Two nomination issue

country_roads

country_roads

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
53
I got a senate nomination to USMA about a week ago. It was my first nomination, and I was pretty excited. I checked my portal a couple days ago and found out that I got a congressional one as well, which for all intents and purposes is obviously a good thing. However, in the senate nom notification, it requested that if I have already received a nomination l should let them know, and they will rescind it. I’m my question is whether this second nomination would fall in that category, as I received it after the senate one? I’m very glad to have been given the chance to compete for both, let alone get them, and I know that having two nominations will only help my chances, but I also don’t want to “hog” two nominations.
 
Hypothetical discussions behind the scenes:

In the SA Admissions Office:
“This is interesting, Candidate C Roads got both Senator and Rep noms in state X. I thought X collaborated and didn’t duplicate noms. Something must have changed.”

Some time later, Admissions staffer is chatting with Senate staffer about routine business: “Has something changed in X with nom duplication? We recently had a candidate with two noms from X, your Senator and the Rep.”
Senator staffer: “We ask our nominees to notify us if they receive another nomination so we can rescind. What was that candidate’s name? I’m surprised they didn’t do what was asked.”


If you are clear on what is being asked, pick up the phone and let the Senate staffer know, and warmly thank them.

If you are unclear on what is being asked, pick up the phone and politely let the staffer know your circumstances, and say you wanted to ensure you were clear on what they were asking so you could abide by their policy. Thank them warmly.

Take pride in the fact you didn’t hesitate a minute (or very long) before taking action that helps someone else to get a nom and their shot. The collaboration policy may strike you as unfair. You can’t do anything about it, so you keep moving.


Well done on the noms! Don’t let this sit. They are probably in the office a few more hours today.
 
Capt MJ said:
Hypothetical discussions behind the scenes:

In the SA Admissions Office:
“This is interesting, Candidate C Roads got both Senator and Rep noms in state X. I thought X collaborated and didn’t duplicate noms. Something must have changed.”

Some time later, Admissions staffer is chatting with Senate staffer about routine business: “Has something changed in X with nom duplication? We recently had a candidate with two noms from X, your Senator and the Rep.”
Senator staffer: “We ask our nominees to notify us if they receive another nomination so we can rescind. What was that candidate’s name? I’m surprised they didn’t do what was asked.”


If you are clear on what is being asked, pick up the phone and let the Senate staffer know, and warmly thank them.

If you are unclear on what is being asked, pick up the phone and politely let the staffer know your circumstances, and say you wanted to ensure you were clear on what they were asking so you could abide by their policy. Thank them warmly.

Take pride in the fact you didn’t hesitate a minute (or very long) before taking action that helps someone else to get a nom and their shot. The collaboration policy may strike you as unfair. You can’t do anything about it, so you keep moving.


Well done on the noms! Don’t let this sit. They are probably in the office a few more hours today.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the response. It's a long way from immature to mature that can and does happen instantaneously.
 
Capt MJ said:
collaboration policy may strike you as unfair
Click to expand...
I have always thought it was unfair to allow some candidates 3-4 nominations at multiple academies and others only 1 nomination at a single academy due to collaboration. But Capt MJ is absolutely right...nothing you can do but drive forward and do your best. Congrats on making the right call!
 
Really weird update (if anyone’s still following this thread): after informing the senator’s office (and them stating that there was no need to give me the nomination), they ended up giving it to me anyways...I called and apparently it was not a mistake. I’m really confused, but I guess they have their reasons?
 
country_roadsNY said:
Really weird update (if anyone’s still following this thread): after informing the senator’s office (and them stating that there was no need to give me the nomination), they ended up giving it to me anyways...I called and apparently it was not a mistake. I’m really confused, but I guess they have their reasons?
Click to expand...
That's a great update! I'll bet something changed behind the scenes and they remembered you for your selfless actions. Really happy for you!
 
country_roadsNY said:
Really weird update (if anyone’s still following this thread): after informing the senator’s office (and them stating that there was no need to give me the nomination), they ended up giving it to me anyways...I called and apparently it was not a mistake. I’m really confused, but I guess they have their reasons?
Click to expand...

I suspect it is because they felt like you deserved the nomination, and didn’t want to change the results.

It does nothing for you ... other than give you some positive spin to the ones evaluating you (which I think is huge) ... and give you another slate.

All positive.
 
Dadx4 said:
Respectfully disagree. Every nomination moves the appointment needle towards green.
Click to expand...

Read the whole comment. It does nothing for you other than putting a positive spin on your application and gives you another slate.

I said it is all positive.

One nomination secures a necessary item for appointment. Other than what I mentioned in bold, another nomination doesn’t necessarily improve chances.

What if both slates are very competitive for instance? Senate slates tend to be more competitive than MOC.
 
A1Janitor said:
Read the whole comment
Click to expand...
I read the whole comment. "It does nothing for you" is an independent clause that throws doubt into the entire sentence. Your bold type is dependent, i.e. it cannot stand alone without the first clause. But, I agree with you if you think more nominations = better chance of appointment. :)
 
Dadx4 said:
I read the whole comment. "It does nothing for you" is an independent clause that throws doubt into the entire sentence. Your bold type is dependent, i.e. it cannot stand alone without the first clause. But, I agree with you if you think more nominations = better chance of appointment. :)
Click to expand...

We don’t know if more nominations = a better chance of appointment. Maybe. Maybe not.

This is a competition on each slate. Not lottery tickets.
 
A different angle - candidate a has a chance to compete with set A of 9 other candidates and set B of 9 other candidates whereas the next candidate has the chance to compete only against set B of 9 other candidates. The second nomination provided more than nothing. It provided another field to compete on. That was my original objection.

As to the idea of two nominations not making you more competitive from a WCS or whatever the scoring rubric is called, I’d agree with that notion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top