understand that this is EXACTLY why the process is so valuable.
While not wanting to wade into a debate, as I'm just a parent with a kid going through the process.....
I've become convinced while watching it play out that the process works in our state. The combination of the senators (state wide) with the MOC seems to work well.
What I thought at the beginning was an outdated process at risk for cronyism appears to be a pretty effective approach to find qualified candidates across the state and give them opportunity.
Ex:
The senators are going to find the top qualified candidates across the state. In GA, it appears the senators go first, at least in our district. Everyone has a shot. But only top contenders will make it to the interview. It's like early admissions for civvy college apps where you are measured mostly by your core stats & paperwork.
But if the candidate did not make that cut, then the house side offers a smaller pool and another chance by just competing with candidates in your immediate area. And much more opportunity for intangibles not on the app to factor in.
I'm not sure I could devise a more equitable approach to identify competitive candidates in all states recognizing that nearly every state will have large metro areas that will skew results, etc.
I had to bite my tongue regarding the "Alabama" comment in one of the Nom threads.... I know it was not intended as a slam, but don't assume a state like Alabama can't scare up 20 solid noms per academy statewide, you need to try to apply to some AL college honor programs.
Likewise for finding at least one solid candidate per district.....
Back on the interview questions.... my son left his senator nom interviews with the clear impression that they had done a great job structuring an objective process that balanced paper analytics with looking for the intangibles. And was focused totally on finding the best candidates to submit while giving everyone a fair shot.
The downside is that for the GA senate noms it appears that due to volume only the top 10% of applicants were interviewed. Just based on the interview schedule & timeframes a rough estimate would be 60-100 were interviewed. They ran parallel review boards, and you were only interviewed by a board focused on the candidate's first choice.
The one thing that was clear to my son: The boards were not trying to trick or trip up the candidates.... they were looking for insight, and worked to put the candidate at ease.
That does not imply softball questions... my recommendation to candidates interviewing would be to think about high level questions which could be asked about items on their resume, or implied by a pattern on their resume. (if you focused in one area over another)
If heavy on academics, lighter on athletics, then what have you done to prepare for the physical aspect.
And vice-versa.... how are you prepared to handle the academic challenges.
But again, just based on observation, every board/interview could be different! So be relaxed but professional. And most importantly, be yourself!