unkown1961
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,226
Interesting. Our oldest was told this by a few sources, including alums and the ALO.
SCOTUS Affirmative Action decision could affect Service Academy and ROTC
- Thread starter Kierkegaard
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,842
The last time I saw the BGO presentation on Admissions processes, there was a SMALL number of points for parent or family member graduate and/or veteran status. The number was very small and far below the points for academic quals, sports, etc.
By the way, the rationale was that family familiarity with SA/service had a definite correlation with graduation/commissioning.
Don't shoot me* on this - it is what I've been told over the years
* (Argue with me or ask me to defend it)
A1Janitor
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2018
- Messages
- 6,507
I suspect small number of points becomes meaningless when you look at the possible points available for everyone.
Your daughter not withstanding, do you dispute that women ARE given an advantage in admissions at certain institutions where women are “underrepresented”? The service academies and technical institutions like MIT are primary examples. At CGA in particular, they have been aggressively advancing women through admissions, driving up the percentages year after year. The class of 2021 was 33% women. This years class is 43% women. All the other academies are under political pressure to drive up the number of women.
That makes sense to me. A candidate who has a parent and/or sibling associated with the school and/or service should have a better understanding of what they are signing up for. That works the other way as well, as they also may have more pressure to apply against their desire.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,196
DTT!FSA!
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2022
- Messages
- 335
Whether or not women are being given an advantage would necessarily depend on the percentage of women applying for admission. If only 10% of applicants were women and women received 43% of the appointments, then there would be objective support for your claim. However, if 50% of the applicants were women and they only received 43% of the appointments, the opposite would be true.
Of course, if your argument is that the only way a woman can be offered an appointment when competing against a man is if she is given an advantage...
The reader can finish that sentence in whichever way seems most appropriate.
Your first paragraph assumes an even distribution of the same quality candidates between men and women, which we can’t possibly know. The answer is much more complex than the number of applicants. Objective support exists, and it isn’t my claim. Senators and congresspeople rail against what they view to be the low number of women and minorities at the academies. The Service Women's Action Network and the American Civil Liberties Union are suing the academies over admissions practices. The academies in particular are under tremendous political and public pressure to correct these “wrongs”. You suggest we can’t question how they do it?
Your second paragraph is ridiculous. No one can question actions taken for the sake of correcting or reversing the social justice flavor of the day without being racist, sexist, etc etc? Typical leftist trope. Do better.
Summary: We're going to continue to have race as a factor in our admissions decisions. We'll just be better at disguising it. That whole thing about not judging on the basis of race whether in Dr. King's appeal to our better natures or the embodiment of that principle in the 14th Amendment -- all form over substance.Harvard's president, Larry Bacow, sent a letter to the Harvard community yesterday regarding this important decision. In it, he expressly notes that the military and the heads of the SAs stand in solidarity with the universities named in the suit (emphasis mine):
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
In a few hours, the Supreme Court will begin to hear oral arguments in our admissions case. Throughout my presidency, I have had opportunities to state the facts of the matter. I write now to share some personal reflections.
Whatever promise we hold as individuals—for ourselves and for our world—is not predicated on narrowly structured measures of academic distinction. When Harvard assembles a class of undergraduates, it matters that they come from different social, economic, geographical, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It matters that they come to our campus with varied academic interests and skill sets. Research and lived experience teach us that each student’s learning experience is enriched by encountering classmates who grew up in different circumstances.
Harvard is not alone in believing that we are more than our test scores and that our unique perspectives bring a wealth of educational benefits to a high-quality educational enterprise. The legal battle we have waged, which reaches its apex today, is as important to other colleges and universities, and to society, as it is to us. Educators and scholars, civil rights organizers, historians, and education advocates stand with us. Leaders in business and technology stand with us. Former military officers and the heads of the nation’s service academies stand with us. Their voices—ringing out in amicus briefs—are part of a chorus that has risen across our campus and throughout our country in defense of forty years of legal precedent, as well as the history of the 14th Amendment.
Today, individuals of great skill will argue in favor of our cause inside the highest court in the land. This includes our colleagues from the University of North Carolina and the solicitor general of the United States. To all those who have worked hard to prepare us for today, thank you. To all those who have amplified and defended our argument on campus and elsewhere, thank you. We now await the final decision of the court with earnest anticipation. Whatever it is, we will honor the law while also remaining true to our values. May we continue to support and appreciate one another, as well as the institution we create together.
Sincerely,
Larry
DS was a first round, four year NROTC scholarship winner, admitted to one Ivy, and during an interview with another Ivy was told that as a white male his chances of admission were a long shot. Debate team captain kicked in and he went down the list of "suppose I was" X, Y or Z. Yep, the only factor that made him a long shot was being white and male. If one believes in their heart that discriminating on the basis of factors a 17 year old trying to get admitted to a college does not control, e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic, geography, etc. -- then a sense of justice would scream that the harm done by using these uncontrollable factors is a personal harm committed against that person. Admissions are a zero sum game. Bringing in factors to judge that have nothing to do with what a 17 year old can impact is just plain morally wrong. Doesn't matter whether it was discrimination against women and minorities today or years ago, or against the white male today standing before an admissions committee. Discrimination is either right or it's wrong from a moral perspective when viewed against the harm done to the individual. Maybe we should ask Sandra Day O'Conner in a seance whether it's been long enough discrimination. In a line of ridiculous legal statements in 2003 SDO wrote: "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary . . . . " If she's right, another six years of race and gender discrimination. Do two wrongs make a right? Is the harm done for the next six years against those individuals any less of a harm to them than to those discriminated against in the past based on race, gender and socio-economic?
unkown1961
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,226
I think that there are pools of equally qualified candidates (based on grades, scores, essays, LORs, overcoming adversity, etc.) and that among these women and minorities can receive extra points or a bump in order to create a diverse pool of students. And I have no problem with this because I think a diverse group of students if good for a school and good for students to be a part of - and in some respects it can help make up for the many, many more years where qualified female and minority candidates were passed over because they were females and minorities.
But do you also criticize the admission of lesser qualified legacies, children of donors, and athletes with the same angst?
Just for transparency, I have two sons and one daughter. All received AFROTC and NROTC scholarships and were accepted to their respective selective college choices where warranted.
DTT!FSA!
Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2022
- Messages
- 335
Actually, the answer is not at all complex. The even distribution is pretty much a given and the answer is most definitely closely related to the distribution of the applicants.
That sentence doesn't even make sense in the context of your argument.
unkown1961
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,226
I can see the Academies' point of view. It sould also apply to ROTC. But I can also see this thinking becoming incestuous and lacking new points of views. Don't shoot me on this either, it's just an opinion.
I'd be curious how many incoming cadets leave. From discussions with our sponsored cadets at USAFA, there seems to be single digits of cadets who leave, but that is anecdotal.
If that were the case, schools, including the academies, wouldn’t be fighting to maintain affirmative action. According to UM and the UC system, elimination of affirmative action policies resulted in a decrease in their desired ratio of students.
The question is whether what you want runs afoul of the constitution. That’s what the asupreme Court is about to decide. You can think there are pools of equally qualified students, but the experience of UC and UM (and at the academies, according to their amicus briefs) as expressed in their arguments to the Supreme Court, would suggest otherwise. Whether their statistics are true, or created to make a point, is anyone’s guess.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2018
- Messages
- 697
Some of the posts in this thread remind me that, while I prefer my grapes tart, the sour ones are just not palatable.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,842
On your first sentence, don't forget that its not difficult to "walk on" to ROTC and then solidify yourself into a scholarship through performance in the unit. There is not a way to do this within the Service Academy construct.
As for how many leave, your sponsored cadets may not have the best info but gross numbers are pretty easily found by comparing number admitted to number graduating. At USNA, the entering class size is generally around 1200 and graduating numbers are usually around 1000.
usna1985
15-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,854
A little late to the discussion . . . on the question of whether USNA gives bonus points to legacies, the short answer is . . . they used to, sort of, kind of, but not sure they do anymore.
Two+ decades ago, kids with a close military relative were given a small amount of extra points on the theory that they were more familiar with military requirements and thus more likely to stick it out at USNA. Any military service would do and USNA legacies got no more points than a kid whose father or sister was, say, enlisted Air Force. And the "bump" was no more than someone would get for being a team captain, an Eagle Scout, scoring really well on the CFA, etc. It was something like 500 points when Whole Person Multiple scores were 70,000+. So not a difference maker. But that was then.
The above has changed for two reasons. First, there now seems to be a preference for those who are the first in their family to attend college (which would not be true of a USNA legacy). Second, attrition is now closer to 10% than the 25-35% it was in my day. Thus, the "sticking it out" argument is now largely moot.
IMHO, the main reason colleges and universities give preference to legacies is that they depend on alums for funding. Thus, if you gift $10M or maybe even $100M, one "reward" could well be a spot for your kid in the freshman class. Other legacies MIGHT give or, if legacies are turned down in large numbers, this could impact giving. [Of note, one thing a lot of civilian schools do is "waitlist" legacies with zero intent of admitting them. This apparently makes the parent(s) feel better in that their kid didn't get outright turned down but also doesn't require the school to admit them.] SAs are federally funded and thus don't "need" donor money. Of course, all SAs benefit from private donations, but it's not as if a parent is going to build the next academic building or that a SA is counting on a donor to do that.
Two+ decades ago, kids with a close military relative were given a small amount of extra points on the theory that they were more familiar with military requirements and thus more likely to stick it out at USNA. Any military service would do and USNA legacies got no more points than a kid whose father or sister was, say, enlisted Air Force. And the "bump" was no more than someone would get for being a team captain, an Eagle Scout, scoring really well on the CFA, etc. It was something like 500 points when Whole Person Multiple scores were 70,000+. So not a difference maker. But that was then.
The above has changed for two reasons. First, there now seems to be a preference for those who are the first in their family to attend college (which would not be true of a USNA legacy). Second, attrition is now closer to 10% than the 25-35% it was in my day. Thus, the "sticking it out" argument is now largely moot.
IMHO, the main reason colleges and universities give preference to legacies is that they depend on alums for funding. Thus, if you gift $10M or maybe even $100M, one "reward" could well be a spot for your kid in the freshman class. Other legacies MIGHT give or, if legacies are turned down in large numbers, this could impact giving. [Of note, one thing a lot of civilian schools do is "waitlist" legacies with zero intent of admitting them. This apparently makes the parent(s) feel better in that their kid didn't get outright turned down but also doesn't require the school to admit them.] SAs are federally funded and thus don't "need" donor money. Of course, all SAs benefit from private donations, but it's not as if a parent is going to build the next academic building or that a SA is counting on a donor to do that.
Impulsive
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2019
- Messages
- 1,024
Just an "off the wall remark". Personally, even back when I served, I couldn't give two s__ts about who was my boss, as long as they were fair, intelligent, and knew how to get things done. Female, Black, Asian, White, no matters, just be at the "Top of Your Game". NOW, when the leaders, or that matter the grunts, have no clue what they are doing but are there based on some absurd "additional points for being them" or some political social experiment, "Houston We Have A Problem". Especially in the leadership ranks, both enlisted and officer, if you are not up to the job, you will get people killed in the military. Civilians are different, usually an "affirmative action" employee, even if not competent won't get people killed, except maybe if they were a LE Officer, or CIA Weenie...
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
- Messages
- 9,358
This is going to be a long thread…