I hear you Bill. I do believe they are coordinating nominations as you say. Hopefully we will hear something soon. I do have plan B and C, but would love to hear by years end. I do need to start planning real soon. Thanks for your response.Our state seems to be moving at the pace of a turtle through peanut butter. Submissions to MoCs due October 1. Interviews in October for House member, first week of November for Senator 2 and first week of December for Senator 1. Have confirmed they have not made noms -- probably coordinating the noms. MoCs ought to have the courtesy to just get on with the noms so candidates can gear up or move to plans B and C. Early Decision and Early Action results are coming from universities and the candidates fellow classmates all smiles while the MoCs leave the candidates as helpless as a Captain becalmed. Patience, waiting as a learned military skill, etc. no excuse for MoCs dithering.
MoCs ought to have the courtesy to just get on with the noms so candidates can gear up or move to plans B and C. Early Decision and Early Action results are coming from universities and the candidates fellow classmates all smiles while the MoCs leave the candidates as helpless as a Captain becalmed. Patience, waiting as a learned military skill, etc. no excuse for MoCs dithering.
Respectfully disagree. Putting the timeline in context of what else is happening in college admissions can and should be done. Early admissions and early decisions are out. Candidates are in their high schools not even knowing whether they get to the 50-5-/60-40 part of the funnel because of MoCs who fail to prioritize. At the Holidays, friends, neighbors, relatives all asking about "where are you going to college" it would at least be nice to know whether or not a candidate has made it further down the funnel. It took the framers of the Constitution to write, negotiate, and agree the US Constitution - a document without precedent in the world -- 116 days. For a MoC to complete a slate to take the same amount of time is a bit absurd in my opinion. Importantly, in my view, wWorking to the deadline of January 31 is the wrong way to view this. It is the least effort approach -- something that the candidates, by contrast, can and would never do and still be in a position for a nomination. That the largest states Texas, Florida, New York and California can complete their processes in far less time than a state 1/20th of the size shows that nominations are not a priority to certain MoCs. Perhaps they do not understand the context for the candidates and folks with influence can explain to them the situation from the candidates' perspectives. Making the decline for MoCs slates December 21st would have some nice symbolism as both the darkest day and the beginning of brighter days . . .MoCs ought to have the courtesy to just get on with the noms so candidates can gear up or move to plans B and C. Early Decision and Early Action results are coming from universities and the candidates fellow classmates all smiles while the MoCs leave the candidates as helpless as a Captain becalmed. Patience, waiting as a learned military skill, etc. no excuse for MoCs dithering.
The deadline for MOCs to provide the nominations to USAFA is January 31st. They still have over a month before that deadline so it is hardly "dithering" if they do not have their nominations in, yet. Patience is indeed required in this process.
Stealth_81
Respectfully disagree. Putting the timeline in context of what else is happening in college admissions can and should be done. Early admissions and early decisions are out. Candidates are in their high schools not even knowing whether they get to the 50-5-/60-40 part of the funnel because of MoCs who fail to prioritize. At the Holidays, friends, neighbors, relatives all asking about "where are you going to college" it would at least be nice to know whether or not a candidate has made it further down the funnel. It took the framers of the Constitution to write, negotiate, and agree the US Constitution - a document without precedent in the world -- 116 days. For a MoC to complete a slate to take the same amount of time is a bit absurd in my opinion. Importantly, in my view, wWorking to the deadline of January 31 is the wrong way to view this. It is the least effort approach -- something that the candidates, by contrast, can and would never do and still be in a position for a nomination. That the largest states Texas, Florida, New York and California can complete their processes in far less time than a state 1/20th of the size shows that nominations are not a priority to certain MoCs. Perhaps they do not understand the context for the candidates and folks with influence can explain to them the situation from the candidates' perspectives. Making the decline for MoCs slates December 21st would have some nice symbolism as both the darkest day and the beginning of brighter days . . .
What district?Our DS said he received a call from his congressman's office Monday, and then his portal updated to reflect the nomination.
If one were to have both a senatorial nomination and congressional nomination, which is the situation I'm and both are to USAFA, I would assume it helps my standing but not sure how.
I sure hope this is the case. The playing field is already uneven due to some having both congressional and senate nominations and others allowed just one because of coordination. The former have more chances up front (more slates). To also give them an advantage in scoring on the NWL would be double jeopardy for candidates whose MOCs coordinated.There are very few individuals that have first hand knowledge of specific scoring parameters, but my assumption would be no. Given that there states where the MOCs coordinate nominations to avoid duplication, my own (uninformed) opinion would be that the SAs would not create scoring mechanism that would handicap candidates from states with a coordinated nomination process.
Respectfully disagree. Putting the timeline in context of what else is happening in college admissions can and should be done. Early admissions and early decisions are out. Candidates are in their high schools not even knowing whether they get to the 50-5-/60-40 part of the funnel because of MoCs who fail to prioritize. At the Holidays, friends, neighbors, relatives all asking about "where are you going to college" it would at least be nice to know whether or not a candidate has made it further down the funnel. It took the framers of the Constitution to write, negotiate, and agree the US Constitution - a document without precedent in the world -- 116 days. For a MoC to complete a slate to take the same amount of time is a bit absurd in my opinion. Importantly, in my view, wWorking to the deadline of January 31 is the wrong way to view this. It is the least effort approach -- something that the candidates, by contrast, can and would never do and still be in a position for a nomination. That the largest states Texas, Florida, New York and California can complete their processes in far less time than a state 1/20th of the size shows that nominations are not a priority to certain MoCs. Perhaps they do not understand the context for the candidates and folks with influence can explain to them the situation from the candidates' perspectives. Making the decline for MoCs slates December 21st would have some nice symbolism as both the darkest day and the beginning of brighter days . . .MoCs ought to have the courtesy to just get on with the noms so candidates can gear up or move to plans B and C. Early Decision and Early Action results are coming from universities and the candidates fellow classmates all smiles while the MoCs leave the candidates as helpless as a Captain becalmed. Patience, waiting as a learned military skill, etc. no excuse for MoCs dithering.
The deadline for MOCs to provide the nominations to USAFA is January 31st. They still have over a month before that deadline so it is hardly "dithering" if they do not have their nominations in, yet. Patience is indeed required in this process.
Stealth_81
I suspect the references to "accepting" and "declining" that you've heard are to appointments, not nominations. Appointees typically have until May 1st to accept/decline an appointment.A new question: I have seen references to “accepting” or “declining” a nomination: is this something a nom source sets out or requires from a candidate? None of DS’s letters form mom’s have requested he accept or decline their nomination? He will be thanking all three sources for their nomination for sure.