<p>Saw the Class of 2009 Profile on the USNA Site (in admissions section)</p>
<p>Thought the following were interesting:</p>
<p>Although applications were down 22% (11,259 vs. 14,425) triple qualified candidates (sholastic, medical and physical aptitude) were only down 7% ( 1,812 vs. 1,951).</p>
<p>For 2010 candidates, it is of interest to note that this year 83% of triple-qualified candidates received offers of admission compared with 75% for the class of 2008. </p>
<p>For those of you still in high school, note that about one third of the spots (397) were awarded to candidates in prep school or with previous college.</p>
<p>"For those of you still in high school, note that about one third of the spots (397) were awarded to candidates in prep school or with previous college."</p>
<p>Grapper: Good catch. My error. The 397 number was for Class of 2008.</p>
<p>Your right about competition. If you also factor in recruited athletes and other special categories, the competition is brutal even for fully qualified candidates.</p>
<p>This was really good to read after seeing a few we know turned down this year including our son. Add to what was written the almost 20% women, the number of minorities and those from other countries and then figure in the individaul state requirements and I now understand why my sons frist Blue and Gold encounter focused on him being the wrong sex and ethnicity. A very discouraging way to be introduced to your first Blue and Gold officer at an Academy night. Everyone we talked to said it takes two years to get in, in many cases, especially from competative areas and it is clearly true. It is quite an honor to get to be one of the 1800+ QQQ'd candidates and un unbelievable opportunity to receive an appointment right out of High School. What is sad is that by utilizing a process like this so many candidates that are more qualified than others from different parts of the country miss the opportunity to attend. That said statewide diversity is important too.</p>
<p>An important lesson to learn at a young age though. Thanks for sharing and the 400+ with prior college etc. will hopefully bring some encouragement to those that decide to ante up for the process again.</p>
<p>I understand your math, jq722, but I think Grappler is right because when the Academy refers to "The Class of 2009" they are refering to appointees who accepted the appointment and were inducted on I-Day. Those who turned down acceptance or who (for whatever reason) are not inducted are not considered part of the Class.</p>
<p>^right but how many of the 229 NAPs grads or 80 foundation kids turn down an acceptance. NONE. Reason: why would they turn one down after going through 8 months of training to get into the academy? Exactly. </p>
<p>My point stands, 25% of the kids accepted are Naps or prior enlisted..who can't turn down an acceptance.</p>
<p>jq722 - I believe that your basic assumption is flawed. In fact, I suspect that a number of NAPS graduates will have decided that the service academy life isn't their cup of tea. Just because they finished the year doesn't mean that they haven't changed their mind about attending the Naval Academy - it just means they weren't quitters. I've never seen the percentage of appointments accepted by NAPS graduates, but I suspect that it is no higher than the acceptance rate by other appointees.</p>
<p>Just to remind everyone that most women who received appointments to us service academies are also highly qualified, and often out-perform their male counterparts academically.
Interesting, varsity athletes increased from 89% in 2008 to 91% in 2009. Do we see any trends?</p>
<p>my son was accepted a service academy prep slot from west point, 1500 SAT -old- ..national merit scholar , eagle scout, other national ecs...weak in sports, so was glad to be offered a spot ..... necessary to be persistent, and I know some of the women candidates, they are top notch, ditto for under-represented ethnic groups. </p>
<p>Service academies has been successful over the years -with the geographic 'quotas' ..... so i accept it ...... </p>
<p>It just means, if you apply, have a legitimate alternate to admission to your academy.</p>
<p>"Just to remind everyone that most women who received appointments to us service academies are also highly qualified, and often out-perform their male counterparts academically." </p>
<p>In the new WP class of 2009, a young woman had the top physical fitness score of both men and women this month during cadet basic training.</p>
<p>There is no way to know how many of the accepted candidates who declined the appointment had prior college experience. This is what happens when assumptions with no foundation are made. You are assuming that anyone who receives an appointment accepts it; obviously this is false.</p>
<p>It could be possible, for example, that an applicant with prior college background, received appointments to more than one service academy, or decided to stay put wherever he/she is. Perhaps he/she is in NROTC and after an entire year, decided that path was better.</p>
<p>My point, there are too many "perhaps", thus the statistics put forth by Grappler are valid. 406/1220. Anything else is pure assumption, and we all know what happens when we assume.
CM</p>
<p>Shogun,
"In the new WP class of 2009, a young woman had the top physical fitness score of both men and women this month during cadet basic training." Would that young woman happen to be your daughter?
Let's not forget USNA '81 grad Capt. Wendy Lawrence who will shortly be on her fourth Space Shuttle mission.</p>
<p>candidatemam- I am aware that not everyone who is admitted actually accept their appointment. Show me what I wrote to make you believe otherwise. I am trying to point out that aspen's original statement is wrong. To refresh your memory...</p>
<p>"note that about one third of the spots (397) were awarded to candidates in prep school or with previous college."</p>
<p>This is not accurate, how could 397 make up one third of the 1503 spots awarded. It is innacurate. A better statement would have been that one third of the people who accepted an invitation make up the class.</p>
<p>I am not trying to cause a fight, its just that i don't like people to put words in my mouth. Aspen's statement is inaccurate no matter what way you look at it. As is Grappler's. Why in the hell would you graduate from NAPs and not accpet an appointment. That is why so many drop out before they graduate.</p>
<p>Estimating 90 percent of the people in this group don't decline appointments your statement is wrong too.</p>