Principal Nomination

Sit in front of an MOC committee in NY and get back to me.
Well I will never have that opportunity, but I interpret your opinion is that it’s a corrupt panel? Is that a subjective opinion?
Like I said, things aren’t always fair, and the Nomination process has been criticized in the past for favoritism shown to certain candidates throughout the years by MOC’s. One cannot escape corruption, but must work to beat it.
The overall appointment/Nomination processes used by the SA’s and MOC’s seems to turnout the desired quality and number of officers each year they aim for. There are continuously tweaks to the system being made to keep the quality and standards of appointees high as well as diverse with little attrition. We can only hope that trend continues.
 
But the one thing that always sticks in my mind with principal nominations is, I feel that the MOCs are saying to the SA admissions panels, "We know better than you."
It could be that way, hypothetically. It could also be that the board thought the individual was head and shoulder above the competition for some reason(s). You really don't know why someone gets a principal nomination, and knowing that we shouldn't surmise.
 
It could be that way, hypothetically. It could also be that the board thought the individual was head and shoulder above the competition for some reason(s). You really don't know why someone gets a principal nomination, and knowing that we shouldn't surmise.
I would agree with that if a MOC occasionally selected a principal nominee. Something like 'this candidate is so incredible he/she needs to stand above the rest.' But from what I've read, the MOCs that choose principal nominees do so every single year as a practice.
 
Well I will never have that opportunity, but I interpret your opinion is that it’s a corrupt panel? Is that a subjective opinion?
Like I said, things aren’t always fair, and the Nomination process has been criticized in the past for favoritism shown to certain candidates throughout the years by MOC’s. One cannot escape corruption, but must work to beat it.
The overall appointment/Nomination processes used by the SA’s and MOC’s seems to turnout the desired quality and number of officers each year they aim for. There are continuously tweaks to the system being made to keep the quality and standards of appointees high as well as diverse with little attrition. We can only hope that trend continues.
This quote is from a Yale law school study on congressional appointments.

"Although staff in many offices stated that they valued diversity in conversations with us, websites and promotional materials, such as flyers for information sessions and social media postings, rarely reflect this value explicitly. As an example of a Member of Congress who does expressly highlight interest in a diverse applicant pool, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand includes the following FAQ on her page: What if my grades are not competitive? Students who demonstrate leadership potential, but who lack the current academic capacity to handle the rigors of the academy, may be selected to attend a one-year preparatory program at no cost. Moreover, the academies are particularly eager to receive applications from NYC students, as both urban and minority candidates are underrepresented as officers in the United States military, and it is important that our nation’s leadership reflect the diversity of its people."

So by her own admission, merit is not the only consideration for Senator Gillibrand.
 
In our state, the selection committee provides a name to the MOC for principal nom. The MOC chooses on that recommendation. All the other MOCs in our state do not use principal nom process.
 
Last edited:
As someone who has done a few dozen hires of civilians for government service, I didn’t always get to choose the BEST candidates.

In the government hiring process, the general rule is so long as the candidate is MINIMALLY qualified (qualifications are in the position description), then the applicant is good enough for the job. An applicant may be in a priority placement category. I am forced to choose that applicant over someone who may be better qualified (IMO), because the former has met the requirements (and it could just be barely) for the job.

Likewise, the Academy must select principal noms- assuming they meet the minimum qualifications- even if a better candidate (in the Academy’s eyes) is available. So the notion of picking a “lesser” candidate is not foreign to how things work with the govt.
 
Well I will never have that opportunity, but I interpret your opinion is that it’s a corrupt panel? Is that a subjective opinion?
Like I said, things aren’t always fair, and the Nomination process has been criticized in the past for favoritism shown to certain candidates throughout the years by MOC’s. One cannot escape corruption, but must work to beat it.
The overall appointment/Nomination processes used by the SA’s and MOC’s seems to turnout the desired quality and number of officers each year they aim for. There are continuously tweaks to the system being made to keep the quality and standards of appointees high as well as diverse with little attrition. We can only hope that trend continues.

Not corrupt - biased.

To the objective observer, Senatorial nominations (in my state) appear to be influenced by political ideology. Many find that to be okay. I find it hard to explain to young, high achievers who are still naive to the fact that ideology often exceeds at the expense of merit.

My DS was a competitive slate winner (Congressional). He learned an important life lesson going through the Senatorial process.
 
So by her own admission, merit is not the only consideration for Senator Gillibrand.

All I'm going to say is she is my Senator. It's public record who she nominates and others may have some personal knowledge of the nominees qualifications. I'll leave it at that.
 
I am an immigrant to this wonderful country. Being objectively nominated to an SA is one thing, how about the election/nomination to any public office, can somebody say that it’s always objective and not biased?
 
There are two truths I have learned in life, gathered through experience in business and youth sports :coo2l::
  1. The greater the opportunity for manipulation of a process, the more manipulation will occur.
  2. As transparency decreases, bias (or at least perception of bias) increases.
 
There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of a Principal Nomination, but it is outdated. It was instituted at a time when local congressional representatives were in a better position to evaluate candidates than the service academies.
 
If a Principal Nominee is the best candidate in the slate they would win the slate in an unranked slate. There is no legitimate reason for the Principal Nomination other than to bypass the Academies' selection process.
 
Sit in front of an MOC committee in NY and get back to me.

Agreed.....to sit and say that "preferential treatment" never occurs is to have blinders on. There have been many "Principle Noms" that would have never made it through the normal appointment process. But their parents "knew someone" or "were owed a favor", or maybe "were a big donor", and their children were appointed even if the academy did not think they were likely to succeed. JMHO, but BAD system....nominations are a fact, but no one knows a candidates probability of success more than that academy's admissions board. By taking selection of those appointmented out of the hands of the experts and putting it into a political spectrum is not necessarily a good idea.
 
Agreed.....to sit and say that "preferential treatment" never occurs is to have blinders on. There have been many "Principle Noms" that would have never made it through the normal appointment process. But their parents "knew someone" or "were owed a favor", or maybe "were a big donor", and their children were appointed even if the academy did not think they were likely to succeed. JMHO, but BAD system....nominations are a fact, but no one knows a candidates probability of success more than that academy's admissions board. By taking selection of those appointmented out of the hands of the experts and putting it into a political spectrum is not necessarily a good idea.

Well, it is generally the case that the admissions board is the best judge but it is not always the case. Remember that the Admissions Board review is largely "paper" and sometimes the paper does not give a full story. During my time as a plebe, one of my platoon mates was very clearly someone who clearly had never been interviewed or evaluated in person by someone who had actually gone to the academy or served as a Naval Officer. He had great credentials ON PAPER but they were pretty hollow. For instance he had four varsity letters in track and had been team captain of that team. He was a shot putter and on paper he might sound OK but in person he was approx 5'6 and a bit chubby. One day, our platoon was in the gym waiting(as happens often during plebe summer) and there were some shots nearby. He offered to show us how to throw it and when he did, just about everyone in the squad threw it further than he did even though most had never touched one before. I'm not sure who did his CFA but he was definitely behind physically. Also, he was terribly shy and spoke with a noticeable lisp. He had tremendous trouble with the physical and the military side of plebe summer and when academic year came around, he was slightly above the minimum passing grades academically but continued to fail in the other areas and he was gone by Thanksgiving. Years later, I became pretty familiar with his hometown and I now know that he was from a very small high school and the track team was tiny and not competitive at all. As a BGO, I have seen BGOs who let their desire to "help" their candidates cloud their judgement and I'm pretty sure that this was the case. I seriously doubt that a MOC panel of experienced grads / military officers would select this guy and is a big part of my motivation for serving on the panels.
 
Back
Top