<p>Yep, around 85% overall. Blacks are around 77% and Hispanics are at 81%. And some of them probably even survived Prof Fleming. I understand he is an outstanding professor, just has a slightly off-the-wall reading list for a military school. I certainly hope his personal beliefs do not transfer over to his teaching behavior.</p>
<p>Scubaguy . . .</p>
<p>See how easy that is?</p>
<p><a href="as%20in%20he%20did%20not%20read%20or%20choose%20to%20comprehend%20a%20single%20word">quote=rjrzoom57</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I question your ability to follow how the thread unfolded:</p>
<p>[ul]
[li]scubaguy asks if racial preferences are used in admissions</p>[/li]
<p>[li]link is posted by jadler03 that provides confirmation that racial preferences are indeed used by admissions board, stated clearly in the last sentence of paragraph one.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]USNA69 calls the former admissions board member "clueless"</p>[/li]
<p>[li]Luigi59 responds to scubaguy asking him to read the link and ignore the USNA69 attack on the admissions board member, as many alum have personal vendetta against said board member</p>[/li]
<p>[li]USNA69 goes into attack mode on admissions board member and Luigi59 with lengthy response attempting to strengthen his argument that the board member is "clueless[/li][/ul]
Now explain to me how I failed to read or comprehend a single word?</p>
<p>well you sort of left out a few key points in your summary.......</p>
<p>scubaguy also asked IF racial preferences should be used, why and arent' they dangerous to sailors and marines.</p>
<p>usna69 - said that racial preferences were used in admissions. his comments about Fleming were about Fleming editorializing against racial preferences and Fleming's preference that the fleet be rich and white and scholarly.</p>
<p>luigi59 - somehow thinks that USNA69 has a vendetta against someone who sat on the admissions board in the past. Note that Flemming is no longer on the board - there could be a reason.</p>
<p>usna69 - posts the Academy's position on racial preferences and the goals that the academy has in creating a Brigade that is representative of the Fleet and the citizens of our country.</p>
<p>Luigi59 - still confused.</p>
<p>I guess the short answer is this - yes the Academy does set aside appointments for candidates who are under-represented minorities and deserving of such an appointment.<br>
They must be doing okay since the graduation rate is quite high compared to most major universities. Obviously, the Academy is not admitting candidates of such inferior quality that they are dropping out in huge numbers.</p>
<p>Edit: Oops, JAM, I didn't realize I posted on top of you.</p>
<p>Scubaguy’s original post contained the two following statements:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know a person who scored a 410 on his math ACT, similar score in verbal, had one club sport, and no leadership or club involvement, was not a legacy, did not have anyone in his family that was in the military, nothing at all outstanding. He is of very low moral character and is a compulsive liar, yet he received an LOA
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
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>First off, scubaguy quickly lost interest in his minority example. However, examples such as this should not remain unchallenged in the event future members read them, believe them, and are given false hope. We have an obligation to root to the bottom of these and find the truth.</p>
<p>Secondly, scubaguy not only asked a question, but answered it and then gave an opinion, and as I saw it, a very dangerous opinion.</p>
<p>Someone who did not have the balls to identify themselves, passed a link to jadler to post which supported scubaguy’s suppositions that the Academy was admitting less than stellar candidates.</p>
<p>In my post #21, I concurred that the Academy gave preferential treatment to select groups. Done deal. I agree with Fleming. It was never a further issue with me. Neither was the fact that he was on an admissions board which had nothing to do with his diversity admissions beliefs. I did point out and itlstallion confirmed, that his reasoning was flawed and that he was not painting a true picture. The real issue was his belief that no special consideration should be made for special groups. I do not agree and presented my opinions to the contrary. Thus far, no one has taken issue with them so hopefully scubaguy is now enlightened that those who have been given special consideration were done so in the best interest of our Navy and our country and that they will make capable officers. </p>
<p>That you seemed preoccupied with two statements of fact which had absolutely nothing to do with the points I was attempting to make, continues to baffle me and also apparently a few others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess his use of the word "clueless" indicates great respect and support for this individual.</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why attack him by calling him "clueless", and me when I posted the exact same thing, agreeing that they DO give preferential treatment?</p>
<p>The question about whether the "do" or "don't" was what I specifically was answering for scubaguy, as my quote of his question in that post shows.</p>
<p>You seem to want to change history here, YOU threw the first stone, you began the name-calling of Fleming because of your disagreement with Fleming's other opinions. The question was answered and the thread was done until YOU chose to start the personal attack on Bruce Fleming.</p>
<p>I grow so tired of your constant battles with everyone in every forum.</p>
<p>As does everyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess his use of the word "clueless" indicates great respect and support for this individual.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no opinion whatsoever abour Professor Fleming as an instructor. However, for many of his views about how the Academy should be administered, I have absolutely no respect. Since he is speaking outside the purview of his employment and expertise, I have every right to disagree with him. As a matter of fact, I would probably consider myself more capable of projecting an accurate portrait of a 'good' officer than he. Vendetta? No. Respect? No. Clueless? In my opinion, on the attributes of a good officer, yes.</p>
<p>Now that some of us contnue to remain clueless, what is your concern in this discussion?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then why attack him by calling him "clueless", and me when I posted the exact same thing, agreeing that they DO give preferential treatment?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think I explained that relatively thoroughly in my post #45. Scubaguy's question was multifaceted. Your response was not.</p>
<p>OBTW, how did I 'attack' you?</p>
<p>USNA69 wrote: “Someone who did not have the balls to identify themselves, passed a link to jadler to post which supported scubaguy’s suppositions that the Academy was admitting less than stellar candidates.”</p>
<p>Ouch. I understand that this is a difficult topic to discuss without tempers flaring. It is always interesting to see how 5 people can read the same article and all can focus on different aspects depending on their point of view. I sent the link to Jadler <em>privately</em> (and expected it to stay that way) so that he would have some insight into the complexity of the admissions process. It is an article which USNA69 and I have discussed offline quite cordially in the past.</p>
<p>While it is a controversial article, and I do not agree with Fleming’s conclusion, Fleming’s points are not completely without merit. He clearly understands the reasoning behind the policy of affirmative action and writes:
“At the same time, it's difficult not to sympathize with the goal of representativeness implicit in all affirmative-action policies. In the academy's case, it does seem important to have black and Hispanic officer-candidates when so many of the men and women in the fleet are black or Hispanic. It's not that an individual black Marine, say, needs a black officer to inspire him to follow orders, only that he needs to know there are such officers, somewhere, maybe even right here. In the military, a lot depends on "morale," that hard-to-quantify measure of satisfaction.”
But questions what he calls the “obvious absurdities, even inequities” that the practice leads to. In this article he focuses on racial preferences and deduces that “Race has become far too blunt an instrument for ensuring "diversity," Individuals can agree or disagree with his views. The admissions department clearly disagrees.</p>
<p>While admitting that there are no hard and fast rules, he is specific about what advantage a minority student may be given. In my mind it is not a huge advantage. In fact the standards that USNA drops to are the same academic standards that all candidates at USMA are generally held to:</p>
<p>“If a "majority" student scored 600 or more on each part of the SAT I test, math and verbal, we put a check mark and went on to consider other aspects of the application. We did so in the case of a "minority" student if the scores were in the neighborhood of 550. For a minority student with scores in the low 500 range but also compensatory achievements, we usually recommended a year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School.”</p>
<p>In my mind, this substantiates USNA69’s claim that a candidate with a 510 SAT would be more likely to be sent to NAPS than be given an LOA (which was scubguy’s claim). </p>
<p>It is no secret that all of the academies look for diversity (geographic, race, sex, athletes, scholars and leaders). However, with graduation standards being fixed, all candidates have to meet qualifying <em>risk</em> standards (determined by each academy). Does this mean that some candidates who fit desired diversity profiles with lower whole candidate scores or whole person multipliers will be admitted over candidates with higher scores? Yes. Is this always fair? Probably not. Does this mean that the candidate with the lower score will not add as much to the student body as the candidate with the higher score? No. I believe that studies have shown that diversity is a good thing.</p>
<p>Ann, that was very eloquent.</p>
<p>I agree with installion4221 with one exception. I don't know what the criteria is for MIT but an admission officer at Yale University was interviewed and stated the following. I am paraphrasing since this was an old article: </p>
<p>Of the more than twenty thousand applications we get every year we could accept an incomming class of all 4.0 valedectorians and vasity atheletes. However, our acceptance criteria is based upon more than SAT's, grades and class status. The only thing all accepted students have in common is that they have the ability to graduate from Yale University. We do not have a cookie cutter mentality regarding admission. Each Applicant is evaluated individualy regarding his or her contribution to the University.</p>
<p>I would add to that their contribution to the Fleet and the Navy.</p>
<p>I think what stings the candidates who are not admitted is their perception that the process in unfair if it's not completely based on merit. As well, this is perhaps one of the first times in their lives that they have not been successful getting what they wanted. </p>
<p>I think a lot of folks believe that it is merit based and color blind, which it is not, entirely. It isn't just USNA. I remember watching one of the 60 Minutes, Dateline, etc., programs a few years back where a girl from Michigan was not admitted to UM and she raised a ruckus because the school was offering admissions to less qualified candidates with minority backgrounds.</p>
<p>It hurts to be told "No," when someone with a less competitive profile is granted an appointment, and you're not - especially if you know them. I will definitely agree with that sentiment. </p>
<p>Having said that, the process has been "unfair" for a long time in the sense that completely qualified candidates from heavily populated states are sometimes not granted appointments when candidates from smaller states where USNA is less well-represented are appointed even though their records are not as strong as those not appointed.</p>
<p>There's no foolproof process, and while I will admit that there's merit in Professor Fleming's argument, the process is what it is, and USNA continues to produce outstanding graduates of all backgrounds.</p>
<p>If you really want to go to USNA and were not successful this go around, apply again next year and ensure that you do well in your college program, taking the equivalent of the Plebe curriculum.</p>
<p>
Ha Ha. Boy do I have egg on my face. I was absolutely 100% sure without a doubt that I knew who forwarded the link. And it wasn't you. I sincerely apologize. </p>
<p>You do have a point in that everyone saw something different in scubaguy's post. </p>
<p>Why did you not join in earlier. We would have welcomed your input.</p>
<p>Again, I apologize. Thanks for the post.</p>
<p>okay to USNA69, when you stated, "Secondly, scubaguy not only asked a question, but answered it and then gave an opinion, and as I saw it, a very dangerous opinion" you are wrong. if you actually read the post, I stated, "I have a feeling this is due to the fact that he is indian (brown as he calls it) though I am not positive. Does the academy recruit based off of a "ethnic quota" or anything? Is this the reason of his LOA?". When I stated this, I was not saying that because he is indian, he received an LOA despite his bad grades, etc. (hence when I said "I have a feeling"). This phrase means that I am not sure but it is a possibility that I am considering. In no way is that "dangerous" because he has TERRIBLE statistics thus it can be assumed that there must be another reason for him to have received an LOA (if in fact he did receive one). this is where I derived the possibility that this could be based off of minority recruitment. This is why I asked this question. If I knew for a fact that race was the reason, why then would I have asked? Why would I have spent the time to type up that question? Thus I DID NOT "give an answer and provide an opinion". Nice call. And this was meant to be a short, quick question/answer thing. you guys are getting too worked up about making yourself look better than others and bilging each other. I would assume that a USNA forum would understand the ill-effects of bilging one's friends? seriously guys chill out about this. this is not the '60's. I hope and pray that no one here is racist or discriminatory (even reverse-discrimination), so why are we getting so worked up?</p>
<p>and let me AGAIN stress the fact that it is not my "claim" that this kid got an LOA but rather his. I have stated that I have not seen the LOA and I know he has lied about admissions stuff in the past so please stop freaking out to me about it. I am telling you what I have heard, not what I have seen. chill out about it. again, let me stress the fact that we all need to read before we post.</p>
<p>Dad&Grad
.
I remember a WP Admission officer at a briefing saying that she looked at an application from a very commpetitive State (denied) and said to herself. I wish this kid was from another State. Sometimes it is the luck of the draw</p>
<p>
[quote]
scubaguy not only asked a question, but answered it and then gave an opinion
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Question:
, Very dangerous opinion:
[quote=scubaguy17] then this is risking the lives of future Marines and Sailors alike
</p>
<p>so why are we getting so worked up?</p>
<p>Because some people, exactly as you have observed, have nothing better to do than to try and make themself look better than others. </p>
<p>Be very scared of retirement and/or long-term government employment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I honestly think this has been blown way out of proportions. First off, I am only speaking from one small rural area, but there seems to be one or two each year who blow the Class Profiles away. The two districts which my area entails, normally sends MOC nominated candidates well into the upper quartile of the profiles. My discussion with other BGOs reveal similar candidates in other states and in other districts. Maybe a few who would not have been admitted from the national pool, but not many.</p>
<p>Secondly, all qualified candidates who are not admitted via a primary nomination source, enter the national pool. There, they are selected by order of merit only. Those Northern Virginia affluent suburban candidates have much more opportunities for order of merit whole-person points than does the kid in Kansas who goes home every night and feeds the cattle. Virginia has 13 congressional districts, therefore the MOC quota for that state is 75 midshipmen. The total number of midshipmen from Virginia at the Academy today is 243, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT above the normal allocation. Of course you can say that there is a heavy military influence. Yes. The President normally appoints around 80 annually. Even if he maxed out at 100, there remain 78 above quota. Where do these 178 come from? I will guarantee you it is not Big Stone Gap and Galax. My argument is that because a candidate is lucky enough to be born in an affluent area and attend a top quality school, he is more likely to enter the Academy than the kid from Kansas. Hence my aforementioned statement that the Academy is becoming too selective. We are ending up with midshipmen who feel more comfortable in Topsiders and khakis sailing for the summer than down in the bilges of a destroyer with an enlisted guy changing a pump.</p>
<p>Like itlstallion and JAMO4 stated earlier, this is the Navy’s and America’s Academy. Give it back to the taxpayers. Allow the kid from Kansas who can change a combine pump in his sleep an equal chance to the BMW driving lacrosse playing DC suburbanite. Allow the black kid who we so desperately need to fill our enlisted ranks a shot at being an officer.</p>
<p>When I went to the Academy , over two thirds of the midshipmen were first generation college. Anyone want to venture a guess as to what it is now.</p>