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.