<p>My daughter received word today from her BGO that she was being offered a USNA Appointment. She had already received a Presidential Nomination so no need for MOC notification.</p>
<p>right, but don't they do it when they hear you get the appmt?</p>
<p>Zoobernarf - not sure if I understand you question exactly but will give it a shot... Each MOC will advise who they are granting a nomination to on their own schedule. Though most have interviews around this time of year, they do not have to tell the SA's who is on their slate until Jan 31. Depending on where you are from and how things work within your state, the rep and senators office may (or may not) work together to give noms to as many candidates as possible. In some areas they work together, in some not. In some states some of the reps give their noms list to the Senators ... in some they don't. Sometimes MOC's will wait until the rep or the senator (whichever they are not) submit their slate so so they can be last .... (i.e. if a rep has 11 great kids and has a hunch that a senator may give one of them a nom, they may hold their entire slate until the senator submits the slate so that if that students gets a senator nom that student may be removed from the rep slate to put candidate #11 on the slate instead (theoretically they are thus getting more students from their district an opportunity to attend) ... of course, the converse holds true as well. It simply depends on how willing the offices are to work together... All that said, sometimes they just submit their slate when they are ready and that's the end of it... some noms come very early (Oct/Nov timeframe) others don't get done until the end of January. The MOC submits the entire slate at one time ... There are any number of things that go into it. Suffice it to say that you will hear not later than early February if you got a nom (hopefully earlier!). Each MOC can submit a slate of 10 names for each opening (though they do not have to fill the slate if they don't want to). Getting a nom from a MOC is not the end of it. If the MOC has only one opening they may submit 10 candidates for that spot. The MOC can submit the nominations in several ways, ranked (i.e. telling the Academy that these are the 10 in order and the SA must offer to the candidates in that order, assuming each is fully qualified). Or, they can submit all 10 and let the SA decide who is the one to get the one open slot... Alternatively, the can pick one top and have the other 9 open for the SA to rank. There are so many things that go into to it that it is very difficult to cover it all here...</p>
<p>Congratulations, drepol5. And WOW! Where are you from? Are you and your buddies recruited athletes? Just curious!</p>
<p>from new york city, and no were not recruited athletes</p>
<p>what kind of scores do you have? and does your school have a history of mids?</p>
<p>^^^ scores may or may not provide the information you are seeking. NYC - or parts of it- are areas of interest that USNA is actively recruiting from. And not to deflate the candidates from this area in any way.... the USNA is still looking for well qualified candidates, however from areas typically underrepresented at the academy. Right now there are BGO's reaching out to schools that have never sent a candidate to USNA- again, not to "qualify the interested," but to "interest the qualified".... there is a huge difference between the two.</p>
<p>I agree they are agressively seeking females and minorities. Last year my Mid's girlfriend did the prelim. application and received a candidates number. She never followed up with the actual application since she lost interest. Unbelievably, my Mids BGO contacted her at the direction of the admissions board to encourage her to finish the application, and this was the LAST week of January 2008 and she had done NOTHING nor shown any interest. I liked to have fainted, since undoubtedly if she had gone forward she would have in all likelyhood took my Mid's spot.</p>
<p>Well talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin ...</p>
<p>2010 suggests geography's the key, noting ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
NYC - or parts of it- are areas of interest that USNA is actively recruiting from. .... the USNA is still looking for well qualified candidates, however from areas typically underrepresented at the academy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And while claiming to agree, Gotamidn seemingly disagrees suggesting the issue is gender, ethnicity, and race....</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree they are agressively seeking females and minorities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As un PC as this may be, I believe that the issue may be the latter.</p>
<p>drepol, can you edify the issues that may be at play here beyond 4 stellar candidates who hopefully will become part of the USNA Class of 2013?</p>
<p>It would appear WP is having difficulty reading between the lines, so will clarify the post so that there is no misunderstanding- </p>
<p>The admissions office is actively persuing minority candidates- specifically, African-Americans and Hispanics- from targeted areas, including areas of NY City and other specified areas of the country. If you want the list of where those other targeted areas are please PM me. We have been charged to "interest the qualified, not qualify the interested." The writing is on the wall.</p>
<p>Women- the numbers are where the USNA wants them to be at this time, so there is not an active campaign to increase those numbers any further- there is enough of a draw for the desired mix the USNA is seeking. While females were actively sought in prior years, for now the academy is getting enough of a draw to quell the need to actively persue, and truth be told, the % of female mids at USNA right now has shifted to the right when compared to the % of female enlisted- thus, it should come as no surpirse to see the number of female mids offered an appointment hold steady, if not decline a bit going forward, based on the all-time high admitted in 2012.</p>
<p>The advantage right now has clearly shifted to two specific minority groups, where the goal is to increase the number of officers more in line with the mix encountered out in the fleet.</p>
<p>Hope that it is specific enough now. My guess is that Deprol, from NYC, is a qualified minority candiate- as are the other 3 appointees from his school - please correct me if I am wrong, not that it matters to me at all- but it may clarify things a bit for WP. </p>
<p>Congratulations to Deprol and anyone else that gets that appointment! Don't much care what color of the rainbow you are- just show up with a good attitude and ready to work your butts off when you get there!</p>
<p>2010, you're the best!;) </p>
<p>While I'm pretty good at reading between the lines, in this situation where many reader-participants are by the very nature of the forum, novice learners about USNA, its needs and consequent admissions procedures and policies, and it's valuable that I or others not need to "read between the lines." Clarity is worth its weight here. </p>
<p>So thanks for edifying and clarifying your earlier point, that targeted recruitment isn't about getting Mids from NYC or other specific geographic locations (beyond the traditional geographic dispersement and nomination process). USNA student recruitment seeks specific racial, ethnic, gender segments who may be viable Mids and who the USNA desires in the Brigade makeup. But it's coincidental and apparent that greater numbers of these targeted potential candidates are more likely to be residing in NYC than Poughkeepsie. So in other words, they may come from NYC, but the USNA doesn't care if they're from NYC ... or Timbucktoo. And in fact would probably prefer that they not be in the position to be offering LOAs to 4 students from one HS. But that's demography, not geography. </p>
<p>And it's valuable to be clear about that for any number of reasons. Just one of which is to not lend false hope or encouragement to equivalent candidates not in one of those target groups, as they would merit no special consideration simply because they reside in NYC or attend that particular HS. Another would be to not discourage special target group candidates who in fact might live in Timbucktoo, rather than NYC.</p>
<p>May I offer one more thought? That you may want to reconsider your point of ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
My guess is that Deprol, from NYC, is a qualified minority candiate- as are the other 3 appointees from his school - please correct me if I am wrong, not that it matters to me at all- but it may clarify things a bit for WP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While your guessing about these students is intended to help me grasp this all, might we agree these wonderful young people are more justifiably described as "qualified candidates"? No matter their home, school, race, color or creed, they've beaten very great odds, and merit our congratulations and best wishes. Theirs is a terrific achievement.</p>
<p>USNA does not care about where they get the "best and brightest" from- (aside from the geographical balance that innate to the process)- but last I looked, NYC, and several other cities, were on the targeted list- did not see Timbucktoo was not listed, but no doubt there are a fair number of mids from the great state of MI that wear Navy blue!</p>
<p>
[quote]
While your guessing about these students is intended to help me grasp this all,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>it was-</p>
<p>
[quote]
might we agree these wonderful young people are more justifiably described as "qualified candidates"? No matter their home, school, race, color or creed, they've beaten very great odds, and merit our congratulations and best wishes. Theirs is a terrific achievement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>we most certainly can-
but thank you for repeating the last part of what I already posted in #30....
close reading is a wonderful thing! ;)</p>
<p>Hello everyone. My son is a VERY enthusiastic candidate to the USNA. We have a question about DoDMERB posting. Does it post there when one is medically qualified ie specifically saying this? It has information about the exam date and lists the academy in one section. I didn't know if it comes to USNA then back there and is posted??</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>I certainly don't claim to be an expert in this area, but I will write about our experience. For my son, on the DoDMERB website, it has a table with date and events (application added, date applicant entered into DodMERB system, etc....). Directly under that table is another block with the agency information in it. Under the agency that is listed (US Naval Academy) there is a line for the "Admission Status Change Date" and under that is a line with for his "Current Medical Status". His current medical status is listed as Qualified (as of 22 October). </p>
<p>DoDMERB also sent us a status letter informing us of the results. For my son, that letter was sent on 9 October, roughly 6 days after the completion of all his medical exams. That information is listed in the table.</p>
<p>Hope this helps!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The targeted list of cities is not a secret:</p>
<p>New York City
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia
Dallas FT Worth
Phoenix
New Orleans
San Antonio
San Diego
Detroit
Memphis
Baltimore
Wash, DC
Albuquerque
Atlanta</p>
<p>New York City is epecially targeted as it has 10 Congressional Districts yet (for the Class of 2011) only had 44 applicants! </p>
<p>Of those 44, only 6 received appointments: Zero African Americans, one Hispanic, and one "other" minority. </p>
<p>Again, public information found at the USNA web site.</p>
<p>Thanks Luigi for your thorough research and clear answer. Those represent tactics to address strategic needs.</p>
<p>Question? Actually 2:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Is it true, female candidates no longer merit special recruitment, consideration, or admissions compensation as 2010 noted?</p></li>
<li><p>If this is the case (and this may not be as apparent/obvious as it seems) is there consequently, a gender-blind, or gender-neutral playing field for non-minority candidates, or what does that really mean?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Has the Supe gone on record about this in any public forum? I guess that's "3 questions."</p>
<p>I cannot speak to the "female" issue as being addressed at any public forums-
it was, however, mentioned in the BGO training briefs given by the admissions office this past summer.
The academy is still welcoming qualified female candidates- and while recruitment efforts continue to seek them out, the push to increase those numbers has been pulled back a bit as 1. they have enough of a good draw of female applicants from which to select qualified candidates and 2. they are at (if not above for 2012) the target number they wanted to reach (in this case, representative of the % in the fleet).</p>
<p>While in the past there has been special recruitment and consideration of female applicants, there has not been, as far as I am aware, any special "compensation" as you posted. As the academy has fullfilled the objective, there is no current need to push for more- meaning, there will continue to be a push for qualified applicants, but their number as a % of the Brigade is on target with what is felt to be needed.... thus, the number given appointments from whatever the pool size should remain constant, if not a little less, than those of the class of 2012, which currently has the highest % of females of any class to date.</p>
<p>I do not believe the admissions board has gone to a "gender blind" process at this time, nor have I heard that mentioned as an objective. Quite frankly, I don't see how that is possible considering the number of commission service lines currently not open to female candidates. Clearly the academy wants a good representation of female candidates- but to that end there is a limit as to that number as a percentage of the brigade. All I can tell you is that I seek out qualified candidates irregardless of gender or race, and encourage those that appear qualified to consider applying to the academy. The push as been, and continues to be, getting as many qualified students to apply and let the system work from there. </p>
<p>There are many objectives that have to be met in seeking to fill the class-
appointees from all 50 states and US territories
spread out equitably from every congressional district (the 5 max limit per MOC)
the targeted male / female ratio (aligned with the fleet %)
the targeted hispanic and african-american ratio (aligned with the fleet %)
Other special interest groups (blue chip athletes with a desire to serve)-
and new for 2013, the push for more Division-1 majors-
just to name a few of the considerations when putting a class together, and ALL dependent on what the projected needs of the Navy are at the time.</p>
<p>The Supe has gone on record in may forums re: the push for diversity for minority groups, and right now that is defined as African American and hispanic, as the strategic need is to mirror in the officers corps what is contained in the enlisted group. He has made that objective very public, and the progress report is a standing agenda item at the Board of Visitors Meeting, which for at least the first half of those meetings, are open to the public.</p>
<p>You already received a nomination? That's hard to imagine because it's awfully early for nominations.</p>
<p>Did you actually get an LOA (Letter of Assurance). That's not an appointment but it might as well be.</p>
<p>David Emerling
Memphis, TN</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Ours were announced week #1 of November. These included both Senatorial and HoR.</p>