No rolling admissions this year?

M

Muggle127

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
18
Our DS received a SWE yesterday that thankfully contained confirmation that his file was qualified and he's been added to the NWL. It also says that WP has eliminated rolling admissions for this cycle, and that "most" appointments will be tendered between 26 Feb and 1 May. My understanding (which comes mostly from this very helpful forum) is that this is a different process than most years past. While we are disappointed that he won't hear sooner, it was nice of WP to let us know that, at least as I read this, we shouldn't stress out about not hearing much from them until the end of February. Am I reading this right?
 
Same form letter as years past. Same process. That is the 3q letter. Now the waiting game. There will be a late January wave of appointments but the Feb time frame is a good reference. Good luck
 
Most competitive slates cannot be resolved until nominations are received and the application window closes at the end of January. The only real change at USMA is that the application window now closes in January.
 
cptenca said:
Same form letter as years past. Same process. That is the 3q letter. Now the waiting game. There will be a late January wave of appointments but the Feb time frame is a good reference. Good luck
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for the info. We're new to this. It took it as a Q letter, and it did also suggest (although not demand) that DS submit his 7thS grades. But we will take that suggestion as a demand. And sit back and wait. Which appointments get made in late January?
 
I’m afraid that the wait is not determinable. It could be January or anytime prior to R-Day. Don’t let the wait get to your DS or you. Hurry up and wait will be your new normal. The wait is very worth it! Hopefully, your son wins his slate or comes off the NWL early.
 
Same as last year. Just hang in there, you will likely know between mid-January and 1 May.
 
Will candidates that are on the NWL, that are 3Q and have a principal nomination be offered in the first wave?
 
Butcher said:
Will candidates that are on the NWL, that are 3Q and have a principal nomination be offered in the first wave?
Click to expand...
Maybe. Possibly. Probably. No one knows. Usually a principal nom= appointment...then again maybe, possibly, probably. I know the wait is very difficult. In our home we are also waiting DS noms to USNA, USMA, USAFA, 4 YR AROTC Senator Nom to USNA and we have no idea if he gets in to any of them. Patience is the name of the game until you hear one way or another. The only thing we know is everyone will have an answer by April 15th but it could be a maybe.
 
Butcher said:
Will candidates that are on the NWL, that are 3Q and have a principal nomination be offered in the first wave?
Click to expand...

No idea when, but principal nom plus 3q is required by law to be offered appointment at USMA.
 
Thanks for all the helpful responses. We will do our best to put this aside for now and be content come what may. Happy New Year and good luck to all the candidates.
 
Not sure why they have not taken out that "rolling admissions" verbiage. USMA has not done rolling admissions for many years.
 
Have an ROTC back up plan. Lots of great programs out there across the country. Good deals at various schools too once you get on campus for those with or without scholarships. ~< 3,000 candidates get through to the "Qualified" stage and from there (somewhat simplified here and not accounting for recruited athletes) the ~1,XXX offers go out to those candidates with highest Whole Candidate Scores depending on how you were nominated on a particular list or slate. Key message here - keep your fingers crossed and have a back up plan. All academies are expected this year to have shorter windows for candidates to sit on offers once they do go out...
 
A1Janitor said:
No idea when, but principal nom plus 3q is required by law to be offered appointment at USMA.
Click to expand...

A "principal" nomination is NOT required by law. Most slates are submitted on a competitive basis (ie, no "principal" nom)
 
Last edited:
Objective said:
A "principal" nomination is not required by law. Most slates are submitted on a competitive basis (ie, no "principal" nom)
Click to expand...

That is not what I wrote. I wrote a principal nom plus 3q is required by law to be offered an appointment to USMA.

I never said a “principal” nom is required by law.

My son got a regular nom to USNA and his good friend got a regular nom to USMA from our MOC.
 
Last edited:
A1Janitor said:
That is not what I wrote. I wrote a principal nom plus 3q is required by law to be offered an appointment to USMA.

I never said a “principal” nom is required by law.

My son got a regular nom to USNA and his good friend got a regular nom to USMA from our MOC.
Click to expand...

I quoted you DIRECTLY. GO back and look. You wrote:

"No idea when, but principal nom plus 3q is required by law to be offered appointment at USMA."
 
Objective said:
I quoted you DIRECTLY

"No idea when, but principal nom plus 3q is required by law to be offered appointment at USMA."
Click to expand...

Not sure if my English is ideal or not, but you shouldn’t alter the meaning by leaving off the last clause.

Reworded, it is required by law to offer an appointment to a principal nom that is 3q.

In context, I directly quoted @Butcher who wrote: “Will candidates that are on the NWL, that are 3Q and have a principal nomination be offered in the first wave?” He is asking when a person will get the offer of appointment. I said I don’t know when but a person in his position is guaranteed by law to get an appointment from USMA.

USNA is different.
 
Last edited:
A1Janitor said:
Not sure if my English is ideal or not, but you shouldn’t alter the meaning by leaving off the last clause.

Reworded, it is required by law to offer an appointment to a principal nom that is 3q.
Click to expand...

I'm not altering your meaning. You may have meant something different, but what you actually wrote is incorrect in substance and confusing for prospective candidates. I merely intended to clarify that "principal" nom in not required.
 
Objective said:
I'm not altering your meaning. You may have meant something different, but what you actually wrote is incorrect in substance and confusing for prospective candidates. I merely intended to clarify that "principal" nom in not required.
Click to expand...

We agree to disagree.

I was responding to Butcher who already had a principal nom.

And a principal nom plus 3Q is guaranteed by law to receive an appointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top