<p>Eugene
Without seeing their application no one on this forum can objectively comment on whether someone else should or should not have been offered an appointment based solely on the info you gave. There is simply not enough info in your post. What were their PAE results? Were there DODMERB issues? Did they interview favorably? Have they demonstrated leadership to a high degree? The absense of one factor (varsity sports for example) is not an automatic disqualifier, nor does it's presence guarantee an appointment. There are other factors which, if weighted enough could offset any shortcomings of another.</p>
<p>SLS is definitely a factor that helps in admission, but keep in mind that there are MANY candidates who did not go to SLS (or IAW) that will be admitted. Because 50-60% of SLS attendees are offered admission does not mean they all garnered LOA's. The majority of appointees do not receive LOA's. It would be expected that a higher percentage of SLS attendees would be eventually appointed since they have already taken one very important (and successful) pass through the screening process.</p>
<p>It is both futile and unproductive to try to guess why one candidate was accepted and one was not unless you are sitting on the admissions committee. Good Luck!</p>
<p>You do bring up good points there, but I still find it almost unbelievable that someone that did not even participate in one season on a varsity or JV team would be accepted (I am also 100% sure he did not participate in any sports outside of school). I know this particular individual fairly well.</p>
<p>I know as you said I cannot assume many things, but every West Point admissions officer always stresses the importance of participation in varsity athletics (preferably letter winners and captains). Missing that element and being offered an admission is pretty much unheard of. I guess a perfect CFA/PAE could partially make up for the deficit in this area, but even so still hard to believe that one can receive admission without sports.</p>
<p>And also my bad on the LOA. I thought the LOA meant a letter of admission. Now I find out that it means assurance, which is kind of different.</p>
<p>I did not intend to sound like an expert in a field that I wasn't. I was just stating a couple of facts and then my thoughts on them.</p>
<p>On average between 10-12% of accepted candidates did not earn varsity letters in high school (11% in the class of 2004). They are in the minority but are far from "unheard of". For a candidate to be accepted without one would most surely be a testimony to the strength of the other parts of their file. Good Luck!</p>
<p>I'd be a little cautious about confusing the correlation between SLS and admission with a causal relationship. SLS participants tend to be interested in WP, have competitive scores, and good EC's due to the prescreening process. This makes them prime candidates for admission, whether they choose to attend SLS or not.</p>
<p>Unless I hear (or read) otherwise from an admissions rep, I'm assuming it's only a slight push on the WCS.</p>
<p>That is true, but check my words a little more carefully.</p>
<p>10% do not receive a varsity LETTER. According to the profile of the class of 2008, of those 10%, that did not receive LETTERS (sorry for the caps, but idk how to make italics) 90% of them still participated in varsity sports, but did not receive letters.</p>
<p>That brings us down to 1% who did not participate in a varsity sport. Then what about JV sports? Surely, anyone interested in WP must have made some sort of effort to play sports. So pretty much, those who did not play sports is <1% at best. I would say this falls into the "unheard of" range.</p>
<p>The class of 2008 had 1224 members in the profile. 1113 participated in some kind of varsity sport. 111 members did not. That's about 9% of the class. A minority but still, nearly 1 in 10 belong to it. Given that the preceeding classes have roughly the same stats, not participating in varsity sports is not unheard of. It's a big hurdle to overcome, but nearly 10% of the class did so.</p>
<p>And as I said before, any lack of participation in one area of a candidates file must certainly be outweighed by superior performance in other areas. Lack of a varsity letter (or if you like, participation in varsity sports) is not an automatic deal breaker any more than the presence of a varsity letter automatically makes one a stronger candidate than someone without. In the end it is the complete file that is reviewed and evaluated. Without knowing the contents of that file, you simply can't judge someone "less qualified" than some other candidate based on that one factor.</p>
<p>I don't want to extend your point/counterpoint dialog with Shogun but thought I might be able to shed some light on your comment about why some "more qualified" candidates may not receive appointments while some "less qualified" candidates do. </p>
<p>I believe the major factor is the congressionally-mandated distribution of appointments. That is, by law, the academies have to distribute appointments to qualified candidates in each congressional district based on the relative qualifications of candidates within that congressional district (or the preference of the member of congress if that member makes a principal nomination). As a result, a "more qualified" candidate in a highly competitive district may not receive an appointment while a "less qualified" candidate in a less competitive district does. While most congressional districts are roughly equivalent in size, there is great disparity in the number of qualified candidates in each district.</p>
<p>I dont want to say too much about my childs situation for class of 2009, but he had outstanding credentials EXCEPT for a varsity sport and didnt quite get in, but should be in class of 2010.... The cynical part of me says that by making sports a big part of admissions, it makes it easier to admit the varsity athletes, however sports are also a fairly objective way to assess what people are doing....not perfect far sure... and we are in a stunningly competitive district which probably doesnt help. </p>
<p>Also on the statistics rmember that something like 40% of a class participate in a varsity sport, most of those are prob varsity captains....</p>
<p>I do know of two candidates without varsity sport, but solid otherwise--eagle scout, band, acadmeic honors who have been accepted... </p>
<p>I understand the term is WHOLE Candidate Score</p>
<p>One other suggestion to the inquiry of chances of admit.from skirbby.. might I suggest --due to your scout activities--that you explore possibly joining a local competitive orienteering group--many big cities have them... that was a specific -"radio button" on the application --not nearly as good as say varsity all-state football --but it might help... i am no expert though</p>
<p>Hey aspen, I think you found the answer. Thanks.</p>
<p>Upon inquiry I learned that in some of the Great Plains states and Rocky Mountain states, sometimes a district will have less applicants than even the 10 person maximum. So basically all of them receive a nomination, unlike areas like Houston, TX where you have 50+ candidates competing for 10 slots sometimes.</p>
<p>Maybe I should move to Wyoming or something =P</p>
<p>Don't move too far from New Jersey, the people will start to speak funny.</p>
<p>Seriously, moving into a less competitive district is not as far fetched as it may, at first glance, appear to be. Parents have been known to move around the country to get their children into the "right" athletic or educational programs. </p>
<p>If you and your parents are really set on your desire to get into an academy, I would encourage you to consider all parts of the appointment process and work to improve your chances in whatever, legal, manner possible. Realize, however, that while getting a nomination is imperative, the more difficult challenge is to receive an appointment. At 10 nominations per member of congress, there are potentially over 5000 nominations available. Appointments, unfortunately, are limited to about 1200.</p>
<p>If you look at the numbers, about 20% of the applicants are deemed physically/academically qualified by the academy and about half of those qualified candidates receive appointments. Assuming you will be deemed qualified, the goal is to improve your odds from 50/50 to something closer to certainty.</p>
<p>This may sound stupid...but what exactly does west point consider "Academically qualified"? Physically and medically qualified are pretty black and white, you must pass the cfa and dodmerb. But "academically qualified"? Do they use a certain cut off or something?</p>
<p>There is an academic score that admissions calculates. The "cut-off" is determined by admissions and it can change throughout the admissions process. There is no way to determine from the "outside" what that cutoff is, what one's score might be, or how it is calculated by admissions. It is one factor in calculating the WCS. That is why it is said that one must qualify academically, medically, and physically.</p>
<p>there is a cut-off for SAT and ACT scores. Although I cannot speak for USMA, USMMA's cut off scores were 22 for the ACT and 1050 for the SAT (i think). Lower scores are unacceptable and you would not get an appointment.</p>