Estimated timing of 'events' for upcoming class

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
21

<p>These LOA and MOC questions mirror some of what we Class of 2010 parents were wondering about last year at this time. I know that some Congressman, if you have an LOA, don't even require an interview with you, they automatically put you in for a nomination - in our Congressman's case - the interview was still required - the LOA was visible in the nomination packet that the interview Board was looking at - but the REALLY interesting thing in our case happened after all was said and done. We are at the Congressman's special breakfast 10 days before I-Day, and he is honoring all his young people with Academy Appointments. I went up to one of the people in his Nomination Interview Board - who happened to be a civilian and without identifying myself as the parent of a child who had an LOA - I simply inquired about the interview process from his point of view - he shared that he has done this for many years and usually just skims the application before him - he is most interested in his 'own read' of the young person on the day of the interview. I then asked him whether seeing an LOA in the packet carried any weight. I was astonished to learn that for him it means NOTHING and that he didn't even note if someone had one or not. I found this fascinating - especially since we had been thinking ever since our child had the LOA that her app at the interview level would have some kind of weighted consideration. Nope - not in this Congressman's District. I did also learn that the Committee ranked all the young people who were interviewed and that after all was said and done, my daughter was ranked #1 anyway - </p>

<p>So the bottom line is....there's an awful lot of variety and flexibility across the country in how this process works.</p>

<p>So hang in there one and all hopeful 2011 Candidates. Give each part of this process your best shot - INCLUDING the day you sit for your interview with the Nominating Board.</p>

22

<p>kind of steering away from the topic at hand, but what is the point of the nomination process? if the Academy likes a certain person, they should have all the say in whether or not they accept them. it also restricts who gets in based on where someone lives. if I am a qualified candidate, how fair is it that i dont recieve an appointment, and someone less qualified from Bodunk Wyoming gets one, just because there happens to be someone else who lives in my district/state who takes my spot?</p>

23

<p>It's not fair. Just like life. Get used to it.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
if the Academy likes a certain person, they should have all the say in whether or not they accept them.

[/quote]

Stop and think about that for a moment, then remember the kind of system we threw off back during this little disagreement that occurred in 1776.</p>

<p>If the Academies could pick whosoever they wanted, chances would be greater that a military caste would form. By requiring nominations from members of Congress and other elected or appointed CIVILIAN officials, the civilian government retains a measure of control as to who comprises the Officer Corps. It is a control that is inherent in the design of our Republic: that the military serves the civilian, not the other way around.</p>

<p>I think you would agree that it's better that way.</p>

<p>I should add that from among the nominated candidates, the Academies DO have complete freedom to pick whosoever they choose, but the first cut is made by the civilians in power.</p>

<p>
[quote]
it also restricts who gets in based on where someone lives. if I am a qualified candidate, how fair is it that i dont recieve an appointment, and someone less qualified from Bodunk Wyoming gets one, just because there happens to be someone else who lives in my district/state who takes my spot?

[/quote]

First off, if someone else in your state takes "your" spot, then it wasn't really yours, was it? </p>

<p>Secondly, it is INHERENTLY fair that the nominations be spread out across the country, else the more powerful MOC's would gobble up the appointment slots, and you'd end up with the Service Academies only representing a few states rather than the whole nation. </p>

<p>Again, I think you would agree it's better that way.</p>

<p>I'm afraid that the only reason any of this seems unfair is because you are the one going through it. I felt that way in my day, too, but I knuckled under and kept at it. Looking back across 20 years since then, I can see the wisdom in the way the system is set up, no matter how nonsensical it may look from the applicant's standpoint.</p>

<p>Oh, and one last point: The old man is right; life isn't fair. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll be able to go through adult life without being totally miserable. ;)</p>

25

<p>point taken</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
if I am a qualified candidate, how fair is it that i dont recieve an appointment, and someone less qualified from Bodunk Wyoming gets one, just because there happens to be someone else who lives in my district/state who takes my spot?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is true that if you live in an underpopulated state, such as ND or WY, you will likely have an easier time securing a nomination quite simply b/c there are fewer bodies competing. Remember, senators in CA get 10 noms per slot and senators in ND get 10 noms per slot. Compare the populations of the states. Just as with voting -- that's the way our system works. If you want to better your odds, so to speak, you can move to SD or WY. Lots of space out there. :)</p>

<p>However, please don't anyone think that the folks from less populous states are less qualified. Those who've attended any academy know from firsthand experience that simply isn't true. They are simply fewer in number, not lesser in quality.</p>

27

<p>Senators aside, aren't Congressmen allocated on the basis of population?</p>

<p>If so then, Senators aside (which are fewer than 1/5 of the nominations ... 100 Senators X 10 vs. 435 Congressmen X 10), it's fully fair.</p>

<p>And that's what our founding fathers wanted ... one branch where RI was equal to CA ... and another where the people would speak from where they live.</p>

<p>Am I figuring this wrong? Straighten me out, someone, anyone!</p>

28

<p>You're spot-on, WP. Fire for effect!</p>

<p>The makeup of our Congress is based on the argument between states rights and individual rights. The Great Compromise took care of this by creating a bicameral body that covered both concerns. The House represents on the basis of population, the Senate represents all states equally. It is the same concept underlying the Electoral College. A candidate cannot simply win the most individual votes; his votes have to be sufficiently representative of the entire country.</p>

<p>Damned smart people, those Founding Fathers. ;)</p>

29

<p>USCGA doesn't require nominations.. Any thoughts on why they don't?</p>

30

<p>I read a few years back that there were members of congress that didn’t nominate anyone to the service academies.. I believe there was a congresswoman from Southern California that made a point of saying that she didn’t. What do the academies admissions people do to help the poor kids from those districts who want to attend.. I mean, as far as I know congressman are not forced to make the nominations, right?</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
I believe there was a congresswoman from Southern California that made a point of saying that she didn’t.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, man........ the mind reels at the possibilities as to why. :rolleyes:</p>

32

<p>Let it not pass either without note ...</p>

<p>USCGA receives the lowest allocation (I think both on absolute AND on a per capita basis) of any of the academies. More now that Homeland Security is a big issue, but still the lowest, I believe)</p>

<p>Coincidence? Maybe. Politics? Prbly.</p>

<p>Never underestimate the power of the polity or of politicians.</p>