Popularity of the Naval Academy with Candidates

[MemberLG]

Whenever I am counseling potential service academy applicants, I always provide the same response into comparing them. "You have all the options at USNA. You can fly (like the Air Force Academy) or be a ground pounder via SEALs or Marine option (like West Point) plus you have the option of Surface ships and Subs. Not to mention when you exit the gates at USAFA or USMA you are in the middle of nowhere. When you exit USNA you are downtown Annapolis, with DC and Baltimore only 30 minutes away... it's a no-brainer."

A false dichotomy. It's like taking a kid to a toy store with $5 and telling the kid to pick anything in the store. I can make the same argument for West Point - you can fly (UH 60, AH 64, CH47, or C12), a ground pounder, and ships (Engineer). But kids need to be realistic. I advise kids that they need to have confidence in themselves to get what they want. At the same time, pick a viable path. I don't recall what the actual numbers, but my guess is something like 300 for Marines, 200 for Naval Aviation, 30 for SEAL, and etc. So if a kid wants to be a ground pounder, he or she has more options in Army than the Marines/SEAL. I served on many nomination boards. Since I live in MD, there are many Navy or bust. It's unfair, but I ask a simple question when a kid tells me he is only interested in the Naval Academy, "are you telling me that the only way you will serve in the military is in the Navy?" At a certain point in life, words like "duty, honor, country" and "selfless service" are not just words anymore.

 

[MemberLG]

To only look at the "hard" stats like the ones above is ignoring the intangibles of the application. The USNA isn't just looking at the stats; if that was it, the process would be easy. There is also the mandatory geographic diversity, the essay, the recommendation letters, and interviews, the current needs of the Navy, and the "it" or "wow" factor that the applicant brings to the table.

How do we fairly evaluate "intangibles"?

What's the connection between "intangibles" and future performance as a military officer?

How does growing up in a certain geographical location makes someone better?
How do we ensure someone else didn't write the essay?
How do we check the veracity of the recommendation letters?
How do we account for a candidate that is a bad interviwer but have many "intangibles"

 

[usnagrad1988]

A false dichotomy. It's like taking a kid to a toy store with $5 and telling the kid to pick anything in the store. I can make the same argument for West Point - you can fly (UH 60, AH 64, CH47, or C12), a ground pounder, and ships (Engineer). But kids need to be realistic. I advise kids that they need to have confidence in themselves to get what they want. At the same time, pick a viable path. I don't recall what the actual numbers, but my guess is something like 300 for Marines, 200 for Naval Aviation, 30 for SEAL, and etc. So if a kid wants to be a ground pounder, he or she has more options in Army than the Marines/SEAL. I served on many nomination boards. Since I live in MD, there are many Navy or bust. It's unfair, but I ask a simple question when a kid tells me he is only interested in the Naval Academy, "are you telling me that the only way you will serve in the military is in the Navy?" At a certain point in life, words like "duty, honor, country" and "selfless service" are not just words anymore.

I could easily see someone wanting to serve in only one branch. You are allowed to enjoy what you do versus just plain sacrifice. My son is Navy only, but has the NROTC scholarship and is waiting on USNA. I was impressed when he said, "I've got a way to become a Naval Officer now." If he doesn't get into USNA this year, he can do ROTC and reapply, but he might end up enjoying the combo college/once or twice a week military option. In regards to your last comment, in some ways I think the "shotgun" approach of applying to all service academies and all ROTC options can be indicative of someone just after a free education versus having some idea of what they are getting into.

 

[usnagrad1988]

How do we fairly evaluate "intangibles"?

What's the connection between "intangibles" and future performance as a military officer?

How does growing up in a certain geographical location makes someone better?
How do we ensure someone else didn't write the essay?
How do we check the veracity of the recommendation letters?
How do we account for a candidate that is a bad interviwer but have many "intangibles"

Interesting response from Island Mom and your questions. The "it" or "wow" factor was definitely the case when my son went to his interviews. He was the only applicant in the country that attended Sea Cadet Special Warfare SEAL training last summer. I know because out of the hundreds who applied nationally, only 10 were invited and 8 finished. Every interview asked him about the Trident pin he was wearing. Yet he still waits to hear from the board. The reason the process is much harder, in my opinion, is that they take a lot of factors into account, which is not in keeping with trying to produce the most effective fighting unit in the world. If that was the case the application would not include geography, race, gender or ethnicity... and let the chips fall where they may. The mission as it stands now (not voiced) is producing the most effective fighting force with the integrated and diverse population that is assembled.

 

[brovol]

To only look at the "hard" stats like the ones above is ignoring the intangibles of the application. The USNA isn't just looking at the stats; if that was it, the process would be easy. There is also the mandatory geographic diversity, the essay, the recommendation letters, and interviews, the current needs of the Navy, and the "it" or "wow" factor that the applicant brings to the table.

No disagreement. But the fact of the matter is that, given all of the factors and criteria for admission, there is a better chance to be offered an appointment if you are female and/or minority. ....but I apologize for the digression.

 

[usna2020Dad]

I could easily see someone wanting to serve in only one branch. You are allowed to enjoy what you do versus just plain sacrifice. My son is Navy only, but has the NROTC scholarship and is waiting on USNA. I was impressed when he said, "I've got a way to become a Naval Officer now." If he doesn't get into USNA this year, he can do ROTC and reapply, but he might end up enjoying the combo college/once or twice a week military option. In regards to your last comment, in some ways I think the "shotgun" approach of applying to all service academies and all ROTC options can be indicative of someone just after a free education versus having some idea of what they are getting into.

This is an interesting topic and one that I have discussed with my DS while he was applying to USNA only. I am not sure what the correct answer is. I think it lies somewhere different for different folks. On one hand, if the concept of "duty, honor, country" and "selfless service" as MemberLG pointed to is the only thing to look at then why not just enlist? On the other hand, applying to all academies does take a shotgun approach and questions the focus of the candidate. I am not saying any of these thoughts are better.

Today, the kids are expected to apply to many colleges. In my DS's high school, they are asked to apply to at least 10 universities. So there is something to be said about applying to all academies.

In terms of my DS, his answer was simple. He said his love for history, large ships and engineering pointed him to USNA. He always saw himself as a Navy Officer from a young age but never thought too much about how to get there. He knew that getting an education came first. However, while searching for the 10 universities to apply to, he found USNA met all of his goals. His eyes opened wide, his excitement was evident, as he told me how USNA was a perfect fit for him and he looked forward to the end goal of becoming a Navy Officer.

I wish I had so much passion when I chose the college I attended.

 

[usnagrad1988]

This is an interesting topic and one that I have discussed with my DS while he was applying to USNA only. I am not sure what the correct answer is. I think it lies somewhere different for different folks. On one hand, if the concept of "duty, honor, country" and "selfless service" as MemberLG pointed to is the only thing to look at then why not just enlist? On the other hand, applying to all academies does take a shotgun approach and questions the focus of the candidate. I am not saying any of these thoughts are better.

Today, the kids are expected to apply to many colleges. In my DS's high school, they are asked to apply to at least 10 universities. So there is something to be said about applying to all academies.

In terms of my DS, his answer was simple. He said his love for history, large ships and engineering pointed him to USNA. He always saw himself as a Navy Officer from a young age but never thought too much about how to get there. He knew that getting an education came first. However, while searching for the 10 universities to apply to, he found USNA met all of his goals. His eyes opened wide, his excitement was evident, as he told me how USNA was a perfect fit for him and he looked forward to the end goal of becoming a Navy Officer.

I wish I had so much passion when I chose the college I attended.

Me too USNA2020dad. I had no idea the Naval Academy existed, until a football coach came to our school and recruited me. I went through NAPS, etc. and it resulted in my brother being exposed to the academy and his attending and graduating 2 years after me. Hoping to change my name to USNA2020Dad2 soon

 

[LineInTheSand]

Granted this was 15 years ago, but I heard from USNA before I heard from USMMA or USCGA. They were more involved in the courting process too.

 

[socalfan]

All due respect, the total percentage of minorities, women, or others being admitted, as compared to white males does not tell us if those groups have an advantage or disadvantage. The acceptance rate for each group, along with a comparison of main evaluation categories, like ACT scores, would though. The distinction between the applicant pool for women as compared to men, for example, would likely prove that there are far more men applying than women, and thus naturally there will be a larger number of male applicants who have ACT scores over 31, or class ranking above 4.0.....

If the academies selected appointees basesd soley on merit, and without knowing gender, race, or any similar factor, would the number of women or minorities at the academies be the same? Few would believe they would be. It shouldn't be controversial to suggest then that the admisions process isn't an even playing field. Perhaps the ends justify the means, and I won't argue that one either way. Regardless, it is what it is, and in today's age it is probably as fair a process as we could have; particularly for a government institution.

No it doesn't tell you if they have an advantage in the process, nor can I tell you if a legacy has an advantage, or any other multitude of factors (as pointed out by Islandmom4). I don't think we can/should assume that the applications of women or minorities are at a lower standard. The implication is that a minority (women included) with a lower GPA and test score will be accepted simply because he/she is a minority over a white male applicant.

 

[MemberLG]

The reason the process is much harder, in my opinion, is that they take a lot of factors into account, which is not in keeping with trying to produce the most effective fighting unit in the world. If that was the case the application would not include geography, race, gender or ethnicity... and let the chips fall where they may. The mission as it stands now (not voiced) is producing the most effective fighting force with the integrated and diverse population that is assembled.

I agree. But the mission should be producing the most effective fighting force PERIOD. By adding "with the integrated and diverse population that is assembled," more than likely it creates additional challenges/obstacles to produce the most effective fighting force.

We are not assembling a recreational league sports team where no one gets cut and everyone plays. We should be assembling a team to win, where not everyone makes the team or gets playing time. For the military, winning matters the most.

 

[MemberLG]

No it doesn't tell you if they have an advantage in the process, nor can I tell you if a legacy has an advantage, or any other multitude of factors (as pointed out by Islandmom4). I don't think we can/should assume that the applications of women or minorities are at a lower standard. The implication is that a minority (women included) with a lower GPA and test score will be accepted simply because he/she is a minority over a white male applicant.

Until the Naval Academy provides full transparency, neither side can claim to be correct.

 

[FALgarand]

the mission should be producing the most effective fighting force PERIOD. By adding "with the integrated and diverse population that is assembled," more than likely it creates additional challenges/obstacles to produce the most effective fighting force.

Some say metrics such as GPA pose similar problems. A "late bloomer" kid with a 3.0 GPA will never get into the USNA, regardless of intellect, character, or leadership skills that might make him a far superior military asset to the appointee who early-on mastered the art of resume building. Perhaps also fair for discussion is how well the officer promotion system directly corresponds to the goal of creating "the most effective fighting force".

 

[MemberLG]

Some say metrics such as GPA pose similar problems. A "late bloomer" kid with a 3.0 GPA will never get into the USNA, regardless of intellect, character, or leadership skills that might make him a far superior military asset to the appointee who early-on mastered the art of resume building.

Red herring argument. Unless the admissions office staff size increase by a hundred fold, the admissions office has no choice but to use a snapshot of the moment of the candidate to make the admissions decision. The challenge that can't be solved is how do we assess hidden potential. Intellect, character, or leadership skills not shown/displayed/exercised are useless. With a "late bloomer," a simple question is why late. If the "late bloomer" had the intellect, character, and/or leadership skills, why didn't he or she use them early?

Any metric can be manipulated

SAT/ACT - tutoring/classes
Sports accomplishments - well to do parents sending kids to sports camp/individual coaches or genetically gifted but no work ethics, lack of competition (my DD attends a private school with very competitive lacrosse program where she barley made the JV lacrosse team. If she went a different private school, she would have been a varsity starter for four years
Boy State/Girl State - paying for one's way
Class ranking - depends on a school, a student can take easy classes but could be achieve higher class rank than a student that takes a harder classes.

 

[ahs67]

Red herring argument. Unless the admissions office staff size increase by a hundred fold, the admissions office has no choice but to use a snapshot of the moment of the candidate to make the admissions decision. The challenge that can't be solved is how do we assess hidden potential. Intellect, character, or leadership skills not shown/displayed/exercised are useless. With a "late bloomer," a simple question is why late. If the "late bloomer" had the intellect, character, and/or leadership skills, why didn't he or she use them early?

Any metric can be manipulated

SAT/ACT - tutoring/classes
Sports accomplishments - well to do parents sending kids to sports camp/individual coaches or genetically gifted but no work ethics, lack of competition (my DD attends a private school with very competitive lacrosse program where she barley made the JV lacrosse team. If she went a different private school, she would have been a varsity starter for four years
Boy State/Girl State - paying for one's way
Class ranking - depends on a school, a student can take easy classes but could be achieve higher class rank than a student that takes a harder classes.

That's not how our high schools calculate class rank. More weight is given to AP and seminar classes. College, on the other hand(including USNA), does not take difficulty of course or major into account when calculating GPA's or class rank.

 

[Blessedmom]

My college roommate was from West Philladelphia lived most her life with her grandma attended less than average high school, was first in her family to goto college, didn't have funds to attend fancy camps or pay for college applications. She didn't have much support or guidance but worked hard and did very well in school. And with all those obstacles, she graduated from college and is now a very successful engineer. I truly believe kids like her should be given top priority for college admissions.

 

[Coach62]

I’m surprised at the number of candidates reporting appointments to USMA and/or USAFA and/or USMMA, but still waiting on USNA. Do others believe USNA is currently the most popular (fashionable) with candidates? Does that account for the number of other appointees waiting on USNA? Could the other SAs have released more appointments? I note that the Class of 2020 appointment threads are all similar in number or at least within the normal year-over-year deviation.

DS has appts to AF and Navy. Will likely choose Navy because you have so many options. It seems Navy does offer more educational choices and career paths. His BF was accepted to all 3 and will likely go to Navy for the same reason.

He went to the summer sessions knowing he was going to AF, but after all was done, he had changed his mind, much to my surprise.

 

[Cerberi]

My college roommate was from West Philladelphia lived most her life with her grandma attended less than average high school, was first in her family to goto college, didn't have funds to attend fancy camps or pay for college applications. She didn't have much support or guidance but worked hard and did very well in school. And with all those obstacles, she graduated from college and is now a very successful engineer. I truly believe kids like her should be given top priority for college admissions.

I don't disagree people that have overcome life's challenges should be given every opportunity but let's not punish those that were raised in stable 2 parent families

My DDs overcoming adversity story was and is - I grew up in a loving 2 parent home whose family believes in hard work and education. My biggest obstacle in life is overcoming the fact my aunt married a democrat.

 

[brovol]

No it doesn't tell you if they have an advantage in the process, nor can I tell you if a legacy has an advantage, or any other multitude of factors (as pointed out by Islandmom4). I don't think we can/should assume that the applications of women or minorities are at a lower standard. The implication is that a minority (women included) with a lower GPA and test score will be accepted simply because he/she is a minority over a white male applicant.

That is not the implication at all. Indeed, I am not implying anything. The fact is that the academies are not hiding the fact that they are pushing to increase women and minority percentages, and we also know that those groups are, when compared to their application numbers, accepted at a higher rate than white males, which comprise the vast majority of the total applicant pool. If we were to compare the objective portion of the application factors, like class rank, ACT/SAT scores, CFA, the averages of the white males would be higher; primarily because the academies have a far larger applicant pool to select from, and thus more great applicants, and more week applicants as well. But they will take the best white males, just as they will take the best female and minority candidates.

All those who are admitted to the academies are deserving, and well qualified. There are many abundantly qualified candidates who get rejections too. As it happens, the largest number of those will be non minority males. And many women and minorities will be accepted will less than a large number of this white male rejected candidates.

 

[time2]

Back on track to the original question..........

.........Do others believe USNA is currently the most popular (fashionable) with candidates?

I wouldn't recommend choosing ANY civilian college based on something as arbitrary as how popular/fashionable you think OTHER people find it to be, much less an SA.

 

[Blondie1]

The academy of choice is only 4 years. They live a lifetime after those four years. The priority should be placed on WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO AFTER COMMISSIONING!! My son went USNA because the career options lined up best with what he wanted. He never even considered USAFA OR USMA. Not that they do not provide an outstanding education. It was looking at what came AFTER the academy that mattered most to him.

Every year the same discussion floats to the surface--the increased diversity push punishes group X! Our officer pool SHOULD reflect the men and women they lead! Enlisted sailors are ever increasingly a more diverse group. And the officers should/must reflect that! The whole discussion of miniorties have a better chance without being as qualified just comes off as a case of sour grapes--just my opinion. When you walk the yard with the Mids you do realize they have a long way to go to reflect the diversity of the population of the U.S.

My son is not a minority and had no life hardships. We are a non-military family attempting to understand his career choice. He is currently a youngster at USNA and is certain he made the correct choice in career paths. He spent years working to become what he thought was an ideal candidate for the academy. It isn't an impossible task--just a difficult one. BUT the top priority should always be on the future career NOT where did they receive that career training!!!

Do not lose sight of the purpose of the academies.