Judge upholds use of race in Naval Academy admissions, saying a diverse military is stronger

SamAca10 said:
You're also an appointee - yes? I'm an alumni who graduated 10 years ago. What are your stats? The Academy admission process inherently has diversity built in it through the nomination system bounding geography. I received nominations to USAFA and USNA from my Senator and Representative years ago.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Why do you need to know my stats?
36 ACT, 4.0 Unweighted GPA, #1 Class rank out of 370, 60(now useless) College Credit Hours, 3 years Varsity Football, 1 Year Varsity Cross Country and Captain, 3 Years Varsity Track, 4 Years as Varsity Scholars Bowl Captain and State Runner-up, National Honor Society President, Bible Study Leader, Ultimate Frisbee Club Founder, Boys State Attendee, winner of Outstanding Citizen Award at Boys State.

What does this have to do with anything? You are projecting the belief inherent to defend your claim onto raimius.

Thank you for your service.
 
You have to remember that sometimes intelligence doesn’t equal common sense and life experiences. Some of these kids are legacy appointments. You can have a kid who scores 1500 on SAT but is unable to make a decision! A kid who is stuck in a school where there are distractions and is to get a 3.0 and a 1000 on his SAT shouldn’t be disqualified because of that. This all should be situational. Some kids just need a opportunity to excel
 
SamAca10 said:
I think it's implicit though, yes? I do respect you raimius, don't get me wrong. You've been around way longer than me. Glad you're still around and contributing
Click to expand...
No.
I'm saying using a non-performance metric as a factor in admissions will result in selecting some applicants who are not the candidates with the highest performance.

I am rejecting the idea that skin color affects military performance. (Thus, it should not be used to select officer candidates.)

It does not matter whether the non-performance metric is race or favorite color. If you give bonus points to people who like the color blue, you won't be picking the best slate of candidates. That is not the same as saying people who like blue are inherently inferior. If you give 5 points for liking blue, the candidate who likes green but had 4 more performance-related points loses to the candidate who likes blue but doesn't have quite as good of a record of accomplishments.
 
DanteoftheBloodAngels said:
Interesting article. What do you think the solution should be?
Click to expand...
Personally I think the academies shouldn’t use nominations at all.

The coast guard academy already doesn’t and they can handle it.

If the academies still need geographic diversity they could just prioritize applicants from underrepresented areas( the nomination system in practice kind of already does this anyway so it wouldn’t be a huge shift).

Although something like uncapping the amount of people on a slate could be a neat change. At least then the actual admissions office would get to pick which people in a district should get in, rather than some congressmen’s staff. Would eliminate the racial and gender discrepancies in nominations real quick because everyone applying would get a nom. Basically let there be like 100( or 1000) people be on a slate and the academy can take whoever has the highest WCS, seems as fair as college apps are going to get to me.

Geographically speaking it would still be harder to get in from a state like Maryland because winning your very slate would be very very hard, but at least everyone would get a fair shot at a appointment from the national pool.

Also lets the academies use their national
appointments to fill out the rest of the class and meet diversity goals however they want as whatever candidate they want would be assured to have a nomination.
 
A1Janitor said:
Who doesn’t get a fair shot at an appointment from the national pool, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Well people who can’t get a nomination. ( admittedly I have overused the word fair quite a bit, I should rephrase it to “ everyone would get a shot at an appointment through the national pool”.)

Like in say Maryland there may be more than 14 people in some district that the admissions office might like to admit through the national pool, but admissions is constrained to appointmenting “only” 14.

Also, the congressional office in charge of determining which 15 people get nominations “may” have a different idea of what the admissions office is looking for than the admissions office itself. Like there could be candidate X who does not get a nomination because his office doesn’t think he’s in the top 15 candidates most likely to be appointed, but the admissions office really likes candidate X and would appoint them if they could.
 
There are competitive districts that have 10+ inductees in a year.

We have seen the occasional LOA not get a nomination, for whatever reason.

Are you giving your opinion about this? Do you think admissions thinks there is a problem with their classes they put together?

Are you making a bigger issue out of a few candidates per year?
 
GO NAVY 2029 said:
Well people who can’t get a nomination. ( admittedly I have overused the word fair quite a bit, I should rephrase it to “ everyone would get a shot at an appointment through the national pool”.)

Like in say Maryland there may be more than 14 people in some district that the admissions office might like to admit through the national pool, but admissions is constrained to appointmenting “only” 14.

Also, the congressional office in charge of determining which 15 people get nominations “may” have a different idea of what the admissions office is looking for than the admissions office itself. Like there could be candidate X who does not get a nomination because his office doesn’t think he’s in the top 15 candidates most likely to be appointed, but the admissions office really likes candidate X and would appoint them if they could.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure there is already no limit on how many are chosen out of the National Pool from certain districts.

This is certainly an idea, but I doubt it would happen because it would need to be changed by Congress, and why would they take away their own influence.
 
Cooleyra said:
You have to remember that sometimes intelligence doesn’t equal common sense and life experiences. Some of these kids are legacy appointments. You can have a kid who scores 1500 on SAT but is unable to make a decision! A kid who is stuck in a school where there are distractions and is to get a 3.0 and a 1000 on his SAT shouldn’t be disqualified because of that. This all should be situational. Some kids just need a opportunity to excel
Click to expand...
Neither of these hypothetical candidates should get an appointment to be honest.
 
I didn’t know where else to post this but this thread seemed like an appropriate place.

Prospective USMA cadets/parents: If you or your child was denied admission to USMA recently and are interested in helping to overturn the use of race in admissions, the PLLC Consovoy McCarthy is looking for plaintiffs to send to SCOTUS. AFAIK, the only requirement is that you were previously denied admission AND you are still eligible to reapply.

I think they are only tackling West Point at the moment but I assume a ruling from SCOTUS would apply to all academies.
 
raimius said:
No.
I'm saying using a non-performance metric as a factor in admissions will result in selecting some applicants who are not the candidates with the highest performance.

I am rejecting the idea that skin color affects military performance. (Thus, it should not be used to select officer candidates.)

It does not matter whether the non-performance metric is race or favorite color. If you give bonus points to people who like the color blue, you won't be picking the best slate of candidates. That is not the same as saying people who like blue are inherently inferior. If you give 5 points for liking blue, the candidate who likes green but had 4 more performance-related points loses to the candidate who likes blue but doesn't have quite as good of a record of accomplishments.
Click to expand...

During my time on Active Duty, there were enlisted members who trusted me more because I was the only minority officer in the wardroom. They were more willing to bring up items with me because of that.

There's value in diversity. Also - let's look at opportunities. One of my classmates (black) was the valedictorian of his rural Georgia high school class and struggled a lot with the academics at the Academy. His school district didn't have the resources that some of my classmates who came from elite preparatory schools...
 
SamAca10 said:
During my time on Active Duty, there were enlisted members who trusted me more because I was the only minority officer in the wardroom. They were more willing to bring up items with me because of that.

There's value in diversity. Also - let's look at opportunities. One of my classmates (black) was the valedictorian of his rural Georgia high school class and struggled a lot with the academics at the Academy. His school district didn't have the resources that some of my classmates who came from elite preparatory schools...
Click to expand...
So all kids who didn’t struggle at an Academy had an unfair advantage?

Should my son have been replaced with someone who didn’t do well in high school from our district because my son is white? Color is a metric of success?

You are going to assume my son had privilege and didn’t work hard for his success?
 
A1Janitor said:
So all kids who didn’t struggle at an Academy had an unfair advantage?

Should my son have been replaced with someone who didn’t do well in high school from our district because my son is white? Color is a metric of success?

You are going to assume my son had privilege and didn’t work hard for his success?
Click to expand...

I've gone through the whole process soup to nuts - Admissions, appointment, Academy, graduation, ADSO, and transitioning out.

The idea of privilege in relations to race is different than meritocratic success. Your son might've benefitted from redlining for instance. Intergenerational wealth. Living on the right side of the train tracks.

I went to 11 different elementary schools due to childhood instability. I saw school districts with barely any resources, and some that were way more affluent. I have a keen understanding that those with better teachers, smaller classrooms, and more resources will do well.

I had classmates test out of Calc I/II, Physics I/II, ad Chemistry I/II as 4/c because they had the privilege of taking those courses as a high schooler through their school or local community college. Not all school districts have that.

Heck, there are school districts out there who can't really fund their athletic programs. Or working-class parents who can't afford to send their kids to athletic programs and require them to work. I worked all four years of high school (actually was employee of the year at one of the companies I worked at), was a 3 sport varsity athlete, top of my high school class, etc.

I did well because I'm an extremely driven, intelligent, and capable individual. Most people with my background don't make it to elite institutions like I have - currently earning my MBA part-time from an elite school thanks to the Post 9/11 and Yellow Ribbon program. But then again, I'm not like most people. I also graduated with the most difficult major at the Academy, I was about middle of the pack in terms of class rank there.

Sure, I deal with things post-service like other veterans do. Yet, I haven't lost sight of the fact that inequality inherently exists in our country. And I'm someone who's cleared the $300K+/year mark out in the civilian workforce
 
SamAca10 said:
I've gone through the whole process soup to nuts - Admissions, appointment, Academy, graduation, ADSO, and transitioning out.

The idea of privilege in relations to race is different than meritocratic success. Your son might've benefitted from redlining for instance. Intergenerational wealth. Living on the right side of the train tracks.

I went to 11 different elementary schools due to childhood instability. I saw school districts with barely any resources, and some that were way more affluent. I have a keen understanding that those with better teachers, smaller classrooms, and more resources will do well.

I had classmates test out of Calc I/II, Physics I/II, ad Chemistry I/II as 4/c because they had the privilege of taking those courses as a high schooler through their school or local community college. Not all school districts have that.

Heck, there are school districts out there who can't really fund their athletic programs. Or working-class parents who can't afford to send their kids to athletic programs and require them to work. I worked all four years of high school (actually was employee of the year at one of the companies I worked at), was a 3 sport varsity athlete, top of my high school class, etc.

I did well because I'm an extremely driven, intelligent, and capable individual. Most people with my background don't make it to elite institutions like I have - currently earning my MBA part-time from an elite school thanks to the Post 9/11 and Yellow Ribbon program. But then again, I'm not like most people. I also graduated with the most difficult major at the Academy, I was about middle of the pack in terms of class rank there.

Sure, I deal with things post-service like other veterans do. Yet, I haven't lost sight of the fact that inequality inherently exists in our country. And I'm someone who's cleared the $300K+/year mark out in the civilian workforce
Click to expand...

Congratulations!

My son was middle class and went to a public school. He is planning on attending MIT or Harvard in a few years. He was valedictorian, 3 sport starting captain, officer of everything, etc.

We didn’t send him to private tutors or give him anything more than the public school, funded by my tax dollars, offered. The same that is offered to all schools in his district.

It was his effort. He got up at 5:30 since 9th grade to workout before school to be in shape for basketball. He didn’t do this to get into the academy. He never decided on where to apply before his SATs came in. He decided to not apply to Ivy’s and only applied to USNA after he got his results.

His other teammates didn’t do that, and they didn’t graduate with the highest GPA in school history.

Would you favor giving his slate to someone who didn’t perform as well, because if the color of his skin?

And this brings me back to the very first point I make about this whole matter. Why are we spending trillions of dollars on education and allowing this to occur? The proper way to diversity and inclusion is not to lower expectations. It is to fix the problems in these districts.

Edit: what is the hardest major at the Academy? I think there are several that claim that. ;) I know my son thinks his aerospace engineering major was the hardest.
 
Regarding these “elite preparatory schools” I see a chicken or the egg question. Do those students have such high stats because their school was so great? Or was their school considered so great because it only admitted the highest performing students? It seems that when students succeed, the schools want the credit, and when students don’t do so hot, we are to believe that it’s only because the school didn’t have enough money for iPads or other gizmos. (Even though over the last few decades spending on education has SKYROCKETED without an apparent commensurate increase in academic performance).

If money could buy high SAT scores and GPAs, why were super wealthy celebrities caught committing fraud to get their kids admitted to colleges by fudging stats and extracurriculars a few years back?
 
Kierkegaard said:
Regarding these “elite preparatory schools” I see a chicken or the egg question. Do those students have such high stats because their school was so great? Or was their school considered so great because it only admitted the highest performing students? It seems that when students succeed, the schools want the credit, and when students don’t do so hot, we are to believe that it’s only because the school didn’t have enough money for iPads or other gizmos. (Even though over the last few decades spending on education has SKYROCKETED without an apparent commensurate increase in academic performance).

If money could buy high SAT scores and GPAs, why were super wealthy celebrities caught committing fraud to get their kids admitted to colleges by fudging stats and extracurriculars a few years back?
Click to expand...
The varsity blues scandal was a little different…. They were paying a middleman (coach) to get them into the school for less money than if they had made a big donation to the school. Cutting corners trying to save money, but in an illegal way. Like maybe they were paying the coach $500,000 for a seat, but it would’ve cost them $5,000,000 in an official donation to the school for going through the proper channels.
 
Kierkegaard said:
If money could buy high SAT scores and GPAs, why were super wealthy celebrities caught committing fraud to get their kids admitted to colleges by fudging stats and extracurriculars a few years back?
Click to expand...
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

You can give a rich kid all the resources in the world to set them up for success, but you can’t force them to use them. You can’t force someone to learn if they don’t want to no matter how good( and expensive!) their tutors are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top