nomination question

Simply put the panel usually consist of recent graduates so they are as well or better qualified than the admissions office and they have more time to really consider the applicants.

So if they are better qualified than the admissions office to decide who is a better applicant -- eliminate the admissions office and let the MOC make the final decisions.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
So if they are better qualified than the admissions office to decide who is a better applicant -- eliminate the admissions office and let the MOC make the final decisions.

What could possibly go wrong?

Jasper apparently hasn't been to a board in Tennessee.... no youngsters there, just pre-1980 grads or ROTC folks, WHEN they were on the board.
 
No thanks but I think an applicant going to your abode would be inappropriate, the ALOs we've encountered at least set up interviews that lasted at least an hour at a neutral location. It allowed them one on one discussion with the candidate to determine if they were accurate in their resume and if they are genuinely honest in their application.
Most 15-17 year old prospective applicants aren't going to just instantly have the werewithal to get through the application process to any SA without their "bunch of parents". It seems like by being the odd man out, you're trying to defend your SA's exclusion of said requirement.

There is a nail smashed directly on the head!
 
Why? Who knows the qualities of what makes a great cadet/mid better, the academy admissions office or the MOC staff?

I continue to ask this question, because you continue to avoid answering it.

They both cannot be better, one must be better than the other. I believe the academy admission's office knows better. If they are also using an interview process (mandatory at USNA and USAFA, optional at USMA, USCGA, and USMMA) great, they get some face-to face time as well, which does not have to include the MOC office at all.

If you believe otherwise, please give details as to why. Remember, a MOC could have just won election this year and his/her people may have zero experience in selecting candidates, so why would you prefer their input over the academy?



My district does not, my son got a nomination without ever once talking to a member of the Congressman's staff.



My son interviewed in person with the Senator's office, and got her nomination as well, to the same academy.

Tell me what was the difference between the thoroughness of the Senator's panel, an in person interview, and the Congressman's panel, all done on paper? Remember, we are talking about the same candidate --yet you would categorize the Congressman as 'not being thorough" but the Senator you would be satisfied, even though they came to the same conclusion about that candidate.



I've interviewed many candidates. Some received appointments, some did not. Just as some in my area who did not interview - some of them received appointments, some did not. The interview was never the deciding factor.

It's not one OR the other. It's both. It's simply a requirement for 4 of 5 SA's that want an MOC nomination. Guess what?! Even with the nom., applicants are subsequently rejected. When you ask a college bound student to write an essay (or two!) to an MOC, go to an interview of staffers/former SA students at a neutral site, and defend their resume at this interview, it's a solid test of an applicants character and interpersonal skills. That can never be a bad thing. The MOC need not know about planes/ships/tanks to nominate a candidate. In fact, like many job interviews, a good interviewer will often ask questions which have nothing to do with the job/company. They are often looking to find out how the candidate handles the questions. The MOC's have a criteria that most fail to meet. It can be only a good thing.
 
1. ok...

2. And yes, some how a single step works, as it does for most schools in the U.S., so either the Harvards, Princetons, Yales also have it wrong OR a nomination doesn't mean anything at all. The Ivy's require alot more than you think, and oh by the way, you actually pay to attend those schools, so there is no need for an MOC to vet the applicants. There is also no service commitment

3. Military junta? It's probably good to remember, USMMA isn't a military academy. Jasper I can't remember if you were in the military, but either way, I'm fairly certain you realize the military doesn't have political approvals for every decision, promotion or advancement. And then, for some reason, ROTC programs don't have to have that "accountability?" How can you can compare military decisions to college application process?

4. The BGO interview is with someone acting as the eyes and ears of the Academy. It was far more involved than the interview with 1 staffer and 1 Navy commander in the Senator's panel, or the 10 folks in the Representative's panel. Besides an acceptance to the NROTC program at Vanderbilt (I guess I did something right in the Frist interview, the commander was the NROTC CO at Vandy).

5. USMA, USNA and the news kids USMMA and USAFA have it backwards.
Yes, only the CGA has it right and all the other SA's have it wrong. Your logic is flawed, but you are not the first CGA alum to speak out against the nom process. Shocking.
 
3. ... It's..good to remember, USMMA isn't a military academy. Jasper I can't remember if you were in the military, but either way, I'm fairly certain you realize the military doesn't have political approvals for every decision, promotion or advancement. And then, for some reason, ROTC programs don't have to have that "accountability?"

Another interesting statement from your own perspective - a) first while "USMMA isn't a military academy" = it's the only one authorized to have a Battle Standard and for good reason. And b) not that it's relevant to this conversation but, I, like the majority of USMMA graduates, was in the military. At least as much in the Military as any ROTC graduates or for that matter and in my opinion, most USCGA graduates who serve their obligations without doing so during a time when the USCG is placed under DoD control.

Further what any of that has to do with whether or not having a Congressional Review Board involved in the Selection Process for a Federal Academy is a good or bad thing is beyond me.

As further food for thought, I suggest we think about this, since you brought up the whole length of tradition idea. Were it not for a Congressional Review and Nomination process and the so called favoritism that might have come into play, do you really, honestly think that George S. Patton would have been selected for a spot at West Point? Read any biography of Patton and think about what it tells you of his challenges with learning and schoolwork and then tell me that a simple process without an interview and some mix of ideas, etc would ever let Patton into West Point. My point here being that you keep citing places like Harvard, etc. as the models that a process without Congressional Nominations should be based upon. However, they don't have anything like the mission that ANY of the five Federal Academies have and they don't have the obligation to make sure they develop leaders of services and industries that are by their very nature constantly evolving and diverse. A human hand in the process, especially several human hands, including those of a nomination board, as well as the admissions office staff, etc. doesn't detract from the process, it likely adds to it -especially when as is the case every one of these schools has more prospective applicants then spots to offer.

Finally I continue to not understand your point or issue with the Congressional Nomination process - especially those with interview boards. First you say nobody who knows anything about the Academy is involved, then when I cite that as not being true in at least 15 instances, you disparage the process in Tennessee - for not having members who meet your personal critera and are apparently too old -

" no youngsters there, just pre-1980 grads or ROTC folks, WHEN they were on the board."

I guess I don't understand this statement most of all since assessing charachter doesn't seem to be something that requires only younger people, and certainly isn't something tat I worry about ROTC folks doing. I'm thinking there are more than enough current and recent senior Officers who are products of ROTC programs. For example: Colin Powell; Admiral Clingan; Admiral McRaven; Admiral Winnefeld; General Hostage, USAF and the list could go on. I guess if any of those folks came out on an interview board, you'd question their ability to properly judge and select candidates because all of them would be BOTH ROTC folks AND pre-1980 grads.

At this point I am exiting this thread for good, it is totally irrelevant to any sort of possible useful information for prospective candidates and it's now nothing more than a debate about whether or not there should or should not be Congressional Nomintions required for admittance to any SA. Since the current situation and law that requires them for four of the five and does not require them for the USCGA isn't likely to be subject to change anytime soon, that doesn't seem like a great use of time or keystrokes to me.

For interested and/or prospective candidates for USMMA - a Congressional Nomination from either a US Senator or US Congressman from the State you resie is required under the applicable Federal laws that govern USMMA. By and large, the best current information as to how to obtain that nomination is on the varios Members of Congress' Websites. If you need further advice you can contact the Academy's admissions department and/or a local Admissions Field Representative in your State. Best of luck to all in their quest and journey to gain admittance to whatever SA is their choice.
 
Last edited:
Yes, only the CGA has it right and all the other SA's have it wrong. Your logic is flawed, but you are not the first CGA alum to speak out against the nom process. Shocking.

I have nothing to do with the Coast Guard Academy. However, the Coast Guard Academy admissions process is the best. The USCGA is actually the only service academy that is able to bring in the most deserving class.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when it totally incorrect?
 
At least as much in the Military as any ROTC graduates or for that matter and in my opinion, most USCGA graduates who serve their obligations without doing so during a time when the USCG is placed under DoD control.


Finally I continue to not understand your point or issue with the Congressional Nomination process - especially those with interview boards. First you say nobody who knows anything about the Academy is involved, then when I cite that as not being true in at least 15 instances, you disparage the process in Tennessee - for not having members who meet your personal critera and are apparently too old -

I'm guessing I'm far less impressed with USMMA battle streamers than Kings Pointers are but I also know it's something you love bringing up, so keep it up. The nonexistant "U.S. Merchant Marine" has far less battle streamers than the U.S. Coast Guard...if that's what we'd like to compare.

As for my comment of "Recent graduates" that was in response to your "active duty and recent alumni" line.... you may have had experiences with "recent alumni" but I certainly didn't.

And to be clear I didn't have a bad time during my Congressional nomination process. I applied to USMMA and USNA and received LOAs and two nominations for each. In fact, it was nice practice for other interviews. That said, it wasn't "needed" at all. There was no reason a panel of admissions staff could accomplish the same tasks. Instead we have the MOC middle man.

You want that to be because the government should she have some oversight in the way it picks military cadets/midshipmen.... but then the students at the Merchant Marine Academy don't attend a military academy... so why?

"it's tradition". Um 60 year old tradition? Wow, ancient.

In the end, the reasoning is, like many federal programs, it exists because it once did, and it's too hard to get rid of now.
 
Yes, only the CGA has it right and all the other SA's have it wrong. Your logic is flawed, but you are not the first CGA alum to speak out against the nom process. Shocking.

And as I have said, the nom process is nothing to scare anyone who gets in. I applied for nominations from two people for two schools and I received 4 nominations. In the end, I didn't use any of them.

Were there people who could have used them? Maybe. Did someone NOT get in to the Naval Academy or the Merchant Marine Academy because there were two less nominations for each? I have no idea. But if they did, so be it, this is the system you like apparently. At CGA, no one lost a chance to compete with everyone else until people were offered spots in classes.

I'll take the system that allows for maximum, hard-fought competition.... and that system doesn't involve Congressional nominations.
 
And as I have said, the nom process is nothing to scare anyone who gets in. I applied for nominations from two people for two schools and I received 4 nominations. In the end, I didn't use any of them.

Were there people who could have used them? Maybe. Did someone NOT get in to the Naval Academy or the Merchant Marine Academy because there were two less nominations for each? I have no idea. But if they did, so be it, this is the system you like apparently. At CGA, no one lost a chance to compete with everyone else until people were offered spots in classes.

I'll take the system that allows for maximum, hard-fought competition.... and that system doesn't involve Congressional nominations.

Our Senatorial and MOC nomination panel only allows one SA nomination per candidate but I've wasted enough time on this pointless thread. You win. You have convinced people like NYbear with your passionate discourse . I'm out.
 
Our Senatorial and MOC nomination panel only allows one SA nomination per candidate but I've wasted enough time on this pointless thread. You win. You have convinced people like NYbear with your passionate discourse . I'm out.

No one needed to convince me of anything that I already was certain of.

The fact, as you state, that your MOCs only permit one SA nomination when many others MOCs give multiple nominations to all the academies should give you pause for reconsideration of your views?

Thanks for your contributions to this pointless thread..Goodbye
 
I do think the geographical diversity the nomination process brings is good but the nomination process certainly is not necessary to do this. Across the country the nomination process is inconsistent. In our state the two senators do not do interviews. They select 10 people based on two essays, grades, a resume and test scores. Our representative does do interviews and for us it required a three hour one way trip for the interview.
 
When you ask a college bound student to write an essay (or two!) to an MOC, go to an interview of staffers/former SA students at a neutral site, and defend their resume at this interview, it's a solid test of an applicants character and interpersonal skills. That can never be a bad thing.

Can't the admissions office do that without need for a MOC nomination?

Of course.
 
I'm guessing I'm far less impressed with USMMA battle streamers than Kings Pointers are but I also know it's something you love bringing up, so keep it up. The nonexistant "U.S. Merchant Marine" has far less battle streamers than the U.S. Coast Guard...if that's what we'd like to compare.

The US Merchant Marine ACADEMY has it's own Battle Standard and Battle Streamers EARNED by CADETS. How many other ACADEMIES have that honor? A big fat 0.

USMA, USNA, USAFA and yes, even USCGA all carry battle streamers and bask in the reflected glory belonging to and earned by their respective services.
 
And as I have said, the nom process is nothing to scare anyone who gets in. I applied for nominations from two people for two schools and I received 4 nominations. In the end, I didn't use any of them.

Were there people who could have used them? Maybe. Did someone NOT get in to the Naval Academy or the Merchant Marine Academy because there were two less nominations for each? I have no idea. But if they did, so be it, this is the system you like apparently. At CGA, no one lost a chance to compete with everyone else until people were offered spots in classes.

I'll take the system that allows for maximum, hard-fought competition.... and that system doesn't involve Congressional nominations.

Perhaps you need to spend some time in an admissions office, or one of the other SAs to see how much competition there really is. The nomination process does not reduce the competition, it increases it. Besides, as previously stated by Jasper and others, none of the four SAs have any sort of staff capable of interviewing EVERY applicant. The nom process is only the first hurdle to jump over. Not sure why you are against hurdles.

p.s. I like Jasper's responses.
 
Can't the admissions office do that without need for a MOC nomination?

Of course.

You really think the schools have the staff to personally interview thousands of applicants? Of course not. Who pays the cost of attending those interviews?
 
And as I have said, the nom process is nothing to scare anyone who gets in. I applied for nominations from two people for two schools and I received 4 nominations. In the end, I didn't use any of them.

Were there people who could have used them? Maybe. Did someone NOT get in to the Naval Academy or the Merchant Marine Academy because there were two less nominations for each? I have no idea. But if they did, so be it, this is the system you like apparently. At CGA, no one lost a chance to compete with everyone else until people were offered spots in classes.

I'll take the system that allows for maximum, hard-fought competition.... and that system doesn't involve Congressional nominations.

Your comment in bold above reveals alot. The process is not designed to "scare" anyone. If anyone is scared by anything about any schools admissions process, they should apply elsewhere. The process is designed to have an additional layer of approval. For some like you, getting these noms is obviously no problem. For others, perhaps it is.
 
Your comment in bold above reveals alot. The process is not designed to "scare" anyone. If anyone is scared by anything about any schools admissions process, they should apply elsewhere. The process is designed to have an additional layer of approval. For some like you, getting these noms is obviously no problem. For others, perhaps it is.

For anyone like me, who went to an academy, getting a nomination was "no problem," and for countless others who didn't get into an academy, receiving a nomination was "no problem." SO WHY HAVE NOMINATIONS? All it does is create a layer of uncertainty that has nothing to do with the needs of a school or the strengths of a candidate. Were you lucky enough to be born in Dubie Dubie, S.D.? Great! Here's your nom. Sadly born in Maryland... sorry, no more room.
 
You really think the schools have the staff to personally interview thousands of applicants? Of course not. Who pays the cost of attending those interviews?

That's a bunch of B.S. I'd love to see those numbers AMF. Somehow the Coast Guard Academy can, but the Merchant Marine Academy can't? Ha! I laugh at that. They're roughly the same size, but USMMA has a higher acceptance rate (and therefore a lower application rate).

Don't believe all the numbers you see (we've had these discussions on SAF), for the thousands and thousands submitting an "i'm interested" form, not all of them actually apply. DODMERB cuts off even more for issues that won't receive a waiver. You honestly think a big, marketing-heavy USNA, can't deal with the remaining applicants? You underestimate both the recruiting ability and the admissions offices.
 
Back
Top