Naval Academy professor: A veneer of selectivity - College, Inc. - The Washington Pos

Status
Not open for further replies.
LineInTheSand said:
But it isn't an application to that class..... the class that the numbers are about. Do Summer Seminar.... then senior year of HS.... take a year off..... now what....that's summer seminar # is considered "valid" as an application? To which class?

To me, it's bumping up stats...
Click to expand...
Yeah that is a stretch...that is why I said "technically." But what about civilian colleges? You know they are including all applications too, right?
 
BobBigBoy said:
I would argue that even a completed Summer Seminar application would be, technically, an application to the school.
Click to expand...
This is what they do. My son filled out a NASS application and was not selected. He later decided the Navy was not for him and did not start an actual application. The USNA academy opened his file and contacted him multilple times. He offered no encouragement and told them on two occaisions that he was not interested. And you are telling me he should be counted as an applicant? The only thing he applied for was a summer recruiting program.
 
Packer said:
This is what they do. My son filled out a NASS application and was not selected. He later decided the Navy was not for him and did not start an actual application. The USNA academy opened his file and contacted him multilple times. He offered no encouragement and told them on two occaisions that he was not interested. And you are telling me he should be counted as an applicant? The only thing he applied for was a summer recruiting program.
Click to expand...

Nope, you missed my point completely. What I am saying is, they should mirror the practices used by the civilian colleges. If civilian colleges consider an application valid as soon as it is submitted, then that should be the standard. If ancillary information is required but not submitted, should it still count? I don't know...what do civilian colleges consider an application?
 
BobBigBoy said:
Nope, you missed my point completely. What I am saying is, they should mirror the practices used by the civilian colleges. If civilian colleges consider an application valid as soon as it is submitted, then that should be the standard. If ancillary information is required but not submitted, should it still count? I don't know...what do civilian colleges consider an application?
Click to expand...
I don't think I missed your point. He never applied but yet he will be counted as he expressed some interest early on. I don't think civilian colleges count as an applicant one that applies to one of their summer camps but maybe they do.
 
Personally, I would agree that someone who only applies to NASS shouldn't be counted as an applicant. However, a "direct" comparison b/t the SA application process and the civilian process isn't appropriate either. There are a lot more hoops in the SA process.

My preference is that the SAs are open about their definition of "applicant." But that's just me.
 
Like many things, one can probably drive a truck through this. The Common Data Set's definition of an applicant:

"Applicant (first-time, first year): An individual who has fulfilled the institution’s requirements to be considered for admission (including payment or waiving of the application fee, if any) and who has been notified of one of the following actions: admission, nonadmission, placement on waiting list, or application withdrawn (by applicant or institution)."

Everyone is playing by the same set of rules. "Considered for admission" can mean just about anything. Technically, NASS applicants are informed that they are also automatically opening an application to the USNA. So if they withdraw the application (or imply withdrawal by not completing the application), I guess it counts. My son also opened an application to USAFA and became a (don't exactly remember the term) "competitive candidate". He has informed them that he is not interested in completing the application, so I imagine he will count as an applicant there.

The real problem is that college rankings are driving the bus and the colleges go along with it.
 
Candidad said:
...The real problem is that college rankings are driving the bus and the colleges go along with it.
Click to expand...

DS came home from Massive U one weekend during his freshman year and said, "Dad, I realize that college is just a business. There's so much underage drinking in the dorm that they could expel half the kids if they wanted to, but then nobody would go there!"

We've come to equate exclusivity with quality. That may or may not be a true metric.
 
Candidad said:
Like many things, one can probably drive a truck through this. The Common Data Set's definition of an applicant:

"Applicant (first-time, first year): An individual who has fulfilled the institution’s requirements to be considered for admission (including payment or waiving of the application fee, if any) and who has been notified of one of the following actions: admission, nonadmission, placement on waiting list, or application withdrawn (by applicant or institution)."

Everyone is playing by the same set of rules. "Considered for admission" can mean just about anything. Technically, NASS applicants are informed that they are also automatically opening an application to the USNA.
Click to expand...

I agree with your take on this. Per the CDS desciption of "applicant", the USNA is stretching a bit but is complying with that definition of applicant.
 
dunninla said:
I agree with your take on this. Per the CDS desciption of "applicant", the USNA is stretching a bit but is complying with that definition of applicant.
Click to expand...

I'd beg to disagree. USNA does not adhere to the final piece of the definition.

USNA's is closer to what most colleges and u's would call "Inquiries" ... Furthermore, there are undoubtedly many being counted as "Applicants" that had no intent nor idea of doing so or being counted as such.
 
WHY??

Why is this even being debated?? The original topic was that USNA, and by extension all the Service Academy's were some how not "selective" enough. Who says?? An obviously disgruntled employee who wants to be the center of attention by showing how smart and above the comman folks he is?? Ask the THOUSANDS of young men and woman who are not accepted how "selective" they are. Does the kid with three noms, top grades etc that is rejected think that somehow the standards have slipped?? You think it matters to these kids how many freakin applications USNA had? This whole discusion is would be a joke if it wasn't so sad. Just how selective does this prima dona think it should be?? Maybe we should just scrap the entire process and take only validictorians...who cares how many apply?? What matters is NOT ALL GET IN. Lots of our best and brightest do not, and for this taxpayer paid teacher to year after year trash his students and institution is not something that should be allowed to continue. By engaging in this, my bet is he feels vindicated...when in fact, he should look in the mirror and see a man who lacks the moral courage to resign...instead of staying employed at an institution he does not seem to respect.
 
Donia,

this thread isn't supposed to be attacking the Professor (see posts above on "ad hominem" attacks), but discussing the ideas put forth in his article.
 
Who determines "supposed to?"

Doing as Luigi's nice sounding and presented position that some have succumbed to is like trying to discuss the 3rd Reich absent analyzing Hitler. Romeo and Juliet absent Shakespeare. The great depression, WWII absent FDR. Stained blue dresses and Cuban cigars absent Bill Clinton. All totally ridiculous. This is less a story of math and definitions than politics and PR.

In fact, the Professor begs analyses of his info and himself, as Prof. Sowell indicates. It's indigenous to the instructor and his particular position at an institution like USNA. While the information is interesting in itself, more so is the context of who and why it is offered. This story is way more than admissions data and terminology, and Prof. Fleming would be sorely diappointed with those who would think so.

This is the classic dissertational dilemma. The answer one gets is begged by the questions asked. But there are multiple theses in this story.
 
I don't think the cigars were Cuban. So it would make sense to not talk about Clinton if the cigars you're talking about are Cuban.


BOOM.

:eek:
 
Whistle Pig said:
Who determines "supposed to?"

Doing as Luigi's nice sounding and presented position that some have succumbed to is like trying to discuss the 3rd Reich absent analyzing Hitler. Romeo and Juliet absent Shakespeare. The great depression, WWII absent FDR. Stained blue dresses and Cuban cigars absent Bill Clinton. All totally ridiculous. This is less a story of math and definitions than politics and PR.

In fact, the Professor begs analyses of his info and himself, as Prof. Sowell indicates. It's indigenous to the instructor and his particular position at an institution like USNA. While the information is interesting in itself, more so is the context of who and why it is offered. This story is way more than admissions data and terminology, and Prof. Fleming would be sorely diappointed with those who would think so.

This is the classic dissertational dilemma. The answer one gets is begged by the questions asked. But there are multiple theses in this story.
Click to expand...

Oof. Do you get paid by the syllable or something?

Look, I don't agree with everything, or even a lot of, what Prof. Fleming says and I don't agree with way he does it. Of course there's some egotistical aspect to what he writes, but I think everyone's being overly critical of him and not his argument.

Lots of my other professors have talked about the same stuff as Fleming to mids in class or in private discussion before, including military professors. If you think the academic and military sides of the Academy live in harmony, dedicated to mutual admiration, you're all kinds of wrong.

I also think it's interesting that the people who seem to have the most vitirol for Prof. Fleming are...*drumroll*...parents. Most of you, I'm guessing, haven't gone to the Academy and have secondhand at best knowledge at how it all works.
You can get mad at Fleming for writing about it in the WaPo instead of maybe voicing his concerns more discretely (and who knows, he's obviously not afraid of confrontation and I'd be surprised if he hadn't brought this up to powers that be at school), but you can't launch into half-assed psychological analyses and personal attacks in defend an institution you really don't have that close of a connection to.
 
Hurricane, I thought your post 5 days ago would have finally laid this the non-issue to rest. I thought you politely expressed what I felt. You are on the ground and are moving on. Why can't all these other folks, who won't let this topic die, just move on as well.

They remind me of Captain Renault in Casablanca, who was "shocked" to find out there is gambling at Rick's Cafe. Well, I am not shocked by admissions department hyjinx anywhere. Nor, am I shocked that a tenured professor would PO his bosses and alums.

SA's aren't perfect nor is the military as a whole, but I trust them more than anyone else to be transparent and as fair as the politicians let them be.

Hurricane displays a maturity that we and our kids should emulate.
 
I think this thread has reached the end of its useful life in that all parties who want to air their opinions have had more than ample opportunity to do so and the current "discussion" doesn't seem to foster the purpose of this site, which is to inform candidates and others about SAs.

Thus, I'm closing this thread. If people have comments that they believe are important for everyone to "hear," please feel free to start a new thread and have at it. But the same people rehashing and repeating the same sentiments isn't really getting us anywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top