That is correct. We found out that my son did not receive an appointment even though he received a VP nomination. The admission counselor said that the top 10 candidates on the NWL will receive the VP nomination and the number one person will be offered an appointment.
Late VP Nomination
- Thread starter ath42
- Start date
Sorry to hear that. We have found anything out yet.
In my son's portal it says "VPRE4" for the nomination. Out of curiosity, did you have the same code or something different? Based on your post, my son is now assuming that he missed it by 3 places...
In my son's portal it says "VPRE4" for the nomination. Out of curiosity, did you have the same code or something different? Based on your post, my son is now assuming that he missed it by 3 places...
I am sorry for those of you who have read Luigi59's posts and unrealistically raised your expectations. Unfortunately he is wrong. I confirmed that today with a very reliable officer in the WP Admissions. Every year there are VP nominations that DO NOT get an appointment. Normally the VP nominates several people (up to 10) for each of his vacancies (NORMALLY ONE PER YEAR). WP then decides who gets the offer - normally this goes to a LOA person. In short, if you get a VP nom and have an LOA your chances are excellent-otherwise not so good.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
Yet the VP doesn't actually nominate anyone, do they?
West Point chooses who gets a VP nomination.
Nothing about the candidate is sent to the VP, nothing - no grades, transcripts, recommendations - nothing. The VP knows nothing about a candidate.
West Point chooses who gets a VP nomination, and they only have 5 total slots to use for the VP appointments. They "normally" have one slot per year according to you.
So why would they choose to nominate someone who is not getting an appointment?
Explain that.
Why would the admissions office of West Point use one of the very limited rare VP nominations on a candidate who is not going to get an appointment?
It makes no sense.
This doesn't make sense since those on the NWL already HAVE a nom.
I am confused about this too.
VP noms almost ALWAYS go to LOAs without noms, therefore VP noms almost always mean an appointment. I'm going to assume that g5md's DS did not have a LOA so it is curious as to why he was given a VP nom.
Also - these VP noms were given out after May 1 when the class was closed and full. More than full as it was over the targeted size.
There are reasons and explanations that we are not privy to.
Maybe our resident former admissions committee member can enlighten us.
Following the established procedure or playing the game.
We all know that in most cases bottom 5 of 10 nominated by a MOC has very little chance or no chance of getting an appointment, so why MOC still nominate 10 instead of 5 or less. Because they can.
Many things don't make sense in SA admissions. For me, it was not the best 1150 by WCS that started West Point this year.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
But the MOC is doing the choosing there, not the Academy!
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,480
This was the message posted on the Great Lakes Field Force Facebook page this morning by our Regional Commander - the last paragraph seems relevant here:
For some reason, a lot of candidates latch onto the Vice Presidential Nomination as something important. I am always completely honest with them - it IS NOT important. Two important things about the VP Nom:
(1) it only goes to candidates who have no other nominations.
(2) applications aren't due to the VP until the end of January. So candidates could wait to find out if they get a district or senatorial nom and then apply to the VP if they don't.
It isn't very hard to apply for it, but it is effort that would be better spent elsewhere. They could study for the ACT instead. What really concerns me is when a candidate only applies for the VP Nom and ignores the others. That is just not a good idea.
One last thing on it - we didn't receive the VP nomination list this year until the class was already full. Zero people were offered admission on the basis of the VP Nom.
For some reason, a lot of candidates latch onto the Vice Presidential Nomination as something important. I am always completely honest with them - it IS NOT important. Two important things about the VP Nom:
(1) it only goes to candidates who have no other nominations.
(2) applications aren't due to the VP until the end of January. So candidates could wait to find out if they get a district or senatorial nom and then apply to the VP if they don't.
It isn't very hard to apply for it, but it is effort that would be better spent elsewhere. They could study for the ACT instead. What really concerns me is when a candidate only applies for the VP Nom and ignores the others. That is just not a good idea.
One last thing on it - we didn't receive the VP nomination list this year until the class was already full. Zero people were offered admission on the basis of the VP Nom.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
So the question still stands:
If West Point admissions department is who chooses the VP nomination recipients, why would they choose anyone if they didn't intend to attach an appointment to that nomination?
Assigning a VP nomination to a candidate who is not getting an appointment is senseless!
The VP nomination is MUCH different from the MOC nomination, in that a MOC nomination is assigned by the MOC, while WP admissions gets to assign the VP nomination!
So why give it at all? It's just a "throw-away," a waste of time and resources to even process a VP nom if no appointment is following it.
A person who receives a nomination but does not win the slate is elgible to be placed on the NWL where they may receive an appointment. Just because a person does not win the slate of 10 does not mean they can not/will not be appointed.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
I understand that, and when it comes to a MOC nomination I would agree with you.
But wouldn't WP already know if they are going to appoint someone or not?
Seems that if what you are saying is true, there would be no need to "nominate" anyone with a VP nomination that WASN'T getting an appointment, as they (WP) control the nomination AND the appointment!
It is senseless for them to use a VP nomination just to nominate someone if they have no intention of awarding an appointment. By controlling both the nom and the appointment, they essentially become exactly like the USCGA in that the nomination is unnecessary!
Also - according to buff81:
Which confuses it even more.
My son got an email back saying essentially the same as has been reported in this thread: the class is full and the chances of anyone else being appointed is pretty much zero.
Why they would mail these nominations out at such a late date (and when the class is full) remains a mystery.
Why they would mail these nominations out at such a late date (and when the class is full) remains a mystery.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,996
I'm sure the answer is "that's how we've always done it."
The nomination gives WP the legal authority to appoint someone. They can appoint more than one off of a slate. The may have two(or 10) candidates without a MOC nom that they would like to appoint. By giving them both a VP nom they can directly appoint one and place the other(s) on the NWL and appoint them from there. Note only one will be charged to the VP. It simply gives WP more flexibility in filling the class. I agree that it seems odd that they would give the nom to anyone they were not going to appoint but it does give them a way to get more than one person without a MOC nom into a class.
Luigi59
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,566
Not in dispute.
Packer said:
Not in dispute.
Packer said:
Again, if they are not going to appoint "the other one" then why give the nomination to him/her at all?
As they control both the nomination AND the appointment, awarding the VP nom makes no sense!
Packer said:
Not in dispute.
Packer said:
Again, that would be true IF they were going to offer an appointment to "the other one" who they gave a VP nom to. Otherwise, why use a VP nomination at all?
Packer said:
Agreed.
Packer said:
Not if they aren't going to appoint the "other" person!
Awarding a VP nomination to a candidate who is not getting an appointment is asinine.
GoArmyBeatNavy
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 683
Awarding a VP nomination to a candidate who is not getting an appointment is asinine.
Not if the Vice-President's office told them to provide the office a list of the ten names that were nominated.
But the Academies are the ones that actually nominate people... I don't think the VP's office actually does anything.
GoArmyBeatNavy
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 683
i don't know, i was just guessing.