

 

[FiveByFive]

Thanks for the input. We've started doing an in-depth analysis of separation and trends which (hopefully) will be complete by end of the weekend and posted.

In the meantime, what evidence would you accept as indicating that the admissions system *isn't* working as well as it could (or should)? Higher attrition rates? Lower attrition rates? Particular reasons for separation? Particular groups being separated at higher or lower rates than others?

Cheers,

Comparing attrition rates (this is more often described by non-SA schools as a "retention" rate) or 4 year graduation rates between an SA and civilian school is generally worthless as that comparison is apples and oranges, as is comparing attrition/graduation rates between SAs. Comparing attrition/retention/graduation rates between the schools listed above (Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, etc.) is a little less worthless, but still not really that helpful due to the multiple factors going into each decision to leave. For example, at Harvard you can generally get the classes you need to graduate in 4 years, but at Berkeley (like many public schools) it is much harder to do in 4 years so the 4 year graduation rates are skewed from the start.

Likewise, measuring "success" in the admissions system by who stays and who leaves is really not worth the time. Students leave for a variety of reasons, which of course can include not being cut out for the "academics" at some point, but that is only one issue (especially at an SA). Being anything other than "white" is no different in the "attrition analysis" even if some factors for why someone leaves a school may be more or less prevalent for an underrepresented group.

At an SA vs. a civilian school, making conclusions from the attrition rate as a measure of "unsuccessful" practices in admissions makes very little sense if any. From day one, nobody can project specifically who can hack Swab Summer, Beast, etc., along with 4 years of the grind that goes well beyond difficult academics.

20% anywhere is good, but at an SA it is pretty amazing.

 

[usmadata]

Gauging the quality of a process by its outputs given its inputs is definitely worth the time. Recruiting and retention are critical focus areas for companies all over the world because they ultimately determine the success of the company. Perhaps they know something the Academy doesn't?

The popular consensus seems to be:

"There is no way to tell how well Admissions is doing by using the output of graduated cadets."
or:
"Admissions is doing pretty well but we can't tell what not-doing-well would look like."

Restated: we should whistle in the wind and take on faith that admissions is doing the best it can, rather than scrutinizing the indicators and outputs available to us and demanding the better performance which will ultimately impact the Army.

 

[usmadata]

Restated: we should whistle in the wind and take on faith that admissions is doing the best it can, rather than scrutinizing the indicators and outputs available to us and demanding the better performance which will ultimately impact the Army.

Saying that nothing can be done to improve is saying there are no performance measures for the Academy.

What if they *can* improve yield? For Academics (~25% of separations), perhaps they stop admitting cadets with combined Math & Verbal SATs in the 800s? For motivation / "fit" problems (~40% of separations), perhaps they start using psychometric profiling of candidates? etc. but not engaging on this seems to be admitting complacency.

 

[USMCGrunt]

But what should be more of interest to us is that group of cadets that *does* graduate, but *is not as good* as what the Admissions team could have selected had they been "orientated" purely towards a "best-at-Army" Corps of Cadets. Instead, the Academy opts to dedicate a significant portion of each class to athletic marketing and promotional diversity. This represents opportunity cost to the Army and nation. For what? For photo-ops and perhaps a few extra games won every year?

I disagree.

First, who is to say that "big Army" isn't getting what they want in its Officer Corps? What defines "best-at-Army"?

Big Army is getting officers from a variety of sources. History demonstrates that an officer's overall skill, performance, heroism, and other personal characteristics can not be singularly characterized by their high school test scores or ultimate commissioning source.

Analyze all the data you want. Ask questions and challenge established positions. That is a worthwhile endeavor. But drawing conclusions on why Admissions does what it does is a leap. Assuming you can define a "best-at-Army" candidate based on your data is not a good use of your time.