<p>
</p>
<p>I thought that I had made it pretty clear that I think your guy, if he is truly as you portray him, is pulling your leg and does not have an LOA. </p>
<p>As far as your second question. Of course the Academy gives special consideration to different groups. How exactly they accomplish this, I have no idea. And from reading Fleming's article linked above, apparently he doesn't know either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you not read the link posted by jadler03?</p>
<p>Editorial comments notwithstanding (the alumni and other USNA boosters like to knock Bruce Fleming because he exposes "dirty little secrets" of the USNA that they wish to hide), the writer is a 20+ year professor of English at the USNA and was a member of the USNA admissions board, unlike anyone else on this web site.</p>
<p>He states unequivocally, yes they do.</p>
<p>yes you had made it clear, that is why I stressed that fact that I do not know. and to your comment Luigi59, no I had not at the time because I was on a library computer which wouldn't let me open it. I guess it assumed it was a pop-up and blocked it. chill, seriously. you guys are getting way too stressed over whether or not this kid seriously did get an LOA or not. that was not the major issue, and it does not need to be focused upon.</p>
<p>Scubaguy, you will find this to be a typical exchange; most people pick out a snippet which they believe supports their position and then run with it . . . regardles of what you thought was the point of your post.</p>
<p>Consider the article that was posted. Fleming was actually on the admissions board [compared to those who poste herein and were not on the admissions board] and STILL his comments are denigrated as unknowing.<br>
But that seems to be the standard on discussion panels: Make a comment that has no basis in fact, is non-responsive to the question, act like its the truth and enough people will come to believe you.
Sort of like politicians . . . .</p>
<p>This reminds me of a story. I play tennis w/ a lady who is from China. She is a naturalized citizen who is married to an American of white-European descent. Her children are American citizens. She said she always told them "you are an American, you are an American," as opposed to "you are a Chinese-American." However, when she saw they had very ambitious goals for where they wanted to attend college, she told them: "Now you're Chinese!!" If I'm not mistaken her boys attended Harvard and MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Editorial comments notwithstanding (the alumni and other USNA boosters like to knock Bruce Fleming because he exposes "dirty little secrets" of the USNA that they wish to hide
[/quote]
</p>
<p>dirty little secrets?? Isn’t that phrase typically associated with conduct normally considered illegal or unethical? </p>
<p>It’s certainly an interesting characterization of an admissions practice that is almost universally applied across higher/post secondary educational institutions; including I would imagine the CGA. </p>
<p>Speaking of the CGA, I’m curious are the CGA boosters lacking someone like Bruce Fleming to pick on or trash talk about within their own organization? In they absence of such an individual are they left only with USNA alumni and boosters to talk about? </p>
<p>
[quote]
the writer is a 20+ year professor of English at the USNA and was a member of the USNA admissions board, unlike anyone else on this web site.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In rereading this thread, (something I’m trying do with some diligence as I’d prefer not to post comments inconsistent with previously posted statements); I don’t see where Mr. Fleming’s credentials were ever called into question, or the fact that he served on the admissions board. </p>
<p>I also don’t see where anyone questioned his assertion that this policy is currently practiced; on the contrary that seems to be one point in which there is agreement. The “how” or “equation” was something not volunteered by him and perhaps for good reason; he may not know or has chosen not to reveal it. </p>
<p>I’ve never served on the USNA admissions board; (I thought I should get that out of the way just in case there was any question). Despite my lack of experience and/or shortcomings, I think I can still fathom the need to maintain a level of “secrecy” about the specific details of the admissions practices and polices of the USNA or any other academic institution that is trying to prevent kids from attempting to “design” an admissions package around the entrance requirements. He confirmed the practice exists; was anyone surprised or taken back? </p>
<p>The specifics of the practice are irrelevant, I thought the issue that we are discussing is the wisdom of the practice of affording special consideration to applicants to achieve diversity objectives …. </p>
<p>(and scubaguy I really don’t think anyone really cares about whether or not your acquaintance; the compulsive liar has/had or will ever get an LOA)</p>
<p>ok thanks guys that cleared up my questions. and to rjrzoom57, if no one "really cares whether or not [my] acquaintance... will ever get an LOA", then why has that been such a major topic of discussion for about the first 10 posts in response to my initial post? that is the only reason i discussed the issue further. aside from that, thanks to all who posted. upon reading the linked page along with all of the added info from the other users, i think the question was answered with as much clarity and depth as we, the non admissions board, can possibly achieve. again, thanks.</p>
<p>JackTraveler- the real question is what have you done to help your classmate (companymate?)?</p>
<p>Advice to all future Mids: do not question why one of your classmates or in the future why one of your shipmates is where they are. Just work together to be part of a successful team.</p>
<p>
<p>Bill and Luigi, Fleming’s position on affirmative action is that “we need applicants who can get in on their own merits”. His way of achieving this is “If this means more intervention, earlier, in disadvantaged communities, so be it. In the long run, it is the only tenable solution.” So until we, as a society, go into the inner cities and create applicants that can get in on their own, he has no solution. He is simply ranting.</p>
<p>Again, Bill and Luigi, have you even read Fleming. His major point in both his book and the afore linked article is that half of each class is entering through the back door and do not meet his own private intellectual benchmark:</p>
<p> [Quote] That means admitted at the head of the line, without having to further compete for a sometimes hard-to-get nomination from a member of Congress or the executive branch that otherwise is the sine qua non of admission to any of the nation's military academies. Counting all the favored groups, about 50 percent of students offered admission to the Naval Academy have bypassed this nominating process, which leaves so many highly qualified non-favored students going to State U instead .
</p>
<p>Let me interpret this for you two. Congressman Wiley’s third cousin once removed down in Texas with her 58,000 whole person points who got his primary nomination is good. The number two guy on his list who, with 65,000 whole person points, got in from the middle of the national pool, entered through the ‘back’ door, and is bad. Yep, he is on the admissions board and knows it all. </p>
<p>You know enough about the admissions procedures to be able to dissect his statement. He is saying that unless one is one of the 50 percent who gains a nomination source “from a member of Congress or the executive branch”, they are entering through the back door (his description) and depriving “highly qualified non-favored students going to State U instead.” He has just besmirched the national pool which admits candidates based wholly on order of merit. He either doesn’t know of what he is speaking or is ignoring the system to prove his own tangential points. How many of the 50 percent are in the favored group, Since all Hispanics, Native and African Americans, front and “back” door, make up only 15 percent of the class, it cannot be what he would want you to believe.</p>
<p>If you read his book, this fact that we are not admitting the top intellectual candidates is a big part of it. He is anti-athlete even though I can produce study after study which not only shows that varsity athletes are more likely to graduate but that those who do so are more likely to succeed as officers. He is also anti ex-enlisted. They do not meet up to his ‘intellectual’ requirements. He is anti anything that takes the midshipmen away from academics such as military, professional, and athletic requirements. In other words, he envisions USNA as a Harvard ROTC unit. Like the typical academian, he doesn’t understand the value of anything other than academics on the development of a Naval Officer. No deep dark secrets. No embarrassing realities which we would rather not discuss. Just a ranting parochial individual who, either refuses to see the big picture or is totally unaware of it. A ranting parochial individual who was on the admissions board once of which the Admissions Dept will not make the same mistake twice. A ranting individual who believes his own statement:</p>
<p>
[quote]
find I am in favor of eliminating all our set-asides: racial, athletic and fleet-determined.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please tell me that you don’t agree with him to withhold appointments from our enlisted troops. However, knowing you two, I am sure you think, even though he has never set foot into the fleet, he knows the makings of an officer better than I do. </p>
<p>My own personal opinion is that the Academy is becoming too selective. The typical candidate is becoming more and more distanced from those who he is trying to lead. Midshipmen had rather wear Topsiders and khakis and sail for the summer than get down in the bilges of a tin can and help an enlisted guy change a pump. When I was at the Academy, the Marines, fearful of becoming an overly intellectual community, would divide the graduating class into groups, depending on class standing, and take a certain percentage from each group, thus assuring a cross section. Something akin to this would, in my opinion, provide a better cross section of officers. NAPS graduates have a better USNA graduation rate and, along with football players, also perform better in the fleet than the standard graduate. Fleming is lazy. He is looking for the easier student to teach, not the better student for the fleet.</p>
<p>The Dean asked him to retract the above linked article from the WP, not because it was damning, but because it was so filled with nonfactual information. </p>
<p>Bill and Luigi, I did not provide the Fleming link, but I am more than willing to discuss him. What other parts of his book do you think provides glowing insight to which the Academy should consider? I think what Fleming is describing is a general migration to the more affluential suburban candidate. Not withstanding that neither of you apparently have any Naval experience at all, is this what you truly think is best for the Navy?</p>
<p>"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." William Shakespeare</p>
<p>*To "protest too much" is to insist so strongly about something not being true that people begin to suspect maybe it is true. Example: "You do like that girl, don't you?" Answer: "No! I don't! Not at all! Why do you think so?" Reply: "You protest too much." "Protest too much" comes from Hamlet by William Shakespeare; the Queen speaking: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Note: people do not usually use the word "methinks" when they are speaking English today.) To "protest too much" is to insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what you are saying. Example: "Do you think he is telling the truth?" Answer: "I think he protests too much." </p>
<p>*GoEnglish.com</p>
<p>
[quote]
*To "protest too much" is to insist so strongly about something not being true that people begin to suspect maybe it is true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you mind being a little more specific. You have totally lost me.</p>
<p>It means you delivered a copious 1,000 word dissertation attempting to discredit Bruce Fleming on almost everything he has written, despite his true statements that:</p>
<p>1 - he sat on the admissions board of the USNA (unlike any posters here);</p>
<p>2 - he affirms that the admissions policies are "tweaked" (to use the OP's words) to favor under-represented minority recruits.</p>
<p>My response to the OP addressed your gratuitous allegation of Bruce Fleming's "clueless-ness" while at the same time answered his question using the information in the linked article. </p>
<p>That you attack Bruce Fleming for holding a different opinion than yours is no surprise, just your standard operating procedure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me interpret this for you two. Congressman Wileys third cousin once removed down in Texas with her 58,000 whole person points who got his primary nomination is good. The number two guy on his list who, with 65,000 whole person points, got in from the middle of the national pool, entered through the back door, and is bad. Yep, he is on the admissions board and knows it all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
That means admitted at the head of the line, without having to further compete for a sometimes hard-to-get nomination from a member of Congress or the executive branch that otherwise is the sine qua non of admission to any of the nation's military academies. Counting all the favored groups, about 50 percent of students offered admission to the Naval Academy have bypassed this nominating process, which leaves so many highly qualified non-favored students going to State U instead.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fleming is not making much sense here. It appears as USNA '69 pointed out, he is lumping all the "national pool" noms into this 50%. In dissecting the numbers, In think it may be true that around 50% of each class does not gain there noms as one of their congressman's "5" spots. Even that seems high, but for the sake of argument I'll let it stand. Within that 50% may be some are from the "favored" minorities, but also in there are many qualified applicants who would have ended up at State U. Fleming is attempting to point out that 50% of the Naval Academy classes are admitted because they are either prior enlisted, varsity recruited, or minorities. Thats just simply not true. About as much as 20% of the class goes to NAPS, maybe another 5% through foundation. Theres one quarter of the class. Between those two sources you have most of your recruited athletes/minorities/prior enlisted covered. That being said there are a handful of minorities or athletes or prior enlisted (nukes) who get in without NAPS, but the reason for that is usually because they are qualified. They do have the grades to back up their "status." </p>
<p>All that being said, I do believe Fleming makes a few good points. As an admissions officer its has to be tough, and at times seem unfair to look at two applications, one clearly stronger than the other, and to admit the weaker application just because that applicant has a certain skin tone or racial heritage. It seems entirely unfair. While the answer to why my not exactly sit well with applicants who lost their spot to a weaker applicant, its the only one the Academy, and the Navy can give. When we look at who is admitted to the Academy, we can't look solely at academics, which is the guiding principle for admittance to schools like MIT. In the end, this is the Navy's school. If they feel that they need more minorities, or more officers with enlisted fleet time, then so be it. If thats what they want, they have every right to tweak admissions standards to get those numbers. It may seem unfair, especially to a disappointed applicant, but I'm not sure if there is any better explanation.</p>
<p>...btw, I found Fleming's book "Annapolis in Autumn" very entertaining.</p>
<p>USNA69 acknowleged that Fleming sat (past tense) on the USNA admissions board. USNA69 did not dispute that admissions sometimes either "recruits" or "tweaks" or "favors" under-represented minorities.</p>
<p>He did I think give a good explanation of the academy's thinking and their rationale. He also gave a pretty good answer to the OP's final question:
[quote]
I am in no way racist and have nothing against officers of any race, but when people are being recruited and standards are being lowered to allow someone into a school or program is that right? If this occurs, then this is risking the lives of future Marines and Sailors alike.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He explained why the academy is "right" to recruit those from under-priveleged backgrounds and that this practice is not risking the lives of future Marines and Sailors but is, in fact, beneficial to the entire Fleet.</p>
<p>I like Rjrzoom57's comment:
[quote]
I actually thought the Academy wanted young men and women that could get out on their own merits; kids that could graduate and become successful officers based on their capacity for hard work and a determination to succeed when given the chance
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Having been involved in the process for a while - I have been told repeatedly by reps from a USXA and I have come to believe that no one is admitted without the ABILTIY to succeed.</p>
<p>Bruce Fleming is entitled to his opinion. He no longer serves on the admissions board. Perhaps his views are not in sync with the view of USNA admissions, which is overseen by the Superintendent and overseen by Members of congress - ultimately.<br>
I have been reading these forums for close to two years. Many folks (kids and parents) alike continue to believe that Academy admissions is all about a certain SAT/ACT score, the highest GPA and the most number of AP classes.</p>
<p>The Service Academies are the Nations Service Academies. They belong to us, all of us. Not just the suburban elite.
If prospective candidates do not agree with the academies mission and policies for admission then perhaps the academy is not the place for them.</p>
<p>the OP asks:</p>
<p>
[quote]
...but when people are being recruited and standards are being lowered to allow someone into a school or program is that right? If this occurs, then this is risking the lives of future Marines and Sailors alike.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>why would this risk the lives of future marines and sailors? you can be a naval officer without ever having stepped within the USNA. many naval officers have come through OCS which has very different standards. i don't think you can assume that USNA standards for admission will have any effect on the safety of future marines and sailors. it's a fact i recently learned that most of the Generals in the marine corps came out of ROTC and not USNA.</p>
<p>Ahem, regarding my beloved Harvard ROTC students - I personally know quite a few there who do ROTC/NROTC and compete on Harvard's varsity athletic teams. Teams that are nationally ranked very high in D-1.</p>
<p>It is a myth that intellectual ability precludes superior athletic performance.</p>
<p>The standards of admissions determine the ability to graduate. They are mainly cost efficiency measures. What one does while at the Academy determines their ability to lead troops properly.</p>
<p>Luigi</p>
<p>I want to thank you for a moment of insight. I just reread post # 29 by ’69 and again read your response; post #32. It brought me right back to many discussions I attempted to have with people while in office, many of them about difficult or controversial subjects; the frustration in particular about people not really listening or even trying to understand what I was trying to say as they were only listening for what they wanted to hear. </p>
<p>Explains a lot about how things sometimes unfold on this board.</p>
<p>So true zoom! Happens all the time at Boat school. I have found it very frustrating that many here come as nothing more than clones of their parents personal beliefs and have never tried to understand a differing opinion. Experienced this phenomenon repeatedly in Naval Leadership, Ethics and in the hall.</p>
<p>As for Professor Flemming - generally speaking, in my circle of friends and acquaintances, *(I am qualifying this as I am sure that others on this board will have a differing opinion given their knowledge of the man) he is well respected with his students, he is hard but a very effective instructor. Yes, he is an academician, but then the Academy is supposed to be an Academic institution ALONG WITH the military training. I would feel that the Academy was failing me if the Civilian Academic Faculty was asked to lower their standards in lieu of the Military objectives.</p>
<p>CurrentMid, </p>
<p>In the event my comments have been misunderstood, I will add this clarification; Luigi’s response appeared to crafted completely outside (as in he did not read or choose to comprehend a single word) the response posted by ’69. </p>
<p>In regard to your observations which are certainly appreciated as they represent an assessment based on personal experience; I can’t speak for anyone outside my self but I am not suggesting the academic standards be lowered, I am simply saying that there are other dimensions to individuals beyond test scores and grades that may give those individuals the capacity to succeed IF they are given the chance assuming we also take the time to look. </p>
<p>Some risk is involved no doubt; the question you and others currently serving have to decide, is it worth the effort to try and develop a Navy that is lead by something other than a homogenous group of men and women from largely the same environment? In the end under which scenario will the Navy be more successful in pursuit of it’s mission? </p>
<p>I also do find it somewhat remarkable that this discussion is even occurring given the job the Naval Academy does in terms of matriculation/graduation rates of each class. Last I checked I seem to recall a number around 85%. Given the demands placed on young men and women during their 4 years, that is in itself a remarkable success story, especially in light of the views of some that the Academy is suffering from a policy of letting the “riff-raff” in.</p>