<p>USNA69: Ok - So, if I read you correctly - you do not know how many LOAs West Point awards (or what the recipient's credentials are), but you have a "feeling" that it could "conceivably" be enough make USMA break federal law?
Of course you are welcome to your personal opinion, but as someone who posts on this forum representing USNA as a B&G officer, you seem to be "flirting with" a serious allegation with very little to back up your position.</p>
<p>A perfectly valid and legitimate statement. By "flirting" with non-compliance, I am simply stating that they are granting the maximum LOAs possible, approximately 300, due to the reasons I have stated above. The possibility of not being able to offer an appointment is the limiting force in the number they offer.</p>
<p>Actually , you have gone further than suggest that USMA is granting the maximum allowed LOAs - in your previous post you put forward a scenario in which you suggest that USMA Admissions could be breaking federal law. I find that irresponsible since you have no knowledge of the facts.</p>
<p>USNA69, a point of clarification please. You said a couple posts ago:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Probably one third of the class which attended MAPS or Civil Prep is guaranteed appointments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you mean one third of the slots for the INCOMING class, or one third of the candidates who attend MAPS or Civil Prep for that particular year? Thanks.</p>
<p>Um, the title of this thread ("A Very Special Package in the Mail Yesterday") doesn't seem too relevant to the tack that this discussion has taken. </p>
<p>Lest we forget Ok3-Wire's original intent to celebrate his son's success, perhaps there needs to be a new thread titled "Recruiting Practices: USMA vs. USNA", and we can all have at it under a thread title that reflects the discussion. JMO.</p>
<p>Winnie...great idea and I second that suggestion! </p>
<p>Anybody heard of additional appointments for the USMA Class of 2013?</p>
<p>OK3-Wire</p>
<p>While I understand that the original intent of this thread was a celebratory one. I will not stand by and let the integrity of the WP admissions system be called into question by someone who has respect on this forum by vitue of his standing as a B&G Officer at USNA. So with that in mind I will post again to set the record straight.....</p>
<p>This is from USMA Admissions Department:
Acceptance into the USMAPS or Civil Prep program does not automatically guarantee admission to West Point. Both USMAPS cadets and Civil Prep students must complete a re-application and compete for a nomination AND become qualified in order to gain a seat in the incoming class. A candidate who fails to complete the admissions process again, or fails to secure a nomination, or performs poorly academically at either of these programs will not receive an appointment to West Point. These candidates compete for seats in the class with other candidates. </p>
<p>Title 10 of the US Code dictates how the Academies will admit candidates. One section in particular deals with nominations and appointments. West Point’s appointments and territorial distribution is covered under Title 10 Statute 4342 which lays out very specifically the nominating sources and vacancies for each class.</p>
<p>Each member would have ostensibly at least one vacancy per class. Therefore, only one of those ten will win the vacancy, but the other nine are still nominated. Those nine go to the National Waiting List if they are fully qualified, and may be offered an appointment as a result of the receipt of a nomination even though they did not win the vacancy. Title 10 is very specific in filling the class at West Point. The top 150 qualified candidates on the national waiting list will receive an appointment to West Point. That means they did not win their vacancy – but they are the most qualified candidates still awaiting appointment. West Point uses the Letters of Assurance, based on past historical records, to identify candidates who should fall within the top 150 candidates on the waiting list. Many of the LOA candidates will win their vacancy nominations by virtue of their competitiveness overall. The remaining who do not win their vacancies, will fall within the top 150 on the national waiting list.
Additionally, Title 10 addresses service connected nominations for regular army soldiers, reserve component soldiers, sons and daughters of career military members, etc… West Point uses these nominations in a similar fashion as well – providing LOAs to the most qualified in these nominated pools in order to shape the class early in the admissions cycle. Finally, when all the nominated vacancies are filled in a class, West Point still has approximately 350-400 additional seats to bring the class size to 1300. Title 10 covers this situation as well and allows West Point to offer candidates off the national waiting list to fill the remainder of the class. West Point does this often in order of merit (similar to the top 150) but sometimes will offer candidates from the national waiting list to assure a diverse student body. All who are offered admission are fully qualified and on the national waiting list. All procedures are in accordance with Federal Law and at no time does West Point deviate from the law’s guidance</p>
<p>Ann -- I most certainly did not mean to suggest that you or anyone "stand by and let the integrity of the WP admission systems be called into question ... "! I was only suggesting that the discussion of service academy admissions practices that has developed here be directed out of a thread titled "A Very Special Package in the Mail Yesterday" to a new thread with a title that would clearly identify the topic -- simply an "ease of navigation" suggestion.</p>
<p>"Of those that apply to both USNA and WP, 75% do ultimately choose USNA"</p>
<p>I hadn't seen that statistic before---our cadet received fairly early LOA's from both and didn't choose USNA. Do Academy admissions officers know to which other academy's a candidate has applied? Would they be getting this info from DODMERB?</p>
<p>"Of those that apply to both USNA and WP, 75% do ultimately choose USNA"</p>
<p>I wonder if the USMA Admissions Office would agree to the above statistical assertion? Does anybody have connections in the USMA Admissions Office so we can find out?</p>
<p>Will the USNA Admissions Office go on-record and substantiate that claim? I'm guessing not. ;)</p>
<p>Best Regards,
OK3-Wire</p>
<p>I know someone there...actually I know 2 someones there...I will see what info I can dig up on this assertion. </p>
<p>Mom3Boys
2012 parent
Go Army, Go everyone but Navy</p>
<p>Winnie96: My interest is not in pursuing the topic any further in another thread - rather it is one of correcting the record of this one...</p>
<p>OK3-Wire: "Of those that apply to both USNA and WP, 75% do ultimately choose USNA"... "I wonder if the USMA Admissions Office would agree to the above statistical assertion?"</p>
<p>USMA asks candidates who they have accepted when they decline USMA, but I do not believe that they ask who they have declined when they accept USMA. It is also my understanding that USMA and USNA do not share their acceptance lists with one another. I have asked USNA69 previously for the source of his data (he has given that statistic before) - he did not provide one.
USMA has a yield of 81-82% , so there are not too many candidates turning them down.</p>
<p>USNA69's claim (re, 75% ...) is totally incorrect. USNA69 is invited to call / email the Director of Admissions at West Point if he would like to discuss this further. </p>
<p>USNA69 can also read the post from Ann posted earlier (10-04-2008, 10:19 AM) on this thread for factual information concerning the Admissions processes at West Point rather than making conclusive statements based on "feelings" or "educated guesses." Making statements such as yours, based only on "feelings" or "educated guesses" rather than facts, is not helpful for people wanting unbiased, factual information from this forum.</p>
<p>Mike</p>
<p>Ann, you are correct: USMA does not ask who was declined on the acceptance card. However, both the USNA and USMA declination cards ask if the student has accepted another SA. </p>
<p>Mike, thank you for your response. </p>
<p>USNA69: I have always had a tender spot in my heart for you, as I know you are just a wiley curmudgeon who both loves the military and loves to stir things up. However, your assertions as of late have me rethinking my fondness for you.</p>
<p>Go Army, Sink Navy</p>
<p>
[quote]
USNA69's claim (re, 75% ...) is totally incorrect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Logically in order to make such an assertion one would have to possess information that contradicts the claim so….I guess I’m surprised that you wouldn’t use the opening or opportunity to set the record straight in consideration of those people wanting unbiased, factual information from this forum.</p>
<p>Please don’t read my name/profile and assume I am weighing in to defend or support anyone’s position here. I do have a son at the Naval Academy, I was Air Force, I have another son applying to both USNA and USAFA and my nephew graduated from WP in 2002 and is awaiting another deployment in the Special Forces after enjoying sunny Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. </p>
<p>I don’t quite understand what the fuss is about. Given the current nature of deployment for graduates from WP, vs say the USNA or USAF I would find it hard to believe in the event a young man or woman is given the choice between WP and USNA a higher percentage wouldn't chose USNA, or USAF etc. It’s not something that should be taken in critical terms or meant to reflect on the quality of program at WP, it simply reflects the reality of our current state of war. </p>
<p>I should think the same holds true in terms of the utilization of LOAs. The Army is facing great challenges in attracting candidates across the majority of its recruiting spectrum. Why should WP be any different? When our oldest began the process and included ROTC in his mix, he visited a number of civilian and military colleges and in every instance the same thing came through; AROTC had tons of money to throw at applicants, NROTC had some and AFROTC was the stingiest of the lot. Why would anyone be surprised that WP might be using LOAs as another tool to encourage and ensure a successful class compliment right up to the maximum allowed by law…whatever that may be? </p>
<p>
[quote]
We who respect all SA's do not want misinformation disseminated to the masses. We know he's just trying to stir things up...but this is the time of year Joe/Jane Candidate is looking for helpful information...we do not want to see them reading this drivel and taking it seriously. That is why some of us are hot and bothered.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a substantial amount of misinformation available on this site, much of which is offered with good intentions. I think it is both disingenuous and “questionable” to suggest that only “accurate” or “correct” information must be available here. First of all I would like to give some credit to those individuals checking in on this site for input. Much of this material is based on opinion and frequently anecdotal in nature. It’s a great resource for sharing experiences with those that have yet to deal with a child at a SA or for those thinking about applying, an opportunity to learn about the experience and expectations from a young man or woman currently attending a SA. </p>
<p>To return to the assertion made by ’69 that set so many off; re 75%, we’ve heard that it’s “totally incorrect” but nothing has been offered beyond that. So to the Joe/Jane Candidate coming here for helpful information what are they left with? Liar Liar pants on fire? </p>
<p>69’ does tend to stir things up, and you know what..sometimes things need to be stirred up, questions need to be asked, pointedly at times though not offensively. I can tell you from personal experience I had my share of run ins with him that pale in comparison to this rather benign and mostly civil discussion. I can also tell you he’s a very passionate advocate for the Naval Academy, which can be a refreshing change from the politically correct discourse we are generally left with. It’s easy to get caught up in things you are passionate about and not yield any ground, that doesn’t always come across in a positive light, even when you may be right… </p>
<p>We all take a great deal of pride in the institutions we are a part of or those that our children attend, at the end of the day we and/or they all report to the same Commander in Chief and serve to protect and defend the same Constitution.</p>
<p>There is a vast difference between "stirring things up" and strongly insinuating that West Point may be breaking federal laws. Especially from an individual who holds himself out as a representative of the Naval Academy by virtue of being a Blue and Gold Officer. Making these insinuations on a public forum was inexcusable and cannot be condoned.</p>
<p>You’re kidding right? This is a public forum and that is precisely why it is entirely reasonable for someone to make his or her opinion known, it’s doesn’t mean their observations or conclusions are correct. The benchmark we use to determine what we hear should not be something along the lines of whether it is good news or not. Enough of what we learn in media is already filtered and manipulated, I for one would prefer a source where opinions and observations can be posted (within reason) without some version of the thought police running around deciding what is and is not appropriate for me to read and consider. If someone weighed in on this thread and started reading these posts I would think they would read through the assertions made by ’69 and then read the comprehensive and succinct response post by Ann and come to their own conclusions. </p>
<p>I grew up near WP and spent my senior year in HS working there. It’s a wonderful place with a great history and traditions. It is also an institution run by men and women, a part of our Armed Forces and government as are all our service academies. As with all our institutions it should be held accountable to the laws that we pass and expect our government to follow. Following the law is not an unreasonable expectation nor should anyone take offense if an individual challenges those in charge to demonstrate compliance. The track record of our government over the past 50 years has been less than stellar in that regard and has undoubtedly contributed to the cynicism we see today. Skepticism and to some degree cynicism can be healthy component of our discourse so long as we don’t make the jump to paranoia and paralysis.</p>
<p>Actually, I think post #76 is right on with his/her remarks.</p>
<p>There are a number of 'regulars' on these forums who purport to be acting in a 'semi-official' role based on their current or prior position of being affiliated in some way with one of the Academies. Those individuals have a responsibility to be objective and accurate with their remarks.</p>
<p>In my mind, you can't have it both ways. If some random person makes one wild remark then disappears, obviously they have no credibility with us and we just ignore them. However, if you are a regular and insist on continually waving your credentials in front of us as justification why your opinions are somehow more valid than others, you also have a reponsibility when acting in your self-appointed expert role to separate personal opinions from facts.</p>
<p>To me that makes a HUGE difference that a number of us are starting to recognize and speak up about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those individuals have a responsibility to be objective and accurate with their remarks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who gets to decide what is deemed to be accurate information? As to objectivity, that is a characteristic most of us have a great deal of difficulty with. To be truly objective is a great challenge… some might say an impossible one. How do you separate your conclusions from a life of experiences that will undoubtedly color or at least impact your impartiality? Throw in passion and you can chuck most levels of objectivity out the window. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In my mind, you can't have it both ways. If some random person makes one wild remark then disappears, obviously they have no credibility with us and we just ignore them. However, if you are a regular and insist on continually waving your credentials in front of us as justification why your opinions are somehow more valid than others, you also have a responsibility when acting in your self-appointed expert role to separate personal opinions from facts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would have come to the opposite conclusion. If some random person makes one wild remark you have no basis or reference from which to gauge the potential validity of a “wild” assertion. On the other hand ’69 has some 1500 posts under his belt, do they not provide you with a better point of reference from which to draw your conclusions? Or are you concerned that someone might not look past the last post and be somehow swayed? People tend to believe what they want to believe or to put it another way; what feels right…. seems like there are a lot of people threatened by that. </p>
<p>’69 posted say 75% of kids that apply to both USNA and WP choose the USNA. Mike says the figure is totally incorrect. Ok so what is the figure and does anyone really care that much about it? If the number is really 74%, Mike would be right..right? So if ’69 said the “majority” of kids choose the USNA would everyone be satisfied absent new and contradictory data from Mike? Had Mike offered up specific data to the contrary and cited his source or reference, he would have added credibility to the entire discussion as it related to the use of LOAs. Instead we were left with two unsubstantiated opinions which inevitably spills over into the more serious discussion about LOAs. </p>
<p>’69 also offered up an observation, a “feeling” relating to the use of LOAs by WP which was understandably viewed by some as both critical and inflammatory as he suggested that WP was in violation of the law. I thought the responses offered in rebuttal by Ann and others addressed the issue quite well. Do people think the forum would be better off absent of this kind of discussion? If we were in the group think mode with only “accurate” information allowed, would this be a more credible resource for information? </p>
<p>And if you are concerned about “credibility” and the accuracy of the information presented here, then I will leave you with this; creditability is earned in part through your capacity for introspection and the ability to be as tough on yourself as you are with others. </p>
<p>I don't have a dog in this fight so I think I'll just find my way back to the USNA forum...I should also look on the bright side..if my next son ends up at the USAFA I will have a second forum to frequent.. enjoy</p>
<p>rjrzoom57, your comments are needed and welcomed on the USMA forum....thank you for joining the discussion on this thread. I have been reading along since this thread started and I think your comments are reasonable, cogent, well written, and appropriate. </p>
<p>Best of luck to your MID/N at the USNA and, OK3-Wire, many congratulations to your awesome son!</p>