nomination question

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.

I'm against hurdles for hurdles sake. Honestly, geographically, Congressional noms make USNA, USMA, USAFA and USMMA a less competitive place to get into. It doesn't affect acceptances, it only affects if the BEST candidates receive appointments... and maybe they don't.

Perhaps USMA, USNA, USAFA and USMMA aren't as good as the could be. :rolleyes: But maybe that's how less competitve applicants like it. A ray of hope.
 
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?

You really think the MOCs interview everyone who applies for a nomination?

Of course not, they narrow it down.

Just as an academy admissions office would do if there were no MOC nominations.

PS - don't believe the hype about the number of applications. Count "completed applications" and then begin your argument.
 
Is this just your opinion or is it fact? Please cite the source material you use to make this claim.

I haven't seen a single "fact" cited yet. Haven't seen anything backing up "academy admissions offices can't keep up".

But let's break it down.

There are more nominations than spots at each school. So the nominations aren't the limiting factor. If USNA was going to accept 2,000 applicants, it would do so, independent of how many people receive nominations.

Now, let's assume some states are highly competitive, maybe a California, New York or Pennsylvania. Sure, those states have more nominations, but they also have high numbers of applicants. So maybe there is more interest than applicants.

Then you have areas like Wyoming or Montanta, which have less nominations, but also less interest. Maybe applicant #5 has a shot here, even if he's not as strong as applicant #200 in Pennsylvania. Applicant #200 can't get a nomination, but applicant #5 can. Maybe applicant #5 still isn't strong enough for a spot at USNA, but what if PA applicant #200 had been strong enough, but was damned to apply from a state with more interest than nominations.

Now, with USMMA's small size, why would it need to do any of this at all? Certainly shouldn't be overwhelming its admissions office. Why, besides "that's just the way it is" does it need this?
 
I haven't seen a single "fact" cited yet. Haven't seen anything backing up "academy admissions offices can't keep up".

But let's break it down.

There are more nominations than spots at each school. So the nominations aren't the limiting factor. If USNA was going to accept 2,000 applicants, it would do so, independent of how many people receive nominations.

Now, let's assume some states are highly competitive, maybe a California, New York or Pennsylvania. Sure, those states have more nominations, but they also have high numbers of applicants. So maybe there is more interest than applicants.

Then you have areas like Wyoming or Montanta, which have less nominations, but also less interest. Maybe applicant #5 has a shot here, even if he's not as strong as applicant #200 in Pennsylvania. Applicant #200 can't get a nomination, but applicant #5 can. Maybe applicant #5 still isn't strong enough for a spot at USNA, but what if PA applicant #200 had been strong enough, but was damned to apply from a state with more interest than nominations.

Now, with USMMA's small size, why would it need to do any of this at all? Certainly shouldn't be overwhelming its admissions office. Why, besides "that's just the way it is" does it need this?
You make several assumptions here. How do you know there is less interest in Wyoming or Montana? You may be right, but how do you KNOW? By the way ... your argument MAKES the case for the nomination process. If you are 100% accurate in your assumptions, then the nomination requirement is preventing the Academies from becoming a regional school instead of a national one.

The government should never DO things based on assumption, neither should it UNDO them.
 
You make several assumptions here. How do you know there is less interest in Wyoming or Montana? You may be right, but how do you KNOW? By the way ... your argument MAKES the case for the nomination process. If you are 100% accurate in your assumptions, then the nomination requirement is preventing the Academies from becoming a regional school instead of a national one.

The government should never DO things based on assumption, neither should it UNDO them.

We're talking about (with the exception of USMMA in large part) future military leaders. I'd rather have the best person for a job than someone who offers up the most geographic diversity. And as I said in my assumption-filled situation, just because he's from Wyoming or Montana doesn't mean he'll be accepted. You've added a layer that does nothing for maintaining the most qualified applicants get a shot, you just have a system where most qualified applicants get a shot, while some other qualified applicants won't have a shot, and some less qualified applicants have a shot. That would seem, without too much of a leap in deduction (although, you are welcome to provide data that contradicts my assumptions, if you can find any) that the four academies requiring nominations don't have the MOST qualified cross-section of applicants, just a pretty good selections of qualified applicants. Maybe that's enough, but let's not pretend that this system has a leg up, in any way, shape or form, on schools that evaluate the entire applicant population, for greater competition.
 
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.

I guess you give more weight to the nominations after all! The nomination is ONE part of the application process, and guarantees nothing. At least the one's who did not get a nom are crossed off the list. That is the only objective here. A first filter. You need nomination PLUS you must satisfy all of the other requirements. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
 
I guess you give more weight to the nominations after all! The nomination is ONE part of the application process, and guarantees nothing. At least the one's who did not get a nom are crossed off the list. That is the only objective here. A first filter. You need nomination PLUS you must satisfy all of the other requirements. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I feel like I'm beating my head in the wall with you. It's not hard to comprehend at all.

It's a filter that guarentees nothing. WHAT DOES IT ADD!?!?

Nothing.

AMF, I really want to believe that you've either been a member of one of these boards or have stood in front of one. Is that true. Please tell me it was your personal experience, and not the expereince of a child.

I honestly have no idea what your background is, but I hope it's not too difficult for you to understand that I know about Congressional nominations, have experienced the process, and having done that, I can 100% say they add nothing to the process. They in no way ensure MORE qualified people are getting into to a school and they don't weed out only the bad folks. They add NOTHING.

The weight I give them is they reduce the competition of good candidates. It limits the truely competitive world of college applications. It doesn't add. It subtracts.
 
We're talking about (with the exception of USMMA in large part) future military leaders. I'd rather have the best person for a job than someone who offers up the most geographic diversity. And as I said in my assumption-filled situation, just because he's from Wyoming or Montana doesn't mean he'll be accepted. You've added a layer that does nothing for maintaining the most qualified applicants get a shot, you just have a system where most qualified applicants get a shot, while some other qualified applicants won't have a shot, and some less qualified applicants have a shot. That would seem, without too much of a leap in deduction (although, you are welcome to provide data that contradicts my assumptions, if you can find any) that the four academies requiring nominations don't have the MOST qualified cross-section of applicants, just a pretty good selections of qualified applicants. Maybe that's enough, but let's not pretend that this system has a leg up, in any way, shape or form, on schools that evaluate the entire applicant population, for greater competition.

There is no need to find data that contradicts an assumption. How can you say "qualified applicants won't get a shot"? You mean someone good enough to get in, is not good enough to get an MOC nomination? How do YOU determine the "most qualified"?. The hurdles are not for hurdles sake. They are a means by which an aspiring SA candidate has to secure an approval from an MOC. I submit to you that school not requiring a nomination is taking a less well rounded individual. There are many "book smart" candidates who do not well with interpersonal skills.

BTW, if you are against "doing thing for the sake of doing them", an SA or the military may be a bad choice for you, as these environments sometimes make you wonder "why are we doing this?"
 
I feel like I'm beating my head in the wall with you. It's not hard to comprehend at all.

It's a filter that guarentees nothing. WHAT DOES IT ADD!?!?

Nothing.

AMF, I really want to believe that you've either been a member of one of these boards or have stood in front of one. Is that true. Please tell me it was your personal experience, and not the expereince of a child.

I honestly have no idea what your background is, but I hope it's not too difficult for you to understand that I know about Congressional nominations, have experienced the process, and having done that, I can 100% say they add nothing to the process. They in no way ensure MORE qualified people are getting into to a school and they don't weed out only the bad folks. They add NOTHING.

The weight I give them is they reduce the competition of good candidates. It limits the truely competitive world of college applications. It doesn't add. It subtracts.


These are my opinions, and gleaned from things I have read. I defer to Jasper and KP engineer who seem to have the best handle on things.
 
BTW, if you are against "doing thing for the sake of doing them", an SA or the military may be a bad choice for you, as these environments sometimes make you wonder "why are we doing this?"

Haha, I've already made that choice... did the four year thing, and then served for five. And you're right, I don't think there are many in uniform that could agree that the military does a whole lot of "doing it for the sake of doing it".... or "hurry up and wait." And there aren't many would wouldn't like to see that change.

Was it a bad choice for me? No, I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
How can you say "qualified applicants won't get a shot"? You mean someone good enough to get in, is not good enough to get an MOC nomination? How do YOU determine the "most qualified"?. The hurdles are not for hurdles sake. They are a means by which an aspiring SA candidate has to secure an approval from an MOC.

Wait, is this a serious question?

Ok, let's go through it again, and I'm just going to use round numbers for candidates and GPAs to explain.

There are 10 candidates from New York, competing for 5 Congressional nominations. The top three candidates have all 4.0's. Candidates 4-6 have 3.8's. Candidate 7 and 8 have 3.5 and candidate 9 and 10 have a 3.0 and 2.5 respectively.

There are 4 candidates in Idaho, competing for 3 Congressional nominals.

Candidate 1 has a 4.0. Candidate 2 has a 3.8 and Candidate 3 has a 3.4. Candidate 4 has a 2.5.


So in New York we can assume the five candidates with 4.0s or 3.8s will get the nominations, provided they're equal in every other way. The candidates with 3.5s, 3.0s and 2.5s won't.

In Idaho, where there are less nominations but also less candidates, we can assume the top three candidates, with 4.0s, 3.8s and 3.4s will get the nomination. The 2.5 GPA won't make the cut.

Then the five NY candidates and the three ID candidates are evaluated by the Naval Academy. Well, they'll see the 3.4 from ID, but they won't have a chance to evaluate the 3.5s from NY, who didn't make the cut (in NY).

I'm not even factoring in how it's further trimmed with physical issues (like breaking a leg), DODMERB rejections, issues with the law, DORs.... etc.

USNA could have evaluated the entire candidate pool, found that there were 3.5 candidates in NY that were more likely to succeed at USNA than the 3.4 from ID, but they couldn't....

Already we're seeing less of a qualified cross section
 
So in New York we can assume the five candidates with 4.0s or 3.8s will get the nominations, provided they're equal in every other way. The candidates with 3.5s, 3.0s and 2.5s won't.

In Idaho, where there are less nominations but also less candidates, we can assume the top three candidates, with 4.0s, 3.8s and 3.4s will get the nomination. The 2.5 GPA won't make the cut.

Then the five NY candidates and the three ID candidates are evaluated by the Naval Academy. Well, they'll see the 3.4 from ID, but they won't have a chance to evaluate the 3.5s from NY, who didn't make the cut (in NY).

I'm not even factoring in how it's further trimmed with physical issues (like breaking a leg), DODMERB rejections, issues with the law, DORs.... etc.

USNA could have evaluated the entire candidate pool, found that there were 3.5 candidates in NY that were more likely to succeed at USNA than the 3.4 from ID, but they couldn't....

Already we're seeing less of a qualified cross section
I don't know if the cross section is less qualified or not. That kid from Idaho may not have had the same resources as the kid from NY. If that kid from ID with a 3.4 would have went to the same school as the kid from NY that had the 3.5 he may have earned a 3.8 or not. The geographic diversity does allow for the differences in education systems across the country as well as helps bring in kids with different life experiences. I think this is valuable but I am not convinced that the congressional appointment process is the best way to do this.

Even without the forced congressional appointment process I think the USCGA does a pretty good job of selecting a diverse class. (when I say diverse it has nothing to do with race so please don't pull that in)
 
We're talking about (with the exception of USMMA in large part) future military leaders. ... <followed by thinly vieled insults as to the USMM and the USMMA and by way of inference any ROTC prgram, any Sate Marime Academy and basically any other institution besides USCGA>

Really? How many times are do you think you're going to be able to come here to the USMMA forum and insult or slur USMMA and this community before someone looses their patience with your "contributions"? "Contributions" and comments that in no way help any prospective candidate with any relevant or useful information before someone looses their patience and responds with some ill considered statement/retort that slights the USCGA and USCG (I know I've bitten my tongue/held my key stokes back on a number that have readily come to mind)?

As for wether or not USMMA and the Merchant Marine trains and includes military leaders, I'll ask openly, is a Coast Guardsman cited as one of the fathers of the US Navy? No, but a merchant mariner named John Paul Jones is indeed one of those cited as the Fathers of the US Navy. Also, as noted it's not a "battle streamer" it's a battle standard - there is a signifcant difference. USMMA is the only one of the five SA's authorized to have a Battle Standard and that's because its students, while at the Academy, have been and are routinely detailed into war zones, as part of their proscribed course of study starting with WWI, but also including the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Conflict (which I'll give Coast Gaurdsman their due, members of the USCG, as part of Riverrhine warfare units, had some of the highest motatality rates of any who served - while they were detailed to and under the direction of the Department of Defense, and to my knowledge none of those individuals were Cadets at the USCGA and in fact the overwhelming majority were USCG enlisted personnel); and including the recent conflicts and action in the Persian Gulf.

Thankfully you probably don't have to worry too much about someone here spouting off any sort of derisive comment about USCG or USCGA other than some banter about the Superintendant's Trophy or the Secrataries' Cup since apparently the vast majority of our colleagues of regular posters on this forum try to spend their time here looking for questions and making contributions that provide information that might actually help interested parents and prospective students make informed decisions rather than debating points such as wether or not it's worthwile that a MOC's nomination is required as part of the admissions process. Also our, yours, mine, etc. opinions on the subject really don't matter, do they, nominations are required by law for USNA, USMA, USMMA, and USAFA, so as part of this forum we all seek to try and provide PC's and interested family members relevant information as to how to obtain them.

If folks really want to continue this debate why don't we start another thread in or move this one to the "Off Topic" forum - we could also explore whether or not we think the various shades of Service Dress Blue Uniforms between USCG and USN make any sense; whether the various types of camoflogue on SDB's is worth the cost to the taxpayer and the various service memebers who have to buy them is a good idea, and other such topics that have similar relevance to current and prospective members of the various Regiments and Corps etc. there as well.
 
Last edited:
I've been told repeatedly, the "U.S. Merchant Marine" isn't an organized entity,so I'm not sure how a "merchant mariner" is connected directly to you, unless we're talking "very loosely."

Of course, the Revenue Cutter Service also pulled from the Navy and merchant marine.

That comment, however, is that while USMA, USNA, USAFA and USCGA are military academies, USMMA is not. That's not an insult. 100% of the people who graduate are the four academies I listed are officers in the U.S. military.

I won't attempt to help you with your insecurities. You picked your school and you should be proud of what USMMA has done and continues to do. It's not a military academy, so don't get all bent of out shape when someone points that out, especially when your nomination process is set out by the Secretary of Transportation. You and your KP friends wanted to point out "military this, military that"... ok... well KP isn't military. Sorry. It's a service academy, sure, and a damn good one.

And wonderful, USMMA carries a battle standard, I'm sure they fought bravely.

But it's hard to take you seriously when one second KPers walk to talk about how the U.S. Merchant Marine is a some vague entity that isn't in decline because... it couldn't be... then the next minute talk about how the nomination process should have congressional oversight because of the oversight of the military, and then get angry when it's pointed out, USMMA is a federal service academy, not a military academy.

It is not an insult to say an institution is not "military." There are five branches of the military: USA, USMC, USN, USAF and USCG. There are seven uniformed services: USA, USMC, USN, USAF, USCG, USPHS and NOAA. I don't see USPHS and NOAA getting bent out of shape when people say they aren't military.

There are five service academies: USMA, USNA, USCGA, USMMA and USAFA. There are four military academies: USMA, USNA, USCGA and USAFA. In LARGE PART, USMMA is graduating less military leaders than the schools with 100% military leaders graduating. Not sure why this makes you angry.
 
I've been told repeatedly, the "U.S. Merchant Marine" isn't an organized entity,so I'm not sure how a "merchant mariner" is connected directly to you, unless we're talking "very loosely."

Of course, the Revenue Cutter Service also pulled from the Navy and merchant marine.

That comment, however, is that while USMA, USNA, USAFA and USCGA are military academies, USMMA is not. That's not an insult. 100% of the people who graduate are the four academies I listed are officers in the U.S. military.

I won't attempt to help you with your insecurities. You picked your school and you should be proud of what USMMA has done and continues to do. It's not a military academy, so don't get all bent of out shape when someone points that out, especially when your nomination process is set out by the Secretary of Transportation. You and your KP friends wanted to point out "military this, military that"... ok... well KP isn't military. Sorry. It's a service academy, sure, and a damn good one.

And wonderful, USMMA carries a battle standard, I'm sure they fought bravely.

But it's hard to take you seriously when one second KPers walk to talk about how the U.S. Merchant Marine is a some vague entity that isn't in decline because... it couldn't be... then the next minute talk about how the nomination process should have congressional oversight because of the oversight of the military, and then get angry when it's pointed out, USMMA is a federal service academy, not a military academy.

It is not an insult to say an institution is not "military." There are five branches of the military: USA, USMC, USN, USAF and USCG. There are seven uniformed services: USA, USMC, USN, USAF, USCG, USPHS and NOAA. I don't see USPHS and NOAA getting bent out of shape when people say they aren't military.

There are five service academies: USMA, USNA, USCGA, USMMA and USAFA. There are four military academies: USMA, USNA, USCGA and USAFA. In LARGE PART, USMMA is graduating less military leaders than the schools with 100% military leaders graduating. Not sure why this makes you angry.

Unless you have something positive to contribute here, I suggest we close this thread. It's not helping anyone
 
Unless you have something positive to contribute here, I suggest we close this thread. It's not helping anyone

Not necessarily true....I just learned that the USNR obligation is not considered military service, and that an USNR Ensign in not a military officer.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am angry and so should others whose time you are wasting be ...

... That's not an insult.

....


And wonderful, USMMA carries a battle standard, I'm sure they fought bravely.


.... Not sure why this makes you angry.

It angers me because as you can see from my excerpts above your tone and reply is nothing but condesending and disingenuous from you latest retort clearly illustrate. Why shouldn't I be a little miffed - you went to an Academy for a full four year free ride, and then by your own admisson in post #71 of this thread did nothing but the minimum repayment of your obligation:

"Haha, I've already made that choice... did the four year thing, and then served for five. ..."

That's real pride in your service, I'm sure when you get back to Homecoming your post-graduation career and choices are truly impressive and well regarded by your classmates who are still serving and are being promoted early in the zone or whatever you Gaurdsmen call it. Of course if not you can always regal them about how much you have been able to goad and piss off Alumni, etc. from your rivals at USMMA here on SAF, that might get you a few more points of respect, but probably not since I expect they like my classmates tend to a) not care about any of that sort of stuff during homecoming and since weboth graduated from small Academies, we all pretty much know each other's professional accomplishments, anyway.

Another reasion for being irked, is it sure seems to me you want to come into this forum and demean theservice and obligation, etc. of USMMA, and also ROTC graduates (ref your post on this thread #36), but I made this point earlier:

"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)."

Finally, I guess what really bothers me the most is how you spout off misinformation dogmatically here; for example your nomination examples about the midwest, etc. while only mildly inaccurate as regards the nomination process fo USMA, USAFA and USNA which are driven by entirely different sections of the US Code than USMMA's process are totally bogus when on reads and understands the applicable law for USMMA - 46 CFR 310.53. Of course you'll just likely spout off some genric, "Tea Party-esque" (my summary of everything you've written - Big Government = Bad Things and Absolutely Nothing Good even though as a result of it you got a free education for just five short years of payback." nonsense as to why this all makes you even more right in general and specifically how it even further proves your point that Congress should not in any way be involved in the selection of students for any of the five service academies.

If anyone has weathered this thread in search of meanigful information on the Nomination process for USMMA, I apologize for ever entering this debate of ideas with any of the participants and refer you to a thread that was here about 9 months ago that gives you reference to the appicable laws as well as some information about the good, bad, and the ugly of the process and a few tidbits about things to beware of when you are going through it.

http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=26466

LITS - I am truly done with this thread so you all can have the last words. Have fun with that and hey thanks for proving every fear and bad feeling any of my fellow alumni have about the reasonableness, etc. of certain USCGA Alumni when you board our vessels in performance of one of your numerous Non-Military Missions - MSO. I think I have this right don't I - 11 sautory missions of the USCG and only one and a half is "Military" ... but hey just continue to disparage the USMMA's traditions and basis for having a battle standard, I'm sure it's getting you lots of fans by everyone who reads these forums since Maritime Safety; Maritime Mobility including operating drawbridges like the Wodrow Wilson Bridge here in the DC Metro; Homeland and maritime security Expanded arctic operations; Protection of natural resources etc. all really cause guys in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force to immediately feel like they too should take issue with your inability to join the Navy Federal Credit Union, etc. since you aren't part of the DoD like the rest of the "Military." Yep, why focus on those 9 1/2 missions when you can throw manure at USMMA and NROTC and other guys who serve by focusing on the mission areas that are Military: national defense - special forces like Port Security Units, etc. or cases here when the Homeland Security mission requires address of Posse Comitatus to go where/do things tha DoD entities like NORTHCOM are prohibited from doing by our Constitution. Like I said, I now leave you and others the last words on this subject/thread.
 
Last edited:
Well said Jasperdog!! KPcrew you are funny, I will have to tell all our USNR Officer friends that they are not really military!!!:thumb:
 
I second Jasper.

I choose henceforth to boycott all USMMA threads in which LITS participates as no longer germane to the USMMA.
 
Back
Top