The "Politics" of Nomination... (A good read)

Heatherg21 said:
Our son interviewed with both Senator panels and his local MOC. I am politically only sort of a fan of one of the senators. I am supporting a candidate to unseat our local MOC. I didn't go to the interviews, sat in the car. Our son had 3 different styles of interviews and he was wholly impressed with the panels, the variety of panelist, and the seriousness with with they took the process.

The panel has no idea that our son would be the 4th generation on my dad's side to attend and graduate USNA. That's not a box you can check on the application. So the idea of 'legacy' for him didn't come up. He mentioned in one essay that he learned about USNA from his grandfather who was alumnus. But that was it. He wanted to earn an appointment on his own merit.

This process is so complex, and looks into every possible aspect of a candidate. I am impressed with the kids that he is competing with. I have met some of them and their parents and the resumes, athletics, professionalism and maturity of these soon to be adults is reassuring to me. It also has me realizing that he still has a chance of not getting in, that is the reality of a principal to USNA. And so we wait.

Our son sought every nomination source he could, as he was advised. He was stunned to receive 3 nominations to USNA, one a principal, and one to USMMA and one to USMA. The local MOC gave him one to USNA, USMA and USMMA. That doesn't mean there was favoritism or politics. I won't list his accomplishments but he is a very strong candidate. The interview he earned a principal nomination in was the most difficult interview of his life, and he competes in interview! The panel had alumnus, parents, active duty, someone from another academy, FFO's, ALO's, and he wasn't sure who else. They were not playing around. He didn't meet the MOC's in any part of the process.

During a mock interview, a panelist told him she had been doing this for 20 years and he was the best prepared academy candidate she had interviewed. His FFO said he left a 'lasting impression' on him.
It is possible that some of these candidates actually impress the panels enough to warrant a nomination to multiple academies. And it is entirely possible that a candidate could be very qualified and earn multiple nominations without 'taking a nomination slot from someone else'. Not every MOC has candidates qualified to earn a nomination in every cycle. Not every district has a kid who wants to attend!

I for one will trust the process, the men and women who graduate and go on to serve sure do a helluva job. I think the process selects those that are suited for it, and the time at the academy finds those that really weren't suited and they find a different path.
Click to expand...
Your son must be one of the best candidates in your state (now a USNA appointee?).
I agree with you that, as a candidate, I have felt no political influences during the MOC process. The overall process was transparent and straightforward.

I might see your son on I-Day. I still need to deal with my big dilemma associated with "USNA" vs. "USMA" though. :muscles2:
 
Last edited:
Although I am for SA advisory boards and the need for a nomination to attend a SA as a qualifier...

I think it should be up to the SA's to solely make the final decision as to who is the most qualified to receive an appt. and go down the list.

In my humble opinion, the MOC's all should stick with the "Competitive" method (not Principe w/ numbered and competing alternates).

Why? ... because the SA Admissions are more qualified to select and they have a proven track record of producing successful top officers.

The Senators and MOC's advisory boards are not (all) Admission professional.

No tell'n how many qualified candidates slip through the cracks just because of a politician's desire to utilize a "Principle" nomination mode.

From what I have researched, thank goodness that most MOC's use a "Competitive" method... but there are still other that use the "Principle" method.
 
Capt MJ said:
The principal method is not my favorite.
Click to expand...
100% Agree!!!! Last year least qualified candidate (IMHO) was given a principal nom from MOC. Why...candidate was a minority and son of officer killed on duty. MOC checked off two boxes for re-election. I graded the candidate average at best. Most qualified did get an appointment to a different academy. So YES politics and favoritism is a part of the process in some districts. Sad it should be only competitive nominations to take out any conflict of interest. This year I did not have any candidates due to conflict with DS applying.
 
ThePatternisFull said:
100% Agree!!!! Last year least qualified candidate (IMHO) was given a principal nom from MOC. Why...candidate was a minority and son of officer killed on duty. MOC checked off two boxes for re-election. I graded the candidate average at best. Most qualified did get an appointment to a different academy. So YES politics and favoritism is a part of the process in some districts. Sad it should be only competitive nominations to take out any conflict of interest. This year I did not have any candidates due to conflict with DS applying.
Click to expand...
Overall, I don't disagree with your opinions.
However, there is one thing brought to my attention. "Son of officer killed on duty" I really don't understand why this can be part of favoritism or politics?
For example, children of Medal of Honor recipients shall be eligible for admission to any of US SAs even without MOC nominations. This is the law guaranteeing something meaningful.
Regardless of Medal of Honor, I think that the candidate's circumstance should be considered carefully during the application process.

I have thought that the candidates who met the minimum requirements even after he or she experienced a catastrophic event, e.g., losing his/her parent on the battlefields must be treated in a different way because:

(1) They had to overcome critical family issues but still want to follow the same career path their deceased parent(s) pursued.
(2) Their motivation would be much stronger than other candidates (including me) who have prepared SA applications with full support from parents.
(3) Caring for those children would be the responsibility of the government AND our society.

If the government and/or our society can't take care of those disadvantaged children of the fallen soldiers killed on the battlefields, who are willing to serve this great country and dedicate their lives?

This is my own opinion, but I am a strong believer that the dropout rate of those children is much lower than other candidates who have never experienced and overcome a similar level of the catastrophic event. Actually, I was so shocked when I went to West Point for an overnight visit because I heard from an admission officer regarding a routine/annual incident, e.g., the average 6-10 intelligent and smart candidates used to dropout on R-Day!

I thought that great intelligence or exceptional grades / extra curricular activities are not everything for leaders MOCs AND SAs are looking for.

As an SA candidate, I really want to believe that our MOC nomination systems and each SA's selection procedures are still working seamlessly in terms of transparency, fairness, and compliance.

I can't imagine that the retired officers for MOC noms, BGO, FFR, and ALO I met during the process had implemented any unfair and biased practices against the young candidates......they were so sharp and passionate....furthermore I truly felt their passion, patriotism, and integrity immediately.
 
dreamwiz said:
Overall, I don't disagree with your opinions.
However, there is one thing brought to my attention. "Son of officer killed on duty" I really don't understand why this can be part of favoritism or politics?
For example, children of Medal of Honor recipients shall be eligible for admission to any of US SAs even without MOC nominations. This is the law guaranteeing something meaningful.
Regardless of Medal of Honor, I think that the candidate's circumstance should be considered carefully during the application process.

I have thought that the candidates who met the minimum requirements even after he or she experienced a catastrophic event, e.g., losing his/her parent on the battlefields must be treated in a different way because:

(1) They had to overcome critical family issues but still want to follow the same career path their deceased parent(s) pursued.
(2) Their motivation would be much stronger than other candidates (including me) who have prepared SA applications with full support from parents.
(3) Caring for those children would be the responsibility of the government AND our society.

If the government and/or our society can't take care of those disadvantaged children of the fallen soldiers killed on the battlefields, who are willing to serve this great country and dedicate their lives?

This is my own opinion, but I am a strong believer that the dropout rate of those children is much lower than other candidates who have never experienced and overcome a similar level of the catastrophic event. Actually, I was so shocked when I went to West Point for an overnight visit because I heard from an admission officer regarding a routine/annual incident, e.g., the average 6-10 intelligent and smart candidates used to dropout on R-Day!

I thought that great intelligence or exceptional grades / extra curricular activities are not everything for leaders MOCs AND SAs are looking for.

As an SA candidate, I really want to believe that our MOC nomination systems and each SA's selection procedures are still working seamlessly in terms of transparency, fairness, and compliance.

I can't imagine that the retired officers for MOC noms, BGO, FFR, and ALO I met during the process had implemented any unfair and biased practices against the young candidates......they were so sharp and passionate....furthermore I truly felt their passion, patriotism, and integrity immediately.
Click to expand...
The candidates father was not in the military. Think police.
 
If a candidate's parent is killed while on AD, they are eligible for a Service Connected Nom, from that parent. They should still apply for the MOC's Noms, but they have what typically equates to a "Principle" nom right there as the academies are usually required to accept at least 15 applicants who are qualified from the Disabled/Deceased in line of duty category annually (65 total). 10 USC Sec 7442 (a)(1) for USMA, 10 USC Sec 8454 (a)(1) for USNA, 10 USC Sec 9442 (a)(1) for USAFA. USCGA has no noms, therefore no SC nom, USMMA as far as I could find out also has no SC/Deceased Nom.
 
As others on the inside have noted, corruption (ie pay for play) in the nomination system doesn't seem to exist any longer, but that doesn't mean social engineering isn't going on, which is its own form of corruption - just not for personal gain.. At least one US senator has spoken very publicly about how, in her view, the academies need more representation from urban areas and more minorities. It would be foolish to think that senators and reps don't use their position to remedy the "problems" they perceive with the academies.
 
But no one here will tell me that being a "Legacy" candidate does not help with any academy
Click to expand...

With USNA, it generally does not. Reunions are replete with tales from alums whose kids have been turned down. USNA publishes the number of sons/daughters of alums in each class. It's typically around 50, which is <5% of the class and I think that percentage has been pretty steady in the past half-century (for Class of 2023, 58 of 1160 US members of the class or exactly 5%) . A much higher percentage (13% this past year) represent the first in their family to attend college.
 
Wow,,, there are alot of negativity, and misperceptions about the nominating process. First, one of the priniciple reasons for the nomination process is to create geographical diversity ... no one wants an Officer Corps in any service composed of people from one geographic area. Second, having a political "hook" was probably more important historically than it was in the past... I have been a BGO for almost 20 years, and from my perspective, I think its safe to say that "common folks" have an equal shot at getting the Noms.

Finally, there was a comment above about needing a hook or influence to succeed in the military. Of course, it helps to some extent in any endeavor,,,but I would argue that the military is more of a meritocracy than most businesses. Sure, its great to have a Sea Daddy or Godfather, but most of those relationships are created by performance...ie. Junior Officer does a great job for for Skipper when he is a CDR, then rides the senior officer coattails when he makes Flag.....thats' a lot more common (and different) than a young JO advancing because his Dad is a retired O6.
 
Selections are made by WCS's and also by the Supie's discretion (who can overrule WCS... as long as the candidate is 3Q).

WCS are somewhat of a mystery and an anomaly... only the Admission staff are

One of past WP Admission Directors (long ago) even said to me that WCS is a complex algorithm most do not understand.

Now the question is: how does Admission score a number (WCS) based on the kid's parents service?

Can something subjective be given an objective value?

Admissions have a tough assignment... I just trust in their system... they have to know how to work all this out... kudos to them! :biglaugh:
 
^^^^^

This is for USNA only . . . (can't speak to the other SAs)

No one other than the Director of Admissions knows the exact value that each element of an application is given in the WCS. Even if others did, it can change each year. Historically, candidates with a close tie to the military (parent, sibling) -- note need NOT be a grad just military -- got some additional WCS points. The reason was that, historically, there was pretty high attrition (25%) and it had been demonstrated that those who had close ties to the military were somewhat more likely to stick it out.

Now, at USNA, attrition hovers around 10%. Thus, the "stick it out" rationale no longer is as important.

In terms of the WCS "boost" for close relative in military -- it reportedly wasn't much, and may no longer even exist. And there are many other attributes (e.g., first in the family to attend college, varsity team captain) that are likely the same or greater value than having a close relative who served.
 
I think you'd have to say that legacy does matter to some extent. When you have a family that has 2 - 4 children all make it to service academies that just isn't statistically improbable without an external factor. The candidates may not even realize it. I don't know anymore than that, just an observation.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with "who you know" in any admission or hiring process? Wouldn't you rather hire someone that you get along with and know their strengths and weaknesses rather than someone that has a stellar resume from an excellent school but, because you don't know them, is potentially disruptive and disagreeable? That's why letters of recommendation are required for almost all jobs and applications.
 
Real question regarding nominations and reps. For those who are in a situation in which they received a nomination from a congressman who resigned recently, does that effect the nomination?
 
ElectricWizard2024 said:
Real question regarding nominations and reps. For those who are in a situation in which they received a nomination from a congressman who resigned recently, does that effect the nomination?
Click to expand...
No, it does not affect it. The MOC made the decision while in full possession of the powers of the office, and presumably there was no irregularity with the selection process that would cause an investigation of his or her slate. No effect.
 
Politics past. While out at sea, a Shipmate (RIP) of mine recounted the story of his appointment. As a teenager, he worked on the Eastern Shore mucking out stables. The lady of the house knew of his application and asked him about it. He told her of the rejection letter and that he was now mulling other plans. She asked if he was still interested in attending. “Yes”, he replied quizzically but thought it was impossible given the incoming class was due to report in just a few weeks. He viewed the passing conversation as polite concern and thought nothing more of it. With a chuckle, he told me that it looked like it was going to be a long hot summer of mucking out stables. My Shipmate received his BFE congratulating him on his appointment to USNA less than a week before I-Day. The Missus had “talked” with her husband who made it all happen. Her husband was Rogers Morton, Secretary of Interior during the Nixon Administration.
 
WT Door said:
Politics past. While out at sea, a Shipmate (RIP) of mine recounted the story of his appointment. As a teenager, he worked on the Eastern Shore mucking out stables. The lady of the house knew of his application and asked him about it. He told her of the rejection letter and that he was now mulling other plans. She asked if he was still interested in attending. “Yes”, he replied quizzically but thought it was impossible given the incoming class was due to report in just a few weeks. He viewed the passing conversation as polite concern and thought nothing more of it. With a chuckle, he told me that it looked like it was going to be a long hot summer of mucking out stables. My Shipmate received his BFE congratulating him on his appointment to USNA less than a week before I-Day. The Missus had “talked” with her husband who made it all happen. Her husband was Rogers Morton, Secretary of Interior during the Nixon Administration.
Click to expand...
Nice screen name, WT Door, a classic Yard name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top