Does anyone know the usna acceptance rate for the class of 2013?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
41

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, mombee has the right idea, but the wrong explanation. If they predict the # “almost exactly”, they’ve been almost lucky. All they can do is predict a range with standard deviations. It’s like the weather …the more history put into the computer, the more likely the weather will be as predicted. But there is no sense of exactness, as anyone watching the weather discovers, and Memphis is right in the way precision and the end # is achieved is in the final 60-90 days, watching how many offers are declined, using the wait list, and nursing it home.</p>

<p>And of course, these patterns will become increasingly less predictable as USNA purposefully alters the mix of information being entered into their equation. Simply said, for the future, this is (as we saw last year) and will be less predictable, not more so, due to the new rules and dual track admissions process.</p>

<p>In other words, whatever has been the equation, no longer is. It’s a new game.</p>

<p>GO NAVY! :cool:</p>

42

<p>

There are, ‘of course’, no new rules or dual track admissions process so this will not be a factor. The increased emphasis on 100% MOC district participation will continue to be handled as always. The national pool is what it is, as always.</p>

43

<p>While your persistance and eloquent verbiage is, dare we say, admirable, and possibly even persuasive to a few, absent an official response, accompanied by data, your argument is simply because “I said so.” Prof. Fleming’s purchased USNA data, via the Freedom of Information Act along with his personal admissions experience, while abhorrent to many blind loyalists, and disappointing to many more, seems to be clear that in fact there is a dual system, and that USNA remains fixed on retaining and nurturing that. </p>

<p>And it’s important noting that the numbers of the past admissions season are not in fact the target numbers. Also note, none know what those target numbers for minorities are. Why not? Simple. It would confirm what you persist in denying, totally absent of any credible basis for your claims. </p>

<p>The solution is simple and unfortunately, much as you’d like to imply, the answer must come from them. Not you or others proclaiming “foul” on Dr. Fleming’s charges. Only the USNA can defend themselves. </p>

<p>Speculation here, no matter how it’s worded, well, are simply your words. But to be clear, not your words vs. mine. I make no argument beyond that revealed by the FOIA data. And by the total absence of any and all USNA response beyond deafening silence. </p>

<p>Hoping for sure, this will go away. </p>

<p>More closely, why would they change the way data on minority candidates is revealed on the USNA admissions site? That’s obvious by its absence.</p>

<p>The last point though is most revealing …the data that we do know…along with the alleged causation for the vast increase in apps reveals that the process is different in recruiting certain target populations, and the outcomes revealing. </p>

<p>So of course …the data is different and will be more so for the forseeable, and substantially less reliable in predicting or forecasting admissions yields. USNA admits its dealing with substantially different populations. Of course.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course there is. Your refusal to acknowledge it (the truth) means nothing. </p>

<p>Facts are facts, proof is proof, and the facts have been proved by Fleming beyond any doubt, despite what USNA wants us to believe, your shilling included.</p>

45

<p>

I wonder. I actually think that if someone ask about the food at the Academy, somehow you would interject your dual track opinions into the conversation. Why do you feel that it is important to keep bring up your opinions when they have absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand? It serves absolutely no purpose to those intended on obtaining information about attending USNA.</p>

<p>

Prof Fleming is an English Prof who sat on a single admissions board almost a decade ago. He purchased nothing. The FOIA request was by Dave Quint and his erroneous conclusions were simply parroted by Feming. Again, I ask you, instead of blindly accepting this data, look at it closely. It is overall SAT stats for the Class of 2013, including NAPSters. We all know that the reason for NAPS is academic deficiency with low SATs being the prime indicator. Remove the NAPS SATs from the data and suddenly it is a non-story. Don’t take their word for it, do it. The whole thing was nothing but manipulation of ‘data’ to a false conclusion.</p>

<p>

Yep, they went into historically underrepresented districts and recruited highly qualified candidates. The increase in applications really had nothing to do with this. Would you rather your taxpayer dollars go to further recruiting in NoVa for example, where highly qualified candidates are falling all over each other?</p>

<p>

Of course. And does not dealing with substantially different populations demand substantially different approaches? Again, I ask you, since the College Board admits openly racially, ethnically, socioeconomic, and gender bias in relation to the SATs, how would you address it? Would ignoring it not be prejudiced? Again, a hypothetical question. We all know that the Academy maintains copious data. We all know that the sole purpose of the SATs is to determine probability of success during freshman year only. The College Board actually warns against any other attempted usage. What if, for example, USNA has determined that a black plebe performs exactly to the standards of a white plebe who scored 100 points higher on the SAT? How should it be addressed? Why do you continue to ignore this question?</p>

<p>

This entire train of thought by Salamander and his ilk is totally beyond belief and amazingly arrogant. Pull out your Civics 101 book. The military is well insulated from the public. By design. They have no obligation whatsoever to respond to every perceived allegation by the public. They have a responsibility to their chain of command, a CoC, by the way, which has demanded an increased look at diversity. Congress also maintains oversight. They provide this oversight via the Board of Visitors. They have ‘blessed’ the USNA approach to the CoC requirement. USNA is doing their job. Therefore, I suggest that if you don’t like it, instead of continuously, at every perceived opportunity, harping at it on this forum, go to your personal CoC, your MOC, and have them do something about it. Allow me to suggest however that your letter might be of more substance if you actually formulate your own thoughts rather than just state that Fleming says so.</p>

<p>

Flemings accusations are that of illegial activities. USNA states inequivocally that they are following the letter of the law. The Board of Visitors confirms this. Again, one more time. Why is Fleming ‘facts’ and why is the Academy’s position ‘shilling’?</p>

46

<p>

Well, I have heard those ‘in the know’ explain it several times and have never heard the term ‘standard deviation’ used as a part of the explanation nor have I ever heard them use the term ‘lucky’. The recent addition of the waiting list has probably alleviated all their concerns at the expense of a few very late notifications. As an aside, I am sure you can agree, that the later the notification the greater the chance of a candidate having already committed to Plan ‘B’.</p>

<p>Actually, the ratio of offers to acceptances is a much better indicator of a school’s selectivity than is applications to acceptances; it is easily compared to civilian institutions; and it varies very little from year to year. Probably something they track and analyze very closely.</p>

47

<p>Once again, the question gets asked to seek an answer that will come in its own due time. Patience is a virtue, and while I fully appreciate the “angst” that comes with the “waiting,” the answer will come when it comes.</p>

<p>As for luck- I am reminded of what my own mid told me when his appointment came in the mail- he said he was “one of the lucky few of the deserving many.” It is etched in my heart and mind.</p>

<p>All I can say to those anxiously waiting is to keep the faith. The system does work, and somehow, USNA has managed to pull together great kids form all over this US of A in appointing each class. If you have completed your file, sought your nomination, put your best forward, then you have done all you can do. To pass the time, direct your focus on keeping your grades up, getting your running programs underway, and enjoying the rest of your senior year- it will be over before you know it. The process is no longer in your control - and it will be what it will be. </p>

<p>The USNA knows very well what it needs, and they will select the candidates that best fit that bill. Hopefully you have what they want. If not, then the world will still spin, life will go on, and you will have a wonderful future at college else-where. If USNA is a “must do,” then you will reconsider applying next year… 1/3 of the incoming class will include those with at least one-year of post-high school education under their belts. ONE THIRD!!! </p>

<p>waiting list-
there is one, but to date the yield of appointments from that [very small] list has been limited. YOu can probably count them on one hand.</p>

<p>Appointments to acceptances is tracked closely- in any typical year, there are about 50-60 that turn down the appointments. Thus, about 1500 typically go out to yield a class size of 1430, give or take. Class of 2011 had a higher yield than that- which, as someone pointed out earlier, may have altered the pacing of the initial offers that go out - but last I heard, it is still sitting at around 1500. With the current state of the economy, it would not come as a surprise to see those rejections decline, but that answer, too, will come in due time. </p>

<p>What I am sure of is that the numbers get crunched, sliced and diced in many ways, by many parties, and for many agendas. USNA will themselves report some of them once the class has reported, and the results will be posted on the USNA admissions website for those interested in crunching the numbers for themselves.</p>

<p>Best of luck all-
this part of the process can be trying, that I know- but keep it in perspective the best you can. At least you are in the running, and that is to your credit!</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>This would be somewhat comparable …IF one were comparing apples to apples. In other words, if the acceptance to Harvard included a guarantee of no tuition, room & board bill soon to follow. So the yield factors between civilian institutions and Service Academies are totally different beasts. There is no comparison at all, and most definitely does not measure selectivity …with one exception. </p>

<p>And that is “selectivity” of admitted students. And I’ve never seen that figure reported in any way as a measure of institutional “selectivity.” </p>

<p>Let’s not confuse anymore than is necessary.</p>

<p>btw, in noting …

</p>

<p>I’m confident USNA officials rightly speculate their audience unable to grasp the statistical complexities and nuiances of the bell curve, standard deviations essential to projecting probabilities. So they don’t talk to their audience in such terms. It’s revealing stuff but not for the weak of heart or head. And I’m confident they’ve never, ever mentioned algorithms …</p>

49

<p>

Of course you are correct in that there are no true absolute apples to apples comparison between a Harvard and a SA, however, those who make a living annually ranking the ‘best’ and the ‘most difficult’ to obtain admission seem to think it is the best that they have. Actually, almost twenty years ago I had this exact conversation with the Head of the Candidate Guidance Office and I argued your point, unsuccessfully, I might add. I wish my memory was better. For any institution, the ratio of offers to acceptances is an indication of whether or not that particular institution is the first choice of those to whom offers were extended and, therefore, a viable statistic.</p>

<p>As an aside, does anyone who is truly concerned about the tuition, room, and board bill, considering Harvard’s endowment, really have to worry about it?</p>

50

<p>

You are off a couple of hundred here. Class sizes lately are typically in the 1200-1250 range so there are approximately 300 each year who turn down the appointment.</p>

51

<p>^^^You are absolutely correct. 1240, give or take.
I will get you numbers on how many offers go out.
Stay tuned.</p>

52

<p>At the end of the day, applicants should only care about the yield rate/acceptance ratio as it applies to ONE person: you. </p>

<p>All other calculationsa are absolutely meaningless if you don’t get an appointment.</p>

<p>So, let’s say the acceptance rate is 100% of those who choose to accept an appointment and 0% among those who do not get an appointment.</p>

53

<p>Bill’s got this one. Mark your calendar.</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>Wouldn’t THAT be fun? :D</p>

55

<p>^^^^ LOL!!!
[btw- pm’d you on the other site… several moons ago!!!]</p>