USAFA Applications down 27.6%?

[Small Team Bacsi]

The number of high school grads is decreasing (US demographics), international student enrollment took a hit (also US schools must compete with more affordable universities in other countries for internationals). For private universities it makes total sense to go test optional. To survive. To fill 1000-2000 freshman seats, to stay in business, you may have to admit more students with a lower SAT resulting in a lower admitted average relative to history - not a good look as parents shop for schools so test optional is a boon for non elite universities. And touchy-feely good promo. For the SAs I do worry that the media and politicians have fostered the spirit of Americans hating America. To be positive about our country is almost a moral offense that can get you canceled if you have any visible job. So who will be attracted to defend it? There is wisdom in that house divided notion. Very sad. And apparently the Chinese are buying up our farmland.

So you think the attack on the capital Jan 6 is a reason for these confused feelings and less interest in defending our country?

It certainly did not help.

 

[AFrpaso]

As I recall the raw data came from FOIA requests (Classes 2010-2017) and is presented in the following blog. USMA Data Source
I took the raw data and ran a linear regression to make the data/trend easier to view/understand. The attached file shows the data. Clearly and not surprisingly, likelihood of graduating (related to the CQPA score) is highly correlated to SAT scores. The final chart shows the relationship between CQPA and graduation/separation. WRT the final chart, USMA didn't release the codes for their single letters for "Usma Stat Cd", but it is believed that "G" is graduated and "S" is separated. As you can see the lower the CQPA (and by correlation, the lower the SAT score), the lower the likelihood that a cadet would graduate. Although this raw data was provided by USMA, I would argue that, if comparable date were to be released by USAFA and USNA, we would observe similar trends. However, getting data via a FOIA request is time taking - not to submit, but for USAFA (for example) to respond. Federal law requires a response within 20 days of submission, however, some USAFA FOIA requests are still awaiting responses after years (FOIA status).

Thanks, I checked-out the website and the pdf you posted. While I'd certainly not be surprised by the relationships that you describe (between GPA, SAT, and grad probability), the analysis seems a little shaky in the sense that quite a few assumptions and qualifiers placed before conclusions. I understand that most of the assumptions were required given the state of the data delivered from the FOIA request. I'm not surprised about that data quality, having worked with government data capture and databases in the past. It really is a shame that we are so limited in this area. It's also upsetting to me that FOIA requests have seemingly gone unanswered for so long. I hope that can eventually be resolved.

Again, I don't doubt that the correlations you describe exist. One thing that the blog keeps returning to is the "missed opportunity" of admitting students with higher SAT/ACT scores. Admissions very well could have offered appointments to that group of applicants, but those young adults ultimately chose other schools for whatever myriad of personal reasons. Should we call that a failure of the USMA admissions and recruiting teams to entice the "best of the best"? That's much harder to tell based off this data alone.

 

[ajw2004]

And next year the numbers will climb.

24% of Americans who wanted to attend the USAFA did not all at once change their mind in one year. Not for the long haul.

Short haul covid, vax, overall fatigue, an increase the previous year all and more could well have led to a temp turn down.

And the possible answer——-Tom Cruise and that darn movie. Look to see a possible giant increase at the USNA

Yeah, but if ppl do the research, or just know this from common sense, mostly ppl know that the Air Force is where the planes are at. Top Gun just glorified ONE airframe, cause it’s the star of their fighters. Air Force has much more to choose from both fighter and cargo planes. We all know this. 🤣🤣🤣

 

[Don't Give Up the Ship]

Yes, but We Give a Ship, and have big gas ships.

 

[Small Team Bacsi]

Yeah, but if ppl do the research, or just know this from common sense, mostly ppl know that the Air Force is where the planes are at. Top Gun just glorified ONE airframe, cause it’s the star of their fighters. Air Force has much more to choose from both fighter and cargo planes. We all know this. 🤣🤣🤣

Most people saw the and realized I was making a joke About a popular movie.

next time I will try to make it more clear with——

 

[JP4]

An item raised earlier in this thread was not enough personal visits and invitations compared to other academies. USAFA football would like to disagree with that.

Air Force gets probation for recruiting violations

The NCAA placed Air Force's football program on probation for two years Thursday and issued other penalties for recruiting violations committed during COVID-19 dead periods.

www.espn.com

 

[Falcon74]

Thanks, I checked-out the website and the pdf you posted. While I'd certainly not be surprised by the relationships that you describe (between GPA, SAT, and grad probability), the analysis seems a little shaky in the sense that quite a few assumptions and qualifiers placed before conclusions. I understand that most of the assumptions were required given the state of the data delivered from the FOIA request. I'm not surprised about that data quality, having worked with government data capture and databases in the past. It really is a shame that we are so limited in this area. It's also upsetting to me that FOIA requests have seemingly gone unanswered for so long. I hope that can eventually be resolved.

Again, I don't doubt that the correlations you describe exist. One thing that the blog keeps returning to is the "missed opportunity" of admitting students with higher SAT/ACT scores. Admissions very well could have offered appointments to that group of applicants, but those young adults ultimately chose other schools for whatever myriad of personal reasons. Should we call that a failure of the USMA admissions and recruiting teams to entice the "best of the best"? That's much harder to tell based off this data alone.

By law, FOIA requests have to be answered within 20 days, yet at least one such request at USAFA is closer to the second anniversary without a response of any kind. Apparently, some officials don't feel obligated to comply with federal law. Other requests have been waiting for shorter periods of time. As they say, "Don't hold your breath waiting for the response."

Unfortunately, there are "missed opportunities" every year. Some of the stories also include the thought that someone else with a greater chance of success might have used the slot and graduated.

I would suggest that the failure to offer appointments to candidates with higher application (not just academic or SAT) scores was and continues to be intentional. Those candidates with higher scores didn't turn down the services academies; they never had the opportunity to choose a service academy. In many cases, they were denied an appointment offer primarily because they couldn't claim minority status. Based on DOD guidance, the academy admissions offices continue to place a priority on minority classifications. That authority seems to result from a Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) which seemed to allow race conscious recruiting despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the US Constitution. The issue will return again to the Supreme Court this month (Docket Numbers 20-1199 and 21-707). Depending on the outcomes, admissions may once again become competitive and more open to all Americans. The docket numbers correspond to the following cases:

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL.

 

[AFrpaso]

Those candidates with higher scores didn't turn down the services academies; they never had the opportunity to choose a service academy.

The blog post states that they do not have the data on who actually received an admissions offer from USMA so this conclusion could not have been made.

From the post, emphasis theirs:
"(We note here that we do not have data indicating who actually received an admissions offer from USMA; just categories for “Candidate IDs”, those “qualified”, and data indicating who actually started at school. So we cannot calculate true offer yield, which we would want in order to see USMA’s true opportunity to get talent.)"

 

[flieger83]

By law, FOIA requests have to be answered within 20 days, yet at least one such request at USAFA is closer to the second anniversary without a response of any kind. Apparently, some officials don't feel obligated to comply with federal law. Other requests have been waiting for shorter periods of time. As they say, "Don't hold your breath waiting for the response."

Unfortunately, there are "missed opportunities" every year. Some of the stories also include the thought that someone else with a greater chance of success might have used the slot and graduated.

I would suggest that the failure to offer appointments to candidates with higher application (not just academic or SAT) scores was and continues to be intentional. Those candidates with higher scores didn't turn down the services academies; they never had the opportunity to choose a service academy. In many cases, they were denied an appointment offer primarily because they couldn't claim minority status. Based on DOD guidance, the academy admissions offices continue to place a priority on minority classifications. That authority seems to result from a Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) which seemed to allow race conscious recruiting despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the US Constitution. The issue will return again to the Supreme Court this month (Docket Numbers 20-1199 and 21-707). Depending on the outcomes, admissions may once again become competitive and more open to all Americans. The docket numbers correspond to the following cases:

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL.

The legal caveat "catch" to the 20 work-day law...

Under the FOIA, a component may extend the 20-day response time when "unusual circumstances" exist. Unusual circumstances exist in one of the following three situations:

1. the component needs to search for and collect responsive records from a field office or other entity separate from the office processing the request;
2. the request involves a "voluminous" amount of records that must be located, compiled, and reviewed; or
3. the component needs to consult with another federal agency or two or more Department of Justice components that have a substantial interest in the responsive information.

When an extension of time beyond 10 additional days is needed, the component will notify the requester in writing and offer the opportunity to modify or limit the scope of his or her request, or to arrange for an alternative time frame for completion of the component's processing. The component will also make available its FOIA Public Liaison to assist in the process.

 

[Falcon74]

The blog post states that they do not have the data on who actually received an admissions offer from USMA so this conclusion could not have been made.

From the post, emphasis theirs:
"(We note here that we do not have data indicating who actually received an admissions offer from USMA; just categories for “Candidate IDs”, those “qualified”, and data indicating who actually started at school. So we cannot calculate true offer yield, which we would want in order to see USMA’s true opportunity to get talent.)"

It is true that a more detailed conclusion would be possible if USMA released minority information. I assume that USMA has an interest in not allowing that information to be publicly known. However, the above conclusion is based on three "facts".

1. All candidates are not evaluated against the same "standard". Like other civilian schools, the "standard" for some students is not the same standard used for other students when it comes to admissions. If that statement were not true, there would be no need for the Supreme Court cases referenced above. BTW, there is an amicus briefing on file with the Supreme Court that addresses the implications of the Supreme Court decision on Service Academy admissions, in particular, and the Services in general.
2. The number of offers versus appointments is a matter of public record. Even if one were to assume (I think falsely) that All of the declined appointment offers were for the upper SAT ranges, there still would be candidates that were not offered appointments that had scores higher than the bottom end of the curve. If an academy offered appointments to all "qualified" candidates, I wouldn't be able to make that claim.
3. Contrary to popular opinion, most appointments are not required to be based on merit. Personally, I wish that appointments were based on merit, possibly with a geographic twist to ensure more/less equal distribution across the United Sates. For example, Congressmen/women and Senators are not required to nominate candidates based on merit. The nominators are free to nominate anyone they chose to nominate based on their criteria whatever that might be. If you check federal law on this regard, you will notice that the word "merit" is rarely used. Only a couple of the nominating categories actually use that word.

Collectively, these facts support the conclusion made earlier.

 

[Falcon74]

When an extension of time beyond 10 additional days is needed, the component will notify the requester in writing and offer the opportunity to modify or limit the scope of his or her request, or to arrange for an alternative time frame for completion of the component's processing. The component will also make available its FOIA Public Liaison to assist in the process.

It is my understanding that it took USAFA 11 months (12 Oct 20 - 29 Sep 21) to respond saying that questions had not been answered and that a case number had been assigned. A year later, the plaintiff made a request for an update. Judicial Watch just filed a lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff. FOIA lawsuit filed 23 Sep 2022

 

[justme]

It is true that a more detailed conclusion would be possible if USMA released minority information. I assume that USMA has an interest in not allowing that information to be publicly known. However, the above conclusion is based on three "facts".

1. All candidates are not evaluated against the same "standard". Like other civilian schools, the "standard" for some students is not the same standard used for other students when it comes to admissions. If that statement were not true, there would be no need for the Supreme Court cases referenced above. BTW, there is an amicus briefing on file with the Supreme Court that addresses the implications of the Supreme Court decision on Service Academy admissions, in particular, and the Services in general.
2. The number of offers versus appointments is a matter of public record. Even if one were to assume (I think falsely) that All of the declined appointment offers were for the upper SAT ranges, there still would be candidates that were not offered appointments that had scores higher than the bottom end of the curve. If an academy offered appointments to all "qualified" candidates, I wouldn't be able to make that claim.
3. Contrary to popular opinion, most appointments are not required to be based on merit. Personally, I wish that appointments were based on merit, possibly with a geographic twist to ensure more/less equal distribution across the United Sates. For example, Congressmen/women and Senators are not required to nominate candidates based on merit. The nominators are free to nominate anyone they chose to nominate based on their criteria whatever that might be. If you check federal law on this regard, you will notice that the word "merit" is rarely used. Only a couple of the nominating categories actually use that word.

How would one standardize and quantify the interview or leadership portion of the application process? And who is to say a 4.0 with no job or a 3.0 with a 20hr a week job earns more merit points. For some schools, it might be possible, but for SAs, I would think the scoring would be too subjective to ever be standardized nationally.

 

[flieger83]

How would one standardize and quantify the interview or leadership portion of the application process? And who is to say a 4.0 with no job or a 3.0 with a 20hr a week job earns more merit points. For some schools, it might be possible, but for SAs, I would think the scoring would be too subjective to ever be standardized nationally.

One area not discussed here is the ALO (or FFR and B&GO) in the process. As an ALO, my role; especially as an evaluator, is to fill in those gaps that the paperwork doesn't discuss. Example: the kid who lived on a farm, his father was killed in a farm accident; he's the oldest of five or six (it's been a while)...he has a good GPA, no sports, no anything...he gets up at 4AM, feeds the animals, goes to school, comes home and cares for the farm...and his siblings while his mom works two jobs.

He had no school activities, no sports, no clubs, nothing other than "sleep, farm, school, farm, sleep." His ALO wrote a LONG letter to admissions and copied everyone (I think he even sent a copy to the Supt)...bottom line: the young man was offered an appointment.

There are a LOT of "areas" that are looked at...don't get hung up on simple numbers.

 

[Falcon74]

How would one standardize and quantify the interview or leadership portion of the application process? And who is to say a 4.0 with no job or a 3.0 with a 20hr a week job earns more merit points. For some schools, it might be possible, but for SAs, I would think the scoring would be too subjective to ever be standardized nationally.

It is my understanding that the SAs already score the things you referenced in your post. Ultimately, each candidate is scored taking everything into consideration. You might want to suggest that the method they use to score leadership, interviews, and other items needs to be changed, but the scoring already exists.

 

[usmadata]

It is true that a more detailed conclusion would be possible if USMA released minority information. I assume that USMA has an interest in not allowing that information to be publicly known. However, the above conclusion is based on three "facts".
[...]
Collectively, these facts support the conclusion made earlier.

We're pleased to see this topic getting some attention! Thanks to you and AFrpaso for writing. We add a few comments:

1) The site and topics evolved past their original scope of validating empirical claims made in LTC Heffington's letter a few years ago. So yes, the data request and response requires some qualifying assumptions and boundaries. We hope we are thorough and transparent enough to identify them all and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

But while it's fair to say that we have to make assumptions, we also point out that the more "what ifs" the reader has to add in turn to keep the "party line" of merit-driven admissions plausible, the more improbable that party line is.

Next time, we'll be more targeted and thoughtful in our data request to avoid these issues.

2) The question of offer yield and opportunity is a big one. We agree with Falcon74's conclusion that the evidence and trends point to the Military Academy passing over most-qualified cadets for political, not military-efficacy, reasons.

3) Re: Missed Opportunity. Earlier this year and after the original admissions posts, we compared the pools of candidates who actually attended and who did not here: https://usmadata.com/2022/03/29/usma-acceptance-rates-who-didnt-make-it/ USMA clearly passes over its most qualified pool, even giving generous allowance for offer yield / candidate preferences.



thanks for reading!

 

[unkown1961]

We're pleased to see this topic getting some attention! Thanks to you and AFrpaso for writing. We add a few comments:

1) The site and topics evolved past their original scope of validating empirical claims made in LTC Heffington's letter a few years ago. So yes, the data request and response requires some qualifying assumptions and boundaries. We hope we are thorough and transparent enough to identify them all and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

But while it's fair to say that we have to make assumptions, we also point out that the more "what ifs" the reader has to add in turn to keep the "party line" of merit-driven admissions plausible, the more improbable that party line is.

Next time, we'll be more targeted and thoughtful in our data request to avoid these issues.

2) The question of offer yield and opportunity is a big one. We agree with Falcon74's conclusion that the evidence and trends point to the Military Academy passing over most-qualified cadets for political, not military-efficacy, reasons.

3) Re: Missed Opportunity. Earlier this year and after the original admissions posts, we compared the pools of candidates who actually attended and who did not here: https://usmadata.com/2022/03/29/usma-acceptance-rates-who-didnt-make-it/ USMA clearly passes over its most qualified pool, even giving generous allowance for offer yield / candidate preferences.



thanks for reading!

Quick questions:
Your link states ‘qualified and did not attend West Point.’ This is very vague wording. Do you mean we’re not admitted or were offered admission but did not attend?
And, who is ‘we?’ Aren’t we all individual posters?

 

[usmadata]

Quick questions:
Your link states ‘qualified and did not attend West Point.’ This is very vague wording. Do you mean we’re not admitted or were offered admission but did not attend?
And, who is ‘we?’ Aren’t we all individual posters?

'Qualified' is the term of art used by West Point admissions to identify candidates they deemed eligible - academically, medically, and physically--to attend. It does not indicate whether the candidate received a nomination or offer.

'we' is stylistic as sometimes there are guest contributors to the blog. and yes, we are. ;

 

[StPaulDad]

2) The question of offer yield and opportunity is a big one. We agree with Falcon74's conclusion that the evidence and trends point to the Military Academy passing over most-qualified cadets for political, not military-efficacy, reasons.

Not speaking directly to @usmadata, but in general everyone has to leave room for a little judgement in the system. One person's "most-qualified" is another's ranked list of the wrong thing, where a 31 ACT might not cut the mustard in expected ways. "Qualified" is not a specific thing, so anyone who points to grades and test scores too often may end up faced with a sorted list of math team captains and end up complaining about the diminished warrior-ness of the new cadets.

If you want to call it political you can, but be honest that service academies are more than engineering schools, and they need different admissions criteria than Cal Tech. They have to set a bar for "qualified" to get a bunch of good candidates into a pool, but after that they need to balance brains and muscle and heart and geography and a lot of other things (including demographic representation) to choose from that pool. Does anyone really think that the best candidates from Wyoming or Rhode Island are always better than everyone who missed the nom lists from California or Texas? How about those prior enlisted guys with the 26 ACT? The starting running back? We need lots of room for lots of thumbs on scales at the academies.

 

[unkown1961]

I came across this info from a DoD youth survey in 2021 on the top reasons why youth aren't joining the military. It probably also relates to why applications are down at the Academy. Here's the link to the PPT it was included in: https://jamrs.defense.gov/Portals/2...ensityUpdate.pdf?ver=FE5vDYeDzsgNRbEssX3Z4g==

 

[justme]

I'd be curious to see how that slide and the 'reason for' data changes over time. Especially the pay/college ones given the broader college costs discussions going on nationally.