<p>
</p>
<p>Schools heavily recruit the scholastically gifted disadvantaged minorities which could compete equitably with the average SA candidate. That the SAs have a back door military obligation, for some, is considered a huge disadvantage. The $2500 up-front deposit was even a problem when competing with prestigious civilian schools which offered a 100% free ride. This is exactly why the deposit has been discontinued.</p>
<p>Really? They have discontinued the deposit? As of when? And that is interesting and something I did not know.</p>
<p>The Academy wants a diverse population to mirror the fleet however they will not compromise their standards. I mean i'm a double minority(female & african american) with an 3.9 GPA. almost perfect SAT verbal score pretty good math two sports and lots of clubs and community service and I only received NAPS so I don't think they compromise their standards to achieve diversity.</p>
<p>Well, I hate to burst your bubble . . . but examples are more than a few where "standards" were compromised to achieve diversity. For example, an African-American woman who graduated NAPS w/ less than a 2.0 who was admitted.
African-American males who were deficient, i.e. scores of MUCH less than the supposed minimum SAT scores of 600, and admitted nonetheless.
These are primarily sports-related admissions but represent, in any event, instances where "standards" were compromised.
I have personal knowledge of these instances.
It happens.</p>
<p>Now, that doesn't mean it also doesn't happen in the anglo community. I don't have personal knowledge of this example, but I have been told more than once ofan Anglo mid who graduated w/ less than 2.0 NAPS and who was admitted nonetheless.
It happens.</p>
<p>Does it happen a lot? I would guess not but . . it happens.</p>
<p>if only the "getting in" part was the hard part!</p>
<p>For even the most steller athlete, no coach can keep you in if you can't cut the mustard. You will have EI shoved up where the sun doesn't shine, non-stop if necessary, but the bottom line is that everyone will have to earn their commission. For all the stories I have heard at the "input" end, I have not heard any at the "outcome" side of the equation. So while the academy may fall a tad short with the "Fairness" side of things at the onset (actually, considering all they have to accomplish I think they do a stellar job!) the system is constructed in a way that course corrections do get made before the final product. And even the anchor will have to earn their butterbars.</p>
<p>I have to disagree I mean there are certainly instances that a candidate with a lower SAT/ACT, GPA, etc does get in but not necessarily based on ethnicity. When I went to the Naval Academy summer seminar my midshipman squad leader had some less than stellar performance on SAT and didn't participate in sports however he was given a direct appointment and he was not a minority. So yes people get in with less than a perfect score or GPA but staying in like navy2010 said is the hard part. No midshipmen who doesn't cut the mustard will graduate plain and simple. I would like to take a look at the instances you bring up of a candidate with less than a 2.0 is admitted. I'm not saying it hasn't happen but I try not to based opinions based on hearsay</p>
<p>theres no doubt about it that the academies have an agenda to try to get more females and an ethnic composition which is more representative of the general population. They are not the only ones doing it... but it is definitely a clear example of affirmative action/ reverse discrimination. In my personal situation and as in a few of my friend's situations, with our credentials if instead of being white males we were perhaps females or of a different ethnic background, we would have been accepted easily. It is said that not everyone is competing on a level playing field.</p>
<p>I agree somewhat with you, however I have actually studied affirmative action now let me say in some instances it is abused however it is supposed to give minorities level playing field because lets face it the 5-9% who own most of the wealth in this country don't look like me( i.e. black or a woman lol) so when a minority applicant applies with similar credentials to lets say a white male yes it picks the minority however when people say minorities are taking all the spots go to the academy and ivy league schools and tell me how many minorities you see lol. So essentially I call it leveling the playing field for women, Indian American, African American, etc. Now don't get me wrong I don't advocate abusing affirmative action like it sometimes is however calling it reverse discrimination in my opinion is incorrect iv'e actually been discriminated against and I fail to see the correlation...Like I said all this is just a well informed opinion just like everyone else's</p>
<p>That differs somewhat from asserting the Academy does not lower its standards.
Then again, it might be useful to define what the "standard" is. The Academy does not, despite, the assertions of others publish a "minimum" for many statistics, e.g. SAT. While it may be true that 90+% of admittees may have a score above 600, the Academy also permits itself some wiggle room. [Just as with the assertion that you "must" have participated in sports.]</p>
<p>The "standard" then might be better defined as "having the ability to graduate from teh Academy in four years."
Using that standard, a much more subjective standard, admissions personnel are able to use judgment in deciding who to admit.</p>
<p>Now, certain scores and experiences may indicate a greater chance of success than not, but other aspects of a person's background may just as well indicate success.
This is where most people who assert that lesser qualified persons where admitted ahead of them miss the boat. We do not have access to a full application package which indicates that person overcoming oppressive circumstances to even do as well as that person has done. So, that person who was admitted w/ less than a 2.0 NAPS GPA may have overcome circumstances that indicate success. [Or, not . . . in at least once circumstance of which I have personal knowledge, the tipping point appears to have been relations to a prominent alumni; but that's anothe story.]
In short, teh system is complex, seems to work for the most part, and . . . is flawed.
That's the way it is. I don't think the admissions process is much different than any other admissions/selection process. Sometimes you are selected because ofy our skin color, sometimes because you are an athlete, sometimes because of family connections. Is there anybody who thinks BUsh would be President if it were not for his family name?</p>
<p>As in life, sometimes things just don't go your way. Sometimes life isn't fair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's the way it is. I don't think the admissions process is much different than any other admissions/selection process.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, with the exception that the service academies err on the side of transparancy. Look hard enough and you will find the % given to each category of the "whole person score"..... try finding that at the Ives!</p>
<p>
[quote]
theres no doubt about it that the academies have an agenda to try to get more females and an ethnic composition which is more representative of the general population.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You say this like it's a bad thing.<br>
The academies do try to "recruit" women - they don't have to lower the standards however, women applicants are pretty self selecting.
The problem I have with some of these assumptions in this conversation is the danger of thinking that every woman or man of color or woman of color was an inferior applicant who is there only because of circumstance and they are somehow not worthy.
This supposition is unfair to all kids who have worked hard to get there. Time to stop thinking of every black man or woman who is admitted is taking your place.</p>
<p>navy2010 is right - there are so many factors that go into the whole person score - most kids and parents on this board are only focused on SAT's and gpa but there are many many other factors involved.</p>
<p>BTW - this was not the year to be female and applying to a liberal arts college. Men have clearly had the advantage recently. My youngest was waitlisted at a small university and there were guys who got admitted with lower gpa's and sat's. Sometimes life is just not fair.
All each individual can do is to get out there and put YOUR best foot forward.</p>
<p>Looking at actual statistics for USMA (I don't know if USNA differs, or if so, by how much) it does not appear there is any advantage being given to women over male applicants. I looked at the entering profiles for the classes of 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.</p>
<p>For the class of 2008: 52.2% of qualified males (and with noms) were accepted, 51.1% of qualified females. When comparing to the total number of applications actually received, 11.04% of males got appointments, 7.5% of females got appointents.</p>
<p>For the class of 2009: 57.2% of qualified males (and with noms) were accepted. 57.6% of qualified females. When comparing to the total number of applications actually received, 12.6% of males got appointments, 8.0% of females got appointents.</p>
<p>For the class of 2010: 60.8% of qualified males (and with noms) were accepted. 57.1% of qualified females. When comparing to the total number of applications actually received, 13.8% of males got appointments, 8.6% of females got appointents.</p>
<p>For the class of 2011: 62% of qualified males (and with noms) were accepted. 73% of qualified females. When comparing to the total number of applications actually received, 12.4% of males got appointments, 10.3% of females got appointents.</p>
<p>Bottom line though is that statistically (over the last 4 years at least) a male applicant still has a significantly better chance of getting an appt than a female applicant. The number of females applying who are found qualified has also risen significantly. That may have more to do with more "academically/physically top tier" women becoming more confident in pursuing the role of a military officer in todays culture. I don't think the numbers support an argument of "bias" in favor of women that is keeping "more qualified" men from getting appts.</p>
<p>As shogun's numbers illustrate, females are a numerical minority at service academies. Unless they're ethnic minorities though, females applicants have no advantage, but are in fact statistically disadvantaged when compared to other highly qualified candidates. In other words, they are neither "ethnic minorities" (obviously) nor "set asides," and female appointees often have higher stats than their male counterparts.</p>
<p>usna09mom - I don't think you can draw that conclusion necessarily for USNA. USMA, perhaps, but not Navy. </p>
<p>It comes down to the quality of the applicants, irrespective of gender. The ratios of female applicants to male applicants, and female candidates to male candidates are roughly equal at 20:80 for both. "Candidates" are those applicants who have met the initial screening qualification by USNA Admissions.</p>
<p>For 2011, the acceptance rate for women "candidates" was around 15% and for men around 14%. Acceptance rates are roughly equal in other words. I don't believe that the data support your conclusion that women are disadvantaged in acceptance rates.</p>
<p>The numbers of women who enter the Naval Academy are about twice as high as they were in the early classes. My own class (1984) had about 130 female Midshipmen. It's about twice that number today - 251 women for 2011 - which is a good thing.</p>
<p>"female applicants have no advantage, but are in fact statistically disadvantaged when compared to other highly qualified candidates."</p>
<p>I don't believe that the conclusion is true for USMA either.<br>
"For the class of 2011: 62% of qualified males (and with noms) were accepted. 73% of qualified females."</p>
<p>West Point separates their statistics by gender. I have not seen USNA do this.
One thing I noticed is that a much lower percentage of women who apply get a nomination. I don't really think that we have MOC's who discriminate against women but perhaps fewer women follow through with nominations and complete their applications.
The pool of women at USMA is much smaller than men - initial applicants. So swings of just a few numbers can mean big percentage changes.</p>
<p>I also think that a higher percentage of women are accepted because that group is more self-selecting. I saw this once in an MIT study - the overall group of female applicants was much higher quality than the group of males.
Perhaps females are not as willing as males are to take risks in applying to male dominated programs.</p>
<p>Are we on the West Point board, or the Navy board? Sometimes I can't tell...</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I have heard that USNA representatives state that their recruiting goals are to make the Academy look like the navy as a whole WRT race (and I assume gender). Does anyone have stats as to what the navy looks like WRT race and gender? I was just wondering how far the Academy is from this goal.</p>
<p>I have heard the same from USMA reps - (sorry USNA Dad&Grad!!).
I think on gender they are pretty close - USNA being closer than USMA. </p>
<p>Someone else will have to comment on the other - I think they are pretty far off but the challenges are great ones, for sure.</p>
<p>USNA Dad&Grad - sorry about all the West Point stats but they break down admissions stats on their website by gender.
For instance, from 1998-2007 (class of 2002-2011) USMA total applications have dropped 14%. While applications from males have dropped 18% in that time, applications from females have increased 16%.<br>
It would be interesting to see how this works for USNA - though I don't think they have seen the drop in number of applications that West Point has seen.</p>
<p>JAMO4:</p>
<p>Three years ago (so the data are a bit dated) we were told that USNA had not seen the dropoff in applicants that WP had, and the thinking was that it had to do with the unpopularity of the war in Iraq. I'm sure the data are available for the past three years to make a real comparison, I just don't have them at my fingertips.</p>
<p>USNA has also raised the limit of those who can select Marine Corps - it used to be limited to 1/6 of the class - and has seen a major increase in the number of Marine selectees. I don't know the number for this class of 2008, and I looked for it (not very hard, I admit) but I think I heard that it was in the mid-200's out of the roughly 1,000 soon-to-be graduates.</p>
<p>I'm just giving you and the other "Woop Lovers" a hard time. No hard feelings. ;)</p>