THE BLACK BOX - USNA vs NROTC admissions process

[Fairhope dad]

S

First off, we have kept it civil so far, let's keep it that way.

Professors teach at 1 level and push on, a student who needs extra help goes and gets it. It's their job to reach out. This isn't high school and hand holding. A professor may even pull a kid aside and say you aren't cutting it. But he won't force a student to help. And honestly I have seen 28 ACTs thrive at USNA and 34 struggle. I think I was a 32 ACT. I nearly flunked out Plebe Year. Made Dant's list the next year. USNA has loads and loads of stats from decades of Mids that create projections and stats on success rates. I am currently with 3 grads and 2 Mids this weekend, we all whole heartedly agree that every person admitted can make it there, it's a matter of their willingness to. Some have never struggled and have no idea how to get help. Other's can't adapt without mom and dad helicoptering. Some have horrible study habits. Some get in a spiral and don't know how to stop it (seen this one a lot).

So I guess from reading your comments I have concluded that ACT scores are overrated. If so, why does the SA use them? Why did our B&G officer tell us what ACT score was competitive? I'm a realist, I have a hard time believing someone with a 7 point difference on the ACT learns and retains at the same level. I do believe some work harder than others and perform better. Some have more desire to be better. Some people may retain better than others but are lazy. I get that, but all things equal, in a classroom setting one is at a disadvantage. How can both excel at their highest level when they were never at the same level to start with?If ACT/SAT scores didn't matter MIT would not be MIT.

 

[NavyHoops]

Don't believe I said they didn't matter. I think they matter to a level of trying to establish if a candidate can make it. USNA has a minimum, they have established that based upon years of data. Beyond that, success can vary across all kinds of levels of scores at USNA. Of course you want high scores to make the best package possible. But a 36 isn't a guarantee if a kid can't even put a complete sentence together (which I have seen on multiple occasions). I have tons and tons of 32-34 range. Some I highly recommended to their BGOs and others I recommended that they really evaluate the kid. There are tons of kids in that range and like any school, small things can make a huge difference in the process. Also, ACT, GPA, class standing does not equal leadership ability. It's amazing to see who has thrived in the fleet and who hasn't.

By no means is the process perfect. I think everyone could find faults with every school admissions process. The one document posted had a few stats referenced, it appears women are on par with men's stats and even some ways higher in certain areas. Looks like Asians, if anyone, are at a disadvantage (I read some of the report, but not all of it).

 

[Sledge]

Exactly what are my "circumstances"?

You have a daughter that's an appointee so of course you are going to see the argument through that filter. That is your "circumstance."

 

[MomNewToThis]

You have a daughter that's an appointee so of course you are going to see the argument through that filter. That is your "circumstance."

Here is my "circumstance": I have both sons and daughters. I also have nearly 30 years in education and experience with the SAT and ACT and extensive experience in educational psychology, tests and measurements, multiple intelligences, and many other education-related factors. I believe that there is value in using standardized test scores but I also believe there are so many more factors that are important to look at. I don't see the EVIDENCE to back up the claim that women are admitted with lower numbers. I am not swayed by one or two anecdotes about a white male getting turned down while a minority is accepted. I don't believe that if your DS was a DD, you would make the assertion that women are admitted with lower scores.

I also agree with the poster who said that the USNA has plenty of metrics to help them gauge success over the years. One more thing - a kid with access to expensive test prep programs and SAT/ACT tutoring can pull his or her scores up markedly. This kind of tutoring can cost thousands of dollars. Wealthy parents who choose to do so can pay a professional tutor to do this and also to assist with application essays for colleges. Many students do not have access to this. For others, it is taken for granted. This is one reason of several that many other factors are considered aside from just test scores. Thanks for listening.

 

[Sledge]

I believe that there is value in using standardized test scores but I also believe there are so many more factors that are important to look at.

Like, for example, two X chromosomes instead of one?

I don't believe that if your DS was a DD, you would make the assertion that women are admitted with lower scores.

That's not what I said at all, so stop with the straw man argument. I'd venture to say that the females being admitted have similar standardized test scores as the males, maybe better. But, as you said, that's not all of it. They are certainly being admitted with lower physical capabilities, on average, than males, and they suffer injuries at a much higher rate than males. In a time of downsizing, why would you want to relax requirements? They are also being admitted in greater numbers knowing that, being the only gender capable of child birth, an even greater percentage of your fighting force might need/want significant amounts of time away from the military training and career track necessary to advancement. Why would you build this into your military in a time of downsizing? This isn't working for Google; it's the military.

I think the term used these days is "propensity." Do 25% of females have the same military "propensity" as males? That is, do they have the same desire to put up with the military life and career, especially in fields like the Infantry? There are certainly a number that do. I would call them atypical females. Is that number 25%? I don't think it is. And yet, we're going to change up the rules to get to 25%, in every service, in every field. One size fits all. Because we need 25% females across the board to create a powerful sisterhood in the ranks to protect the much lower percentage that actually do have the propensity and want to climb the ladder. That's voodoo sociology. Egad.

 

[socalfan]

...and they suffer injuries at a much higher rate than males. In a time of downsizing, why would you want to relax requirements?...


...They are also being admitted in greater numbers knowing that, being the only gender capable of child birth, an even greater percentage of your fighting force might need/want significant amounts of time away from the military training and career track necessary to advancement.

...Do 25% of females have the same military "propensity" as males? That is, do they have the same desire to put up with the military life and career, especially in fields like the Infantry? There are certainly a number that do. I would call them atypical females. Is that number 25%? I don't think it is. And yet, we're going to change up the rules to get to 25%, in every service, in every field. One size fits all. Because we need 25% females across the board to create a powerful sisterhood in the ranks to protect the much lower percentage that actually do have the propensity and want to climb the ladder. That's voodoo sociology. Egad.

Where is the statistic that backs up they get injured at a higher rate?

2) I would think the women that would subject themselves to this sort of sexism and stereotyping must have quite the drive and desire!

3) really we have come down to the baby making argument now?

Can we all agree this conversation has deteriorated to the point of not being useful at all? For the record I don't have any daughters.

 

[Sledge]

Where is the statistic that backs up they get injured at a higher rate?

2) I would think the women that would subject themselves to this sort of sexism and stereotyping must have quite the drive and desire!

3) really we have come down to the baby making argument now?

Can we all agree this conversation has deteriorated to the point of not being useful at all? For the record I don't have any daughters.

Facts are sexist

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/01/13/data-predicts-spike-in-female-troop-injuries.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-that-women-are-injured-twice-as-of/?page=all

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/17596772

And, yes "baby making" is relevant

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article...-paid-military-maternity-leave-other-benefits

 

[MomNewToThis]

Like, for example, two X chromosomes instead of one?
That's not what I said at all, so stop with the straw man argument. I'd venture to say that the females being admitted have similar standardized test scores as the males, maybe better. But, as you said, that's not all of it. They are certainly being admitted with lower physical capabilities, on average, than males, and they suffer injuries at a much higher rate than males. In a time of downsizing, why would you want to relax requirements? They are also being admitted in greater numbers knowing that, being the only gender capable of child birth, an even greater percentage of your fighting force might need/want significant amounts of time away from the military training and career track necessary to advancement. Why would you build this into your military in a time of downsizing? This isn't working for Google; it's the military.

I think the term used these days is "propensity." Do 25% of females have the same military "propensity" as males? That is, do they have the same desire to put up with the military life and career, especially in fields like the Infantry? There are certainly a number that do. I would call them atypical females. Is that number 25%? I don't think it is. And yet, we're going to change up the rules to get to 25%, in every service, in every field. One size fits all. Because we need 25% females across the board to create a powerful sisterhood in the ranks to protect the much lower percentage that actually do have the propensity and want to climb the ladder. That's voodoo sociology. Egad.

First - I did not say that you SAID it, I said I "did not believe" you would think that way.
Second - military worth is not all about brute strength.
Third - please quote the source of any info you are putting out there as fact - for example, what is the source of the assertion that females suffer injuries at a higher rate than males?

IMHO - it is NOT okay to belittle females like this. Your comment about voodoo sociology has no place here.

 

[MomNewToThis]

Facts are sexist

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/01/13/data-predicts-spike-in-female-troop-injuries.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-that-women-are-injured-twice-as-of/?page=all

http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/17596772

And, yes "baby making" is relevant

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article...-paid-military-maternity-leave-other-benefits

1st study - "data predicts" - enough said. Article also says such injuries could be prevented with better training.

2nd "study" - is an article by the CMR, which has a political position against Obama and his support for increased roles for women in the military. The CMR was founded to oppose Don't ask, Don't tell. This organization's official stance is that women in combat units endanger the morale of the men, and so the solution is to not have women there. This CMR "study" has been roundly criticized for cherry-picking information to promote their 1950s agenda. Senior military officials dispute this article, of course.

3rd article - a study from Finland about basic training? Hardly relevant to females getting accepted to USNA. That article deals with Finnish recruits who get injuries from running - that require MRIs. Does not deal with any other injuries.

And the article about expanded maternity AND paternity leave? Seriously? Please explain to me WHY "baby-making" is relevant to this conversation.

 

[Keystone_Dad]

This is a tough subject for sure. Hard not to step on toes. My dad served honorably as a sailor on a destroyer in WWII, yet when he returned to the Deep South after the war he found few said thank for his service. Now he was told where he could sit on a bus, what water fountain he could drink from and why high schools and colleges were closed to him. Words don't fully explain what it does to families that have had to deal with this type of thing for generations. I had to put up with it when I was stationed in the Deep South after graduating from USMA. All I can say is that anyone who is now experiencing what they feel is discrimination for their children in getting into a SA is that I am sorry you may be experiencing what many I know have endured for years. It is frustrating, it hurts, and it is not something I would wish on anyone. I feel your pain. But after your sting is gone, it has been my experience that my family will receive additional servings of the same. I for one think our SA's do the best they can in the midst of the great experiment called the United States. I salute each one of you who want your DD or DS to serve in the profession of arms. It is a pleasure and honor to stand with you. Our nation needs these fine women and men!

 

[USMCGrunt]

 

[brovol]

Is it belittling to women if we say that men are generally taller than women, larger, or stronger? What if we acknowledge that some women are in fact taller or stronger than some men? Would it be belittling to men if someone said that there are many things which women have physical or other advantages over men? Why is it that we have a group of thoughtful and intelligent people on these forums, who all have a similar interest, but we have to be grossly careful and sensitive about saying something which, although it may be accurate, may strike someone else as offensive; particularly if it is inconsistent with the current measure for political correctness?

The academies have acknowledged that there is a current drive to immediately increase percentages of women and minorities at the academies. But if someone says that will neccesarily decrease the number of non minority men, a FACT which is irrefutable and mathmatical, and a fact which neccesarily means that a non minority male needs to be better than he would have had to be before, we are sexist or offensive.

I am 52 years old, and I can't run as fast or do anything physically as well as I did when I was 22. Hypothetically, if there weren't age restrictions for the academies, and AARP was successful in convincing our current president and the military that the academies needed to admit 20% mature adults (over 50), because such "experience" was deemed by some study conducted by an academic at Rand to be valuable, I bet there would be many on this board who would suggest that it isn't right or fair to force the academies to meet this requirement. Likewise, many would suggest that 50 year olds are going to struggle with the physical, and even some of the academic requirements. I could then point out that I know many 50 year old men and women who are in great shape, and capable of completing the physical requirements, I bet many of you would illustrate the fact that old people couldn't cut it as well as 18 year olds at the academies or in the military. The physical requirements could be modified slightly so that a 50 year old could do push-ups from the knees, and use a chair to stand on for pull ups. I could scream foul when someone points to facts which suggest that other candidates are losing out on appointments because of the new "objective".

Yikes.

 

[Keystone_Dad]

Oh one more thing. Beat Navy! (Hey, I'm a USMA grad so...you'll have to forgive me for that).

 

[Sledge]

1st study - "data predicts" - enough said. Article also says such injuries could be prevented with better training.

Did you read the article or just the title? To wit,

"Dr. David Cifu, the VA's national director for physical medicine and rehabilitation, said last year that women carrying the same loads as their male counterparts in the infantry risk more of these kinds of injuries "given the ratio of their size and strength to the packs." A typical infantry soldier carries a load of about 80 pounds.
It is not merely about body strength, according to a 2011 Army paper, it is that "the combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fractures and knee damage."
The paper, "Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women," cites multiple Army, VA and Navy data, including a Navy study that found 1 in 367 female recruits were diagnosed with a pelvic stress fracture, versus one in 40,000 male recruits. At the same time, the Army noted that its experience with these kinds of injuries is nearly three times that of the Navy.
"Acute and chronic musculoskeletal problems associated with injuries are consistently the leading causes of outpatient visits and hospitalizations in the Army," the report stated.

And, "better training" means less ruck marching (or marching with less weight), less running, less push-ups. Lowered standards.

And the article about expanded maternity AND paternity leave? Seriously? Please explain to me WHY "baby-making" is relevant to this conversation.

Because you are making concessions and building in more time off for biological differences. Time away is a detriment to readiness. Who picks up the slack?

 

[Sledge]

IMHO - it is NOT okay to belittle females like this. Your comment about voodoo sociology has no place here.

Did I belittle females? This is exactly the kind of mentality that I fear is increasing in the military with the over-recruitment of people without the proper propensity. My feels! They're hurt. You can't say something I don't agree with.

 

[MomNewToThis]

Did you read the article or just the title? To wit,

"Dr. David Cifu, the VA's national director for physical medicine and rehabilitation, said last year that women carrying the same loads as their male counterparts in the infantry risk more of these kinds of injuries "given the ratio of their size and strength to the packs." A typical infantry soldier carries a load of about 80 pounds. It is not merely about body strength, according to a 2011 Army paper, it is that "the combination of anatomy and physiology appears to predispose women to a higher risk of pelvic stress fractures and knee damage."

The paper, "Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women," cites multiple Army, VA and Navy data, including a Navy study that found 1 in 367 female recruits were diagnosed with a pelvic stress fracture, versus one in 40,000 male recruits. At the same time, the Army noted that its experience with these kinds of injuries is nearly three times that of the Navy. "Acute and chronic musculoskeletal problems associated with injuries are consistently the leading causes of outpatient visits and hospitalizations in the Army," the report stated.

And, "better training" means less ruck marching (or marching with less weight), less running, less push-ups. Lowered standards.
Because you making concessions and building in more time off for biological differences. Time away is a detriment to readiness.

Yes, I read all the articles. Same article also quoted a Marine Corp office "But the solution is not to keep certain specialties or units closed to women, he said, but to make them better prepared and fit to succeed without sacrificing standards. At Parris Island, S.C., one of the Corps' two boot camps, officials brought in a fitness trainer who had worked with the Carolina Panthers football team to help improve training and avoid injuries, he said,
After about a year, he said, "we started to see these injuries go down.""

The 2011 report you refer to is available here: Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women. It is 120 pages long, and you quoted 2-3 sentences from it. The introduction to the report says "Musculoskeletal injuries in military women are common. Prevention and management of such injuries are very important to sustain the fighting force and maintain military readiness. This monograph provides information about the incidence, risk factors, prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and rehabilitation of common musculoskeletal overuse and traumatic injuries sustained by women in the military". Nowhere in here does it say that "Females are admitted to USNA with lower admissions standards" (which was the original statement I and others took issue with) nor does it say that having more of them at USNA or USMA or anywhere else is done out of political correctness.

And, regarding your quote "Because you making concessions and building in more time off for biological differences. Time away is a detriment to readiness" - so, why do we give PATERNITY LEAVE also?

 

[MomNewToThis]

Did I belittle females? This is exactly the kind of mentality that I fear is increasing in the military with the over-recruitment of people without the proper propensity. My feels! They're hurt. You can't say something I don't agree with.

My feelings are not hurt. Why would you think you have hurt my feelings? Is it because I am female, so I must be more emotional? Ha. Yes, you belittle females when you treat them as if they are weak baby incubators. My "mentality" is that it is not OKAY to sit idly by and not speak out against these attitudes. That's all.

 

[JTGib13]

1st study - "data predicts" - enough said. Article also says such injuries could be prevented with better training.

2nd "study" - is an article by the CMR, which has a political position against Obama and his support for increased roles for women in the military. The CMR was founded to oppose Don't ask, Don't tell. This organization's official stance is that women in combat units endanger the morale of the men, and so the solution is to not have women there. This CMR "study" has been roundly criticized for cherry-picking information to promote their 1950s agenda. Senior military officials dispute this article, of course.

3rd article - a study from Finland about basic training? Hardly relevant to females getting accepted to USNA. That article deals with Finnish recruits who get injuries from running - that require MRIs. Does not deal with any other injuries.

And the article about expanded maternity AND paternity leave? Seriously? Please explain to me WHY "baby-making" is relevant to this conversation.

Hello MomNewTo This,
I am sorry if comments here have made you feel that people are engaging in the male vs. female argument. I only visit this site now because I want to be able to comfort those receiving the TWE. I have been on both sides: TWE (2015) and BFE (2016) for my DS. I am asking you to have some compassion for the people coming to grips with the TWE. It's been almost a year to the day we received the TWE so my DS reapplied and got in to both West Point and Navy and I am telling you, the TWE still hurts today even with the BFE. Be as kind and understanding as you can towards their defensive reactions. It is truly a process for the DD/DS and the family when you are forced to watch one of these highly motivated kids open what is most likely the first rejection in their lives. I admit that after a few days of tears I was so angry that I started making excuses similar to all of these which helped with the "sting". I can't tell you how many times in these past few weeks I have read the forum and the TWE postings and I cry all over again for these young people. Trust me, no one on this forum thinks "men are better or more qualified" but they are just trying to wrap their brains around this process when you are on the receiving end of the TWE. One person wrote something like: "Who are they taking if they're not taking kids like mine?" How many of the TWE people have heard that one? All of us.

My son actually declined his Offer of Appt from Navy this year and chose West Point after realizing it had more of what he was looking for from the commissioning angle, but I am also going to admit that the gleam in his eye telling Navy "no" this time appeared to be very satisfying for him because when he hit the final decline button, he said: "They missed out on a future Admiral when they rejected me a year ago." I also believe he is now 100% satisfied with the way this all worked out for him because West Point is where he belongs and he NEVER would have known that without the Navy rejection so Navy made the right choice "passing" on my DS. But a year ago, we were all sitting around this household coming up with every reason possible on "how could they have passed on our great kid?" I was very gracious on this forum after the TWE, but off of the forum, I was p*ssed as heck and said some things I did not mean at all in order to help with the healing process. I'm sharing all of this to ask you, could the man vs. woman argument be over now? Your DD is in and has an appointment so congrats to her and feel fortunate for that, but let everyone mourn this loss however they see fit. This forum was designed to allow people to vent so let's let them vent. They are in no way saying "your daughter" or any other female offered an appointment did not deserve one---they are simply trying to understand how and why their DS/DD did not receive one.

And finally, to all of the TWE and waitlisted applicants, I am so sorry and please tell you DD/DS to REAPPLY if that's what they really want, and start right away. My son received the TWE the first week of April 2015 and received his offer to USMA in late Jan 2016 and to USNA in early Feb 2016 this time around. THIS PROCESS STILL MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL and I've now been on both sides. My DS's application was NO DIFFERENT this time except for the added prep school semester 1 grades. (All A's---just like in HS---not sure why they needed to see that---can you tell I'm still annoyed by the 2015 TWE??) This process is very tough and sucks but it somehow works. If your kid wants it bad enough, he/she will reapply with a new transcript and make sure it's a good one! GOOD LUCK!! And the bad news---the TWE will sting for a very long time and that's just the truth. Sorry, no sugarcoating with that one.

 

[Sledge]

Yes, you belittle females when you treat them as if they are weak baby incubators. My "mentality" is that it is not OKAY to sit idly by and not speak out against these attitudes. That's all.

Again with the straw man. I said that if you both increase the percentage of females, and increase the time off for pregnancy, you'll have more vacant billets in the ranks than in the past. Unless the new females coming in are going to be less apt to bear children than their predecessors. Will that be the case?

And, regarding your quote "Because you making concessions and building in more time off for biological differences. Time away is a detriment to readiness" - so, why do we give PATERNITY LEAVE also?

2 weeks vs 12 weeks (or 18 in the Navy).

 

[NavyHoops]

Keep it civil folks or this will be locked!