Two nomination issue

[A1Janitor]

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.

I will bow out. I said there is another slate to compete on.

But - we don’t know if the extra one improves odds or not.

For instance - what if the candidate is the best on MOC but the eighth best on Senate slate. We don’t have the info to know if it improves odds of appointment or not.

 

[Dadx4]

if the candidate is the best on MOC

If the candidate wins the MOC slate and is 3Q then the candidate receives an appointment offer.

 

[A1Janitor]

If the candidate wins the MOC slate and is 3Q then the candidate receives an appointment offer.

And thus the second nom didn’t improve the odds. The odds were 100%.

So again - we don’t know if the second nom increases odds or not. We don’t have the information to make that call. Maybe maybe not.

 

[Dadx4]

And thus the second nom didn’t improve the odds. The odds were 100%.

So again - we don’t know if the second nom increases odds or not. We don’t have the information to make that call. Maybe maybe not.

So we can respectfully agree to disagree. If he was not first on the MOC nom, he has another opportunity to compete on the senate slate or presidential, or JROTC, etc. More nominations = more opportunity to compete. More competition = increase chance of appointment. I think from a policy perspective, it is important for candidates to pursue every nomination possible, so the message that we send should reflect that policy.

 

[GADestiny]

Wow... I've never been so happy that my kid did not receive 2 Senators Noms (just 1 local MOC nom) after reading all these post

Showing love to all dads (and moms) !!!

 

[ThePatternisFull]

Respectfully disagree. Every nomination moves the appointment needle towards green.

Nope! Also why not get more than one nomination??? If one earns it take it!! Sorry DS earned 3 noms and a second to USNA. Earned each one and we are in a state where the MOC’s do communicate.

 

[Adopt3]

Nope! Also why not get more than one nomination??? If one earns it take it!! Sorry DS earned 3 noms and a second to USNA. Earned each one and we are in a state where the MOC’s do communicate.

My DS has multiple noms to USNA and USMA, but we have never received anything from either Senator. No calls, emails, or snail mail. We can just see them in the portal. We did eventually receive snail mail from the MOC that gave him 3 nominations. I don’t think we should feel anything but excited for him because the Senators gave no further instructions. The MOC noms came first to each academy. I am not sure if ours communicate with each other or not.

 

[usna1985]

Having more than one MOC nom gives you more opportunities to win a slate (assuming competitive nom process). That CAN help, especially if you're a well-qualified candidate. However, if USMA thinks you're at the bottom of each slate, it's probably not going to matter.

For the OP . . . proves that sometimes the "good guys" win! Did the right thing and got rewarded. Hope it works out with an appointment.

 

[Dadx4]

why not get more than one nomination

I fully support more than one nomination. I wish that opportunity was available to all candidates.

Nope!

See usna1985 above. "Having more than one MOC nom gives you more opportunities to win a slate" = win an appointment if 3Q

 

[A1Janitor]

I fully support more than one nomination. I wish that opportunity was available to all candidates.


See usna1985 above. "Having more than one MOC nom gives you more opportunities to win a slate" = win an appointment if 3Q

I don’t understand why you are pushing this.
It MAY increase the candidate’s odds to be appointed. But It MAY NOT increase the odds at all. It depends on the strength of the candidate vs. the strength of the competition.

If a candidate wins the first slate, the second nom doesn’t improve odds at

If a candidate is at the bottom of each slate, the second nom doesn’t improve the odds at all.

The only way it improves odds is if the candidate loses a slate but wins another slate.

And in most states - logic tells me that if you don’t win your MOC slate - a senator nom is tougher to win the slate.

Does it hurt? No - get as many as you can.

 

[okboomer]

I don’t understand why you are pushing this.
It MAY increase the candidate’s odds to be appointed. But It MAY NOT increase the odds at all. It depends on the strength of the candidate vs. the strength of the competition.

If a candidate wins the first slate, the second nom doesn’t improve odds at

If a candidate is at the bottom of each slate, the second nom doesn’t improve the odds at all.

The only way it improves odds is if the candidate loses a slate but wins another slate.

And in most states - logic tells me that if you don’t win your MOC slate - a senator nom is tougher to win the slate.

Does it hurt? No - get as many as you can.

Multiple nominations do not increase a candidate’s competitiveness is what you are saying. From purely a statistical perspective, a candidate with more nominations has better odds than one with a single nomination.

 

[Dadx4]

I don’t understand why you are pushing this

I'm not pushing anything. I'm stating my opinion that for 3Q candidates, more nominations equates to more opportunities for appointment, and I believe the process should be more uniform to allow all candidates to be considered for as many nominations as they can earn (i.e. merit based), and to as many academies as they want to apply . Apply for all possible nominations. This is the official policy.

Does it hurt? No - get as many as you can.

This is contradictory.

 

[A1Janitor]

I'm not pushing anything. I'm stating my opinion that for 3Q candidates, more nominations equates to more opportunities for appointment, and I believe the process should be more uniform to allow all candidates to be considered for as many nominations as they can earn (i.e. merit based), and to as many academies as they want to apply . Apply for all possible nominations. This is the official policy.


This is contradictory.

Not really.

It can’t hurt to get a second nomination... other than what Capt MJ said could happen behind closed doors if a Candidate grabbed a second nom from a state that wants to pass them on and limit second noms.

But not hurting doesn’t mean it has to help.

Apply for all noms is the policy. You would hate to be a qualified candidate and not secure any noms.

 

[A1Janitor]

Multiple nominations do not increase a candidate’s competitiveness is what you are saying. From purely a statistical perspective, a candidate with more nominations has better odds than one with a single nomination.

You don’t know that.

If a SA pulled appointments out of a hat randomly - you would be right.

My son - for instance - his odds would not have changed at all if he got more than one Nom because he was LOA.

But it is based on competition.

What if a minimally qualified candidate with minimum scores gets two noms. On the first slate - is an LOA Ahead of him. On the second slate ... there are three LOAs. His odds didn’t increase.

 

[Dadx4]

What if a minimally qualified candidate with minimum scores gets two noms. On the first slate - is an LOA Ahead of him. On the second slate ... there are three LOAs. His odds didn’t increase.

This is a game of "what if" that could go on forever. What if the three LOA candidates on the second slate went ROTC or to other academies, and she was #4, then it helped. Multiple noms absolutely increases the chance of an appointment, by the numbers, however slim the margin. If she didn't have the second nom, all would have been lost. Respectfully disengaging from the "what ifs."

 

[okboomer]

You don’t know that.

If a SA pulled appointments out of a hat randomly - you would be right.

My son - for instance - his odds would not have changed at all if he got more than one Nom because he was LOA.

But it is based on competition.

What if a minimally qualified candidate with minimum scores gets two noms. On the first slate - is an LOA Ahead of him. On the second slate ... there are three LOAs. His odds didn’t increase.

Math, bruh. Not competitiveness. Math aka statistical probability

 

[Capt MJ]

My head hurts.

More noms does not increase the scored value of the application.

Additional noms give the SA more flexibility in where to charge an appointment. It’s another “look,” in some ways.

This will, in many cases, work to the benefit of the applicant. For some, it makes no difference. Since this is not known at the start of the cycle, the SA encourages applying for all noms.

 

[A1Janitor]

Math, bruh. Not competitiveness. Math aka statistical probability

LMAO

My identical twin brother has a PhD in Econ, a master in statistics, and a bachelor in math.

He disagrees with you.

You don’t know if it actually increases your chances when there are unknown variables.

 

[A1Janitor]

My head hurts.

More noms does not increase the scored value of the application.

Additional noms give the SA more flexibility in where to charge an appointment. It’s another “look,” in some ways.

This will, in many cases, work to the benefit of the applicant. For some, it makes no difference. Since this is not known at the start of the cycle, the SA encourages applying for all noms.

Exactly.

Or in other words - it may help.

 

[Heatherg21]

I would like to just congratulate all the kids who earned nominations, whether it be 1 or 5--- and know the process isn't going to change because we may or may not have an opinion about it. I for one am glad my kid applied for all sources. He and we, were humbled by the nominations he received. And we are in a state where Senators communicate. Am I relieved he has an appointment to USNA, absolutely.

The most important thing I have taken away from all of the forum threads I have read, is this: if it is outside of your control, let it go. I am not good at it, but I am trying. And when my kid has angst, I am reminding him of it that practice; we actually discussed it last night regarding a school policy he was frustrated with that is out of his control and sphere of influence.

Why stress or have angst over something that is out of your control or sphere of influence???? Some wise person said stressing about something is like paying interest on something you haven't bought yet (or something close to that). Bravo Zulu to all who are reaping the fruits of their labor.