No more Principal Nominations.

[Freda'sMom]

My statement is on how the US law evolved to ensure national representation in our officer s at the SA's.

And yet "national representation in our officers" at one of the SAs is accomplished without a nomination intermediate step.

True, USCGA does not follow this nomination process. It is also much smaller than the othe academies and would not be able to enroll someone fron every district.

Why is it so important to you to have geographic deiversity in academy appointments, over racial diversity? or over gender diversity? or over height or weight diversity? What's so special about having one appointment from the 4th district of OK instead of having 2 from the 3rd district?

It isn't perfect, but it is the current law. You are perfectly entitled to lobby to change change or amend the law. I believe you would be in the minority, but I do respect your right to disagree with me and am glad that my DS will be defending your right to do so.

As are all 3 of my active duty children are for yours.

 

[frenzymando]

Why is it so important to you to have geographic deiversity in academy appointments, over racial diversity? or over gender diversity?

The SAs take measures for racial diversity and gender diversity. Hard to say that they are putting geographical diversity over racial and gender diversity.

I must ask, do you believe that the SAs should accept people based purely on merit?

 

[AROTC-dad]

And yet "national representation in our officers" at one of the SAs is accomplished without a nomination intermediate step.



Why is it so important to you to have geographic deiversity in academy appointments, over racial diversity? or over gender diversity? or over height or weight diversity? What's so special about having one appointment from the 4th district of OK instead of having 2 from the 3rd district?



As are all 3 of my active duty children are for yours.

Diversity is generally a very good thing. Geographic diversity has been the way the Constitution was constructed to proportionally represent the population of the U.S. By nature, geographic diversity will usually result in a diversified array of candidates. Is it perfect? Certainly not. But it is what we currently use to ensure that our officers and our congress reflects the citizenship.

Look, I'm not trying to be obtuse to your argument, and I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points. I am only making a comment that Our Constitution has served this country well for over 200 years and thank goodness for the young men and women such as your three AD children (Bless them for their service), who swear to defend the it. I do feel that the nomination process does have it's merits in ensuring that a small subset of our population doesn't "corner" the market on the military leadership. On this we can certainly and respectfully disagree.

 

[Fairhope dad]

Who knows why a certain SA appoints one person over another. There really is no way to figure it out. My son had better scores, ACT, GPA, leadership than a principal appointee to USAF. Mine applied but didn't even get a nomination. I get what you're saying but it's the system that seems to work. I hate it for these young people but life's not fair and if they really want to go then they will try again. That's what they have to decide. I wish my son would have been a principal, but he wasn't.

 

[swrakow]

How about eliminating all nominations and letting the academy decide on the best candidates to fill their class?

One of them is already doing that and it seems to be working out quite well.....

The nominating process assures diverse geographical representation. I'm sure that USNA could fill every spot in every class with those living in the Mid-Atlantic region.

 

[LineInTheSand]

The nomination process was a power grab from many years ago. Nothing more.

 

[MaggieMae66]

I agree with Freda's Mom, the USCGA has been doing just fine without Congressional nominations. Maybe doing away with the nominations altogether is not the answer but that should not be the only way you get your application to the table to be reviewed. Maybe it is one way. The Coast Guard wants you to get in on your own merit. They have been doing this successfully for a while. I am pretty sure the rest of the services can do just as good without all the congressional BS.

As someone else said, you can look really good on paper and you make think your DS/DD should have gotten in but the SA's look for so much more than just your GPA, how many AP or Honors classes you have had and what your SAT score is. They want a well rounded person and they have learned to read between the lines on an essay to determine a team player over an all about me person.

 

[Swabthedecks]

I agree with Freda's Mom, the USCGA has been doing just fine without Congressional nominations. Maybe doing away with the nominations altogether is not the answer but that should not be the only way you get your application to the table to be reviewed. Maybe it is one way. The Coast Guard wants you to get in on your own merit. They have been doing this successfully for a while. I am pretty sure the rest of the services can do just as good without all the congressional BS.

As someone else said, you can look really good on paper and you make think your DS/DD should have gotten in but the SA's look for so much more than just your GPA, how many AP or Honors classes you have had and what your SAT score is. They want a well rounded person and they have learned to read between the lines on an essay to determine a team player over an all about me person.

Regarding "getting in on your own merit" must be a supposition on your part. How did you arrive at this? How do you define success on their part? They have there own way of selecting appointees but that doesn't make it the best way. In fact, I would argue that they have their own set of rules which are very different from the other academies and that makes them the exception. From what I saw first hand, they put an incredible emphasis on diversity, much at the expense of higher qualified non-diverse candidates.

 

[Letsdothis]

I agree with Freda's Mom, the USCGA has been doing just fine without Congressional nominations. Maybe doing away with the nominations altogether is not the answer but that should not be the only way you get your application to the table to be reviewed. Maybe it is one way. The Coast Guard wants you to get in on your own merit. They have been doing this successfully for a while. I am pretty sure the rest of the services can do just as good without all the congressional BS.

As someone else said, you can look really good on paper and you make think your DS/DD should have gotten in but the SA's look for so much more than just your GPA, how many AP or Honors classes you have had and what your SAT score is. They want a well rounded person and they have learned to read between the lines on an essay to determine a team player over an all about me person.

Our congressional panel values the same characteristics and is able to make their determination for nominations based on an interview by a group of seven- as well as candidate data. I'm a fan of the process.

 

[MaggieMae66]

Regarding "getting in on your own merit" must be a supposition on your part. How did you arrive at this? How do you define success on their part? They have there own way of selecting appointees but that doesn't make it the best way. In fact, I would argue that they have their own set of rules which are very different from the other academies and that makes them the exception. From what I saw first hand, they put an incredible emphasis on diversity, much at the expense of higher qualified non-diverse candidates.

I have first hand knowledge on this. My husband has been in the Coast Guard for 26+ years and I am a CG veteran. We have talked with AOs, board members, CCEB members over the years and so I do know what I am speaking of. They do like diversity but to say at the expense of higher qualified "non-divserse" candidates, I would disagree. Higher qualified by whose standards? Just because someone has a 4.0 and has a fantastic SAT or ACT score does not mean they are highly qualified. A lot of people can be really good at testing and what not but fall short of other dynamics they look for.

 

[usna1985]

A few thoughts . . .

USCGA is so small that it would be almost impossible to require the geographic diversity required of the larger SAs. I'm no expert on USCGA admissions but it wouldn't surprise me if they, like most "national" universities, made some effort to have geographic diversity.

Personally, I like geographic diversity. IMHO, it's fascinating to have people in your class, company and even squad who've never seen snow or never traveled outside of Montana or spent their free time skiing/surfing, etc. To me, it's as important as other measures of diversity because people from different areas of the country can bring different experiences and attitudes and approaches to life.

I agree with those who say that stats aren't everything. I've interviewed more than my share of kids with outstanding stats whom upon meeting I would never recommend for a SA.

We all know there is no perfect objective measure for candidates -- different schools, different areas of the country, different courses, different sports, etc. Even if there were, would you really admit candidate A over candidate B due to 10 more points on the math SAT or one more varsity letter in lacrosse? Seriously?

Finally, why do people automatically assume that the SAs are a better judge than MOC nom committees as to who is the "best" candidate?

 

[LineInTheSand]

A few thoughts . . .

USCGA is so small that it would be almost impossible to require the geographic diversity required of the larger SAs. I'm no expert on USCGA admissions but it wouldn't surprise me if they, like most "national" universities, made some effort to have geographic diversity.

Personally, I like geographic diversity. IMHO, it's fascinating to have people in your class, company and even squad who've never seen snow or never traveled outside of Montana or spent their free time skiing/surfing, etc. To me, it's as important as other measures of diversity because people from different areas of the country can bring different experiences and attitudes and approaches to life.

I agree with those who say that stats aren't everything. I've interviewed more than my share of kids with outstanding stats whom upon meeting I would never recommend for a SA.

We all know there is no perfect objective measure for candidates -- different schools, different areas of the country, different courses, different sports, etc. Even if there were, would you really admit candidate A over candidate B due to 10 more points on the math SAT or one more varsity letter in lacrosse? Seriously?

Finally, why do people automatically assume that the SAs are a better judge than MOC nom committees as to who is the "best" candidate?

And yet USMMA has them....

1. MOCs are involved in varying degrees.
2. Congressional staffers aren't elected.
3. What is the value added?
4. Why do you think it started?

 

[Maplerock]

If I ever need major surgery, I'm going to a hospital with a diverse surgical staff. Even if the doctors are the best qualified and have the top medical school evals, if they aren't representative of my state and community's gender, ethnic and religious makeup, I'll go elsewhere for my surgery. As long as they have at least "minimum" scores and experience, and it's good enough for the hospital, it's good enough for me. Who needs the best when you can get a good mixture of qualifications?

 

[emwvmi01]

The "best qualified" criteria though for SAs/ROTC scholarships is rather subjective in and of itself. If you look at the endstate product that is commissioned officers capable of leading Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines/Coast Guardsmen then I think there is an argument that high school GPAs,test scores and rankings do not correlate to that end. I think what we see is there is a variable of the ability to handle academic pressure, coupled with physical fitness and rounded leadership ability (team captain/student government etc). What I do see after 15 years of service in multiple theaters of operation as an Army officers is also officer's success is contingent upon the ability to communicate clearly to subordinates and the willingness to accomplish the mission. So whether this is in the hands of legislators or an Academy admission committee not sure what the difference would be. It seems most MoCs are now doing panels and I think to encourage civilian oversight of SAs that they (MoCs) need to have skin in the game.

 

[frenzymando]

If I ever need major surgery, I'm going to a hospital with a diverse surgical staff. Even if the doctors are the best qualified and have the top medical school evals, if they aren't representative of my state and community's gender, ethnic and religious makeup, I'll go elsewhere for my surgery. As long as they have at least "minimum" scores and experience, and it's good enough for the hospital, it's good enough for me. Who needs the best when you can get a good mixture of qualifications?

Do you feel that women should be held to the same physical fitness standards as men in the military?

 

[Maplerock]

Do you feel that women should be held to the same physical fitness standards as men in the military?

Great question. The same standard should be applied for for the same job. For a clerk, supply officer, JAG, etc... physical strength and speed don't matter. In combat, special ops etc. there are real possibilities where one might be called upon to run fast, climb rugged terrain, even carry a buddy to safety. If a female can perform to the standard, she should be allowed to serve as should any man. If men or women can't meet the standard they should not be able to serve in that capacity. Fighter pilots are an example. Females can and do excel. No misogynist here Frenzy.

 

[frenzymando]

Great question. The same standard should be applied for for the same job. For a clerk, supply officer, JAG, etc... physical strength and speed don't matter. In combat, special ops etc. there are real possibilities where one might be called upon to run fast, climb rugged terrain, even carry a buddy to safety. If a female can perform to the standard, she should be allowed to serve as should any man. If men or eomen can't meet the standard they should not be able to serve in that capacity. Fighter pilots are an example. Females can and do excel. No misogynist here Frenzy.

But why is it, or rather, should it be, okay that a woman that can only do 30 push-ups can join the Army while a man that can do 31 push-ups can't join the Army? Assuming both are equal in all other areas, why should we, and why do we, take the woman in favor of the man when the man is more qualified?

Additionally, and I don't know this for certain, but I was under the impression that most people do not do the same job their entire military career(that might be part of the reason that supply officers still need to meet physical fitness standards even though their job doesn't require physical fitness). Even if one enters with a job where strength doesn't it matter, shouldn't we prefer the potential soldier that is stronger to the one that is weaker? That way we have more people that can fill the slots that require physical prowess. So why should the 31 push up guy be rejected in favor of the 30 push up girl?

 

[Capri120]

Amazing how some threads seem to wander way off topic...to the point the comments do not even merit a response.

 

[usna1985]

The physical standards debate has been held ad nauseum. Holding women and men to the same standard in strength or speed events is inherently unequal. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why men and women don't compete against each other in track & field or swimming or crew or tennis or almost every other sport in the Olympics or the NCAAs or the pros. Thus, a woman who does 30 pushups is probably more fit than a guy who does 31.

The above said, if there is a need to do 31 pushups in order to perform the mission, then everyone should have to do 31. It comes down to whether one is measuring fitness in general (are you in good shape) or fitness for a particular task (need to carry 50 pounds on your back for 10 miles at a certain speed). For the former, standards in certain events should be different or you're asking women to meet a higher standard. For the latter, as noted, the standards are what they are b/c that's what's needed to accomplish the mission.

As for my comment re the benefits of geographic diversity, I would suggest that colleges (including SAs) are not directly comparable to a pure work environment. At USNA you're training to be a Naval Officer but you are also going to "college," which is (IMHO at least) supposed to broaden your overall experience. And I would venture to guess that when those surgeons mentioned above applied to college, those colleges considered various types of diversity. How can anyone know whether their surgeon was accepted at X college and X medical school based solely on grades/SATs/MCATs or because of some unique life experience -- be it geographic, personal, racial/ethnic or other?

Back to the point of this thread, the fact remains there is no way for anyone to make a decision purely on "merit" because merit is always at some level in the eyes of the beholder. And comparing a kid who goes to a one-room school in Montana to a kid who goes to a 5,000 student high school in downtown Baltimore isn't easy. BTW, I'm not an advocate for principal noms -- wouldn't bother me if they went away, which they won't b/c Congress likes them and Congress makes the rules. However, I'm also not that worked up over them because I don't see MOC nom committees (which virtually all MOCs use) as any less likely to pick the "best" person than the SA itself.

 

[Swabthedecks]

I have first hand knowledge on this. My husband has been in the Coast Guard for 26+ years and I am a CG veteran. We have talked with AOs, board members, CCEB members over the years and so I do know what I am speaking of. They do like diversity but to say at the expense of higher qualified "non-divserse" candidates, I would disagree. Higher qualified by whose standards? Just because someone has a 4.0 and has a fantastic SAT or ACT score does not mean they are highly qualified. A lot of people can be really good at testing and what not but fall short of other dynamics they look for.

Half the folks on this board are retired, myself included, so that is not material. What is material is how these academies take the subjective candidate attributes (not SATs and GPA) and convert them to objective measurements. The Whole Candidate Score-WCS. And BTW if they do have a 4.0 and fantastic SAT they are highly qualified, but still may not get a nom or an appointment due to other issues. That I acknowledge. It must be your assertion that the USCGA gets a much more qualified female applicant than the other SA and gets many of them as well. How else can you explain the huge difference in % of females at USCGA? To deny bias is to stick your head in the sand. The CGA model is simply not the fairest, not that the others are, but to say the CGA does it correctly and having been "just fine" all these years is wrong. This is all I will say since this is venturing off topic.