What a Joke

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jcleppe said:
Well this thread has sure been fun to read.

Just one question.

A kid goes to a very small rural school, say Wyoming, has a graduating class of 15. The school is so small they don't have sports, no varsity team to be a captain. No need for an Editor in Chief for the Yearbook because it fits on one page. The only leadership this kid has is working on the family farm or ranch. Grades and test scores are decent but the school is not near a top tier high school, oh and he happens to be white.

Should this kid be automatically deemed not qualified because he doesn't have the resume of states other applicants from urban top tier high schools have and is just given a number.

Sometimes where you come from and the opportunities you have or don't have need to be taken into account.

Those that outright dismiss any diversity in applications need to spend some time at an inner city urban high school. Just because someone doesn't have the opportunities in high school to help them succeed in having a stellar resume, doesn't mean they do not have what it takes to excel, given the opportunity.

There is often a lot more to it then what's just on paper.

Not a perfect system, but it has to start somewhere.
Click to expand...

You definitely get it. This is what diversity is about.
 
If applicants vying for appointments can be compared to selecting a contingent to represent our country in the Olympics, is their selection process better? I understand that competing for a SA appointment is more than just athletics, academics and leadership potential but how would you quantify an ideal appointee? The admissions board sift through thousands of qualified applicants and have to turn away many. The system may not be flawless but it is what everyone have to work with. We can not diminish the accomplishments of these young men/women that have submitted to the requirements and received their appointments by claiming that the selection process is skewed. They have earned their appointments fair and square and represent the best this nation can offer. Among these appointees are reapplicants that persevered and accepted the terms of admission selection process. They are awarded a spot more so than a qualified candidate who has better stats because that is how the system is set up. If you watch the next Olympics, notice the racial make-up of team USA. It is far from all the Service Academies. We all cheer and get goosebumps when they raise our flag when they win a gold medal. We also congratulate the winner graciously if all we get is a silver or a bronze.
 
Packer said:
You definitely get it. This is what diversity is about.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself, "diversity" (as defined by the current USNA recruiting initiatives) has nothing to do with geography.

Nothing.

"Diversity" means race. Period. The "white kid from Wyoming" example is known as a "red herring." When preference is given for race, using it as a criteria to affirm and deny, we all lose.

Yes, it means that highly qualified candidates will be denied appointments and lower qualified candidates will be appointed on the basis of race.

And since we all know that's how the current system works, we all will deal with it but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

Ninety-one (91) percent of qualified African Americans and 82 percent of qualified Hispanics were offered seats in the Classes of 2012-2014, compared to 55 percent of qualified non-minorities.

That's almost a 50% difference. You can explain away 5%, or even 10%, as statistical anomalies, or sampling errors, etc - but there is only one explanation of a 50% difference - race preference.

If you are a qualified minority candidate, you have a 91% chance of being offered an USNA appointment.

If you are a qualified non-minority candidate, it's slightly better than a coin flip (55%).
Click to expand...

To give racial preference in any school admissions policy is discrimination, and no one can honestly believe any differently.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
burnerafter16 said:
Among these appointees are reapplicants that persevered and accepted the terms of admission selection process. They are awarded a spot more so than a qualified candidate who has better stats because that is how the system is set up.
Click to expand...

Do you have any data to back up that assertion? :confused:
 
Packer said:
Wow! I don't know you from Adam but this sounds like what someone with all the opportunities would write.
Click to expand...

And of course, when someone has had "all of the opportunities" we should demonize them for not needing a hand out. :rolleyes:
 
Jcleppe said:
Well this thread has sure been fun to read.

Just one question.

A kid goes to a very small rural school, say Wyoming, has a graduating class of 15. The school is so small they don't have sports, no varsity team to be a captain. No need for an Editor in Chief for the Yearbook because it fits on one page. The only leadership this kid has is working on the family farm or ranch. Grades and test scores are decent but the school is not near a top tier high school, oh and he happens to be white.

Should this kid be automatically deemed not qualified because he doesn't have the resume of states other applicants from urban top tier high schools have and is just given a number.

Sometimes where you come from and the opportunities you have or don't have need to be taken into account.

Those that outright dismiss any diversity in applications need to spend some time at an inner city urban high school. Just because someone doesn't have the opportunities in high school to help them succeed in having a stellar resume, doesn't mean they do not have what it takes to excel, given the opportunity.

There is often a lot more to it then what's just on paper.

Not a perfect system, but it has to start somewhere.
Click to expand...

This kid might have a higher chance of a SA appointment than perhaps Nobody's biz's DS. Sometime I joke with parents that they should move to a less competitive district. I am reasonably sure, I could be wrong and I have been wrong, that there are not many applicants to SAs from Wyoming.

"There is often a lot more to it then what's just on paper," but hard to evaluate what is not on paper. For the kid mentioned above, his personal essay, letters of recommendation, and/or BGO interivew could bring out what's not on paper. The candidate point system doesn't give out bonus points, or does it?
 
Luigi59 said:
Do you have any data to back up that assertion? :confused:
Click to expand...



http://www.usafa.org/FalconFoundation/Performance

The link above shows class of 2012 graduates. You can look up previous years which is similar. There are about approximately 200 appointments given to prep school graduates each cycle.
The Falcon scholarships represents about half of prep school graduates that go on to attend the academy. So if there's about 1400 appointments offered and about 1200 actually report on I-day. That means about 1000 get in straight from high school and the rest are reapplicants, prior enlisted or turn backs. Based on the link below, there maybe more or less depending on how many appointments are given on a given year. 2016 was less than avereage. This year's may be more.
http://www.usafa.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=9429&page=1
 
Last edited:
So, how do non diverse candidate get in?

My question still is this:

The majority of those receving appointments are white males, correct?
So, if geographic diverisity is not part of the approach as some mentioned her, then how are those who receive appointments picked over the other qualified white males who do not?

I might be totally off base, but wouldn't it be more helpful to non URMs or recruited athletes to be debating and discussing how to help themselves standout against others of similar races and genders who ARE getting the appointments?

For those white males who gained appointments, how did you get in???

S
 
Melitzank said:
I've heard of people with a 4.0 being rejected. It happens. Best of luck to him in whatever he chooses to do.
Click to expand...

My son received his TWE on Friday. He has an unweighted GPA of 4.0, weighted 4.08, top 10% in class of 400, ACT 30, SAT 1950, Varsity lacrosse captain, community service, etc. etc. etc. We were extremely disappointed and it was a definite roller coaster ride for us since he was strung along until the very end. However, we are very proud of him for applying, getting a nomination and going through with all of the follow-up visits to the doctor/allergist to get clearance from DODMERB. It was a growing experience, and he's definitely gained something from it.
 
Last edited:
Deja Vu

Here we go again. I have been reading this forum a year now. I have taken the time to read past posts. It appears that this hot topic is going to be part of the healing process for the parents and candidates that were not selected. To all of you, best wishes. I am sure you are all extremely talented and gifted.Your futures I am sure will be filled with success,

I will agree that the selection process is not fair, but I will not agree that a candidate who possess higher grades or more community service or athletic ability or a strong religious affiliation is a more qualified candidate. What I mean by this is that I do not know what makes a great soldier.
I want to share a story. A young man who was interested in attending the Naval Academy knew of one of his teammates who had applied. He asked the teammate several questions and his teammate advised him of the process he was going through. The teammate was described as being dedicated and driven and appeared to the young man as a sure fit. The candidate found out that he was not accepted. The candidate approached his teammates who were a diversified group and candidly explained that he did not get accepted because the Navy had to give a certain number of positions to "blacks". The team was made up of many ethnic groups. The candidate was highly respected by many of his teammates until that point.
The purpose of my story is that families will walk away from this process with an idea of whether they were treated fairly or not. They will also have to decide if they were victimized and if they were who is the perpetrator. I am sure nothing could change the candidates mind who victimized him. I am also sure that this will never be resolved. Congratulations class of 2017.
 
stella said:
My question still is this:

The majority of those receving appointments are white males, correct?
So, if geographic diverisity is not part of the approach as some mentioned her, then how are those who receive appointments picked over the other qualified white males who do not?

I might be totally off base, but wouldn't it be more helpful to non URMs or recruited athletes to be debating and discussing how to help themselves standout against others of similar races and genders who ARE getting the appointments?

For those white males who gained appointments, how did you get in???

S
Click to expand...

I think I understand you are asking,

Although a geographic diversity might not be a goal for the admissions office, the Congressional nominations creates a geograhpic diversity. At the same time, an appointment also requires for a candidate to be determined "fully" qualified. So even if a candidate has a principle nomination, if he or she is not fully qualiifed, no appointment. Majority of candidates are appointed through Congressional slates. So in a Congressional district, there might be 9 white males and 1 URM with nomination. Chances are one of the 9 white males will be the #1 candidate (numberwise). Also, some, I don't know how many, minority heavy Congressional district are known to not nominate any candidates to SAs. The next method for candidates getting appointed is the National Waiting List - fully qualified candidates with nominations that did not win their Congressional slate. This is more competitive and supposedly based on the candidate scores. The candidate scores are mostly based on things on paper. On average white males have better scores on paper than URM. I think service connected appointments and recruited athelets are awash as they are not all URM (i.e. No many URM Navy Lacrosse players).

So numbers work out where majority of appointees are white males.
 
MemberLG said:
So numbers work out where majority of appointees are white males.
Click to expand...

And what might be more interesting is the socio-economic break down of candidates. I would maintain relative income has more to do with it than race... but then I'm a middle class white male who received multiple nominations and acceptances.... so what do I know?

Is a poor white kid in a poor crime-infested corner of New Orleans just as likely to have issues as a poor black kid in the same area? I would say so.

Is a rich black kid from an upper middle class familiy more likely to do well than that poor white kid? I would think so.

Does that mean LITS is in favor of income redistribution? Nope. We're always going to have classes, and there's always going to be a rich kid who went to a great private school, got good grades, took prep classes for standardized tests, and had a great guidance counselor.

And there's always going to be single-parent households with drug and physical abuse problems, where crime is an answer, and grades, or an education at all, isn't really in the picture.

That's the reality of it. Is it unfortunate for the poor kid with little chance? Absolutely. Would it be wonderful for him to find a way out of the filth? With out a doubt.

And at the end of the day, if I have to pick between the two, 9 times out of 10, I'm picking the kid who already shows promise, even it is may mean I'm passing over some undiscovered seed of greatness.
 
Luigi59 said:
Don't kid yourself, "diversity" (as defined by the current USNA recruiting initiatives) has nothing to do with geography.

Nothing.

"Diversity" means race. Period. The "white kid from Wyoming" example is known as a "red herring." When preference is given for race, using it as a criteria to affirm and deny, we all lose.

Yes, it means that highly qualified candidates will be denied appointments and lower qualified candidates will be appointed on the basis of race.

And since we all know that's how the current system works, we all will deal with it but that doesn't mean we have to like it.



To give racial preference in any school admissions policy is discrimination, and no one can honestly believe any differently.

:cool:
Click to expand...
I know what the USNA definition is and IMPO they are wrong.
 
LineInTheSand said:
And what might be more interesting is the socio-economic break down of candidates. I would maintain relative income has more to do with it than race... but then I'm a middle class white male who received multiple nominations and acceptances.... so what do I know?

Is a poor white kid in a poor crime-infested corner of New Orleans just as likely to have issues as a poor black kid in the same area? I would say so.

Is a rich black kid from an upper middle class familiy more likely to do well than that poor white kid? I would think so.

Does that mean LITS is in favor of income redistribution? Nope. We're always going to have classes, and there's always going to be a rich kid who went to a great private school, got good grades, took prep classes for standardized tests, and had a great guidance counselor.

And there's always going to be single-parent households with drug and physical abuse problems, where crime is an answer, and grades, or an education at all, isn't really in the picture.

That's the reality of it. Is it unfortunate for the poor kid with little chance? Absolutely. Would it be wonderful for him to find a way out of the filth? With out a doubt.

And at the end of the day, if I have to pick between the two, 9 times out of 10, I'm picking the kid who already shows promise, even it is may mean I'm passing over some undiscovered seed of greatness.
Click to expand...
I think you are right on the income thing. That is part of why many colleges give some preference for first generation college students. Ones "legacy" has a significant affect on their future/opportunities as well as their general outlook.
When 9 times out of 10 you pick the kid that already shows promise you are simply makeing a business decision and reducing your risk.
 
stella said:
My question still is this:

The majority of those receving appointments are white males, correct?
So, if geographic diverisity is not part of the approach as some mentioned her, then how are those who receive appointments picked over the other qualified white males who do not?

I might be totally off base, but wouldn't it be more helpful to non URMs or recruited athletes to be debating and discussing how to help themselves standout against others of similar races and genders who ARE getting the appointments?

For those white males who gained appointments, how did you get in???

S
Click to expand...
The majority of applicants are white males, so it makes sense that the majority of those receiving appointments would be white males. Many URMs just aren't interested in the military, and don't apply. Others just aren't qualified. DS is a white male living in an under represented district (by one block!). Before his MOC interview, he overheard the committee discussing the applicants, and it was apparent that they really did not have many who were anywhere close to being qualified. This, of course, was great for DS, who was given the principal nomination. I must add, however, lest some think that DS is a mediocre appointee, that he was told by both Senatorial committees that his resume was one of the most impressive they had ever seen. I feel certain that, if our MOCs didn't "talk" in order to nominate as many as possible, he would have gotten Senatorial noms as well.

I have seen several outstanding individuals who received TWEs and went on to ROTC, and are glad that they did. I am certain that every candidate who completed the application process and received a nomination will be successful in whatever they do in the future. Sometimes it comes down to luck, destiny, or (as i believe) the will of God. To those who were turned down this time, I wish you the best in the future.

As for discussing how to stand out from all the other white males, read Service Academy Forums! It is a gold mine of information!
 
stella said:
My question still is this:

The majority of those receving appointments are white males, correct?
So, if geographic diverisity is not part of the approach as some mentioned her, then how are those who receive appointments picked over the other qualified white males who do not?

I might be totally off base, but wouldn't it be more helpful to non URMs or recruited athletes to be debating and discussing how to help themselves standout against others of similar races and genders who ARE getting the appointments?

For those white males who gained appointments, how did you get in???

S
Click to expand...

But geographic diversity IS part of the approach, by law. Half of the appointees are based on geographic diversity.
 
Nobody's Biz

You are an excellent student any other school would be lucky to have you. But you need to understand that you will be disappointed a lot throughout life. It is how you deal with these issues is what make you the person you are. You are not the only one this has happened to either, so try and remember this.


Best Of luck,

RGK
 
I am extremely well qualified and I was nominated by both senators and my congressman. I have not received a BFE or TWE, but I am assuming I will not be receiving an appointment seeing as I have heard nothing with only one week remaining. I have been following this thread for months, studying and reading and watching and waiting. Every appointment I see in the appointment thread my heart sinks a little, knowing of the joy that those families felt and that I will probably not feel the same. This thread kind of did it in for me. The entire application/nomination process is extremely stressful, and all kids know what ramifications being accepted bring(difficult course load, serving in the Navy after graduation). We all want it. Black, white, Asian, poor, rich- it doesn't matter- we all want it and ALL who are given an appointment by the Academy deserve it. If you're kid did not get in I'm sorry for your luck- but it effects us a heck of a lot more than you and if you think you're upset and confused about the reason your DS received a TWE, take a walk in your child's shoe. Instead of wondering why and complaining, take it in stride and build on it. Even if you fail to be accepted, going through the entire process will be useful later in life, and it is quite the learning experience.
 
rkrosnar said:
Nobody's Biz

You are an excellent student any other school would be lucky to have you. But you need to understand that you will be disappointed a lot throughout life. It is how you deal with these issues is what make you the person you are. You are not the only one this has happened to either, so try and remember this.


Best Of luck,

RGK
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a quote I like from a USMC OCS instructor (paraphrase):
"You will fail. You will succeed. It's what you do with that success and failure that determines if you have the character to lead."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top