No more Principal Nominations.

Swabthedecks said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I did not say they get much MORE qualified females. Apparently, you have a problem with women in the military in general. You asked me how I came to that conclusion and I merely said I do have experience and knowledge in this area. I am perfectly aware there are retired and veterans on this board - me included. Even if everything is fair, someone is always going to complain that it is not fair. Someone is always going to think they are better than they really are and that they should have been picked over this person or that person. It is a fact of life. Get over it and move on. Life is not fair - plain and simple.

Nominations are an archaic process that should no longer be used - or at least revamped and be done differently.
 
MaggieMae66 said:
You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I did not say they get much MORE qualified females. Apparently, you have a problem with women in the military in general. You asked me how I came to that conclusion and I merely said I do have experience and knowledge in this area. I am perfectly aware there are retired and veterans on this board - me included. Even if everything is fair, someone is always going to complain that it is not fair. Someone is always going to think they are better than they really are and that they should have been picked over this person or that person. It is a fact of life. Get over it and move on. Life is not fair - plain and simple.

Nominations are an archaic process that should no longer be used - or at least revamped and be done differently.
Click to expand...
CG is not military if you recall- Department of Homeland Security. So how is this relevant? I support my argument of the USCGA direct application selection process is bias and does not work as it should by pointing out the delta in the % admission of females and you conclude that I " have a problem with women in the military in general". Please: I have no issue. Again you present nothing to support the validity of the USCGA selection process. Only that you conclude "the USCGA has been doing just fine without Congressional nominations". If, by fine, you mean turning away candidates with effectively higher Whole Candidate Scores then it is you that has the problem. Furthermore your assertation of " archaic process" is unsubstantiated and that "should no longer be used" simply violates the law. I would argue that all the services academies need an occasional Inspector General Audit just to reveal the true factors that lead to the appointment decisions. Nothing like an audit to keep decision makers on their toes. Agreed?
 
Swabthedecks said:
CG is not military if you recall- Department of Homeland Security. So how is this relevant? I support my argument of the USCGA direct application selection process is bias and does not work as it should by pointing out the delta in the % admission of females and you conclude that I " have a problem with women in the military in general". Please: I have no issue. Again you present nothing to support the validity of the USCGA selection process. Only that you conclude "the USCGA has been doing just fine without Congressional nominations". If, by fine, you mean turning away candidates with effectively higher Whole Candidate Scores then it is you that has the problem. Furthermore your assertation of " archaic process" is unsubstantiated and that "should no longer be used" simply violates the law. I would argue that all the services academies need an occasional Inspector General Audit just to reveal the true factors that lead to the appointment decisions. Nothing like an audit to keep decision makers on their toes. Agreed?
Click to expand...
Coast Guard not military - really!!! The U.S. Coast Guard is one of the five armed forces of the United States and the only military organization within the Department of Homeland Security. It is the oldest continuous seagoing service. Do your research about the armed services and you will see that CLEARLY the Coast Guard is military. I think my three friends who were stationed in Afghanistan and Kuwait might disagree with you. Your recollection, as it relates to the Coast Guard, is incorrect. As far as everything else, we will have to agree to disagree because this has clearly gotten off topic. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Not off topic at all. The thread is Principle nominations. Dont confuse a uniformed service with a military branch. CG has its genesis as the Revenue Cutter Service I will grant you that it is old. Re: forward deployed units in times of war they would fall under the Navy for command and control functions. Plenty of contractors including my relatives have been to Afghanistan and they are not in the military. Retired yes but still contractors and they do not fall under the UCMJ. The topic concerned the nom process and its use of principle noms. I support the current process with the exception of the CGA for reasons mentioned. You haven't presented cogent talking points on why the the USCGA has been "doing just fine without Congressional nominations" so I am left to believe that they are doing fine because you alone think so and not because of any factual content.
 
Swabthedecks said:
Not off topic at all. The thread is Principle nominations. Dont confuse a uniformed service with a military branch. CG has its genesis as the Revenue Cutter Service I will grant you that it is old. Re: forward deployed units in times of war they would fall under the Navy for command and control functions. Plenty of contractors including my relatives have been to Afghanistan and they are not in the military. Retired yes but still contractors and they do not fall under the UCMJ. The topic concerned the nom process and its use of principle noms. I support the current process with the exception of the CGA for reasons mentioned. You haven't presented cogent talking points on why the the USCGA has been "doing just fine without Congressional nominations" so I am left to believe that they are doing fine because you alone think so and not because of any factual content.
Click to expand...
Coast Guard falls under UCMJ and they are military. Check out US Code, Title 14, Part 1, Chapter 1. It is in there in black and white.
 
Last edited:
Swabthedecks said:
Both NOAA Officer Corps and the Public Health Services Commissioned Corps fall under the UCMJ as well but are not military. Like the CG they are apart of the 7 Uniform Services.
Click to expand...
Again, check out US Code, Title 14, Part 1, Chapter 1. It is printed in black and white.
 
14 USC 1. It's also the only branch of the military with federal law enforcement authority (14USC89).

Head to Arlington National Cemetery and you'll find four service seals in the gates... Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.

For anyone considering the Coast Guard, you'll frequently be confronted with the ignorance on display above... But you'll be good to remember two things, you know more about their service than they likely ever know about yours and the service your going into requires a higher average ASVAB score than the other service (which will, at times, also become painfully obvious).

The key? Understand ignorant individuals generally don't understand their shortcomings because ignorance is bliss. It's not your job, in the end, do wake them up from that dormant state.
 
Now, can anyone here tell us why congressional nominations were added in the first place (they weren't always a part of this process)?

Hint: politics.

Not leadership. Not some unique understanding of leadership needs by members of congress. Not because something was immediately broken in the system.

Anyone? Anyone?


One step further, if there was such an inherent need, how did the Coast Guard Academy, founded in 1876, avoid it but the Air Force Academy, founded in 1954 didn't? Size you say? And yet the comparatively sized Merchant Marine Academy, founded in 1943 (in the Dept. of Transportation, while the Coast Guard was in the Treasury Dept... All before the Department of Defense existed) didn't escape the need?
 
Capri120 said:
Amazing how some threads seem to wander way off topic...to the point the comments do not even merit a response.
Click to expand...
This thread is about accepting people to SAs based on how qualified said people are, is it not? All I asked was if Maplerock believes that women should be accepted in favor of men that are more qualified. I'm not sure how you see my question as off topic.
 
usna1985 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lowering the standards for women to make things equal is a system of equal opportunity(which isn't necessarily a bad thing), not a meritocracy. From what I understand(and I apologize if I misinterpretated you Maplerock), Maplerock is advocating that a meritocracy be used in the SA admissions process in which people are accepted based purely on how qualified they are. The purpose of my questions were not to advocate holding men and women to the same physical fitness standards, their purpose was to point out the issues with using a pure meritocracy in the SA admissions process.
 
Last edited:
LineInTheSand said:
Now, can anyone here tell us why congressional nominations were added in the first place (they weren't always a part of this process)?

Hint: politics.

Not leadership. Not some unique understanding of leadership needs by members of congress. Not because something was immediately broken in the system.

Anyone? Anyone?
Click to expand...

I will take a guess...

In the republic in which we live, we are represented by Congress. Congress also determines federal spending and approves the federal budget. In a sense, the service academies are getting approval to spend money on candidates they select.

If you are opposed to the way your representative nominates for service academies, let your voice be heard.
 
OtB said:
I will take a guess...

In the republic in which we live, we are represented by Congress. Congress also determines federal spending and approves the federal budget. In a sense, the service academies are getting approval to spend money on candidates they select.

If you are opposed to the way your representative nominates for service academies, let your voice be heard.
Click to expand...

And if this were in fact the purpose, you would expect it to extend to CGA. But it doesn't.

The fact of the matter is there are far more nominations than spots in a class. It effectively limits some areas from providing more qualified applicants in some areas but not others. Do we think the family and friends of applicants who don't get a nomination in one state while someone far less qualified in another state has a better chance (at a nomination, I'm not saying acceptance) are ok with that?

Making you voice heard doesn't really apply. If you don't like who they pick, what, wait 2-6 years and hope enough people care (they won't) to change it?

They aren't accountable to the electorate because by and large, the electorate doesn't care about the negligible number of applicants applying to four service academies that require congressional nominations.

And the reps and senators aren't overseeing GI Bill or senior officer school applications or grad school applications for service members. They aren't overseeing the ROTC applications or OCS applications or NOAA or USPHS applications.


So what's the real reason behind it?

I guess before we know that, can anyone find WHEN congressional nominations became a requirement?
 
Remember that there used to be entrance exams also tied to entry for SA for many years which were notorious for being very difficult to pass.
 
But if a Congressional nomination is not effectively limiting, what purpose does it serve?


And... Why allow non-elected political appointees (service secretaries) nominate? What kind of accountability exists there?
 
Maplerock said:
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?
Click to expand...

Wow.....
 
LineInTheSand said:
Now, can anyone here tell us why congressional nominations were added in the first place (they weren't always a part of this process)?

Hint: politics.

Not leadership. Not some unique understanding of leadership needs by members of congress. Not because something was immediately broken in the system.

Anyone? Anyone?


One step further, if there was such an inherent need, how did the Coast Guard Academy, founded in 1876, avoid it but the Air Force Academy, founded in 1954 didn't? Size you say? And yet the comparatively sized Merchant Marine Academy, founded in 1943 (in the Dept. of Transportation, while the Coast Guard was in the Treasury Dept... All before the Department of Defense existed) didn't escape the need?
Click to expand...


I would agree with this "Lineinthesand". We recently had announced in our district in CA, 4 appointees to the USMA. ALL and I repeat ALL are from PRIVATE schools and well to do families.
Not ONE person from a public school of which there are probably 15-20 in our MOC district. Sorry you can't tell me there wasn't one kid from the public school that wanted to attend. I call politics. This MOC is retiring this year and we will have new blood after his 20 years of serving in Congress which I think will be a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top