just to kick some more dust...just for sport...read the opinion of the navy and General Accounting Office regarding Principal Nomination appointments. What they write is:
"Offers of appointment are awarded to the best-qualified candidates as evaluated by the Naval Academy Admissions Board within the candidates’ individual nominating categories. About 300 qualified candidates are offered appointments with nominations known as Qualified Alternates to ensure the incoming class meets its authorized strength and profile requirements.
Principal nominees (those candidates whose nominating source identifies them by name) who are qualified and children of Medal of Honor winners who are qualified do not compete for appointment."
http://www.usna.edu/AboutAIS/Overview.html
"Senators, representatives, and delegates may submit up to 10
nominees for each student vacancy available to him or her per academy.
They may choose to designate one as a principal nominee.29 If an applicant
receives a principal nomination and is in all other respects qualified, the
academies must admit that applicant, even over an applicant on the same
senator’s, delegate’s, or representative’s nomination list with higher
academic and/or whole person scores. The other nominated names
become alternates for possible admission later in the admissions process."
http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/239612.pdf
I am all for improving the process, but I would be very hesitant to delegate any Board acting under the direction of one Superintendent that much influence. Diverse opinions using common published criteria, statistically speaking, will produce better results than a single evaluation point. I would like to see MOC's somehow required to use a similar process as my MOC. As I mentioned earlier, his process, using USNA WCS criteria and scoring, and input from USNA Admissions, and face to face interviews (by military officers, community and business leaders, etc) was in the end a better process than reliance upon USNA Admissions Board (blind) reviews alone.
Folks, I have sat on the entry and promotional oral boards hundreds of time in my career, and most often, what was on paper was not what ended up sitting in front of us. We use to call them paper tigers, the person on paper you would swear would excel throughout their career, but ended up under performing. Nearly all of those that would have never made it absent face to face interviews, but were able to reveal their potential and earn promotion, ended up excelling in their careers. One particular candidate, that later shared his anguish and belief that he had flunked my relentless question onslaught, told me he had walked out certain that he had flunked the oral and began looking for other opportunities. He was shocked when he saw his top score and his promotion orders, and decades later proudly relieved me in command as I retired. So, definitely, a blind review cannot produce the qualities the Navy is seeking. There is no substitute for face to face interviews...