TV Commercial

Badfinger, you actually bring up a very valid point. Human nature is to perceive our environment based on how it affects us individually. As someone involved with the academy and part of the appointment process, I will have a different perspective on the topic than the applicant or parent who is competing.

And the perspectives will all be different. The male participant will view the topic differently than the female. Black differently than while. Individual who has no interest, no kids, and no involvement with the academies will definitely have a different perspective than the individual who has a vested interest in the academies.
 
You must be in 7th heaven with both the super and commandant at USAFA being female.
They certainly bring a different viewpoint to the mix. I cannot speak for the commandant. I've never met her. But I have met General Michelle Johnson several times. She is very accessible. Our parents club asked her to come to various events and she obliged. IMHO, she is an outstanding person and pick. She flew out to Washington and made sure to spend time with our son after he got a national award for the USAFA Cadet of the Year. She went out of her way to introduce our family to all the AF top brass including General Walsh. She help mentored Rhodes finalist students including our son (as you probably know, General Johnson was a Rhodes winner). I found her to be brilliant, articulate, thoughtful, passionate, well spoken, strong, and a great leader. Being the 1st women superintendant, I bet she is cognisant that she has to work harder and smarter to prove that she belongs. So yes, I approve.
 
Last edited:
I will play....

Because some/many do not want their kids to have any more competition for appointments?

That's one reason. And there are uglier reasons too which became abundantly clear during this last round of the elections. To your point, there is a saying related to hiring people which is analogous to situations like these: "A's hire A caliber people and B caliber people hire C's". :bleh2: So all too often, B capable people get nervous especially with A caliber competition.
 
Last edited:
Badfinger, you actually bring up a very valid point. Human nature is to perceive our environment based on how it affects us individually. As someone involved with the academy and part of the appointment process, I will have a different perspective on the topic than the applicant or parent who is competing.

And the perspectives will all be different. The male participant will view the topic differently than the female. Black differently than while. Individual who has no interest, no kids, and no involvement with the academies will definitely have a different perspective than the individual who has a vested interest in the academies.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, regardless of perspective. For sure everyone has their own perspective or biases, but our perspectives or biases dont govern which side is right on an issue like this.

Previously Christcorp I think it was you who stated all the appointments who are offered an appointment are "qualified", and if someone doesnt get an appointment they should just improve their application, rather than think about how someone else did get an appointment with a seemingly less impressive application. This for sure is a perspective thing, as there are very few people who wouldn't have at least the taste of resentment if someone was admitted with a lower whole candidate score for some reason like and admissions goal to admit more underrepresented applicants. The question shouldn't be whether the academies are admitting "qualified" candidates, but rather whether they are admitting the best qualified candidates, as per the academy's prescribed method of determining "qualified"; ie, the whole candidate score. That method, while having some subjective components, is largely an objective assessment. Perspective is irrelevant if the method to determine appointments is applied equally to everyone.
 
That's one reason. And there are uglier reasons too which became abundantly clear during this last round of the elections. To your point, there is a saying related to hiring people which is analogous to situations like these: "A's hire A caliber people and B caliber people hire C's". :bleh2: So all too often, B capable people get nervous especially with A caliber competition.
Isnt that a point in favor of equal admissions standards for everyone?
 
I will play....

Because some/many do not want their kids to have any more competition for appointments?
......or, because advertising on a national scale costs USAFA a large amount of money, which could perhaps be better spent on educating and training Cadets; particularly when there is so much of an abundance of highly qualified applicants each year that thousands do not get appointments. So, lack of need, and fiscal responsibility would be two pretty decent reasons. At least those are the complaints that I have; and my kid was offered an appointment to USAFA, and turned it down (to give "perspective").
 
......or, because advertising on a national scale costs USAFA a large amount of money, which could perhaps be better spent on educating and training Cadets; particularly when there is so much of an abundance of highly qualified applicants each year that thousands do not get appointments. So, lack of need, and fiscal responsibility would be two pretty decent reasons. At least those are the complaints that I have; and my kid was offered an appointment to USAFA, and turned it down (to give "perspective").

Unfortunately, as with most government agencies, especially the military, the money set aside and spent for advertising is a different "pot" or "color" of money than what is/can be used for training and education. So, if not spent on the TV commercial or other advertising, it would be lost and/or not funded the following year.
 
Isnt that a point in favor of equal admissions standards for everyone?
As Christcorp suggested, the current standards are met or exceeded. You on the other hand assume they aren't. Your reason: it's your gut feel.

Over time, I'm in favor of increasing the standards by having a better applicant pool through more applications. By definition, this means encouraging all groups to apply by showing them they belong and they have opportunity. Then in a generation or two, the top brass slowly become more diverse because there will be less of a chance of needing to be in the Good Ol' boys club to statistically prosper. One way of accomplishing this goal is by advertising, which if I understand correctly, you still think it is a waste of time and effort. I read your post as if you were actually offended.

But some B caliber people kind of like the way it is. No, I am not putting you in that camp. Cadets can certainly meet the current difficult standards, be exception, and still be a B caliber Cadet.

The bottom line is when groups are underrepresented and the goal is to increase proportions, you do what needs to be done. That is the desire of the military.

To use an example, back in 2012 when my son applied, if another white male that had a single parent raising him (that had to take a job to help out) got a box checked because he is more diverse (poor, single parent, had to work, etc). At the end of the day, admissions needs to stare at this (yes, diverse) applicant again. Because chances are, that student (who is already exceptional because he meets the standards) is probably far from peaking. In short, he wasn't dealt the same cards yet figured a way to kick butt (albeit not as high of an score as someone who had more resources). Nearly every single college admissions department uses this approach. Including Harvard Medical School. Make no mistake, my son got HMS points for being diverse (a.k.a. in the military). That's good for our military if he gets accepted to train with the world's best plastic surgeon team. Was it fair that he got rounded up because he was diverse? I think so. They knew his MCAT wasn't as high as the averages because he had under 2 weeks to prepare. But the score met their high standards. This happens at every school... Other than David Duke University.

Let's frame it another way. It's 1960. All politicians are white males. All CEO's are white males. Military leadership is basically white males. Discrimination laws are already firmly in place. What do you propose for a 1960 solution to make it more equitable for women and minorities? In 1960, are you going to argue:
All due respect, until USAFA is hurting for quality applicants, we shouldn't be spending money to recruit them. I get encouraging underrepresented groups to apply, but if someone doesn't recognize attending one of these incredible institutions, and serving their country as a tremendous honor and opportunity, then let's admit those who are abundantly qualified, eager and proud to serve, instead of rejecting them so we can meet gender and/or other diversity requirements. I am not suggesting that there shouldn't be an effort to achieve diversity. There should be.

Putting it another way, how do think we got so far so fast? As I have said before, anytime you try to fix things (and things were fixed), there are consequences. I predict if you used your Ron Popeil "set-it-and-forget -it" approach, we would still have pretty close to the same 1960 ratios.

For the youngins out there. This is Ron. lol


Oh. I bought one of those. Set-it-and-forget until you have to clean it. What a mess! I used it once.
 
Last edited:
Let's do some critical thinking here. As a guy from your background should be aware, most of the statistics you reference do not consider stratification within the different demographics, i.e, not all white males are the same. You have to consider the statistics that are not being kept or at least not nearly as readily accessible. For instance, lower middle class to poor white males constitute a significant portion of the population-they just won an election-but we can only guess at the percentage of academy admissions their demographic constitutes relative to their population because the academies do not bother to keep or do not readily publish those statistics. What is commonly mistaken for racism or sexism in this group "by many American's {sic} of a certain demographic" is really resentment because poor and lower middle class white males look around and see the few proverbial crumbs off the rich man's table being shunted away from them because of imaginary advantages they do not have or blame laid at their feet they had no control over, both assumed because of their skin color. I agree that the academies seem to do a better job of considering these factors than regular universities: they should. Not only is this taxpayer money we are talking about, but unlike upper middle class or wealthy Americans, the academies are the only shot at the quality of education a lot of lower middle class Americans could ever afford. However, to think that the academies do not engage in PC quotas that do not benefit poor/lower middle class white males just like any other university is to totally ignore the statistics they are putting out. I agree with you that perception eventually equals power and even if the academies are truly not engaging in these quotas, even a cursory reading of these forums reveals that is the perception. Meanwhile your (and other) answer to these disparities, or at least perceptions of disparities, is to tell the poor and lower middle class white males to "suck it up," while your answer to the disparities in other groups seems to be special consideration.
Have to go to work, not ignoring any subsequent posts.
You are a critical thinker. :)

I agree. Lower middle class white males (been there, done that) have a set of their own problems and battles. All I would add is that if you change their skin color, they have another barrier to overcome. Outliers (and thankfully I became one) could suggest to suck it up, and work harder and smarter. But statistically speaking, it doesn't happen all that often. If I understand correctly, the SA's look for "diversity" which includes 1st generation to go to college, etc, etc. I know other colleges that do the same. I'm perfectly o.k. with that approach as I typed earlier.

But your last post (as I read it) is in contrast to the one earlier. If I am reading between the lines, you wanted to make sure I understood a "white male" isn't an automatic trump card (no pun intended). We agree! But I will add, some of the biggest racist and sexist people I have ever met in my life, statistically came out of the strata that worked my way out of. All too often (and to Brovol's valid point), they p_ssed away their opportunity. So they are where they are for a reason. What is neat about the SA's is they are full of motivated students from all walks of life. None of them wasted their opportunities. And more often than not, most applicants came from more ideal family situations (upper middle class). My point was, in those situations like my son, he was dealt all Aces. I've met a whole lot of cadets that were also dealt all Aces. The cycle then continues.
I am going to take your first sentence at face value and say thank you.
The underlying debated point of this whole thread is that regardless of the socioeconomic circumstances of the minority candidate as compared to other applicants, because of their skin color they are given automatic preference. Your answer seems to be that it "all comes out in the wash" as the SAs look at first generation college, etc., etc. Let's look at two public comparable cases in point: the autobiographies of Ben Carson, MD in Gifted Hands versus J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy. I have no doubt on paper that any SA admissions committee would give the preference to Ben Carson: black, urban male with single illiterate mother versus white male with remarried, college educated (if I remember correctly), mother. If you haven't read the two autobiographies, trust me you would have rather grown up in Ben Carson's house. His mother, although uneducated, was emotionally stable, consistent, hard-working and insisted and followed-up upon the education of her two sons. Meanwhile, J.D. Vance had an emotionally unstable, relationship hopping, drug-addicted mother who left the raising of her son to his sister and grandmother. My point is is that the real adversity factors that have been proven to matter in a child's life (the emotional stability and/or drug use of the parents, sexual abuse of the child, etc.) are factors the SAs would never see on paper. To carry the automatic assumption that gender and race are the major factors in determining adversity in a child's life is simply untrue.
You are demonstrating quite a bit of unconscious bias yourself in your second paragraph. You have fairly pigeon-holed a whole demographic (poor, lower middle class white males) as lazy, racist, sexist and therefore "they are where they are for a reason." I understand, it is a common defense mechanism when people are trying to separate themselves from their group of origin, they categorize that group as "all bad." (Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell). However, where are your statistics that prove that poor or lower middle class white males p_ss away their opportunities any more so than any other demographic we are discussing? You are basing all that part of your argument on a single case perspective, your own. Despite your bias, I don't argue with your solution, the "suck it up, buttercup" mentality. While that sounds harsh on the surface, what you are doing for the recipients of it is giving what psychiatrists call an "internal locus on control." Another words, you are saying "Your life's outcomes are directly proportional to the work/effort you are willing to put in. There might be people that have more inherent talent or born advantages than you, but you can always control how much effort you put in." Contrast that to the message of victimization/externalization "You have inherent disadvantages that no matter what you do you cannot overcome." Although I realize neither message is totally accurate of reality, which is likely to produce a better outcome?
An example: you like to reference female medical professional inequity statistics-a demographic I happen to know something about. When I went through medical school, the average percentage of female medical students in a medical student class was 25%. Outside of race, admissions then were strictly merit based, so externally in my class of majority males, but even more importantly, internally to myself, did I ever question my ability or right to take a coveted medical school class spot. Whenever I did encounter real bias (for example, I was a resident and was supervising a male medical student. Patient refused to speak to me and would only speak to the "real doctor," the male medical student), knowing that I had unequivocally earned the right to be there, incidents like that didn't create self-doubt or defensiveness. Had I been "quotad" in, incidents like that would have probably created more self-doubt which would have eventually eroded what really matters, my self-respect. Real societal change does not happen fast because it first earned in self-respect in the hearts of individuals by accomplishment and then gradually group gains are made. I understand now that the gender ratio in medical school classes favors females. I have no doubt that in time the positions of power will mirror this. However, if you mandate societal change through quotas, you slow down real change in the hearts and minds of individuals, in the recipients by self-doubt and the rest, by resentment. Human nature mandates that it will take at least a generation or two for the ill effects of mandated quotas to disappear (once the quotas are gone), and only then can true progress towards societal equality be made.
 
My point is is that the real adversity factors that have been proven to matter in a child's life (the emotional stability and/or drug use of the parents, sexual abuse of the child, etc.) are factors the SAs would never see on paper.
I meant what I said about you being a critical thinker; I appreciate your intelligence and the depth of your post.

Actually, those factors would be observed on any application if the applicant decided to write about it. In fact, every college application (including USAFA) asks the question about hardships.
To carry the automatic assumption that gender and race are the major factors in determining adversity in a child's life is simply untrue. .
We agree! I'm not highlighting "adversity as a child" but rather glass ceilings as a whole which still show up in the statistics.
I understand, it is a common defense mechanism when people are trying to separate themselves from their group of origin, they categorize that group as "all bad." (Read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell). However, where are your statistics that prove that poor or lower middle class white males p_ss away their opportunities any more so than any other demographic we are discussing? You are basing all that part of your argument on a single case perspective, your own.
Outliers is a great book by the way. I should clarify. My children graduated from the same HS as I did and it is a diverse income group in the HS. People that live on the local rivers with $$'s in their pocket and everything in between. So I wasn't in an inner city situation but rather, in a loving family that parented with a (flawed) hands-off approach. My father who was incredibly intelligent, lacked motivation because of alcohol abuse. He spoke fluent Russian, Finnish, German and self taught. But, we pretty much grew up by ourself and lived partially from public assistance (subsidized housing, school lunch programs, etc). Our parent guidance was less-than ideal and we all under-achieved because of it. But nowhere near as bad as abusive parents or situations where kids see death around them in an inner city environment etc. So the people I was talking about p_issing away their education wasn't necessarily poor people. 20% of the 3000+ school come from be high wage earners. Home of Gretchen Carlson, Michelle Bachmann, and Garrison Keillor. A heavy republican district (including me) with some rather redneck viewpoints mixed in. Many of those students coasted even with well off blue collar parent business owners. That is who I meant when I said students that didn't take advantage of the incredible opportunities and failed to work their butts off. When I went to the same HS, it was so big I didn't get any encouragement/guidance). Because of our income, I was a FAFSA application away from living on campus for "free". But no one ever bothered to educate me what my options were so I didn't apply to college out of HS. So to the students who had all of the resources like my children classmates and chose to coast, I get upset because hard working people contribute >$10K to educate them yearly and they decide to give 1/4 effort. While we are on the topic (and I am not taking ANYTHING away from Gretchen Carlson as she is an impressive person that graduated a year after me), she was groomed to be Miss America, class valedictorian, parents could afford Stanford etc. I never heard of Stanford until a decade after high school. She took advantage of opportunity. Kudos to her. I digress... So I see the value of a SA commercial targeted to smart students to help plant a seed.

But yes, I of course have prebias based off by personal experiences. To err is human.

Had I been "quotad" in, incidents like that would have probably created more self-doubt which would have eventually eroded what really matters, my self-respect.
As I have side before, anytime you force a fix, there are consequences. ALL controversial topics are never black and white. It's a net-net game. Certainly about now, people are getting damn sick and tired of having to watch their P's and Q's. I feel it. But I am smart enough to know we would not be where we are if the culture didn't change via (God Forbid) quotas or whatever ever people want to call it. All things considered, we have made progress exclusively because we are all forced to be cognisant of the topic; 24-7. Because of the progress, we can ratchet down the need for rounding up people too much and manage things with a targeted approach. But the backlash is real and intense. IMHO, the pendulum has swung the other way again making normally intelligent people say silly things without thinking things out. Based off of personal experience (and hearing countless ignorant comments by under performing Americans that live around me), I probably too quickly dismiss their frustration that the current Trump administration tapped into.

Had I been "quotad" in, incidents like that would have probably created more self-doubt which would have eventually eroded what really matters, my self-respect. Real societal change does not happen fast because it first earned in self-respect in the hearts of individuals by accomplishment and then gradually group gains are made. Human nature mandates that it will take at least a generation or two for the ill effects of mandated quotas to disappear (once the quotas are gone), and only then can true progress towards societal equality be made.
Absolutely! But since applications do have ways of hearing about disadvantaged situations, I do not see a "quota" at USAFA but rather filling diverse spots that will help the next several generations to come. Still, there will be a subset of people that liked it the way it was. Just look at the comment section of any news website of a controversial topic.
 
Last edited:
This for sure is a perspective thing, as there are very few people who wouldn't have at least the taste of resentment if someone was admitted with a lower whole candidate score for some reason like and admissions goal to admit more underrepresented applicants. The question shouldn't be whether the academies are admitting "qualified" candidates, but rather whether they are admitting the best qualified candidates, as per the academy's prescribed method of determining "qualified"; ie, the whole candidate score.

Why, Why, Why, do we have to keep going over the same thing.

1. You don't KNOW that a candidate with a LOWER WCS is being admitted by admissions. This is purely SPECULATION. (We're talking about 500-600 appointees. The first have come from the MOC's list, the academy HAS NO CHOICE, so lets ONLY TALK about the NATIONAL POOL. Those are the ones the academy has 100% say so in appointing).

2. There is NO SUCH THING as "Best Qualified" candidates. This isn't the work force. Academy applicants have LITTLE TO NO experiences. Other than the ACT/SAT test and CFA, everything in the application is SUBJECTIVE. Even GPA's are subjective; depending on the difficulty of the class, school profile, etc. So what YOU DETERMINE (Your Perspective) of "Most Qualified" doesn't have to mean the same thing as what the academy says. So you have no idea. All that matters is that all appointees "ARE QUALIFIED". They've all met the minimum REQUIREMENTS to be "QUALIFIED". It is pretty meaningless if an applicant EXCEEDS the REQUIREMENTS in this regard. The academy is more concerned with POTENTIAL.

MORE QUALIFIED does NOT EXIST. But if it did (For those who think it's semantics), the following are FACTS:
1. A person with a 3.93gpa vs a 3.90 is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.
2. A person with a 32 ACT vs a 31ACT is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.
3. A person who can do 15 pull-ups vs 10 pull-ups is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.
4, A person who played football and is captain vs the player on the Bowling team is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.
5. A person who is in JrROTC, CAP, or Scouts vs Band, Spanish Club, and Church Youth Group is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.

Should I go on???

I guess the question should be...... "Brovol; if you were IN CHARGE of academy appointments, how would you grade/score the individual to determine (in your inaccurate definition) who the MOST QUALIFIED IS? Mind you; except for the ACT/SAT and CFA; EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUBJECTIVE!!! So, tell me....... how do you determine the scoring in the WCS to determine the "BEST QUALIFIED"?

You're completely convinced that because the academy advertises and makes an effort to increase "Diversity", that RACE and GENDER are the 2 forms of diversity that they care about. AND, you are apparently convinced that diversity ISN'T PART of the WCS, and therefor, the diversity factor is ADDED ON at the END, after the academy has looked at the WCS and determined "Who they REALLY WANT'.

If what you are convinced of was true, there would be absolutely NO REASON for a WCS score. The academy would simply take your GPA/ACT/SAT and make sure you're PHYSICALLY Qualified and MEDICALLY Qualified, and they'd simply pick the person they want. But they don't. The ALO interview for instance. I can interview 10 different applicants, and when I'm done scoring, it's possible for all 10 applicants to have different scores. You can take 10 applicants with all the same 3.95 gpa; but because of the different schools, classes, difficulty, availability, etc. you'll easily have 10 individuals with 10 DIFFERENT GPA's weighted on their application/WCS.

The same with leadership, community service, and so many other things. All of these NON-Tangibles are subjective. I want to know how you SCORE, RATE, etc. all these non-tangibles. These attributes are just as important in determining who is getting an appointment vs the gpa and ACT/CFA. So, if you're going to insist on using the definition for "MOST QUALIFIED" that you are using, then I am curious how YOU would do the grading and scoring of all these non-tangibles in the WCS so it would be EQUAL. Remember, 95+% of all applicants haven't actually achieved or experienced anything. They are 17-18 years old. We are looking at their POTENTIAL.

Now of course, you'll probably tell me that race and gender should be neutral and NOT SCORED at all. Well, in that case, neither should ANY of the other DIVERSITY traits that an individual might have. And you'll probably agree with that. Unfortunately, as already mentioned a thousand times, DIVERSITY DOES MATTER. Diversity is what makes the officer corp more effective, more productive, more experienced, and better leaders. In turn, that helps make the enlisted corp more effective, more productive, and better airmen.

Of course, if you are in total disagreement with that...... then this discussion has reached it's end. We can't go any further. Until we can agree on what the true goal of the military is for cadets; we'll never be able to debate anything similar to this with any quality. The military isn't a bunch of robots where officers speak and enlisted jump; and everyone is willing to have blind faith and die if necessary. Our military knows how to think. They are built on trust; in the individual and in the system. There is a time and place for individuals to contribute to improvements. Ask any new 2nd lieutenant who TRIED to put RANK on a "Senior NCO". Usually the COMMANDER will catch wind of it and tell the Lieutenant to find a place to color; until they're ready to LEARN. Point is, the more experiences and diversity our officer corp has, the better leaders they will be. And in turn, the better our enlisted corp will be. Until you at least agree to that, we have nothing else to discuss.
 
......or, because advertising on a national scale costs USAFA a large amount of money, which could perhaps be better spent on educating and training Cadets; particularly when there is so much of an abundance of highly qualified applicants each year that thousands do not get appointments. So, lack of need, and fiscal responsibility would be two pretty decent reasons. At least those are the complaints that I have; and my kid was offered an appointment to USAFA, and turned it down (to give "perspective").
Actually, thousands start the USAFA application but many thousands fail to finish it. In the end, about 2500ish-2800ish are qualified after DODMERB gets through with the pool. Then, about 1200ish are offered a spot. So technically, "thousands" were not turned down but rather a thousand plus (singular) officially got turned down. If 12,000 finished the application from all walks of life and say, 10,200 were turned away even after DODMERB gets through with them, then we would agree that advertising was a waste of resources. IMHO, those are not insurmountable odds even considering those applying are normally higher performers.

So I can see why you have a skewed vision (there is a waiver for that lol) if you were unaware of the numbers. Because USAFA isn't nearly as competitve (based off of percentages) as Stanford when you get exclude the statistical mistruths. http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/03/25/stanfords-admission-rate-drops-to-4-69/
"The 2,063 admits came from a pool of 43,997 applicants, the largest in Stanford’s history. A further 3.6 percent of applicants were given a place on Stanford’s waitlist." Now THAT is what you call competitive.

So when 10,000 actually are qualified for those 1000 or so spots, expect to have near zero medical waivers (my son would have been toast in this future era) and watch overall talent increase.
 
Last edited:
Why, Why, Why, do we have to keep going over the same thing.

1. You don't KNOW that a candidate with a LOWER WCS is being admitted by admissions. This is purely SPECULATION. (We're talking about 500-600 appointees. The first have come from the MOC's list, the academy HAS NO CHOICE, so lets ONLY TALK about the NATIONAL POOL. Those are the ones the academy has 100% say so in appointing).

2. There is NO SUCH THING as "Best Qualified" candidates. This isn't the work force. Academy applicants have LITTLE TO NO experiences. Other than the ACT/SAT test and CFA, everything in the application is SUBJECTIVE. Even GPA's are subjective; depending on the difficulty of the class, school profile, etc. So what YOU DETERMINE (Your Perspective) of "Most Qualified" doesn't have to mean the same thing as what the academy says. So you have no idea. All that matters is that all appointees "ARE QUALIFIED". They've all met the minimum REQUIREMENTS to be "QUALIFIED". It is pretty meaningless if an applicant EXCEEDS the REQUIREMENTS in this regard. The academy is more concerned with POTENTIAL.

MORE QUALIFIED does NOT EXIST. But if it did (For those who think it's semantics), the following are FACTS:
1. A person with a 3.93gpa vs a 3.90 is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.
2. A person with a 32 ACT vs a 31ACT is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.
3. A person who can do 15 pull-ups vs 10 pull-ups is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.
4, A person who played football and is captain vs the player on the Bowling team is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.
5. A person who is in JrROTC, CAP, or Scouts vs Band, Spanish Club, and Church Youth Group is NOT NECESSARILY MORE QUALIFIED.

Should I go on???

I guess the question should be...... "Brovol; if you were IN CHARGE of academy appointments, how would you grade/score the individual to determine (in your inaccurate definition) who the MOST QUALIFIED IS? Mind you; except for the ACT/SAT and CFA; EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUBJECTIVE!!! So, tell me....... how do you determine the scoring in the WCS to determine the "BEST QUALIFIED"?

You're completely convinced that because the academy advertises and makes an effort to increase "Diversity", that RACE and GENDER are the 2 forms of diversity that they care about. AND, you are apparently convinced that diversity ISN'T PART of the WCS, and therefor, the diversity factor is ADDED ON at the END, after the academy has looked at the WCS and determined "Who they REALLY WANT'.

If what you are convinced of was true, there would be absolutely NO REASON for a WCS score. The academy would simply take your GPA/ACT/SAT and make sure you're PHYSICALLY Qualified and MEDICALLY Qualified, and they'd simply pick the person they want. But they don't. The ALO interview for instance. I can interview 10 different applicants, and when I'm done scoring, it's possible for all 10 applicants to have different scores. You can take 10 applicants with all the same 3.95 gpa; but because of the different schools, classes, difficulty, availability, etc. you'll easily have 10 individuals with 10 DIFFERENT GPA's weighted on their application/WCS.

The same with leadership, community service, and so many other things. All of these NON-Tangibles are subjective. I want to know how you SCORE, RATE, etc. all these non-tangibles. These attributes are just as important in determining who is getting an appointment vs the gpa and ACT/CFA. So, if you're going to insist on using the definition for "MOST QUALIFIED" that you are using, then I am curious how YOU would do the grading and scoring of all these non-tangibles in the WCS so it would be EQUAL. Remember, 95+% of all applicants haven't actually achieved or experienced anything. They are 17-18 years old. We are looking at their POTENTIAL.

Now of course, you'll probably tell me that race and gender should be neutral and NOT SCORED at all. Well, in that case, neither should ANY of the other DIVERSITY traits that an individual might have. And you'll probably agree with that. Unfortunately, as already mentioned a thousand times, DIVERSITY DOES MATTER. Diversity is what makes the officer corp more effective, more productive, more experienced, and better leaders. In turn, that helps make the enlisted corp more effective, more productive, and better airmen.

Of course, if you are in total disagreement with that...... then this discussion has reached it's end. We can't go any further. Until we can agree on what the true goal of the military is for cadets; we'll never be able to debate anything similar to this with any quality. The military isn't a bunch of robots where officers speak and enlisted jump; and everyone is willing to have blind faith and die if necessary. Our military knows how to think. They are built on trust; in the individual and in the system. There is a time and place for individuals to contribute to improvements. Ask any new 2nd lieutenant who TRIED to put RANK on a "Senior NCO". Usually the COMMANDER will catch wind of it and tell the Lieutenant to find a place to color; until they're ready to LEARN. Point is, the more experiences and diversity our officer corp has, the better leaders they will be. And in turn, the better our enlisted corp will be. Until you at least agree to that, we have nothing else to discuss.
There is such a thing as a best and most qualified candidate. You are wrong to suggest otherwise. There are candidates who have higher whole candidate scores, and some who are so high that admissions can identify them as one who will receive an appointment almost immediately because they are such highly qualified candidates. For you to suggest otherwise, particularly as an ALO, is ridiculous, and compromises the credibility of the balance of your arguments. And BTW, more words does not mean stronger argument.

I believe that the academies do seek to admit more underrepresented applicants, and based on admissions goals consistent with that desire do make that (underrepresented classification of an applicant) as an independent factor which weighs in favor of those applicants to one degree or another. I don't know to what extent exactly, and it doesnt matter for the purpose of our debate. But, while I have said many times that i believe this is the case, my arguments throughout this peaceful conversation have always been hypothetical; essentially debating whether the academies should have separate standards based on race/gender. You and MN-Dad seem to think they should, but at the same time you keep claiming they dont, but arguing as if they should. Either way, Ill proceed one final time.

Lets make it easier to comprehend: Two candidates, both with very impressive applications competing for a spot off the NWL, and only one spot available. In fact, both have the exact class standing from neighboring schools with almost identical school profiles. Both have identical 33 ACT scores, with the same sub-scores. Both Eagle Scouts, one was president on NHS and VP in student council, the other was the same, but flip-flopped. Both all-county football players and baseball players, and each was a co-captain on each team. WCS's for each are on the money exactly the same. They both are literally the same in terms of evaluation, objective and subjective. The only factors distinguishing the two applicants are these: (1) Applicant "A" is a white male who was raised in a poor home, and his mother had a number of challenges, which let to the kid being left to his own initiative to meet academic and even financial needs. He never complained about it though, as he felt blessed to have the intellectual and physical abilities most of his friends didnt seem to have. He wants nothing more than to serve his country as an officer in the Air Force, and USAFA is the dream school. (2) Applicant "B" is African American, and comes from an affluent family. His mother is a Dr. and father a lawyer in a prestigious firm. Also a great kid, who is more than worthy of an appointment. ** If everything is tallied, and the scores are the same, IF an academy had any policy which favored underrepresented applicants, Applicant B would get the spot based on nothing more than a policy which applies to people only because they are in a certain group. Christcorp and MN-dad think that the ends justify the means. I disagree. But remember, this is hypothetical; right?
 
Christcorp says only the ACT/SAT and CFA are actually comparable from applicant to applicant, which I agree with - to a point. A CFA can be open for interpretation as well. Did the candidate really go far enough down to count that push up? Is it being given at a summer Academy experience or by a well-meaning gym teacher in rural WV? Did they really only have five minutes 'rest' after the end of the sit-ups before the beginning of the run? I have also become convinced, without the slightest shred of evidence, that the selection committees have multiple factors invisible to us that they have to consider and that influence the make up of the class. Maybe the first 500 to accept this year are hypercompetitive, so some less driven cadets are needed to balance out all the Type A personalities. Maybe the first thousand essays expressed a deep desire to fly jets, so it's okay to let in a few more with less than perfect vision that want to work in cyber security. Maybe there has been a rash of questionable ethics decisions by a previous class, so this year the essays that emphasize integrity and honesty are being given an extra point. They are all qualified or they never would have made it to the point of being considered by the selection boards. And in the end, we have to remember, as Christcorp says "They are 17-18 years old. We are looking at their POTENTIAL." Do the applicants want the education and career, or is there pressure from the parents? How many of these applicants can truly make an informed decision? The boards have decades of experience in looking at packets that went on to be successful officers, and those that washed out or decided (at the ripe old age of 20) that maybe military service wasn't for them.
 
Brovol. In your example, both are highly qualified. Take your pick. Both are diverse. But of course, there are other factors involved. Ex-military get points, athletes who are standouts can have their coaches working for them etc etc.
If a skin color or being a female was the litmus test (in combination of being qualified) I would expect that the underrepresented cadets percentages would be MUCH higher. So needless to say, objective scores rule.

Because only (yes ONLY) 2xxx students are deemed "qualified". Maybe that is why they are advertising for a more diverse Wing?
As eljay60 suggested, there are soooooo many variables. I suspect you are rounding up the magnitude of race/gender in the objective score... By a lot.
 
I'm trying to dispel the term: "More/Most/Best/Better Qualified". Qualified is qualified. When posters use the term "More/Most/Best/Better Qualified" in this forum, they have a tendency of implying that the academy is LOWERING it's standards. They aren't. Also, while some will say it's semantic, and that More/Most/Best/Better Qualified is perfectly legit; it's not. It's linguistically incorrect. That's like saying "More Dead; Most Pregnant; More Alive; etc.

Yes. there are candidates who are "More Accomplished; More Experienced; More Successful. etc. E.g. 3 varsity sports and captain of all 3 vs someone who played 1 varsity sport and not the captain. Someone got a 34 on the ACT vs someone who got a 32. And if they are the HIGHEST, BEST, etc. in that category, they could even be considered "THE MOST". But as I said in my previous posts, NON of this makes a person "More QUALIFIED". Well, except in "Your Perspective".

So why am I pushing on the term QUALIFIED; especially if some say it's only semantics. The main reason is because some people are under the impression that THEY KNOW BETTER than others, what constitutes an individual receiving an appointment vs someone who doesn't. They believe that all the scoring is black and white. (No race pun intended). That selecting for appointments is as easy as: 1) Try and fill in all these squares; 2) Each square is assigned points; 3) The 1200 applicants with the most points get the appointment. Unfortunately, there is so much more to giving an appointment.

Unfortunately, there are some that refuse to understand that it is perfectly acceptable to have Non-Tangible traits that are counted and scored and used as part of the WCS. Remember all the questions in the essays, application, ALO interview, etc. asking how you handled adversity? How you handled something ethical with a friend? How you WOULD handle certain things under certain scenarios? These all lead to evaluating ethics, honor, integrity, teamwork, determination, self discipline, and so many other things. And YES, these ALL get graded and scored too. And the criteria for that scoring is in the hands of the academy. It doesn't matter what anyone here thinks about it. Whether it's fair; too subjective; to vague; etc. And guess what? We do the exact same thing when interviewing people for a real job on the outside world. Example: Someone could have the most experience, education, and credentials of anyone applying for a job. You'd think this individual is a no brainer for the job. In the interview, you ask them: "What would you do if you noticed a co-worker who is a really close friend; stealing from the company". Now, depending on the answer, you think there's the possibility that you won't hire them? Even if in some's opinion; "They are the MOST QUALIFIED". If the interviewee says: "Well, he's my friend, so I wouldn't tell anyone he's stealing". Doesn't that matter? What if you asked the interviewee "Why did you leave your last job?" If their response was: "I knew a lot more than any of my bosses and I couldn't work for idiots". You don't think that will affect hiring them?

The bottom line is: The academy knows what it wants for a cadet class that will compliment each cadet there. What they want from a cadet class that will help each cadet grow and become a better well rounded individual. What it will take hopefully to make each cadet live up to their potential. This is done through a class of 1200 students. This is the military. The epitome of "TEAM WORK".

So, I guess the reason I'm pushing the point of not being MORE/MOST/BEST/BETTER QUALIFIED, is because most people who have a problem with the appointment process have absolutely no idea what the academy CONSIDERS QUALIFIED. But they THINK THEY DO. Most don't even know what the MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS are.
 
Christcorp, it isn't semantics, and no one is suggesting the standards are lowered for anyone. The suggestion is that the academies may give some special consideration for minorities and females because they have diversity goals to achieve. You continue to act as if I am saying something very different than what I am saying. I have zero problem with the schools evaluating all the various considerations you cite, for each and every candidate, and understand that they will. MY ONLY PROBLEM IS IF IT USES RACE OR GENDER AS A SEPARATE FACTOR. They shouldn't!!!!!

Who do you think the academy should offer an appointment to in my hypothetical? The white kid who overcame adversity, or the black kid who had every privilege growing up, assuming all other factors are equal??? Do you agree that it would be wrong if the academy gave the black kid the nod with the deciding factor being that he was black? A Yes or No would be good, if possible.
 
And you continue and refuse to acknowledge, that the academy gives "Special Consideration" to just about EVERYONE. Yes, some consideration because of race and gender. Especially if the individual can SELL how they were able to overcome some adversity because of the race and/or gender. But as I've said, the academy also gives Special Consideration to the Urban White kid who comes from a Single Parent; or the kid who had to work after school to contribute to the family finances. And to the farm/ranch kid who didn't have time for sports because he worked the family farm. Or the kid who is the first member in his family to apply to college. Or the first generation legal immigrant who had their challenges and adversities. And the list goes on.

My point is: You're trying to make this about RACE and GENDER. You're trying to describe it as the old days of "Affirmative Action". Where individuals received quota slots, even though they weren't qualified. And in the work force, when they weren't as experienced, knowledgeable, accomplished, etc. I here to tell you that yes, applicants of race and gender minority are given some Special Consideration that is ADDED to their total WCS score. But so are so many others. The person who was in the IB Program and took all IB classes will get special consideration over the person who took a couple of advanced classed and mostly state minimum required classes. And the applicant who didn't take ANY advanced classes, because NONE were available at their school, will ALSO RECEIVE Special Consideration. And all the others in the first part of this post, and many other scenarios.

This is the problem with this discussion. No one, not even I am disagreeing that "Special Consideration" isn't given for race and gender. But you keep refusing to accept that Special Consideration is ALSO GIVEN to MANY other applicants for reasons OTHER THAN race or gender. Even the WHITE MALE applicant from Suburbia USA. Maybe it's "Special Consideration" for athletics; for being selected to go to Boy's State; for making Eagle Scout; For being ranked #1 in their class; for having 300 hours of volunteer time in their community; for having a STELLAR ALO review, vs the other applicants that that particular ALO reviewed. The list goes on.

I LIKE to believe, that THAT is the whole PURPOSE of the WCS "WHOLE CANDIDATE SCORE". Is that the academy uses the MINIMUM standards of qualification; some call 3Q; meaning "Qualified Academically, Physically, and Medically" as the ENTRANCE BAR. Meet these minimum standards, and you are QUALIFIED. After that...... then the academy will judge you as a candidate IN YOUR ENTIRETY. Like I've said before;
"Do the MOST and the BEST with what you've got to work with, and SUCCEED with it". THIS is what the academy is SCORING YOU ON. That's why just about EVERY Candidate is receiving "SPECIAL CONSIDERATION". Because each candidate is UNIQUE. And each of these candidates bring something unique to the next "Class of Cadets". When the academy looks at WHAT you had to work with in your life, education, family, community, economics, etc. And they see what you DID with what you had. And they see WHAT your accomplishments were. THEN, they can accurately give you a score as a "WHOLE PERSON". This isn't a traditional university where they really only care about your academics and your ability to pay. The academy is building Military Leaders. They care about the whole person. And leaders do a better job when they are exposed to more diversity and knowledge. And through avenues of education. That's why the military requires a commissioned officer to be a college graduate. For the education and the diversity of life experience.

So yes, the academies look at 3Q to be "QUALIFIED". Academically, Physically, and Medically. That's the EASY PART. It's the rest of the "WHOLE PERSON" that is the challenge when giving appointments. That's why I won't agree that someone, especially in a forum member's OPINION, is MORE QUALIFIED. No one on this forum knows that to be true. And as for special consideration, just about EVERY APPLICANT is given some special consideration for their application. Not just that with race or gender diversity. That's what the WHOLE CANDIDATE SCORE is all about. All the Non-Tangible/Non-Academic qualities and attributes.
 
And you continue and refuse to acknowledge, that the academy gives "Special Consideration" to just about EVERYONE. Yes, some consideration because of race and gender. Especially if the individual can SELL how they were able to overcome some adversity because of the race and/or gender. But as I've said, the academy also gives Special Consideration to the Urban White kid who comes from a Single Parent; or the kid who had to work after school to contribute to the family finances. And to the farm/ranch kid who didn't have time for sports because he worked the family farm. Or the kid who is the first member in his family to apply to college. Or the first generation legal immigrant who had their challenges and adversities. And the list goes on.

My point is: You're trying to make this about RACE and GENDER. You're trying to describe it as the old days of "Affirmative Action". Where individuals received quota slots, even though they weren't qualified. And in the work force, when they weren't as experienced, knowledgeable, accomplished, etc. I here to tell you that yes, applicants of race and gender minority are given some Special Consideration that is ADDED to their total WCS score. But so are so many others. The person who was in the IB Program and took all IB classes will get special consideration over the person who took a couple of advanced classed and mostly state minimum required classes. And the applicant who didn't take ANY advanced classes, because NONE were available at their school, will ALSO RECEIVE Special Consideration. And all the others in the first part of this post, and many other scenarios.

This is the problem with this discussion. No one, not even I am disagreeing that "Special Consideration" isn't given for race and gender. But you keep refusing to accept that Special Consideration is ALSO GIVEN to MANY other applicants for reasons OTHER THAN race or gender. Even the WHITE MALE applicant from Suburbia USA. Maybe it's "Special Consideration" for athletics; for being selected to go to Boy's State; for making Eagle Scout; For being ranked #1 in their class; for having 300 hours of volunteer time in their community; for having a STELLAR ALO review, vs the other applicants that that particular ALO reviewed. The list goes on.

I LIKE to believe, that THAT is the whole PURPOSE of the WCS "WHOLE CANDIDATE SCORE". Is that the academy uses the MINIMUM standards of qualification; some call 3Q; meaning "Qualified Academically, Physically, and Medically" as the ENTRANCE BAR. Meet these minimum standards, and you are QUALIFIED. After that...... then the academy will judge you as a candidate IN YOUR ENTIRETY. Like I've said before;
"Do the MOST and the BEST with what you've got to work with, and SUCCEED with it". THIS is what the academy is SCORING YOU ON. That's why just about EVERY Candidate is receiving "SPECIAL CONSIDERATION". Because each candidate is UNIQUE. And each of these candidates bring something unique to the next "Class of Cadets". When the academy looks at WHAT you had to work with in your life, education, family, community, economics, etc. And they see what you DID with what you had. And they see WHAT your accomplishments were. THEN, they can accurately give you a score as a "WHOLE PERSON". This isn't a traditional university where they really only care about your academics and your ability to pay. The academy is building Military Leaders. They care about the whole person. And leaders do a better job when they are exposed to more diversity and knowledge. And through avenues of education. That's why the military requires a commissioned officer to be a college graduate. For the education and the diversity of life experience.

So yes, the academies look at 3Q to be "QUALIFIED". Academically, Physically, and Medically. That's the EASY PART. It's the rest of the "WHOLE PERSON" that is the challenge when giving appointments. That's why I won't agree that someone, especially in a forum member's OPINION, is MORE QUALIFIED. No one on this forum knows that to be true. And as for special consideration, just about EVERY APPLICANT is given some special consideration for their application. Not just that with race or gender diversity. That's what the WHOLE CANDIDATE SCORE is all about. All the Non-Tangible/Non-Academic qualities and attributes.
Correct. I do refuse to acknowledge that the academies give special consideration for everyone. They evaluate every application, and consider all factors, but you are the one playing the semantics game. We are not debating whether the academy fully considers all factors of each applicant. Of course they do. But you are, I am convinced now, simply trying to put a smoke screen up instead of address a simple issue. No need to even respond if that is your agenda. We can simply accept that you believe one thing, and I disagree.

If the academy considers race or gender as a favorable factor for an applicant it is affirmative action. Don't know hey you would say otherwise; and no that is not at all an old days concept. It is a current issues concept. And I am not trying to make this a race and gender issue; race and gender are what we have been discussing on this thread for days. Why portray it as something else.

You now concede that the academies do give minority and female applicants "special,consideration that is added into their whole candidate scores". Up until now you flat out denied the same. If you are also maintaining that while males are also given extra points in their WCS, I will call hogwash on that claim, and add, what would be the point?

I am beating a dead horse, and respectfully, your responses are silly. If you believe that minorities and women should get a boost in the admissions process, so be it. I don't, and I don't think they need it. Both are every bit as capable of excellence as white males, and can compete with white males in every respect without being spotted points or anything else in the application process, or thereafter.

I am now exhausted with the discussion.
 
Back
Top