THE BLACK BOX - USNA vs NROTC admissions process

Status
Not open for further replies.
gokings814 said:
I firmly agree with you, that we need to fill the positions of the US Navy Officer ranks with those who have the greatest skills and talent and wisdom ( especially those units that hold the nuclear triggers). But our military which leads our troops and sailors should reflect the poplulace, or diversified body of our enlisted ranks and also our citizens. I don't believe in lowering the standards, but an effort should be made to fill the ranks with fully qualified officers who reflect the nation we are.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. We should be diverse. It just shouldn't be at the expense of placing our best people forward. And it doesn't necessarily have to be.
 
We are on the same page there, your honor! I just couldn't see four guys and a truck being compared to our Navy. :confused:
 
gokings814 said:
But our military which leads our troops and sailors should reflect the poplulace, or diversified body of our enlisted ranks
Click to expand...
To fully accomplish that goal, would the average SAT/GPA of the entering class need to be 490/2.5 ?
And on the subject of 'special treatment' applicants, what is the explanation for the seemingly disproportionate number of appointments obtained by D1 level football players?
 
FALgarand said:
To fully accomplish that goal, would the average SAT/GPA of the entering class need to be 490/2.5 ?
And on the subject of 'special treatment' applicants, what is the explanation for the seemingly disproportionate number of appointments obtained by D1 level football players?
Click to expand...

I don't buy into lowering standards. Go for diversity, but don't lower the academic standards. NAPS and athletes are a controversial topic by itself.
 
“The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.”
― John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

“The only thing that makes life unfair is the delusion that it should be fair.”
― Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience

The reality is that making choices (such as universities or military academies selecting the student population) is inevitably going to disadvantage someone.
 
I agree that the process does not necessarily need to be "fair" to all. I would just like it if we can all acknowledge that it isn't fair if it isn't fair.
 
brovol said:
I do not suggest at all that anyone's child has been appointed because of a lower standard, nor do I believe that there aren't even perhaps a great majority of appointed women who would be appointed under any standard, and are every bit as qualified as any male appointee. However, it is no secret, and is not disputed that the accademies are openly making an affirmative effort to increase the numbers of women and minirities. There are actually percentage goals. I hope it is fair to assume that the academies have always admitted the best female and minority applicants. If these Things are true, then unless the admissions strategy is simply to pray that the number of highest quality female and minority applicants suddenly grows this year so that the percentage goals are magically reached while the accademies are sticking with a purely merit based objective system of appointment where all candidates are evaluated equally regardless of gender or race, we must accept that the admissions standard is being reduced for women and minorities so that a higher percentage get appointed. If this is true (and I am still surprised there are some who might believe it isn't), then the academies are admitting a less percentage of candidates who are neither female nor minorities (aka, white males). Admitting less of the non minority males makes that particular pool of candidates a more competitive group overall, and thus means you need to have an even more impressive application to be admitted if you fall into that classification.
Click to expand...

Your logic is based on the assumption that having a percentage goal (for example, say you want 25% women) means you have to lower the admissions standard. Meeting that goal might involve actively recruiting women so that you will get highly qualified candidates. It might mean that you take pains to show that the military is female-friendly, so that the best and brightest girls consider it an option. I am sure you are not trying to offend, but I really would like to know how you come to the conclusion that the standard is reduced for women so that a higher % gets appointed. If you can tell me how you know this, other than "it's obvious", then I will back off of this issue. Oh, and saying that "we must accept that the admissions standard is being reduced for women" DOES in fact suggest that some of our children have been appointed because of a lower standard.

Disclaimer: I'm a parent of a DD appointed to USNA and USMA. She would be greatly annoyed by the perception that she was appointed because the academies give preference to females.
 
brovol said:
My only point is that there IS a difference between being a female vs a male, or minority vs non minority in the SA appointment threshold. To pretend otherwise is naive in light of what the academies themselves conceed.

This does not mean that some of the very best candidates, or officers are not women or minorities. They are, and they will continue to be. But if you have two candidates with the exact same application resume, and both are say in the 30 ACT range, with a 3.7 GPA, top 18% class rank, and otherwise equal in all other respect, but on is a minority female and the other is a white male, with both out of the same congressional district, how many are betting the white male gets in if only one spot is open? All arguments asside, that's what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

So, in this case, would this be "lower entrance standards" or that both are qualified candidates, and one is chosen over the other? Can it be that the minority female has had the cards stacked against her throughout her life and has still managed to rise to the challenge, and this is reflected in her essays and her interviews? Resist the urge to reduce the merit of a candidate to his or her skin color or gender. That's what I'm talking about.
 
Dad2020 said:
I think you would be hard-pressed looking at the numbers for the incoming classes to claim that white males are at a disadvantage. Walk the grounds.

That being said, sometimes you need to realize that things like geography can be a disadvantage. How many kids from Maryland and Virginia apply for Navy? You go out further into the country, especially in the Midwest and when people ask where your child is going to school and you tell them the Naval Academy and they say something like, "well, the service is a good choice and if he saves his GI Bill money, he can pay for college someday".
Click to expand...

LOL I just saw this post, and I can tell you that down in the South, my DD has had MANY people, including her own classmates, ask her why she isn't going to college. This is what they say after she says "I'm going to the United States Naval Academy"....they want to know where she will be stationed and if her mom is mad that she is not going to college. Many have no idea where Annapolis is. :( It was funny at first...
 
brovol said:
I agree that the process does not necessarily need to be "fair" to all. I would just like it if we can all acknowledge that it isn't fair if it isn't fair.
Click to expand...

Judge....this sounds like an LSAT question! :eek:
 
MomNewToThis said:
Your logic is based on the assumption that having a percentage goal (for example, say you want 25% women) means you have to lower the admissions standard. Meeting that goal might involve actively recruiting women so that you will get highly qualified candidates. It might mean that you take pains to show that the military is female-friendly, so that the best and brightest girls consider it an option. I am sure you are not trying to offend, but I really would like to know how you come to the conclusion that the standard is reduced for women so that a higher % gets appointed. If you can tell me how you know this, other than "it's obvious", then I will back off of this issue. Oh, and saying that "we must accept that the admissions standard is being reduced for women" DOES in fact suggest that some of our children have been appointed because of a lower standard.

Disclaimer: I'm a parent of a DD appointed to USNA and USMA. She would be greatly annoyed by the perception that she was appointed because the academies give preference to females.
Click to expand...
You are correct that my assumption is that they are accepting more minorities and women in order to meet the percentage goals by accepting some on the lower end who would not have been accepted base on the standards of previous years. You are also correct that the other methods you suggested could be used, and would be a great way to improve the percentages of women and minorities. I do believe that there are active efforts to increase interest and applications among women and minorities by the academies, and ultimately those efforts should pay dividends.

As to being offended, that certainly is not my intent, and if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am not only supportive of a diverse military, I believe that higher percentages of women at the academies is a very worthy goal. I don't know any of you or your daughter's, so I cast no suggestions one way or another about any of your daughter's, and I have never suggested any were less than worthy. Indeed, I assume they are all more than worthy. They have applied and been accepted to one of the most competitive schools in the country.

I would love it if the academies broke down their admissions statistics in a way which would reveal the truth about the numbers. They don't. What they do provide is the agenda, and an objective.

Not trying to make enemies here, but if saying what I have said offends, I guess I will have to live with that.
 
brovol said:
You are correct that my assumption is that they are accepting more minorities and women in order to meet the percentage goals by accepting some on the lower end who would not have been accepted base on the standards of previous years. You are also correct that the other methods you suggested could be used, and would be a great way to improve the percentages of women and minorities. I do believe that there are active efforts to increase interest and applications among women and minorities by the academies, and ultimately those efforts should pay dividends.

As to being offended, that certainly is not my intent, and if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am not only supportive of a diverse military, I believe that higher percentages of women at the academies is a very worthy goal. I don't know any of you or your daughter's, so I cast no suggestions one way or another about any of your daughter's, and I have never suggested any were less than worthy. Indeed, I assume they are all more than worthy. They have applied and been accepted to one of the most competitive schools in the country.

I would love it if the academies broke down their admissions statistics in a way which would reveal the truth about the numbers. They don't. What they do provide is the agenda, and an objective.

Not trying to make enemies here, but if saying what I have said offends, I guess I will have to live with that.
Click to expand...

The numbers were broken down in that report cited earlier on this thread - http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/663/ceousa-service-adademies.pdf - and they contradict your assertion that women are given preferential treatment. Also, if you look at the Class of 2019 profile, Stating that "the admissions standard is being reduced for women and minorities so that a higher percentage get appointed" does, in fact, suggest that some are "less than worthy". This is offensive. I don't think of you as an enemy, but I find your argument in poor taste. Best of luck to you and your DS.
 
MomNewToThis said:
The numbers were broken down in that report cited earlier on this thread - http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/663/ceousa-service-adademies.pdf - and they contradict your assertion that women are given preferential treatment. Also, if you look at the Class of 2019 profile, Stating that "the admissions standard is being reduced for women and minorities so that a higher percentage get appointed" does, in fact, suggest that some are "less than worthy". This is offensive. I don't think of you as an enemy, but I find your argument in poor taste. Best of luck to you and your DS.
Click to expand...
Thank you for restating what I have already said MomNewToThis. I find it incredibly "unfair" that our DD's have people, even those that should be in the know, that don't believe that they are just as competitive candidates as the males there. The numbers in the USNA report of the Class of 2019 show it. I can tell you without reservation that my daughter has accomplished just as much as her big brother that preceded her at USNA and even he, always a tough critic, will tell you she is an amazing Mid! Go Navy and Go Navy Girls!
 
You both very clearly miss the point, but lacking both the time or energy to again restate my position, and doubting you will accept what I say in its entirety, thus making it a waste to say it again anyway, good luck to you and yours as well.
 
Wh
parentalunit2 said:
No one (at least in this thread) said that females are not as qualified to be there. The discussion here is that they are, in fact, currently being given preference to reach a certain percentage. But as anyone who has ever spent time around SA students knows, no one is ‘given a pass’. Everyone who gains admittance has met a high and impressive bar, with extremely few exceptions. The makeup of a class is chosen by the parameters that the service branch deems important at the time. Right now the services are very proud of their rising percentages of female and minority students, as is splashed across the press releases for each incoming class.




Because, as so very many are finding out this week, in the end it does come down to luck. There are X number of slots and Y number of high quality, outstanding applicants, where Y will always be greater than X. When you get to the very, very end of the admissions cycle, which we are currently in, it is merely the luck of the draw.
Click to expand...
My question is how do the professors teach and expect everyone to learn at an equal pace? Let's say a person has a 34 on the ACT and another has a 27. How can a person be competitive when there is such a wide margin in scores? One is either not reaching the learning potential or one is in over his/her head. I believe it should be the best candidate not the best candidate that helps create a positive profile.
 
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).
 
Been-there insight and illumination by NavyHoops!

ACT performance is just one of a boatload (had to use it) of predictors for academic and overall viability at USNA, and more importantly, beyond. During my time as a USNA BattO, and from observing 20 years' worth of sponsor mids, I have seen exactly what Hoops noted: stellar-stats plebes who stumble and fall, and end up in the middle/bottom of the class, or separated, and more average incoming academic stat Joe/Janes who quickly adapt. Perhaps they have better time management and multi-tasking skills, and then flourish at or near the top of their class.

I particularly recall one mid who went on to medical school out of USNA whom I got to know through the interview process. I recall the profs at the USNA med school review board (I sat on the board as the Commandant's rep to evaluate professional aptitude) expressing their admiration for this mid. We had looked at his incoming admissions stats - regular quality HS, not the top SAT or ACT grades, but an overall well-rounded achiever. As a mid, he racked up an astonishing GPA and order of merit at USNA, did Honors Chem, with a language minor he used to volunteer during his summer leave blocks with Doctors Without Borders. Oh yes, captained a varsity team. Well-respected in his company. Won prizes at the Commissioning Week academic awards ceremony. I asked him after he had found out he was a Med Corps selectee how he felt, and he impressed me by saying he would forever be grateful to USNA for letting him in, because he knew he didn't have some of the HS stats of others, and he said he determined to work hard, ask for help when he needed it, and keep his priorities straight. He got a high MCAT score and had his pick of several top med schools.

I believe this is fairly common, that USNA is a place where many mids hit their stride and bloom. It is also a place where HS stellar-stats mids can soar as well as stumble. Handling the academics - with everything else going on in the SA pressure cooker - that's where USNA Admissions has to read past the stats, application facts, essays, interviews to find those who can succeed as a mid/cadet and go on to successful service as an officer, while meeting other goals for the class. A tall order. They make mistakes, but by and large over the years, bring in enough raw material to deliver the finished product in 4 years, with expected attrition along the way.

Best wishes to all who are facing a decision to accept, to those who are still waiting, to those who have been disappointed and must sally forth on a new path, and perhaps decide on re-application.

Filling out the class is indeed an art and a science, and as I read the posts from those who are disappointed or still waiting, I sympathize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top