McCain!

A couple of things - now that we are totally off topic!

First - many MOC's have early fall deadlines, candidates can and should continue to take the SAT's and/or ACT's. They have until Feb to become "qualified". Arbitrary SAT requirements may discourage candidates who are close.

Second - high SAT's are not what academy admissions is all about. They are a guide and only a guide. They are NOT a guarantee of academy/military success.

Third - Even though you don't need a nomination to get an appointment to NAPS/USMAPS/AFAPS or to be awarded an academy sponsored civil prep scholarship - most of those did receive a nominations.
IMO - getting a nomination is key - if you are marginal academically it opens doors without one they are most likely closed.
So - the kid who has an overall excellent package: good grades, challenging schedule, great leadership and an excellent athlete - should be considered even with "low" SAT scores.

The reason - I believe - that MOC's state minimum's for SAT's is just as you said PIMA - they have soooooo many applications for only a slate of 10 names - Those candidate who are close to the minimums should apply anyway, they have nothing to lose.

The committee should be reviewing applications of their consituents who meet the legal requirements for academy admissions. Those requirements are set by Congress. They do not include a minimum SAT score.
 
I guess our ds's situation is not the norm. Trust me, we have had to do our fair share of jumping through the hoops. His ALO has been the best...he has an incredible relationship with our DS...DS speaks to him @ 2x a month. DS is in jump start(sr in hs, but takes college classes) and sees him weekly in the halls during class breaks at the college. Even today, he met up with him for about an hour...just to review and shoot the breeze.

DS's school counselor has been very supportive, but has very little to do with the process except for submitting school paperwork and recs. It really has been our ALO, and AFA regional.

I never will say that the SAT is the be all, but in the end there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. The AFA has stated what the line is "NORMALLY" for SAT/ACT. Let's remember they also have drawn the line for the CFA!

I will state again our DS is not the norm...how many of you can say that your child attended 9 public schools in 6 different states, has never lived in a home for more than 30 months?

I have no problem with the SAT situation. If the SA's are training the best, then they should have the best SAT/ACT score. Our DS applied to other top tier schools, I don't think he was the only applicant to do so!

We need to remember that the PAR is 60%The SAT is a large part of that score.
Also remember the school is only the conduit for reporting transcripts, the ALO rec is actually a part of the overall score in a seperate score...the guidance counselor is a part of the PAR
 
Last edited:
As stated by USNA69
Your present NC Senators have given primary nominations to AFA candidates with below 600 individual SATs.
Click to expand...

Please tell me who the senators gave a primary to with those stats. We went to Sen. Dole's reception last week in Salisbury, and I did not see anyone with a stat that low. Also according to our ALO and Regional, the Senator Nom. slate has not gone to the board as of today.

Senator Dole stated that her noms were submitted alphabetically. Sen. Burr also gives a competitive list. Congressman are of course a different issue, we have 13 congressional districts in NC. NC is a competitive state with many military bases and dependents. As I stated before Senator Dole and Senator Burr had over 200 applicants...according to Senator Dole it was close to 300. In our small military community, our ALO has 7 applicants, our DS was the only one to receive every MOC nom(3 + Pres), you, USNA69 must admit that it is not the norm to receive every nom. an applicant applies for .

As I stated before DS's SAT is 1390(to debunk your 600 SAT theory, he had 670 M, and 720 V, his ACT comp was 33), so again please name the candidate that the AFA has accepted from NC with an individual SAT below 600

BTW, our DS was the only applicant for our congressional district that received both Sen. nom. This includes USNA, USMA and USAFA applicants(only student from our district to receive a nom from either Sen...none the less both). The only other applicant that had 2 noms (received Dole, but not Burr), was another student who applied for USMMA
 
Last edited:
Pima, Pima, Pima.......

what you are doing here is taking your son's individual case and attempting to make it a general rule.

SAT's - are used by the academies in admissions. They are used because they provide the ONLY method of trying to compare large groups of students.
They are ONE predictor of FIRST YEAR college success. They are not the only predictor, nor are they a predictor of good officership, leadership, character or athletic ability.
Are they perfect? Nope. Study after study has proved that SAT scores are directly proprotional to gender (males have higher math scores than females, females have higher CR scores) and family income and by race.
I am going to go out on a limb her and suggest that a MOC who arbitrarily assesses minimum SAT score could have sexism, elitism and racist issues.
Our SA's are Federal. They are there to provide opportunities to young adult from across America - not just those who are white males from a upper middle class background.
 
Last edited:
Well I guess my family is abnormal again! My SAT scores were higher than my husbands! I don't buy into the study theories, if the SAT was so skewed and off, then colleges would have stopped using them eons ago. Remember one of the most prestigious awards is the NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP (PSAT scores are used for this)

How is my sons SAT abnormal when you can go through this site and CC and see over and over again the SAT scores for most applicants are @1300. Even USNA69 has stated to get accepted the applicant needs to be near 1300. If BGO's and ALO's feel this way, why is it horrible for a senator in a very competitive area to say, don't apply unless you have this min. Is it not better for him to not get the childs hopes up. Maybe the child will strive to get better scores.

I would also say he is the norm, since this is the situation for our entire state. He was not the only child with those scores. The other studengts in our district that did not even get a nom, except for Pres, had over 1200 SATs and same gpas. Thus, again the sources have placed weight on the SAT.
 
PIMA is off the mark on this one. Between my wife and I, we have >50 years of commissioned service so I'm pretty confident that I have a fair appreciation of what a professional military officer looks like and what to look for in a potential officer, and I have yet to see where there is a huge correlation between extremely high SAT scores and leadership capability. "Just- a -Mom" and "USNA69" have this exactly right- there is a lot more evaluated than the ability to fill in a bubble on a computer answer sheet. If a Senator is denying even giving consideration to a candidate because he/she has less than a 600 on an SAT section- then that Congressman is doing a huge disservice to the academy as well as to the constituent, and- the reason they are doing it is because they are lazy. They should be considering the whole picture and then letting the academy do the sorting, and I believe that is exactly what is happening in most cases. Is the SAT a valid predictor of academic success? - jury is out as to how good it is (and lot's of top flight schools are tossing it altogether) but if it is a predictor of anything, it's only one of a number of factors. I guarantee that there are a number of candidates in the current nominee slate across the country with less than 600 on one of the sections of the SAT who will be in next years class and should be.
 
bruno said:
If a Senator is denying even giving consideration to a candidate because he/she has less than a 600 on an SAT section- then that Congressman is doing a huge disservice to the academy as well as to the constituent, and- the reason they are doing it is because they are lazy.
Click to expand...

Don't some of the academies use a SAT "cutoff point" as well? Doesn't the USNA deny an application package to a candidate with a SAT score below their cutoff (530/570) as well? (or have they stopped that practice?)

Would they be considered lazy for not considering the whole picture as well?

(FYI - I'm not defending Senator Cardin's practice at all, just curious as to how you differentiate between the academy doing it and the MOC).
 
They do not normally allow a candidate to commence the application process unless they have a 570M/530V score and they must have a 600V/600M minimum in order that they do not have to obtain a 'waiver'. The difference is that one would be sore pressed to find these minimums listed in any of the Academy's candidate literature. If they are there, which I don't think they are, they are well hidden. They do not dissuade these candidates from applying. This is the discussion here.

Once the CGO receives the preapplication, many many candidates, who have strong packages otherwise, are granted candidacy. As a BGO. I can simply request the minimum SATs be waived. They have always complied. And these candidates are often offered appointments. Once they receive their application, those with less than a 600 individual SATs are certainly more heavily scrutinized, but they are looked at, and as you can see from the class profiles, many do gain admittance. Botton line, the entire record is evaluated and rejection is NEVER based on a cutoff statement posted somewhere on the internet. Bruno is correct. MOCs who do this are being unfair to their constituants.
 
It is easy to find the info for the AFA...it is posted on the selection scoring info for the admission section. The candidate login, also states, with an asterisk, that just because you have a nom, does not mean you are considered competitive

College Admission Test Scores (SAT I or ACT)

Students who score below 580 verbal and 560 math on the SAT I and below 24 English/reading and 25 math/science reasoning on the ACT normally will not be competitive for an appointment.
Click to expand...


Thus, if the academy is stating that these are the mins we are looking for, I do not think it is unfair for a Sen. to follow that guideline also. Yes, it is a guideline, but I would think any candidate who reads that with a score lower than these mins, would be dissuaded from applying.

I will also agree that an SAT is not the make or break for what kind of officer anyone will be.

In the end, MOC's get to make their rules on how they review potential noms. If their constituents have an issue with their process, there is a simple solution....VOTE them out!
 
USNA69 said:
They do not normally allow a candidate to commence the application process unless they have a 570M/530V score ...

They do not dissuade these candidates from applying.....
Click to expand...

So they don't allow a candidate to "commence" (which I always thought meant "begin") the application process, but they do not dissuade him from applying.... :confused:

If you are not allowed to commence the application process, isn't that a pretty strong "dissuasion"? :confused:

PS - Wasn't there a lawsuit a few years ago over the USNA's use of SAT minimums to deny an candidate from applying?
 
Luigi, please don't misquote half of what I say and ignore the other half. By omitting the 'normally' in my statement, you have completely changed the meaning. And by totally ignoring my second paragraph, you have continued down this false road of yours.

Something to ponder. To get into NAPS, one has to submit both a preap and an application. With a combined AVERAGE SAT score for the entire class upon entry into USNA most often in the 1130-1140 range, don't you think it slightly possible if maybe one or two of them had SATs below 570M/530V. I know for a fact that many do.
 
USNA69 said:
Luigi, please don't misquote half of what I say and ignore the other half. By omitting the 'normally' in my statement, you have completely changed the meaning. And by totally ignoring my second paragraph, you have continued down this false road of yours.
Click to expand...

"False road of mine?" :sigh:

Here we go again, another one of your meritless accusations. Is this the beginning of another veiled attack of yours?

Or perhaps I can add "here we go down that pompous egotistical road of yours" as it seems that you are allowed to insinuate insults without penalty here, so shall the rest of us?

I quoted exactly what you posted - you chastised a MOC for assigning a minimum score for application (1200), and ignore it when the USNA (530/570) does the same thing!

"Normally" or not, do they do it? If yes, then who cares if it happens all the time, some of the time, most of the time, normally, or not normally - to the candidate it affects it was 100% of the time.

Tell me what is the difference?
 
Gents -this seems like it has gotten a little out of hand. I think that the point is that the academies consider the SAT as a target- not a firm data point within a larger picture - one which is waived often enough if there is a solid record there to warrant doing so. That being said- the member of congress who makes a blanket refusal to consider a prospective for a nomination based solely on the SAT is doing the kid/constituent and the academy a disservice by holding a non waiverable standard higher than the academy itself does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top