USAFA Applications down 27.6%?

JP4 said:
Ran across this WaPo opinion piece from 20 years ago. Surprisingly open and honest.

Click to expand...
www.washingtonian.com

The Naval Academy’s War With a Professor Who Sends Shirtless Pics, Offends Women and Minorities—and Somehow Came Out on Top - Washingtonian

The US Merit Systems Protection Board—the judicial dustbin where the United States does battle with employees it wants to fire—is one building no bureaucrat ever wants to see. The jig may well be up by the time you arrive: Terminating a civil servant is so comically burdensome that the very fact...
www.washingtonian.com www.washingtonian.com

This is relevant specifically to the article you just sent. Bruce Fleming is quite the character, to say the least.
 
JP4 said:
Ran across this WaPo opinion piece from 20 years ago. Surprisingly open and honest.

Click to expand...
This has been discussed heavily on this board and many other places in the past. I don't care to rehash it all here but will just
say that I have personal knowledge of the Admissions processes and practices that are VERY different from what Fleming states
in this piece and many others that he has published.
I have many differences with Fleming's beliefs and what he thinks should be. Maybe I see things differently from my perspective
as a Naval Officer then he does as an Academic.
 
Certainly an interesting guy according to that article. Sounds like he adds to the diversity of thought there. And perhaps the diversity of faculty swimwear pics.

But is what he says true?

How many points does checking the favored category box count for?

What harm or situation are they trying to remedy or adjust for?

Is the method they are using working for that?

I think the examples he gives are good ones.

If you have inside knowledge then let us know.
 
justme said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well one doesn’t need the GI Bill if there is broad sweeping student loan forgiveness.

Also, I have worked in high schools and have seen my share of excellent recruiters and horrid recruiters.

I don’t think all potential service members feel that they are getting the straight scoop. Too many of their friends feel they got rope a doped.
 
The question is in the material linked by USMADATA earlier in this thread and how the process works.

There is no question USAFA and other academies use affirmative action. The details however are not clear and not public.

That is the case because they don't want you to know the details. Does being native American plus 1200 SAT give you more points in their algorithm then being a white male heterosexual with a 1550 SAT? We don't know.

Does being latina give you more points than being recruited for the football team? We don't know.

If you have a daughter who is admitted was she given bonus points for being female? Almost certainly.

Are you allowed in the future to give any weight to those thumbs on the scale? Probably not because that would be racist, sexist, and homophobic and not a matter for discussion in polite society.

I am looking forward to some detail from the poster above.

The two Supreme Court cases on round five or whatever it is we are up to now on legalized race discrimination in college admissions will be worth following.
 
CPonn05 said:
www.washingtonian.com

The Naval Academy’s War With a Professor Who Sends Shirtless Pics, Offends Women and Minorities—and Somehow Came Out on Top - Washingtonian

The US Merit Systems Protection Board—the judicial dustbin where the United States does battle with employees it wants to fire—is one building no bureaucrat ever wants to see. The jig may well be up by the time you arrive: Terminating a civil servant is so comically burdensome that the very fact...
www.washingtonian.com www.washingtonian.com

This is relevant specifically to the article you just sent. Bruce Fleming is quite the character, to say the least.
Click to expand...
Blast from the past. And an image of swimwear I cannot un see. Ugh.
 
JP4 said:
I am looking forward to some detail from the poster above.
Click to expand...
I will not get into a detailed rebuttal of this for a number of reasons but understand that he conflates many things and then makes a sweeping generalization about them. For instance, on many of his screeds, he has lumped all of the non-Congressional/Senatorial noms together and termed them non-competitive or "set-asides" when for many it could not be farther from the truth. For example, the Presidential noms for which there are a max of one hundred appointments are absolutely competitive and the folks who are getting in with those are typically "good" enough to be very competitive on many/most MOC district competitions. Same thing for the ROTC noms - the actual "winners" of those are generally high performers. The Active Duty (SecNav/SecArmy/SecAF) noms go to outstanding enlisted folks who generally have already proven themselves militarily and the majority then go to prep school to get an academic burnishing. I'm more familiar with the Navy here and the biggest numbers come from the Nuke Power Enlisted and a couple of other training tracks where the academic challenge is not that different than that of USNA. For whatever reason, their path after high school took them into the Navy and the SecNav noms are a path for the Navy to take advantage of their potential through USNA.
.
Diversity - Real Diversity is not merely about skin color but it is also about background and many more factors. Under a Service Academy as Fleming sees it, it would be all about a single method of measure and we'd have a much more homogeneous student body which seems to NOT be advantageous to the Navy or to the Nation.
 
Last edited:
OldRetSWO said:
I will not get into a detailed rebuttal of this for a number of reasons but understand that he conflates many things and then makes a sweeping generalization about them. For instance, on many of his screeds, he has lumped all of the non-Congressional/Senatorial noms together and termed them non-competitive or "set-asides" when for many it could not be farther from the truth. For example, the Presidential noms for which there are a max of one hundred appointments are absolutely competitive and the folks who are getting in with those are typically "good" enough to be very competitive on many/most MOC district competitions. Same thing for the ROTC noms - the actual "winners" of those are generally high performers. The Active Duty (SecNav/SecArmy/SecAF) noms go to outstanding enlisted folks who generally have already proven themselves militarily and the majority then go to prep school to get an academic burnishing. I'm more familiar with the Navy here and the biggest numbers come from the Nuke Power Enlisted and a couple of other training tracks where the academic challenge is not that different than that of USNA. For whatever reason, their path after high school took them into the Navy and the SecNav noms are a path for the Navy to take advantage of their potential through USNA.
.
Diversity - Real Diversity is not merely about skin color but it is also about background and many more factors. Under a Service Academy as Fleming sees it, it would be all about a single method of measure and we'd have a much more homogeneous student body which seems to NOT be advantageous to the Navy or to the Nation.
Click to expand...
Your description says it so well, I'm not going to attempt to write re: USAFA except to say: you're spot on for USAFA too (we don't have a nuke power group but...).

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Bringing back this thread with some interesting info posted by Objee regarding USCGA EA numbers for the current (class of 2027) cycle: “The total number of Early Action applications increased 24% compared to the Class of 2026, was the highest number received in over a decade, and could be the highest number received since we began offering an Early Action review.” It remains to be seen whether this is merely an EA surge or an overall increase in total applications received, but this suggests that, at least at the Coast Guard Academy, applications may be up.
 
“Col. Art Primas ’92, director of Admissions, reported that applications are up this year when compared to last year’s precipitous decline.

Through early December, USAFA has received 9,569 applications for the Class of 2027. That’s a solid 22% increase over last year at the same time.”

Board of Visitors gathers intel on USAFA's status | US Air Force Academy AOG & Foundation

Serving the Long Blue Line - Alumni Association for the U.S. Air Force Academy
www.usafa.org www.usafa.org
 
Last edited:
Wilobe said:
“Col. Art Primas ’92, director of Admissions, reported that applications are up this year when compared to last year’s precipitous decline.

Through early December, USAFA has received 9,569 applications for the Class of 2027. That’s a solid 22% increase over last year at the same time.”

Board of Visitors gathers intel on USAFA's status | US Air Force Academy AOG & Foundation

Serving the Long Blue Line - Alumni Association for the U.S. Air Force Academy
www.usafa.org www.usafa.org
Click to expand...
 
The problem with large percentage declines is they require a disproportionate increase to get back to where you started. I don't believe this principle is widely understood. For example, if you buy a stock at $100 per share and it drops to $50 per share, you experience a 50% decline in value. In order to recover your loss, the stock needs to increase 100% from $50 to get back to the $100 purchase price. The same principle applies to applications. USAFA needs to generate a 38.2% increase to make up for the 27.6% decrease in applications last year. The 22% increase mentioned in the (Board of Visitors link) is nice but isn't nearly strong enough to offset last year's drop.

It will be interesting to see how many prospective cadets apply this year. It will be just as interesting to see how USAFA tries to address declining interest in the event that applications fail to reach prior levels. My DD told me that she reached out internally to see if USAFA wanted her to visit her high school (in an official capacity) when she was home for Christmas break, and nobody responded to her offer.
 
DomerDad said:
The problem with large percentage declines is they require a disproportionate increase to get back to where you started. I don't believe this principle is widely understood. For example, if you buy a stock at $100 per share and it drops to $50 per share, you experience a 50% decline in value. In order to recover your loss, the stock needs to increase 100% from $50 to get back to the $100 purchase price. The same principle applies to applications. USAFA needs to generate a 38.2% increase to make up for the 27.6% decrease in applications last year. The 22% increase mentioned in the (Board of Visitors link) is nice but isn't nearly strong enough to offset last year's drop.

It will be interesting to see how many prospective cadets apply this year. It will be just as interesting to see how USAFA tries to address declining interest in the event that applications fail to reach prior levels. My DD told me that she reached out internally to see if USAFA wanted her to visit her high school (in an official capacity) when she was home for Christmas break, and nobody responded to her offer.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The other qualitative piece to the puzzle is what types of applicants were representative in the initial application drop, and what types of applicants are represented in the increase this year? All things aren't necessarily even in that regard either. Are competitive applicants just not bothering and applying to solid state schools while the increase is just comprised of high school seniors who got excited after watching the new Top Gun movie over the summer and maybe haven't adequately prepared?
 
DomerDad said:
The problem with large percentage declines is they require a disproportionate increase to get back to where you started. I don't believe this principle is widely understood. For example, if you buy a stock at $100 per share and it drops to $50 per share, you experience a 50% decline in value. In order to recover your loss, the stock needs to increase 100% from $50 to get back to the $100 purchase price. The same principle applies to applications. USAFA needs to generate a 38.2% increase to make up for the 27.6% decrease in applications last year. The 22% increase mentioned in the (Board of Visitors link) is nice but isn't nearly strong enough to offset last year's drop.

It will be interesting to see how many prospective cadets apply this year. It will be just as interesting to see how USAFA tries to address declining interest in the event that applications fail to reach prior levels. My DD told me that she reached out internally to see if USAFA wanted her to visit her high school (in an official capacity) when she was home for Christmas break, and nobody responded to her offer.
Click to expand...
Hopefully this works out in my favor 🤞
 
DomerDad said:
The problem with large percentage declines is they require a disproportionate increase to get back to where you started. I don't believe this principle is widely understood. For example, if you buy a stock at $100 per share and it drops to $50 per share, you experience a 50% decline in value. In order to recover your loss, the stock needs to increase 100% from $50 to get back to the $100 purchase price. The same principle applies to applications. USAFA needs to generate a 38.2% increase to make up for the 27.6% decrease in applications last year. The 22% increase mentioned in the (Board of Visitors link) is nice but isn't nearly strong enough to offset last year's drop.

It will be interesting to see how many prospective cadets apply this year. It will be just as interesting to see how USAFA tries to address declining interest in the event that applications fail to reach prior levels. My DD told me that she reached out internally to see if USAFA wanted her to visit her high school (in an official capacity) when she was home for Christmas break, and nobody responded to her offer.
Click to expand...
USAFA should do everything they can to generate awareness/interest of SA as an alternative to regular college. I wonder why they don’t make full use of what they have.
 
DomerDad said:
I was shocked to see such a huge drop-off in applicants for the USAFA 2026 class. This week USAFA released the Demographic Profile for the Class of 2026 and they reported only 8,393 applicants. That compares to 11,599 last year. Admission rates were impacted despite 53 fewer offers of admission. The class of 2025 admission rate was 12.3% (1,428/15,599) vs a 2026 admission rate of 16.4% (1,375/8393).

The Naval Academy has not yet reported its numbers, but West Point is only showing a 10% drop. West Point's class of 2025 admissions rate was 8.7% (1,214/13,984). Their admissions rate rose to 9.6% (1,209/12,589) in 2026 as a result of the lower number of applications.

I would love to know what people think about this. Do you really think nearly 28% fewer applicants decided to apply to USAFA in one year? That doesn't seem right to me. Do you think our sudden departure from Afghanistan had something to do with it, and if so why was the impact not the same for Army? I don't think the war in Ukraine had anything to do with it because fighting broke out well after applications were submitted. Do you think they are redefining what constitutes an applicant? Do you think it's a result of bad data related to the new computer system? I am curious to know what people think.
Click to expand...
1428/15599 = 9.15% not 12.3%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top