Those of Us Still Waiting

DD got a no also, but with the prior post about most accommodations went to kids who had a year of college under their belt made my daughter feel hopeful. She is going to a local private college and reapplying next year. She will be in touch with her AO for any recommendations. Good luck to wait listers and everyone else with plan B!
 
PAmomUSCGAhopeful said:
DD got a no also, but with the prior post about most accommodations went to kids who had a year of college under their belt made my daughter feel hopeful. She is going to a local private college and reapplying next year. She will be in touch with her AO for any recommendations. Good luck to wait listers and everyone else with plan B!
Click to expand...
Where is the data to show that most appointments went to college applicants?
 
sanman said:
I don’t think there is any data to support the statement that most or even a good amount of appointees were college applicants.
Click to expand...
It is all in how you look at it, and it also depends on how they report the figures. There is data if you look around.

USCGA Class of '22 reported 23% "Attended College (1+ Year)" - https://www.cgaalumni.org/s/1043/im...nid=57fbb7a5-b2bb-4a91-a50b-e7f9222bffac&cc=1

If the same data set includes the 18% who were CGAS, that means 5% did some other form of unsponsored prep/college prior to entry.

this percentage seems consistent in stats published by other schools too -
USNA Class of '23 - https://www.usna.edu/Admissions/_files/documents/ClassPortrait.pdf
"The Class of 2023 includes 345 (29%) from college and post-high school preparatory programs"

In this case, they break it out. 29% of the class did at least one year of college and of those, 88 of 345 went to unsponsored prep/college.

In general, college re-applicants have a higher acceptance rate into Service Academies than first time applicants. There are fewer re-applicants in a class profile than first-time applications, but the added year of higher level education typically boosts standardized test scores and the demonstrated performance in college level courses has some impact on the admissions board.

I would agree that it is not "most", but I would put that figure at a "good amount" level.
 
DS notified yesterday he was CGAS wait-listed via a letter in Bears Den. While disappointed he didn't receive an offer he is excited to have made it this far and honored to still be in the hunt. He has other SA options in the works but remains interested in CGA. There are Plan B's but I think our house will have another month of 'opportunities to build patience' while we wait for answers.
 
PAmomUSCGAhopeful said:
DD got a no also, but with the prior post about most accommodations went to kids who had a year of college under their belt made my daughter feel hopeful. She is going to a local private college and reapplying next year. She will be in touch with her AO for any recommendations. Good luck to wait listers and everyone else with plan B!
Click to expand...
shiner said:
It is all in how you look at it, and it also depends on how they report the figures. There is data if you look around.

USCGA Class of '22 reported 23% "Attended College (1+ Year)" - https://www.cgaalumni.org/s/1043/im...nid=57fbb7a5-b2bb-4a91-a50b-e7f9222bffac&cc=1

If the same data set includes the 18% who were CGAS, that means 5% did some other form of unsponsored prep/college prior to entry.

this percentage seems consistent in stats published by other schools too -
USNA Class of '23 - https://www.usna.edu/Admissions/_files/documents/ClassPortrait.pdf
"The Class of 2023 includes 345 (29%) from college and post-high school preparatory programs"

In this case, they break it out. 29% of the class did at least one year of college and of those, 88 of 345 went to unsponsored prep/college.

In general, college re-applicants have a higher acceptance rate into Service Academies than first time applicants. There are fewer re-applicants in a class profile than first-time applications, but the added year of higher level education typically boosts standardized test scores and the demonstrated performance in college level courses has some impact on the admissions board.

I would agree that it is not "most", but I would put that figure at a "good amount" level.
Click to expand...

@shiner I would submit that the Class of 2022 23% number is incorrect, or an outlier, as the "Attended College (1+ Year)" number has always hovered around the 9% range (Class of 2018 reported 9%, the Class of 2019 reported 10%, the Class of 2020 reported 9%, the Class of 2021 reported 9%, and the Class of 2023 reported 8%).

CGA has always looked favorably on re-applicants, if they have proven themselves with a collegiate academic course load that replicates the 4/c year. In addition, it is imperative for re-applicants to continue to seek out leadership opportunities, and maintain/improve physical fitness.

One thing to keep in mind on this forum @PAmomUSCGAhopeful is there are many giving advice/input when they themselves do not have experience with the subject. I would highly suggest you look back through a forum member's previous posts to discover what their background is before their advice is taken (the post you referred to was made by an applicant, with no proof to back up the post). Just my 2 cents...
 
alaska66 said:
@shiner I would submit that the Class of 2022 23% number is incorrect
Click to expand...
@alaska66 - I contend that they are including CGAS in the 23% figure - which is not wrong, because they are technically attending a year of post-HS graduation level courses (at a 2yr Jr College w/MMI or a 4 yr College w/GMC). The USNA figure clearly breaks it out, and they too are near 30% when you include their sponsored prep school numbers.
 
shiner said:
@alaska66 - I contend that they are including CGAS in the 23% figure
Click to expand...
And I think that is the major issue. Those numbers are pretty consistent YoY and barring mishap they are pretty much guaranteed an appointment. Therefore it skews the numbers and the point of view that college applicants winning appointments is a significant percentage doesn’t hold true.
 
shiner said:
@alaska66 - I contend that they are including CGAS in the 23% figure - which is not wrong, because they are technically attending a year of post-HS graduation level courses (at a 2yr Jr College w/MMI or a 4 yr College w/GMC). The USNA figure clearly breaks it out, and they too are near 30% when you include their sponsored prep school numbers.
Click to expand...
As I stated, I believe that 23% is incorrect, as the class profile historically separates the "Attended CGAS" from the "Attended College" group, but for the sake of discussion, we'll assume that for this one class profile (Class of '22) that they were combined (there was a staff change-over happening in Admissions at that time, and this may be the reason for the abnormality). That would leave those non-CGAS college attendees at 5%, which is more in-line with the other class profiles.
My clarification is due to the post about "most" appointments going to applicants with college experience, which is not the case historically. While CGAS is one year of college, I think for clarification for those not receiving an appointment and looking to self-prep, it is disingenuous to include the CGAS number, as they are already on a path to CGA, and not a true, collegiate re-applicant.
This is a good discussion, though, and I will reach out to Admissions to see if they can include in their future class profiles a separate statistic for re-applicants, since it is assumed that those with college experience are re-applicants, which is not necessarily the case, as they could be first time applicants.
 
I stand corrected. I was trying to make my DD feel better and motivate her. She has spoken with her admission partner and my stepson, who attended nuke school before reapplying to the naval academy and then getting in the second try. She has two other friends who attended a year of college and then got into the academy their second try. I will not quote anything else I read here. Best of luck to everyone’s children!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top