Naval Academy had highest number of nominations on record

[Mongo]

It is the needs of the Navy. Navy leadership's position is that by 2037, from Ensign to Admiral, leadership should reflect the ethnic and racial makeup of the crew. Their predictions for this makeup is 10% Black, 13% Asian/Pacific Island, and 13% Hispanic. This cannot happen overnight. Those 2037 Admirals are becoming candidates for officer programs today. Can you think of a better way to achieve these goals than the present policy?

 

[Luigi59]

The deeply-rooted biases of the busy-body social engineer are disclosed with this tired and well-worn invocation of a supposed class struggle between supposed “haves” and “have-nots.”

The notion rests on the ridiculous assumption that certain arbitrary groupings of people are not represented at Academies in perfect proportion to their numbers to society at large because people (the haves) who do not bear the same skin tint or surnames of those arbitrary groupings (the have-nots) have conspired to deprive them of that right. Now, it’s cast in terms of rich and poor, but we’re really talking skin tint and surnames. A black candidate from a wealthy family is considered a “have-not” by skin color alone, and will be favored over a white candidate from a poor family who is—by default—considered a “have.” A Hispanic surname held by a trout-belly white candidate with Irish red hair is also considered a “have not” purely by accident of birth. And I believe that this illogical and counterproductive attempt to achieve supposed social equality by arbitrary measure is justified by the social engineers because it makes them feel self-righteous in their attempts to force on others the social engineers’ personal convictions of how other people should behave and the choices other people should make.

By application of Occam’s famous razor, the simpler explanation is the preferred explanation. The simpler explanation for a dearth of candidates from certain arbitrary skin tins or surname groupings is that they self-select out. They have less real interest in attending the academies. This is the same reason why white candidates, particularly those with southern cultural backgrounds, tend to compete for appointments in disproportionately high numbers. They self-select IN.

I am so tired of social engineers who seemongly spend every walking moment creating and nurturing the victim group mentality, spreading the poison of social unrest, and accusing their critics of racism--or worse.

The definitive post. Nothing more needs to be added.

Should be a "sticky" on permanent display.

Excellent job. Farleigh85.

 

[scoutpilot]

The deeply-rooted biases of the busy-body social engineer are disclosed with this tired and well-worn invocation of a supposed class struggle between supposed “haves” and “have-nots.”

The notion rests on the ridiculous assumption . . . spend every walking moment creating and nurturing the victim group mentality, spreading the poison of social unrest, and accusing their critics of racism--or worse.

Slow clap. Bravo!

 

[Mongo]

Slow clap.

Even though his premise that trout-belly white blue eyed red headed Hispanics are "have nots" and white candidates from poor families are "haves" is nothing more than ridiculous assumptions?

 

[pjnavy82]

The odds of this proving detrimental to both the candidates and the Academy's goal to pick the most qualified is much much greater than the odds of it assisting more qualified to obtain appointments. Overall, not a good procedure.

I don't disagree! Just saying what appears to be happening....

PJ

 

[Pima]

I must be really slow to get the light bulb on here.

Let me get this correct.
1. They now had 6600 noms this yr

Assumption: under served communities are getting noms.

2. They accepted the same amount of cadets.

3. The drop out rate is still the same as before @25%

So tell me how one takes the leap that the cadet selected from the 6600 list is going to be a have not. Did they change the apptmt system where the highest WCS wins the nom.

Secondly, let's say this system now gets underserving areas, because the MOCs now talk to each other. The question will not be answered for a yr-4 yrs how wise this decision was because if the under served area was under served by the MOC due to academically sub par course rigor, what happens when the cadet is struggling to keep their grades? Will the USNA water down the system to keep them?

Thirdly, where in that article did it state underserved? Our economy is in the tanks and kids are looking at all options for college. For all we know, all of these noms could be from over served areas where in previous yrs they didn't apply for the SA.

Fourth, anyone who has been affiliated with the nom process understands that the majority of the MOCS follow the academic desires of the SA. They follow the process that a hole is better than... Why nom a child that doesn't even come near the mins? There is no reg that states they must submit a full slate. There is no reg that states they must talk to each other to spread the wealth.

Fifth and finally, no place in that article did it not only take the leap of spreading the wealth, but let's throw out another assumption which is no where in the article. The MOCs talk, but now give more principal noms, which in essence means congrats, you made the list, but guess what, unless they turn it down, your chances didn't improve at all just because you now have to go on the NWL, which again is a WCS, but now from a NATIONAL level and not a district or state. In essence, if you got it from a spread the wealth position and you are from Arkansas, move onto plan B because states like VA, CO. NY, TX, and CA typically have the most rigorous academic programs which accounts for 60% of your WCS.

If anything this probably hurt the have nots more from every angle.

 

[Mongo]

The deeply-rooted biases of the busy-body social engineer are disclosed with this tired and well-worn invocation of a supposed class struggle between supposed “haves” and “have-nots.”

The notion rests on the ridiculous assumption that certain arbitrary groupings of people are not represented at Academies in perfect proportion to their numbers to society at large because people (the haves) who do not bear the same skin tint or surnames of those arbitrary groupings (the have-nots) have conspired to deprive them of that right. Now, it’s cast in terms of rich and poor, but we’re really talking skin tint and surnames. A black candidate from a wealthy family is considered a “have-not” by skin color alone, and will be favored over a white candidate from a poor family who is—by default—considered a “have.” A Hispanic surname held by a trout-belly white candidate with Irish red hair is also considered a “have not” purely by accident of birth. And I believe that this illogical and counterproductive attempt to achieve supposed social equality by arbitrary measure is justified by the social engineers because it makes them feel self-righteous in their attempts to force on others the social engineers’ personal convictions of how other people should behave and the choices other people should make.

By application of Occam’s famous razor, the simpler explanation is the preferred explanation. The simpler explanation for a dearth of candidates from certain arbitrary skin tins or surname groupings is that they self-select out. They have less real interest in attending the academies. This is the same reason why white candidates, particularly those with southern cultural backgrounds, tend to compete for appointments in disproportionately high numbers. They self-select IN. I am so tired of social engineers who seemongly spend every walking moment creating and nurturing the victim group mentality, spreading the poison of social unrest, and accusing their critics of racism--or worse.

Farleigh, aglages seems to think I was being creative when I stated that many preferred returning to the recruiting efforts as they were prior to the push for diversity and asked for examples. Offhand, I would say that your post is an example. Would you not agree?