TV Commercial

[brovol]

MLK fought for African Americans to have a seat at the table. Susan B. Anthony fought for women to have a seat at the table, Gary Blasi has fought for the poor to have a seat at the table. Many american citizens were invisible and not given a chance to reach that table.

NO ONE will enter any of these colleges/universities or service academies that does not meet their overall minimal standards. Will some be below average in some aspect? Yes. Will some be above average in others? Yes

I am a numbers person. Again, look at the stats. Service academies and universities in general live and die by statistics. The percentage of those admitted freshman year that actually commission is just as important and probably more so than the average SAT/ACT score. These admissions officers are looking for potential quality United States military officers. I know that they will do what they can to make that happen. If they happen to see the potential in someone poor or from a rural setting or raised in a single parent household or highest socioeconomic class or lowest socioeconomic class or Black or White or Eagle Scout or Gold Award or all APs, or no APs or female, etc... I'll leave that in their capable hands.

Circumstances, not equal in the least... Consideration cannot be equal.... Potential to lead and to serve-- EQUAL.

BTW, anytime I see Matthew McCohaunghey in a commercial driving that car, I think of buying that car. Why? Because his accent makes me think of home. I hope that someone looks at the USAFA commercial and thinks of applying because that commercial makes them think of home.

MLK fought (and died) for equal treatment of ALL people, based on the constitutional provisions which guaranteed the same. MLK never argued that black people should be given "special" treatment. Indeed that would have conflicted with everything else he was saying. Others in the "Black Power" movement did argue for special treatment, and reparations, but MLK had conflict with some of the leadership of those movements. "The New Segregation"is an essay written in 1992 by Shelby Steele, a black female who attended one of the last segregated schools in Chicago. She is, I believe, brilliant, and has written a lot of other good things, but "The New Segregation" very much applies to this conversation. Read it if you have the chance.

 

[armywife03]

Did you notice the particular demographics of those depicted in the commercial? They are reaching out for diversity applicants. Because, that's why we lost World War II, not enough diversity.

We won WW II because of those brave men and women fighting at home and abroad- those seen and those unseen including Tuskegee Airmen, the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, the 100th Infantry Battalion and many others. They fought despite many injustices they received as american citizens. We should remember them ALL.

 

[brovol]

Brovol. I wasn't insinuating sour grapes. Also, my mind never wandered about your sons status at the academies. If I came off as antagonist, I apologize. I was pointing out that you wonder if (to the point of assuming) that USAFA admission standards are being modified because they have to in order to get a better balance of race and gender. They could be! I don't know. And if they slightly are, I understand why. Just as I would guess they are modified for a disadvantaged white males with hardships. That too is in the spirit of diversity.

I directed my post to you because I saw the irony. You seem to understand the value of diversity and you want to maintain the standards. Who doesn't. Well... Other posters don't see the value because we won WWII. Admissions wants a top notch diverse Wing as well. In my mind, they are advertising to attract more diverse applicants. Your thread was started to share that you think it is silly to advertise. How it that a waste of $$'s when it helps accomplish your objective (diverse Wing at the highest standards)?

Fair enough. I stand corrected on that point, as I admit i didnt originally read your post that way, so glad you clarified.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

To me that is an insulting concept, and frankly an "old school" concept that was wide spread in the south for far too long. Minorities and women are no less capable of exceeding any and all of the admissions criteria or thresholds, like ACT/SAT, class rank, athletic and leadership achievement, CFA, or anything else; not are they less capable of succeeding at the academies. It is patronizing to speak and draw conclusions as if they are. They dont need "special help", just because of their skin color or gender.

It's not insulting to me. And of course they did (and to some degree) many inequities still exist. I gave a few examples. There are a hundred more. Question. Do you really think the playing field is equal? If so, that is what I meant by you being idealist (which is intertwined with being unrealistic).

But I've walked in different shoes and watched experiments unfold around me. While I am white, I also grew up poor. I'm the only sibling of 6 that went to school outside of high school (finished college at age 30 as an EE). Same with my wife. She had 8 brothers and sisters and the only one who stepped foot in post secondary education. Between us, we have brothers who were in prison (plural), several HS dropouts, teen pregnancies, divorce, and drug addictions. Not too good of a good track record. And the cycle continues because their children are also troubled.

So we broke the cycle and became overly passionate with education and nurturing. I'm convinced my wife and I didn't achieve our potential. The word "college" was never mentioned in the home. Ever. So if I did learn that USAFA rounded up an applicant slightly because they were underrepresented or had some hardships, I'd sleep like a baby.

I joked that I didn't want to hear our childrens 1st word as mommy or daddy, but rather college. As parents, we did everything in our power to set our kids up. Being white and finally doing well financially, we didn't see any doors close. Being the best parents as we could, we groomed our children to their maximum potential. That included ACT prep tests, having the resources to experience foreign trips, language immersion classes, a stay at home mom, etc. In other words, we stacked the deck in our favor. And make no mistake, being white didn't hurt. No, I don't feel guilty. That was our job. I'm overly proud that one daughter will be a Army dentist in July and our USAFA son is at Harvard Medical School. Meanwhile, our son and daughters cousins are not doing so hot. So if one of them broke out of the cycle and fell a little short from our children's advantages (make no mistake, they had advantages), I'd hope someone would contemplate giving them a break. Even if that meant stepping on my childrens toes who had a stacked deck. BUT, our new family culture wasn't going to leave anything to chance. Our son took it out of admissions hands and made it obvious (valedictorian of 600 students, 3 sport letter winner, captain of 2, high ACT (with a lot of practice), Boy's State, 45 college credits in high school, etc etc bla bla bla).

In summary, to make things more equitable long term, I support some of the efforts that are taking place. IMHO, the pendulum swung too far in the past (Quota, political correctness etc). Trying to fix inequities by giving away money (welfare) more or less has been a disaster. Surely, USAFA advertising to nudge more underrepresented students to apply can only be a net positive. I would argue the change is about as ideal as one could hope for.

 

[brovol]

It's not insulting to me. And of course they did (and to some degree) many inequities still exist. I gave a few examples. There are a hundred more. Question. Do you really think the playing field is equal? If so, that is what I meant by you being idealist (which is intertwined with being unrealistic).

But I've walked in different shoes and watched experiments unfold around me. While I am white, I also grew up poor. I'm the only sibling of 6 that went to school outside of high school (finished college at age 30 as an EE). Same with my wife. She had 8 brothers and sisters and the only one who stepped foot in post secondary education. Between us, we have brothers who were in prison (plural), several HS dropouts, teen pregnancies, divorce, and drug addictions. Not too good of a good track record. And the cycle continues because their children are also troubled.

So we broke the cycle and became overly passionate with education and nurturing. I'm convinced my wife and I didn't achieve our potential. The word "college" was never mentioned in the home. Ever. So if I did learn that USAFA rounded up an applicant slightly because they were underrepresented or had some hardships, I'd sleep like a baby.

I joked that I didn't want to hear our childrens 1st word as mommy or daddy, but rather college. As parents, we did everything in our power to set our kids up. Being white and finally doing well financially, we didn't see any doors close. Being the best parents as we could, we groomed our children to their maximum potential. That included ACT prep tests, having the resources to experience foreign trips, language immersion classes, a stay at home mom, etc. In other words, we stacked the deck in our favor. And make no mistake, being white didn't hurt. No, I don't feel guilty. That was our job. I'm overly proud that one daughter will be a Army dentist in July and our USAFA son is at Harvard Medical School. Meanwhile, our son and daughters cousins are not doing so hot. So if one of them broke out of the cycle and fell a little short from our children's advantages (make no mistake, they had advantages), I'd hope someone would contemplate giving them a break. Even if that meant stepping on my childrens toes who had a stacked deck.

In summary, to make things more equitable long term, I support some of the efforts that are taking place. IMHO, the pendulum swung too far in the past (Quota, political correctness etc). Trying to fix inequities by giving away money (welfare) more or less has been a disaster. Surely, USAFA advertising to nudge more underrepresented students to apply can only be a net positive.

Are you asking if I think all things are fair and equitable in life? Of course not; but I dont know why you ask that question, since that isn't the topic. As I already indicated above, I am fine with admissions people considering life challenges and factor those things into the equation. Never suggested otherwise. People of all colors and genders have "their story", and it should be considered. Just don't assume that every minority or female applicant has greater challenges, or is more deserving of some heighten status or consideration in the admissions process simply because they are minority or a woman. Judge each applicant by the same criteria, and award appointments based on merit without regard to classification.

I cant provide you with a life story of hardship. I grew up in a nice house, and had no reason not to achieve, except that I was unmotivated and didn't do homework or pay attention much in school. Barely graduated, and then did only barely more in college before being put on probation and ultimately dismissed from school before realizing that I was wasting my opportunity to take advantage of the blessings I had. I found a focus, motivated myself, graduated, went to law school, and managed not to die on the vine. But I digress, because none of that matters to the question at issue. I now preside over neglect and abuse cases, among others, where I see so many kids (mostly white in my rural county) who have been dealt awful cards, and will have to overcome tremendous social obstacles to have success and happiness in the way that you and I would appreciate. (I actually had a high school kid who wants to go to West Point, and when I told him my son is there, we ended up spending a half hour in my office looking at pictures). I understand well the concept that all are not blessed in life with equal circumstances, and my heart bleeds with those who are compelled to deal with hardships beyond what most would consider "fair". But we shouldn't fight inequity with more inequity. Instead, we should take steps to guarantee the fairest and most equal process to all, regardless of race, gender or other classification. To do otherwise conflicts with the very nature of what is right.

 

[brovol]

We won WW II because of those brave men and women fighting at home and abroad- those seen and those unseen including Tuskegee Airmen, the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, the 100th Infantry Battalion and many others. They fought despite many injustices they received as american citizens. We should remember them ALL.

I am sure Sledge appreciates you making his point.

 

[mommahedg]

There are many unknowns here. It could be that the government received a TV Commercial grant and we should feel excited it was spent promoting our beloved academies. Maybe it was just general advertising co-op money that has to be used up. So many factors/possibilities as to why commercials are running and we may never know the source.

What I do know is that there is a chasm when it comes to promoting SA's with current high school students. Are there plenty qualified 2021 candidates to fill all 5 academies? Absolutely!! However, coming from a district with little to no competition...I'm saddened that our MOC's have to run local newspaper ads just to drum up enough applicants to fill a nomination slate and still come up short. I don't understand HOW it is possible that in our high school of 500 seniors...our DS was the only applicant to a SA and practically had to educate the counselor on how it works.

If I'm USAFA admissions...I'm happy there are plenty 3Q's to go pick from. However, knowing that there are thousands more (from ANY diverse race/ethnicity) in pockets all over the country that never even got a chance to know about USAFA as an option...I'd be marching down to the marketing department and asking them to make sure ALL of the best high schoolers know who USAFA is.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

Are you asking if I think all things are fair and equitable in life? Of course not; but I dont know why you ask that question, since that isn't the topic. As I already indicated above, I am fine with admissions people considering life challenges and factor those things into the equation. Never suggested otherwise. People of all colors and genders have "their story", and it should be considered. Just don't assume that every minority or female applicant has greater challenges, or is more deserving of some heighten status or consideration in the admissions process simply because they are minority or a woman. Judge each applicant by the same criteria, and award appointments based on merit without regard to classification.

I asked the question to see you think that in 2017, the ethnic/gender playing fields are equal. You said "They don't need "special help", just because of their skin color or gender." We disagree. Just because I can point to outliers who didn't need help doesn't mean their isn't a problem. I assume there is a black female generals that came from broken home; she would therefore be an outlier. We are talking about averages. So by default, not everyone needs "help" so I guess we agree. Yet statistically and in some instances, we have a loooooong way to go.

A decade ago, 80-90% of the generals and admirals were white males. To me at least, that's not ideal. No, 51% should not necessarily be female. In the 70's, USAFA was basically all white. So in the 70's, "did they need help because of their skin color or gender"? Putting it another way, why do you think there is a more diverse group of talented cadets in 2017. After all, the metrics have increased and the competition has become stiffer. To me at least, whatever was done has helped. Change didn't happen organically because it was the right thing to do. A quick google will show you articles where current military leaders agree. Therefore, I propose in certain cases as vetted by statistics, gender and skin color DO still need "special help". Not automatically. There are hurtful ways that backfire (more harm than good) and better ways that still and always will have slight consequences. This is nothing new. Nepotism (sons and daughters of generals) will be rounded up into USAFA. A coach with a relationship in admissions probably has influence with admissions too at the expense of a "more qualified" candidate. It can never be perfect.

As I have said before, white male cadets at USAFA have nothing to fear. The campus is chalk full of that demographic (each with their own subset of diversity). Subjectively, admissions is obviously wanting a more diverse cadets specifically including skin color and race. To get more applicants and to raise the standards even more, they advertised. So after all of this conversation, do you still think it is a waste of money and unwarranted?

 

[haleym]

MLK fought (and died) for equal treatment of ALL people, based on the constitutional provisions which guaranteed the same. MLK never argued that black people should be given "special" treatment. Indeed that would have conflicted with everything else he was saying. Others in the "Black Power" movement did argue for special treatment, and reparations, but MLK had conflict with some of the leadership of those movements. "The New Segregation"is an essay written in 1992 by Shelby Steele, a black female who attended one of the last segregated schools in Chicago. She is, I believe, brilliant, and has written a lot of other good things, but "The New Segregation" very much applies to this conversation. Read it if you have the chance.

Just a quick clarification- Shelby Steele is a male. I'm also familiar with his writings, as we recently read up on his position in Philosophy of Law. I used to think that affirmative action was a positive until I read his position- and I feel he made a lot of really strong points. This is what I drew from it (for anyone who cares... LOL ):
- A lot of times, the diversity at universities is manufactured: "too often the result of this on campuses has been a democracy of colors rather than people, an artificial diversity that gives the appearance of an educational parity between black and white students that has not yet been achieved in reality."
- He also points out that while it is generally out of good will, the affects are troubling, as the preference can cause a sort of inferiority in minorities and women. I cannot even begin to count how many times I've heard that a female cadet got a position "because she's a girl". Even if you earn it fair and square, people will always attribute your success to your gender or skin color. When affirmative action is in place, the only person that is seemingly capable of gaining admission or earning a position completely on their own accord ends up being.... a white male. Ouch.
- Lastly, one of my own conclusions I drew from his paper was about what example we're setting by implementing affirmative action specifically in the work force (i.e. promoting someone based on gender/minority status). My father recently had a superior pass away, and she was a trailblazer in his department. More than that, though, she cared about her people and knew how to do her job. I kept thinking to myself that THAT'S the person I want to be... to earn something and set a great example for other women out there by showing that hard work and dedication is what got me to where I am. If a woman in a high up position is lazy, unqualified, etc. etc. but you promoted her simply because she was a woman, THAT is the standard you are setting for other women. Rest assured that is not a set bar that I (or any other self respecting woman) needs or desires.

However, I do believe that USAFA is often trying to actually get that diversity of persons. Like ChristCorp said, we don't all start off with the same opportunities, schooling and parenting are NOT equal, and life definitely isn't fair. So because someone went to a lesser school and had less opportunities (and therefore lower scores) in my opinion should not disqualify them if they meet the standards. I really admire those who are able to rise out of their situation and try for a spot here. I think there are a lot of HS students who fall into this category that deserve that fighting chance and I admire their tenacity to strive for excellence despite tougher conditions.
I think this is different than diversity recruiting for the sake of being more politically correct. Here's his article if you're interested... very good stuff: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/13/magazine/a-negative-vote-on-affirmative-action.html?pagewanted=all

Additionally, @TexasSoccerMom, I understand your son's frustration, but his perspective is very limited. The commercial brings attention to the fact that people who gain admission to the Air Force Academy have a whole myriad of opportunities that they may not have realized otherwise. Unfamiliar people tend to think that Air Force = planes, when that is not the case at all. I have friends going to medical school, pilot training, BUD/S, who will be engineers... I could go on. A commercial on the rigors of the application ("you must have many extra curriculars, honor student, etc etc!!") is not exactly a selling point. After watching it, I'm guessing this commercial is geared towards younger kids, who have the ability (if they are seriously interested) to look up the requirements on their own and start working towards a goal or say "WOW, this is not for me". A free education, the chance to serve your country, jump out of planes, study what you love and have a guaranteed job- these are all things that we take for granted because we already know about how great this opportunity is. The aim of the commercial is to empower students and make them aware of the opportunities they would have if they were to gain admission to the Air Force Academy... and I don't find anything wrong with that.

Edit: apologize for the novel. You brought out the phil. minor in me and I love discussing stuff like this.

 

[Christcorp]

Brovol. being you ask.

Yes, if the standards were changed or lowered for a group of applicants, that indeed would be wrong. Fortunately, but maybe unfortunately for your argument, the academy hasn't lowered or used a different set of standards for certain groups of applicants.

Consider the standards as being being pregnant. "You ARE..... or you're NOT". In this discussion, it's either: "You MEET the standards...... or you DON'T". And I feel quite confident in stating that the appointees coming to the academy ALL MEET the standards.

The problem is, the vast majority of the applicants/appointees more than meet the standards. They EXCEED the standards tremendously. The problem I see with many people's arguments is: They DON'T WANT standards. Or maybe more accurately, they want a "Rolling Set of Standards". Meaning, they simply want the academy to take the TOP SCORING 1200 applicants, and that's the end of the discussion.

The problem with that theory, while sounding fair, is that more than half of the scoring is somewhat subjective. And that's where we keep butting heads. Even in the portion for academics, it has to be subjective. Not every school has the same level of classes available or same opportunities. The academy can't penalize an applicant because they didn't take AP or IB classes if non are available. On the other hand, due to a LACK of initiative and motivation, the academy will penalize you if such classes are available and you choose instead to take the State Minimum Required classes and don't take any advanced classes.

Also, the academy can't simply say we will take the top 1200 scoring applicants. Federal law says that approximately 535 appointments will come from the representative's and senator's slates. This is not only to allow for geographical diversity, but also because ALL districts, states, citizens, pay taxes. And as such, each tax payer/district should be represented at a tax funded military academy. The academy has absolutely no say so on this. You don't like it, get with your congressman/woman and have the law changed.

Bottom line is: you don't know what the appointee's scores are. You don't know what the non-appointee's scores are. Yes, the academy want diversity. For all the reasons that have been posted hundreds of times. But you're also assuming (Incorrectly) that in that quest for diversity, that standards are lowered or overlooked. I'm telling you that they aren't. All appointees meet the standards. But based on Einstein's law of relativity, it APPEARS that standards are lowered or overlooked, because such a high percentage of appointees surpass the standards.

And every cadet/grad will tell you that there aren't any BIRD courses at the academies. So what good would lowering or ignoring standards to enter the academy, if the individuals they let in weren't able to pass the courses?

Here's a tidbit of info.
The average GPA for appointees coming to the academy is: 3.86
The average GPA for cadets AT THE ACADEMY is 2.71

Now, if the best and the brightest coming out of high school, who average a 3.86, is averaging a 2.71 at the academy, (This is an accurate academy gpa average), hwhat would happen to the individual you believe they've lowered the standards on, who came in with say a 2.5 gpa? Chances are, they wouldn't make it through the academy. In which case, it was a total waste of time even getting them into the academy.

You believe that the standards have been lowered or changed because of wanting more people of race or gender. Yet, you don't know that. That is speculation. I contend that every appointee to the academy has met the SAME STANDARDS. I think what you're wanting to say is being the vast majority of appointees far EXCEEDED the standards; that the academy should choose the 1200 individuals who exceeded the standards the most. And in a perfect world, that would be the best solution. Unfortunately, the 12,000+ applicants aren't all on the same footing. They don't all have the same opportunities, the same classes available, the same social or economic experiences, etc. So while ALL of the appointees meet the SAME STANDARDS, it isn't as simple as YES/NO to particular standards. It's a scoring that has to take into consideration what I've said numerous times. What an applicant had to work with; what they did with it; and how they succeeded with it. A 3.8 gpa in the IB program isn't the same as a 3.8 in state minimum required classes. But also, the individual that only has state minimum required classes available shouldn't be penalized either. The same with all of the rest of the application that is being scored. But I assure you; ALL of the appointees have MET THE STANDARDS to enter the academy.

 

[jag3]

I can confirm the gpa point made above.

Our son was a solid unweighted 3.87 (A) in HS and according to his text yesterday "might" hit 3.0 this semester.

 

[brovol]

I asked the question to see you think that in 2017, the ethnic/gender playing fields are equal. You said "They don't need "special help", just because of their skin color or gender." We disagree. Just because I can point to outliers who didn't need help doesn't mean their isn't a problem. I assume there is a black female generals that came from broken home; she would therefore be an outlier. We are talking about averages. So by default, not everyone needs "help" so I guess we agree. Yet statistically and in some instances, we have a loooooong way to go.

A decade ago, 80-90% of the generals and admirals were white males. To me at least, that's not ideal. No, 51% should not necessarily be female. In the 70's, USAFA was basically all white. So in the 70's, "did they need help because of their skin color or gender"? Putting it another way, why do you think there is a more diverse group of talented cadets in 2017. After all, the metrics have increased and the competition has become stiffer. To me at least, whatever was done has helped. Change didn't happen organically because it was the right thing to do. A quick google will show you articles where current military leaders agree. Therefore, I propose in certain cases as vetted by statistics, gender and skin color DO still need "special help". Not automatically. There are hurtful ways that backfire (more harm than good) and better ways that still and always will have slight consequences. This is nothing new. Nepotism (sons and daughters of generals) will be rounded up into USAFA. A coach with a relationship in admissions probably has influence with admissions too at the expense of a "more qualified" candidate. It can never be perfect.

As I have said before, white male cadets at USAFA have nothing to fear. The campus is chalk full of that demographic (each with their own subset of diversity). Subjectively, admissions is obviously wanting a more diverse cadets specifically including skin color and race. To get more applicants and to raise the standards even more, they advertised. So after all of this conversation, do you still think it is a waste of money and unwarranted?

There are not many physically handicapped people serving as officers or enlisted soldiers and sailors in the military either, and yet physically handicapped kids are not only denied special consideration if they apply to the academies; they are deemed unfit for appointment. Quadriplegic people are a very very underrepresented group of students at the academies. Indeed, I am not aware of any. Because the numbers would suggest that physically handicapped people are underrepresented, and no one will deny that they should not be discriminated against, shouldn't we establish some policies to admit a certain percentage of physically handicapped applicants? Or, would that be a bad idea?

 

[AROTC-dad]

There are not many physically handicapped people serving as officers or enlisted soldiers and sailors in the military either

DoDMERB is colorblind.

There is a fitness and health standard. Christcorp has said that EVERYONE, regardless of color or gender must meet the minimum health and fitness standard.

Respectfully, this analogy in my opinion, does not contribute to the discussion.

 

[brovol]

Brovol. being you ask.

Yes, if the standards were changed or lowered for a group of applicants, that indeed would be wrong. Fortunately, but maybe unfortunately for your argument, the academy hasn't lowered or used a different set of standards for certain groups of applicants.

Consider the standards as being being pregnant. "You ARE..... or you're NOT". In this discussion, it's either: "You MEET the standards...... or you DON'T". And I feel quite confident in stating that the appointees coming to the academy ALL MEET the standards.

The problem is, the vast majority of the applicants/appointees more than meet the standards. They EXCEED the standards tremendously. The problem I see with many people's arguments is: They DON'T WANT standards. Or maybe more accurately, they want a "Rolling Set of Standards". Meaning, they simply want the academy to take the TOP SCORING 1200 applicants, and that's the end of the discussion.

The problem with that theory, while sounding fair, is that more than half of the scoring is somewhat subjective. And that's where we keep butting heads. Even in the portion for academics, it has to be subjective. Not every school has the same level of classes available or same opportunities. The academy can't penalize an applicant because they didn't take AP or IB classes if non are available. On the other hand, due to a LACK of initiative and motivation, the academy will penalize you if such classes are available and you choose instead to take the State Minimum Required classes and don't take any advanced classes.

Also, the academy can't simply say we will take the top 1200 scoring applicants. Federal law says that approximately 535 appointments will come from the representative's and senator's slates. This is not only to allow for geographical diversity, but also because ALL districts, states, citizens, pay taxes. And as such, each tax payer/district should be represented at a tax funded military academy. The academy has absolutely no say so on this. You don't like it, get with your congressman/woman and have the law changed.

Bottom line is: you don't know what the appointee's scores are. You don't know what the non-appointee's scores are. Yes, the academy want diversity. For all the reasons that have been posted hundreds of times. But you're also assuming (Incorrectly) that in that quest for diversity, that standards are lowered or overlooked. I'm telling you that they aren't. All appointees meet the standards. But based on Einstein's law of relativity, it APPEARS that standards are lowered or overlooked, because such a high percentage of appointees surpass the standards.

And every cadet/grad will tell you that there aren't any BIRD courses at the academies. So what good would lowering or ignoring standards to enter the academy, if the individuals they let in weren't able to pass the courses?

Here's a tidbit of info.
The average GPA for appointees coming to the academy is: 3.86
The average GPA for cadets AT THE ACADEMY is 2.71

Now, if the best and the brightest coming out of high school, who average a 3.86, is averaging a 2.71 at the academy, (This is an accurate academy gpa average), hwhat would happen to the individual you believe they've lowered the standards on, who came in with say a 2.5 gpa? Chances are, they wouldn't make it through the academy. In which case, it was a total waste of time even getting them into the academy.

You believe that the standards have been lowered or changed because of wanting more people of race or gender. Yet, you don't know that. That is speculation. I contend that every appointee to the academy has met the SAME STANDARDS. I think what you're wanting to say is being the vast majority of appointees far EXCEEDED the standards; that the academy should choose the 1200 individuals who exceeded the standards the most. And in a perfect world, that would be the best solution. Unfortunately, the 12,000+ applicants aren't all on the same footing. They don't all have the same opportunities, the same classes available, the same social or economic experiences, etc. So while ALL of the appointees meet the SAME STANDARDS, it isn't as simple as YES/NO to particular standards. It's a scoring that has to take into consideration what I've said numerous times. What an applicant had to work with; what they did with it; and how they succeeded with it. A 3.8 gpa in the IB program isn't the same as a 3.8 in state minimum required classes. But also, the individual that only has state minimum required classes available shouldn't be penalized either. The same with all of the rest of the application that is being scored. But I assure you; ALL of the appointees have MET THE STANDARDS to enter the academy.

Christcorp, I'm not sure I understand the point with most of this post. I am perfectly fine with how the academies select students, and even said earlier that they do a better job selecting incredible students than any other college. My single problem is IF they are giving special consideration for underrepresented applicants. I very clearly and thoughtfully articulated the reasons for why I object to such special consideration based on class, and thus far, while a few folks have objected to my opinion, no one has even remotely rebutted the reasoning for my conclusions.

I certainly do not have access to the secret formulas used at each of the academies to determine who gets appointments and who doesnt, and dont know the secret handshake to get the information needed to answer the question definitively, but i firmly believe, based on an abundance of evidence supporting the same, that there are modified standards for underrepresented applicants at each of the academies. And while you are an AOL, I know that you too are in the dark on the specifics, and therefore you do not know for certainty either, so we can draw our own conclusions. My strong suspicion is that you too believe that admissions distinguishes between underrepresented and regular applicants, but just arent sure to what extent. When you look at the percentages of total underrepresented applicants offered appointments compared to total underrepresented applications submitted, you will see that the acceptance percentage is a much larger than those who are not underrepresented. And consider that statistically each classification (white, black, men, women) will, presumably, have a certain percentage of applicants in the highest qualified range, medium and low, but because the number of white male applicants is so high (say ten thousand) only those in the top ten percent will be offered appointment, whereas, underrepresented applicants, based on the number of appointments offered, will go into the medium levels.

We can debate this issue, but I have qualified my comments throughout by saying IF underrepresented candidates get more love from admissions.... So we can preserve the frame of the debate.

Onward and forward. Bottom line; our academies to a great job of educating and making leaders. I love them all; even if I love West Point the most (and admit my bias).

 

[AROTC-dad]

My single problem is IF they are giving special consideration for underrepresented applicants

2LT Henry Ossian Flipper... was very likely given such consideration. Thank goodness.

 

[skismuggs]

There are not many physically handicapped people serving as officers or enlisted soldiers and sailors in the military either, and yet physically handicapped kids are not only denied special consideration if they apply to the academies; they are deemed unfit for appointment. Quadriplegic people are a very very underrepresented group of students at the academies. Indeed, I am not aware of any. Because the numbers would suggest that physically handicapped people are underrepresented, and no one will deny that they should not be discriminated against, shouldn't we establish some policies to admit a certain percentage of physically handicapped applicants? Or, would that be a bad idea?

Are you really, seriously suggesting this? I try to stay away from arguing on here but as a medical professional I had to respond to what I feel is a really bad idea.

Would you want an asthmatic officer leading a platoon having a severe attack because of all the smoke, dust and gunpowder in a firefight?
Would you want a red-green color blind officer or soldier miss a red tripwire because he thought it was a brown piece of string?
Would you want a pilot to have a seizure during air operations?
Would you want your peanut allergic language translator having an anaphylactic attack because his buddies opened a can of mixed nuts the night before an operation?
Would you want a quadriplegic tank commander in his tank as it burns because he could not get out?
Would you want a deaf sonar operator?

Answer the questions first then answer the questions in the context of "would you want that officer in charge of your son or mine? There is a reason they have DODMERB. It is both to protect the individual and the people around him/her.

 

[Christcorp]

Let's clarify some thing.
1. Most, I won't say all, ALOs tell their applicants to put in their essays and any other place in their application they can find, their diversity. What makes them different and unique vs their competition. The challenges and adversities they had to overcome, etc. Obviously race and gender aren't required. That's a known quantity. The academy admissions encourages and welcomes this diversity input. E.g. 1st member of family to apply to college, single parent, having to raise siblings, working the farm or after school job to contribute to family income, 1st generation immigrant, parents died and raised by grandparents or orphanage, etc. Applicants are encourages to fit this info into their applications.
2. Every candidate is treated as an individual in their application. And based on their application, including the info provided in #1 above, will be assessed and scored accordingly.
3. Every applicant is give special consideration, based on their application. It just so happens that some applicants have had more challenges, adversities, and other diverse unique situations of their life compared to some others.
4. Due to economic and social conditions, there are more minorities from heavily populated areas vs places like wyoming, dakotas, Idaho, etc. So it may appear that the academy is aiming for more minorities, when in fact they are aiming for more people with similar backgrounds economically and socially. More just happen to be minority. (I've seen quite a few who were appointed because of similar diversity who were white).
5. The academy advertises on tv and such to dispel the stereotype that the academy is just for the common suburban student raised in a traditional family, social, and economic environment.
6. The academy advertises, so they don't have to be forced with the possibility of compromising or lowering standards. They want to increase to qualified pool of applicants.

When I hire personnel, I narrow the list to who is QUALIFIED. But when it's time to choose, I don't do so based on MOST QUALIFIED meaning just academics and experience. Most QUALIFIED also includes the best fit for my organization, that will create the best synergy among all employees and better the organization.

The academy is no different. Once they've narrowed down the pool to roughly 3,000 candidates, who also have nominations, they then choose approximately 535 from the MOC slates. No choice here. They MUST choose from that. They do the same for another 120 or so from the military pools such as presidential, rotc, etc. Then, the remaining 500 or so come from the national pool. All of these remaining 2500 or so ARE QUALIFIED. They was already established. No standards are being lowered. All considerations on the non-tangible attributes in their applications have been scored. The academy then selects those remaining 500 or so.

The academy could probably find 500 easily just from California, Texas, Virginia, and Florida. Being they proportionately have the most applicants. But the academy wants a diversified class. That's where all the non-tangibles come in.

The bottom line is, all of these appointees are QUALIFIED. The problem is, many critics believe that their definition of Most Qualified isn't the same as the academy. And when a 3.9 gpa and 34 ACT applicant doesn't get appointed, they think it's not fair. Or they were scored unequally. We do the same with our every day lives. We don't always buy from the store that is the biggest. Or get our car worked on by the dealership who is technically the Most Qualified. We include Non-Tangibles like customer service, convenience, and price. Well, there's a lot of non-tangibles is the application process that affect the selection. But again, a ALL appointees are QUALIFIED.

 

[Trackgirl1999]

Wow! It has been an education reading this thread.

 

[brovol]

Are you really, seriously suggesting this? I try to stay away from arguing on here but as a medical professional I had to respond to what I feel is a really bad idea.

Would you want an asthmatic officer leading a platoon having a severe attack because of all the smoke, dust and gunpowder in a firefight?
Would you want a red-green color blind officer or soldier miss a red tripwire because he thought it was a brown piece of string?
Would you want a pilot to have a seizure during air operations?
Would you want your peanut allergic language translator having an anaphylactic attack because his buddies opened a can of mixed nuts the night before an operation?
Would you want a quadriplegic tank commander in his tank as it burns because he could not get out?
Would you want a deaf sonar operator?

Answer the questions first then answer the questions in the context of "would you want that officer in charge of your son or mine? There is a reason they have DODMERB. It is both to protect the individual and the people around him/her.

I am sorry. I assumed everyone would be able to identify conspicuous sarcasm.. there I go with my assumptions again.

 

[Capri120]

Brovol, it's all good. We needed some lively discussion.