The Military Prep School Scam

[iceman2018]

Without getting too personal, no. I have proof, through the process of elimination. Unless the averages dramatically increased from previous classes, his academics were well above average. His ECs were excellent in multiple fields. He worked about 15 hours/ wk. His community service hours for all 4 years of school were insane. His resume was beyond solid.

Obviously SOMETHING was there, or he would not have received the AoG sponsorship or other ROTC and state schollies.

Is there a desire to discredit prepsters, or what? If the program did not work, why does it exist?

Are there stats regarding non-athletic prepsters?

Do you feel he is unworthy of the appointment?

It's credibility. If you say something just because that's what you believe but can not cite proof, then it's worthless. I congratulate your son for finally getting an appointment but it's an unfounded suggestion that your son is superior to some that got in last year-takes away from your argument. It's just your opinion, not fact!

 

[FlyBoy1993]

His resume was superior to others who gained an appointment.

Unless the class profiles are incorrect. Over half of the candidates that were 3Q'ed did not gain appointments. The geography factor has been discussed on the board fairly in depth. It stands to reason that some candidates are going to be stacked in certain districts.

He, himself is not superior to those other candidates. You are correct in that assessment. His resume however is/ was.

so, let's move forward, supposing he is a worthless scrub prepster... is there no demonstration of leadership and drive for results in what he did for the past year? What is the value you wish to assign to first time applicants versus AoG sponsored preps?

 

[GoArmyBeatNavy]

Without getting too personal, no. I have proof, through the process of elimination. Unless the averages dramatically increased from previous classes, his academics were well above average. His ECs were excellent in multiple fields. He worked about 15 hours/ wk. His community service hours for all 4 years of school were insane. His resume was beyond solid.

Obviously SOMETHING was there, or he would not have received the AoG sponsorship or other ROTC and state schollies.

Is there a desire to discredit prepsters, or what? If the program did not work, why does it exist?

Are there stats regarding non-athletic prepsters?

Do you feel he is unworthy of the appointment?

The majority of AOG Prep Scholarship recipients are not recruited athletes. I think it is mandated by NCAA rules that 2/3rds have to be non recruited athletes.

The AOG prep program is an old program. There is a plaque that hangs in the Admissions Building with the names of some famous grads who have donated money to enable the program to exist. It is there to allow the alumni of the school a chance to support the admissions process without their interference in the evaluations of candidates. The historical program is probably the only reason the NCAA gave it a special set of rules.

Could it be abused? Definitely. Still, the candidates have to receive congressional or service-connected nominations (not talking about USMAPS) and USMA Admissions has policies in place to ensure that these candidates are very competitive academically and across the other domains.

Of course, everything this public institution does can and should be debated in the public. I believe that the body of AOG Prep graduates over the years would demonstrate more succesfull and longer service to the nation. But alas, as the good cadet questioned earlier, I do not have any data as I am a lowly field force member and also on active duty. Probably a great masters thesis there in human resource management or leadership!

 

[iceman2018]

His resume was superior to others who gained an appointment.

Unless the class profiles are incorrect. Over half of the candidates that were 3Q'ed did not gain appointments. The geography factor has been discussed on the board fairly in depth. It stands to reason that some candidates are going to be stacked in certain districts.

He, himself is not superior to those other candidates. You are correct in that assessment. His resume however is/ was.

so, let's move forward, supposing he is a worthless scrub prepster... is there no demonstration of leadership and drive for results in what he did for the past year? What is the value you wish to assign to first time applicants versus AoG sponsored preps?

A level playing field. It's almost an unfair advantage to go through doolie year against someone "prepared" for a year versus a direct appointee. There's a method to this madness of how to choose the make-up of an entire class. Only the admissions selection board know.

 

[Christcorp]

I find this hard to believe. Do you have any stats to back that up?

What do you find hard to believe? That there are some smart athletes that could go on to grad school; or that those that don't stay on the team, actually stay at the academy.

One of the biggest problems with this topic, is that many things have to be repeated many times, because new people keep asking the same questions over and over again. Sort of like the questions of "What are my chances"? How many times do we have to answer that question. But the question in this topic that has to keep being addressed is to define the word: "RECRUITED ATHLETE".

It does NOT MEAN what it means at a traditional university. On average, there are approximately 50-60 RECRUITED ATHLETES each year for the air force academy football team. But in no way, is the team going to keep 50-60 players. Also, because the academies don't offer SCHOLARSHIPS like a traditional school, they aren't going to keep a player on the team if they don't want them; but it doesn't mean they lose their appointment to the academy. All the term "RECRUITED ATHLETE" means at the academy is: "You DON'T have to TRY OUT for the team". In other words, you aren't a walk on. But that in no way means you are going to STAY on the team. Of the 50-60 football player coming in freshman year, who are recruited athletes, approximately 20 of them will be let go by the end of that first season. Between spring practice and the end of the 2nd season, another 15-20 will also be let go. By their senior year, there will be 15-20 seniors still on the football team.

Now; those who were let go or QUIT; and yes, a LOT of them quit the team because they either don't like it any longer or can't do all the training AND academics at the same time; those no longer on the team, are not kicked out of the academy. They are still cadets. I even know some recruited athletes, first hand, who when BCT was over, told the coach they weren't going to be on the team. They continue on just like all the other cadets. They had the grades for the academy; they had the test scores; they had the application an appointee should have. They simply went at their application from ALL ANGLES and also went the athletic path because they were very good athletes and to HELP their application. But what they really wanted was to go to the academy, be commissioned, and serve. They had no intention of playing the sport. Again; they don't have a scholarship attached to their playing a sport. And again; ALL 50-60 are "Recruited Athletes".

But that brings up the 2nd part of the confusion that many people don't know. While there are some superintendent nominations, and some of these go to athletes, the vast majority of those 50-60 football players competed for nominations and appointments along with everyone else in their district and state. I've seen plenty of "Recruited Athletes" applying to the academy who did NOT receive a nomination and thus didn't receive an appointment. I personally have had recruited athlete applicants who didn't get to the academy. Either because they didn't receive a nomination, or if they did, they didn't get the appointment.

Many of these recruited athletes also received their appointments PRIOR to even being recruited. In other words, there aren't 50-60 football players all being "Recruited Athletes" in their junior year of high school. People really have to stop using the term "Recruited Athlete". This is not a traditional university, and that term does NOT MEAN the same thing. Even in February, when my son had his official "SIGNING DAY" for athletics; football; that was simply a feel good ceremony for the kid at his high school. It meant absolutely nothing when compared to REAL Signing Day for those "Recruited Athletes" with scholarship to a traditional university. Those kids have a legal binding contract to the school. If they change their mind, they can't play sports for another school without getting a release or waiting out a year. The academies are 100% NON-BINDING!!! But for the 17-18 year old kid, and for the sake of "MARKETING", the academies use the terms "Recruited Athlete", "Signing Day", "Blue Chip Athlete", etc... so they can compete with the Traditional Universities for "Student Athletes".

So; are there some "ATHLETES" and "MINORITIES" (Going to put that in there too, because it is just as prolific); that are given preferential treatment or consideration during the appointment process??? Yes, I won't lie. Do I think they should? No. I think there are plenty of highly qualified athletes and minorities available, that standards don't have to be lowered and special consideration given. But I will continue to argue; because I know first hand; that the majority of "Recruited Athletes" (Because that's the term many here are using), are NOT applicants who have substandard applications. (Meaning, they aren't given superintendent nominations and such). They are NOT given preferential treatment in the appointment process, other than athletics and physical fitness, are areas they happen to excel at. No different than the individual who is given added points for taking AP/IB classes, extra points for leadership positions, and added points for any area you excel at over your peers. They are not academic probation type students. Again; are there some? Yes. But I won't back down when the stereotype keeps being promoted that the majority of IC Athletes at the academy are NOT WORTHY of their appointment. This forum alone has shown way too many "Recruited Athletes" who are top of their class in high school.

1. Are some of the athletes at the academy/prep-school, individuals who without their sport, probably wouldn't have a chance in hell of receiving an appointment??? (YES!!!)
2. Do I think it's fair if standards are compromised or preferential treatment is given? (NO!!!)
3. "MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION". Do the majority of Inter-Collegiate Athletes at the academy fall into this group? (NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[pilot2b]

I've read a fair amount of Nocera's other columns -- his mission is to take down the NCAA, an organization that he clearly loathes. I guess this is a spin-off.

The column has garnered a fair amount of interest -- 270 comments, which is a lot for a NYT column. I do wonder if this article will jumpstart any sort of Congressional scrutiny -- with the sequester, the idea that the prep schools have a major role in redshirting athletes may be one of those things that catches the public's interest and anger.

Lastly, the columnist happens to link right here to Service Academy Forums! It is in the section about the student who was asked to pay back his Foundation money -- you'll see a hypertext link and if you click on it, it takes you to a 2010 thread. (I'm not sure how the Nocera has made the leap that the poster who started the thread was an athlete, though -- he might have made a non-supported inferential leap on that one.)

There is already some level of congressional scrutiny, though obviously there will be disagreement about whether it is at appropriate levels or not. At least once during this year at NAPS, congressmen have visited. I'm told this was due to a reporter who asked about that "Navy football camp" down in Newport.

 

[BigBear]

I asked for stats from you because the stats I have seen show that cadets from usmaps have a significantly lower graduation rate than the rest of the corps.

 

[Packer]

It's credibility. If you say something just because that's what you believe but can not cite proof, then it's worthless. I congratulate your son for finally getting an appointment but it's an unfounded suggestion that your son is superior to some that got in last year-takes away from your argument. It's just your opinion, not fact!

You seem to not have a clue as to how the nomination and appointment process work. Number 10 on a slate from northern VA may very well be better than number 1 on a slate from ID but number 1 in ID will always receive an appointment while number 10 from VA many times may not.

 

[iceman2018]

You seem to not have a clue as to how the nomination and appointment process work. Number 10 on a slate from northern VA may very well be better than number 1 on a slate from ID but number 1 in ID will always receive an appointment while number 10 from VA many times may not.

Maybe you do? but you're just stating the obvious.
How about the national pool? Once they go through what you cited above. Don't they lump everyone together so whomever is left to compete with each other irregardless of where they come from? The discussion was the poster's claim that the previous year's class admitted appointees that their DS was superior to even though he was given a Falcon scholarship instead..

 

[Christcorp]

Maybe you do? You're just stating the obvious.
How about the national pool?

Iceman and packer, you are both correct. Packer; what you say about #10 on one slate being better than #1 on another is true; but those MOC slates only account for about 40-50% of the appointments. The rest are the National Pool (Qualified Alternates), presidentials, etc...

On the other hand, some MOC's slates aren't always ranked 1-10 in highest score order. If the MOC gives a slate of 10 names and tells the academy to CHOOSE who they want, then yes, they are ranked 1-10 according to the academy's scoring. But the MOC's don't use the academy's scoring. So, if the MOC ranks them him or herself, then their ranking order may be totally different than what the academy may have chosen.

 

[Christcorp]

I asked for stats from you because the stats I have seen show that cadets from usmaps have a significantly lower graduation rate than the rest of the corps.

Bear; I'm talking about ATHLETES!!! I'm not narrowing it down to prep school. I already said that the majority of the 50-60 freshman athletes (Football), are NOT from the prep school. I also said, that by the time that class are C1C (Seniors); only 15-20 of those 50-60 athletes are still playing on the team. HOWEVER....... Most of those who are no longer on the team, continue on as cadets; they graduate; and go on to becoming fine officers. Now; if you want to look only at the portion of those 50-60 that went to the prep school, well I'm not going to narrow the stats that far.

The only thing I've said on this topic is: 1) Only a few of the athletes that come to the academy as D-1 athletes fall into the category that some here are complaining about. and 2) Most of the athletes originally appointed, wind up being excellent cadets, graduate, and get commissioned. Quite a few go on to some very challenging careers; including starting off in grad school. I know some who are at AFIT and other grad school slots. Some played their sport all 4 years. Some played for 1-2 years.

 

[Packer]

Iceman and packer, you are both correct. Packer; what you say about #10 on one slate being better than #1 on another is true; but those MOC slates only account for about 40-50% of the appointments. The rest are the National Pool (Qualified Alternates), presidentials, etc...

On the other hand, some MOC's slates aren't always ranked 1-10 in highest score order. If the MOC gives a slate of 10 names and tells the academy to CHOOSE who they want, then yes, they are ranked 1-10 according to the academy's scoring. But the MOC's don't use the academy's scoring. So, if the MOC ranks them him or herself, then their ranking order may be totally different than what the academy may have chosen.

Yep so it is very plausible that flyboy's DS may have had better stats than SOME of those that earned appointments. Flyboy was not complaining but simply stating the way things are.

 

[FlyBoy1993]

Yep so it is very plausible that flyboy's DS may have had better stats than SOME of those that earned appointments. Flyboy was not complaining but simply stating the way things are.

This is exactly what i was saying. iceman's initial question was what makes a prepster feel that they rate an appointment versus a 3Q'ed first time candidate. i was sharing why they may feel "worthy."

Christcorp, your answer created another question about athletes- Do the athletic programs have high attrition rates, that is athletes that drop athletics, but stay at the academies?

 

[Luigi59]

Still haven't seen a good reason why D1 (and all of the problems it brings) should be preferred over D3 for a military academy, whose main goal is to produce military officers.

Except money.

 

[iceman2018]

This is exactly what i was saying. iceman's initial question was what makes a prepster feel that they rate an appointment versus a 3Q'ed first time candidate. i was sharing why they may feel "worthy."

Christcorp, your answer created another question about athletes- Do the athletic programs have high attrition rates, that is athletes that drop athletics, but stay at the academies?

Let me ask you then. After the recruited athletes and the principal nominees have been given their appointments, next comes the national pool where your DS were in competetion for a spot with qualified applicants from the whole country. Do you think your statement that "there were appointees with weaker resumes compared to your DS" still hold true?
If he were truly qualified as you have stated, then how many reapplicants from prep got an appointment ahead of him? Couldn't he have gone straight to the SA ahead of someone who didn't make the cut the year before?

You asked:
1-Is there a desire to discredit prepsters, or what? If the program did not work, why does it exist?

2-Are there stats regarding non-athletic prepsters?

3-Do you feel he is unworthy of the appointment?"

My answer is:
1-No, I have much respect for people that persevere and not easily give up on their goals.

2-Stats would be helpful

3-Your DS deserves and have earned his appointment.

I'm merely trying to be informed and am trying to gain knowledge from people that know more.

 

[BigBear]

Christcorp, this thread is about the prep school and the athletes that went there, not athletes in general...

Iceman, to answer Question #1: The program as it stands today exists to get prior service, recruited athletes, and underrepresented minorities into the Academy where they otherwise would not be able to because of high school (typically academic) performance. Whether or not this is the official mission statement, the stats support this.

No one is seeking to "discredit" prepsters. People want to see a better system that prioritizes the best performers that didn't get an appointment (i.e - the top 200 applicants that did not recieve an appointment get offered the prep school). The problem is, a lot of people that fall into those special case groups do not currently fall into the top 200 people not offered an appointment. So the bigger questions are 1. What does the Army think is ideal for class composition, and do athletes deserve special status when it comes to admissions, and 2. What can be changed in the admissions process so that the candidates the Army wants line up with the candidates the Academy wants (i.e- weighting athletics more)?

 

[PBA]

Many of these kids struggle because for most people, a year of underwhelming prep will not make up for a lifetime of underachieving education.

Well said!

 

[jbm02]

No one is seeking to "discredit" prepsters. People want to see a better system that prioritizes the best performers that didn't get an appointment (i.e - the top 200 applicants that did not recieve an appointment get offered the prep school). The problem is, a lot of people that fall into those special case groups do not currently fall into the top 200 people not offered an appointment. So the bigger questions are 1. What does the Army think is ideal for class composition, and do athletes deserve special status when it comes to admissions, and 2. What can be changed in the admissions process so that the candidates the Army wants line up with the candidates the Academy wants (i.e- weighting athletics more)?

BigBear, this is interesting to me (and heartening). It's too late to help my DS but hope there is a trend in this direction. My DS was denied at USCGA, on hold (NWL) at USMMA and we haven't heard from USNA (anticipating a rejection). Each of the schools told us that while he was "extremely competitive" for admission, he would probably not be considered for any of the prep schools because his grades and SAT/ACT scores were already well above their minimum for admission. So that avenue was pretty much closed to him. While incredibly disappointed (that may be an understatement) DS has a terrific plan B in place (4 yr ROTC scholarship) and will continue on with his plans to be an officer. That being said, one of his best friends at school who is one of the best mentors, leader and role models I have ever met (I am also an Army officer) was denied everywhere due to "meh" grades (85-90 average). Not even a ROTC scholarship. This is the kid I wish would be considered for the prep schools - an amazing kid with an huge amount of leadership potential that is just waiting to be further refined. Sometimes the "best" officers may not be those with 99 averages. If the prep schools/SAs would recognize the kids with this kind of potential, they'd more than serve their purpose... just my 2 cents...

 

[suddensam]

Still haven't seen a good reason why D1 (and all of the problems it brings) should be preferred over D3 for a military academy, whose main goal is to produce military officers.

Except money.

Competition. There are , contrary to the general tenor of this thread, candidates that are not just academically qualified, but who are both academically excellent and elite athletes. I won't bother relaying my DS's stats because you would have no way to verify them, but suffice it to say he's done quite well for himself academically and athletically. He was recruited for his sport by D1 programs, and if Navy could not have offered similar opportunities to compete at that level, I am not sure that he would have chosen to accept or even pursue his appointment.

This is perhaps easy for me to say, since my son has accepted his appointment, but I don't have a problem with NAPS and Foundation serving as a remedial step for high potential athletes or, more importantly, for under-represented minorities. I have no statistics on the racial and ethnic composition of the Fleet, but I suspect that it is not composed entirely of upper-middle class prep school kids from New England. The military was one of the first institutions in the country to integrate racially, and I think that it is important to have an officer corps that is reflective of the enlisted corps. If that means that the service academies go out of their way to help and support high potential minority candidates, even at the expense of marginally more qualified non-minority candidates, I think that the good of the Service is paramount.

Recruited athletes are a little different. If you can't maintain competitive D1 programs, you won't attract a certain caliber of student athlete. It's just that simple.

We should all stop looking for the snake in the grass. It's right there in front of us. Whatever the veneer, there are a certain (and limited) amount of preference given to certain classes of students. There is a thumb on the scale in some (but not the majority) of circumstances. Time to move on.

 

[MemberLG]

1. What does the Army think is ideal for class composition, and do athletes deserve special status when it comes to admissions, and 2. What can be changed in the admissions process so that the candidates the Army wants line up with the candidates the Academy wants (i.e- weighting athletics more)?

Can only refere to 2012 notes, as either no more meetings or notes have not be posted.

http://www.usma.edu/bov/SiteAssets/Meeting Minutes/Signed Meeting Minutes 20120614.pdf

According to a 2012 information paper from the admissions office

The WP class composition goal is
>30% scholars
>25% leaders
18-13% athletes
14-20% women
7-10% soldiers
25-30% minorities

This is bad math as the percentage is not going to add up to 100% as an appointee can belong to more than one group.

Changed in the admissions process

- improved recuriting effort (i.e Diversity Office and some attempt to recurit actively among soldiers)
- thinkering with the WCS scale. My understanding is that 30% of WCS is 10% Teachers Evaluation, 10% Leadership Roles, and 10% Sports. I don't know how that 10% Sports is actually calculated, but my assumption is varsity letters and team captain.
-use of Supe's nomination.

I believe the admissions office has a process in place to achieve the class composition goal, but the challenge is candidates not cooperating with the plan.