Stats of Applicant Who Received an LOA

Yep. No harm in asking questions and if folks are in the know, and want to answer, then exchange of info. Personally, I find the whole process fascinating, even if very frustrating at times. Some things seem fair; others not so much. But its life.
 
I can understand that some folks on this forum have been here a long time, and evey year there are a new batch of applicants and parents who are raising the same issues, so the board veterans get sick of seeing the same questions. But unfortunately, even if us newbies go to threads on the same subject from prior years, so many things change that info gets stale.

LOA's are a relevant part of the process. My kid doesn't seem to be in the neighborhood to get one, but other interested kids are, and even mine wants to know how close to the curve he is compared to others. It's all part of the ride I think.
 
The facts are that NONE of the SA's have ever publically stated their criteria for issuing LOA's (and probably never will). No one on this forum can tell an applicant their 'chances' of getting an LOA and you certainly can't determine your own chances by looking at whatever resume someone else posts who says they got one.

Those facts don't change from year to year. That is the reason most regulars suggest not focusing on who got (or didn't get) an LOA. You certainly won't be able to magically determine the SA's formula on your own. They also don't publish how many LOA's are given out, we just do not know.
 
time2 said:
The facts are that NONE of the SA's have ever publically stated their criteria for issuing LOA's (and probably never will). No one on this forum can tell an applicant their 'chances' of getting an LOA and you certainly can't determine your own chances by looking at whatever resume someone else posts who says they got one.

Those facts don't change from year to year. That is the reason most regulars suggest not focusing on who got (or didn't get) an LOA. You certainly won't be able to magically determine the SA's formula on your own. They also don't publish how many LOA's are given out, we just do not know.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you said. And I still think there is no harm in discussions regarding LOA's for those who want to discuss it or share insight.
 
Discussing is fine. Those who speculate, offer conjecture or attempt to extrapolate information from 1 (or a few) candidates they happen to know isn't really helpful to everyone else.
 
I see no harm in understanding the process of an LOA, the thread on the last page LG posted on the FFR and others involvement was great. And yes it does get asked every year. Where most of us tend to get frustrated is the comparison part. Why one candidate got an LOA vs. another is a mystery that only admissions can answer. Trying to compare oneself for an appointment or an LOA vs a candidate or a handful of them doesn't help someone. A candidate needs to look at the stats of the previous few classes and ask themselves are they above or below the averages, talk to the FFR on areas to strengthen their application and put together the best package for admission and Noms as possible. Its way more complex than that, but FFRs are trained to help candidates put together the best package and provide suggestions to highlight strengths and provide suggestions on weaker areas. I get that the candidates are excited and anxious to hear something, heck I was! This is the first wait of many in their future military careers. Part of the process is learning to deal with anxiety of waiting because the military is full of them. Good luck to all the candidates, seriously enjoy Thanksgiving, this will be your last before you move on to the adventures and are scrambling home right before the holidays. When I was in your shoes my senior year of high school I didn't know it would be 10 years until I sat down my family again for Turkey Day.
 
Why should we discuss LOAs?

Some reasons why we should not discuss are that (1) the process is mystical and we can’t explain and (2) the appointment is what matters not LOA.

Some reasons why we should discuss LOAs are (1) because we can and (2) it explains a part of the admissions process to give applicants some certainty (regardless how irrelevant the information might be, some people wants to know everything about the admissions process).

So my guide to the LOA
- Don’t expect it
- For whatever reason you want to know your chance of getting a LOA, the things under your control to increase your chance of getting a LOA is becoming a very competitive candidate and completing your application as soon as possible. Although I always say in the admissions process getting lucky is better than being good, but for LOAs being good is better than lucky.
- Based on the admissions goal, the following types of candidates are usually considered for LOAs based on geographical location: fully qualified URM/very high academic achiever/highly qualified female candidate. No geographical considerations for recruited athlete/soldiers. It is a hindsight, but I am sure we can classify the majority of LOA recipients into one of the above types.
- Majority of LOAs for West Point, at least for my state, are sent out by early October.
 
time2 said:
Discussing is fine. Those who speculate, offer conjecture or attempt to extrapolate information from 1 (or a few) candidates they happen to know isn't really helpful to everyone else.
Click to expand...

A scientific process starts with a thesis (speculation/conjecture) and data collection. If a theory/model is presented, having a discussion is a way to collect more data/information to prove or disapprove the theory/model. Granted that information collected/presented on this forum have questionable reliability and not all source data/information are not disclosed by a poster. The past postings could be an indicator of the poster's knowledge/reliability/trustworthiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OtB
Clearly the discussion about LOA's is pretty cloudy, and the science the academies put into determining who gets one seems a mystery at best, and likely includes a lot of subjective analysis. But that is also true about the admission process in general, as it is with the nominations processes, but nobody has an issue with discussing those processes and comparisons.

When you have a stake in something you like to read as much as you can, and filter what you think has value. In my case my son isn't burdoned with an unrealistic optimism of getting a LOA, and is prepared to wait out the process, doing a lot of praying in between. Lol. But we are still pretty curious who is getting the LOA's, and what their résumés look like; and then, yes, comparing those to my son's. It makes zero difference in the end, but does satisfy curiosity.

Onward and forward.
 
Craig said:
I love statistics. As stated above "So for Class of 2018, 48% of qualified male applicants were admitted and 59% of qualified female applicants were admitted." I think it is fair to say the military likes the officer corps to be somewhat representative of the enlisted ranks.

The 59% above simply means the pool of females was much smaller.
Click to expand...

That's not what it "simply means" at all. It's a political decision to increase female representation. It's not a secret.

And the Army is ~14% female, yet USMA is trying desperately to get 25% (or more) females per class. So, it's not representative. They'll tell you it's because they expect the percentage of enlisted females to increase to 25% in coming years. And they expect it because it's a quota too, not a natural accession nor a warfighting necessity.
 
Craig said:
The 59% above simply means the pool of females was much smaller.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Actually, the opposite is true. There were 451 female, qualified candidates for the class of 2018. There were only 347 female, qualified candidates for the class of 2017. The pool of female, qualified, candidates grew and so did the acceptance rate of female, qualified, candidates.
 
Sledge said:
It's a political decision to increase female representation. It's not a secret.
Click to expand...

Perhaps West Point and Army are trying to get ahead of the demographic shift. I can’t find nor recall where I read it, but best to my memory I remember something along the line of that the current recruiting trend and demographics won’t allow the U.S. military to meet future manpower requirements with male recruits alone. Hence the military’s embrace of opening previously positions closed to females has some practical reasons, not just the political correctness reason. One of the reasons why the Russian military is trying to reduce is size and become a volunteer force instead of conscripts is that that their demographics won’t support the size of their military

According to an Army Times article

Only 4.7 million of the 31.2 million 17- to 24-year-olds in a 2007 survey are eligible to enlist, according to a periodic survey commissioned by the Pentagon.

Safe to assume that civilians eligible to enlist will continue to decease

2014 DoD Accession Goal was about 54,000 active and 40,000 for reserves, to keep the math simple say 100,000

100,000 out of 4.7 million is about 2%. Not bad

Break 4.7 million into 50/50 male/female for general population, use 85%/15% male/female service member accession, than

For males, 85K out 2.35 million is 3.6%, not good
For females, 15K out 2.35 million is .6%, could increase easier than keeping males at 3.6%
 
Last edited:
time2 said:
Discussing is fine. Those who speculate, offer conjecture or attempt to extrapolate information from 1 (or a few) candidates they happen to know isn't really helpful to everyone else.
Click to expand...
Hey everyone---I am so sorry if my very simple comparison created some anger. Boy, that was not my intention at all so I apologize. I love this forum for the stress release so I NEVER meant to stress anyone out. I feel awful about that. My point was---most people will beat themselves up trying to "understand" LOA's and wondering why and how does one person get one and another does not. If I may restate my original idea for the post: I think it's a waste of time to fret over something you can't control. I don't believe it's a male vs female thing at all and I absolutely was NOT trying to imply that nor was I trying to imply I had done scientific research. I was trying to show that even using a ridiculous comparison between a few people I know really well (one happens to be male and the other female), you must be cautious and look at the big picture not just their numbers. If you ONLY look for "who has the better numbers", the LOA's will never make sense so avoid letting it consume you.

It appears that my post may have been interpreted incorrectly by a few so I'll take the hit for not explaining it well enough; I only wanted to say that I think worrying (and even wondering) about LOA's is a waste of time and energy. It will drive you crazy. Once again, enjoy the wait! One of my favorite things I read on this forum was: "As long as you're still waiting, you're still in the game!" So enjoy the wait because you can't change "your resume" at this point so why beat yourself up just because you don't have an LOA? Many long time posters have written that no one cares who received one and who didn't once you're in so I believe them since they are the ones who have had the actual experience. Again, I apologize if my original post was confusing. I guess I should have just written: Try to stop worrying about LOA's and find a way to have fun while you're waiting! :)
 
frenzymando said:
Craig said:
The 59% above simply means the pool of females was much smaller.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Actually, the opposite is true. There were 451 female, qualified candidates for the class of 2018. There were only 347 female, qualified candidates for the class of 2017. The pool of female, qualified, candidates grew and so did the acceptance rate of female, qualified, candidates.
Click to expand...

However, the increase in the qualified females candidates should have proportional increase to the acceptance rate. Again, any good statistical analysis requires more than one set of data points

Using the data for the class of 2018

Percentage of accepted over applied for male and female are 8.15% and 8.00%.
Percentage of nominated over applied for male and female are 28% and 22.8%
Percentage of qualified over applied for male and female are 16.8% and 13.5%

These numbers show that it's harder for females to get appointed, nominated, and qualified (in respect to the number of applicants). So some would argue that it's harder for females to get into West Point. Partially true if all applicants are equal. The trend changes with the percentage of admitted over qualified, for male and females are 48.5% and 59.2%. So an obvious conclusion is that qualified female applicants have a higher acceptance rate over their male peers.
 
We really need the 2019 numbers to see what's happening more definitively.

If we could see the qualified vs accepted ratios again for M/F, I'd think you'd see a similar disparity to that of 2018.
 
Hate to fuel this fire, but what we would really need to know are the relevant objective numbers for women who are admitted vs men who are admitted, and minorities numbers too. Like averages of ACT/sat scores and class standing for each admitted group. Can't assume all had the same scores or numbers.
 
brovol said:
Hate to fuel this fire, but what we would really need to know are the relevant objective numbers for women who are admitted vs men who are admitted, and minorities numbers too. Like averages of ACT/sat scores and class standing for each admitted group. Can't assume all had the same scores or numbers.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are adding fuel to this fire, rather reminding of us of additional information requirement to explain the numbers. I see this as an intellectual challenge, not a waste of time.
 
4.0 GPA
4 out of 178
11 AP Classes- AP Scholar with Distinction
2150 SAT (710 M, 710 CR, 730 W)
5 Varsity Sports
Class President
Math club president
other clubs :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top