<p>I am a candidate for the class of 2009. I have never been contacted by my MALO, however I have spoken with the Regional Officer in charge of my area at West Point. Frankly, he's a very hard guy to get ahold of, and I'd like to speak with my MALO regarding some questions/concerns I have. If anyone knows how to find out the email/phone/info about your MALO, it would be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>Thank you,
Gina</p>
<p>Email your candidate technician. My daughter had the same issue and she responded with a contact person immediately. Hers is Zulma Melvin and she has been nothing short of "light speed" responding to my daughter's questions. She is a candidate technician for the Far West.</p>
<p>Interesting to hear that it's been so hard to get a hold of your Regional Admissions Officer. My son's had the same problem - emails and phone calls not answered by both the Regional Officer and by the Candidate Technician. When my son finally got through he was told that the emails and voicemails had been "lost". I'm pretty sure my son is going to get in to USMA, but he's so disgusted by the process and the lack of a personal touch that he'll probably do ROTC instead at a better university. The Professors of Military Science with whom he's met and spoken to by phone for interviews have been light years ahead of West Point in terms of personality and marketing savvy. It's really a shame for West Point - they're appointing a bunch of kids who'll probably drop out after their 2nd year (25 percent after this last time around) and turning off the kids who'd probably be successes and who really do want to be officers in the U.S. Army. Someone someday will have to explain to me the whole athletic thing too - the number of athletes who are appointed who don't really meet the academic standards - would you really want your kid to serve in one of their units?</p>
<p>Athletes are appointed in greater numbers because, in part, They have a demonstrated committment to teamwork and physical excellence.</p>
<p>The Army, generally and with apologies to Marines, has a greater number of assignments that require physical strength than do other branches. Certainly flying a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft is the same regardless of branch. Arguably, driving a tank may be the same as driving a submarine [although submarine driving is does operate in three dimensions]. However, it is hard to compare sleeping on a carrier to sleeping in the dirt. [Again, I apologize to Marines.] Its hard to compare the technical aspects of keeping a submarine running with keeping a tank running. The nuclear Navy is simply more technical than the diesel Army.</p>
<p>So, to answer your question, it might not be a bad idea to have an athlete leading a group into battle. That's what Army's do -- they fight. Better to have a fighter than a thinker when the going gets tough. Athletes are used to the concept of leading "troops" into "battle." [Although I do have a problem with the analogy of sports to war; it is, after all, just a game.] The USMA teaches leadership that, combined with physical ability, produces succesful Army leaders.</p>
<p>The different service academies have different academic expectations because the ultimate responsibilities of graduates are different. That's why the Naval academy has higher academic standards and seems to place less [although still important] emphasis on athletics. </p>
<p>In the end, picking appointees is an art. There are many different dimensions considered when making appointments; just as many different dimensions go into becoming a succesful military leader.</p>
<p>In my daughter's case it turned out she hadn't been contacted by a MALO because the usual one for her area is serving in Iraq. She was given contact info for a MALO in a neighboring district as soon as she asked for it. As I said earlier, we've had nothing but a positive experience at our end with regard to contacting admissions with questions. If your son wants to really go to WP, he needs to understand that the process isn't easy for a reason. I am curious, why would your son need to have an interview with any WP professors of military science? That isn't part of the admissions process. I haven't seen any statistics for info regarding athletes being admitted who don't meet the standards for acceptance to WP. I would guess that if that were the case, their football team might have a few more wins! Perhaps you could point some to where some info on that could be read. </p>
<p>In any event, if you or your son still has questions regarding the admissions process you are always welcome to post them here. There are a lot of people here who have either gone through it or going through it now, that might be able to answer some of them for you.</p>
<p>Good luck to your son.</p>
<p>The PMS was from ROTC</p>
<p>I didn't mean to go off on athletes. My biggest gripe there is that the primary focus of USMA should be appointing those who'll make good officers and leaders. Look at the roster of the hockey team at USMA - virtually all of the players played junior hockey before coming to West Point or did post-graduate years at prep schools to hone their hockey skills. There are lots of kids applying who played high school hockey, whose physical condition equals or exceeds those of the junior hockey players, but their hockey skill level is not as high and their academics exceed the players.</p>
<p>My biggest concern - really for West Point and our military - is that the Academy does not seem to pay much attention to "selling" itself. If our regional admissions officer is an example, they have a long way to go.</p>
<p>"My biggest gripe there is that the primary focus of USMA should be appointing those who'll make good officers and leaders"</p>
<p>Read the story of George Patton (1909). It took him 5 years to get through the academy as he struggled with the academy's academics. He excelled in athletics. He turned into one of the greatest combat leaders our nation has turned out. I would submit that turning out good officers and leaders is EXACTLY what West Point is all about. The academy probably doesn't "sell itself" because it doesn't need to. I think it has always operated under the premise that the candidate needs to prove they are worthy of the opportunity to attend and serve, not under the premise that the academy needs to prove itself worthy of it's candidates. West Point doesn't just want athletes, or scholars, or great test takers--they want that "whole person".</p>
<p>bondnjo
Iam curious, how would you know that the academic record, physical conditioning, and skill of the current USMA hockey players is inferior to those seeking admission who are now hockey players in high school? With regard to skill and physical conditioning, if what you say is true then you have just defeated your own argument that USMA only wants the better athlete, not the better scholar. Iam confused.</p>
<p>I've been reading with interest the dialogue about athletes, both here and on the USNA thread. A couple of observations:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There is no question that recruited athletes, on average, have lower WCS scores than the average population at the academies. One of aspen's many documents showed this conclusively. Not just lower academics - but lower WCS. A reasonable percentage of the USMAPS population represents these athletes getting prepped for the academic rigors of West Point. Hockey players doing a PG year? No difference, really, from an extra year of prep at USMAPS. They just get to play hockey as well.</p></li>
<li><p>Bruce Fleming's(USNA English Prof) many articles regarding USNA admissions state that half the USNA class represents set-asides - minorities, prior enlisted, and athletes - who would not make the cut otherwise. His challenge of this state of affairs is raising some dust.</p></li>
<li><p>It strikes me, in the case of USMA, that this might be a problem with the design of WCS. You see, I buy the argument that a strong athletic background (if it's been in a leadership role) is excellent preparation for being an Army officer. Up to a point, of course. The WCS, with its focus on well-rounded performance, doesn't recognize well candidates that are "spiky" - superb athletes, superbly smart, superb leaders.</p></li>
<li><p>It would be nice to believe that someone's done a correlation between Army officer fitness reports and athletic background to have a basis for the recruited athlete preference.</p></li>
<li><p>My only objection is when preference is given to athletes who are not leaders - always getting the all-state distinction, but never the team captain. I struggle to see how these individuals add value to the future officer corps.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Thank you, Kate Lewis. What I'd really like to see is a detailed makeup of the 25 percent of the second-year class that dropped out?</p>
<p>Not likely to happen. But if you'd like to see a study on USNA attrition, more broadly, by grouping you can look at this:</p>
<p>Kate Lewis - You make an excellent point regarding recruited athletes. An athlete from my son's high school was recruited by Air Force. He was all-state in his sport but had no other activities outside of athletics. His grades and test scores were well below those I have seen in posts on the service academy sites. In fact, the coach refused to make him one of the team captains because of certain behaviors in the past - marijuana use and smoking. You would think the fact that the coach did not make the most outstanding player on the team a team captain would raise a red flag, yet Air Force recruited him anyway. I found this very troubling. I knew standards for recruited athletes were lower at civilian colleges but I had no idea they were so much lower for the academies. Is the pressure to win that great?</p>
<p>good point, doglover. What I don't understand, for instance, is why WP needs to play Div. 1 ice hockey - they play a bunch of teams that no one has heard of or cares about. And who would care if they played Div. 2 or Div 3 and utilized well-rounded scholar-athletes who didn't have to play 2 years of junior hockey or go to USMAPS to meet some minimal standard at WP. I can't believe that WP alumni or the brass care about ice hockey. Even football - why not play the Ivy League or Patriot League if they can get in. If all the academies made the move at the same time, no one would care. Let Colorado have the sex party recruitment, hazing, drinking, and Ward Churchill.</p>
<p>The best way to get into West Point is to excel academically, show good extracurriculars, demonstrate leadership ability, and letter in one or more varsity sports. The bottom line is that the majority of those accepted to the academy are NOT recruited athletes. If you excel at the above in comparison to other candidates, you WILL get in. Blaming recruited athletes for "taking someone's spot" isn't a valid point in my own personal view. It's still a college with some things that are going to be similar to other colleges--sports, clubs, intramurals, etc. If one doesn't get into their first choice college or university it can be very disappointing, but blaming recruited athletes as the reason is a bit off the mark. The academy's have always made it clear that if a recruited athlete can't make it academically while on the team they quit the team and focus on their studies---I don't think that can be said abt civilian colleges and their athletic scholarship recipients.</p>
<p>Kate Lewis</p>
<p>Tell me if I am reading the report you noted above correctly___:</p>
<p>recruited athletes have a LOWER attrition rate than the average for USNA?</p>
<p>Cadet0509, what area are you in? My MALO and Regional Director have been MORE than helpful, responding every time within 24 hours. In fact, the attentiveness that I found from the USMA was very refreshing after my experience with the USNA (not that I'm a USNA basher, my best friend is going there). If you're in the Southeast Region, I can give you the Regional Director's email address...</p>
<p>Shogun - </p>
<p>That's what I read too. The study focused on plebe summer, and found that the staying power of recruited athletes was higher than average. This particular study didn't look at the 4 year attrition rate by factor, so it's hard to make a call on that.</p>
<p>Kate</p>
<p>Ahh yes, I see that now--only plebe summer was really looked at. Does anyone know whether plebe summer accounts for the largest attrition number?</p>
<p>Is the acceptance of candidates with lower WCS's(assuming that is a fair and accurate measure) so that USMA can have more competitive athletic teams consistent with the USMA mission? I don't think so. You can probably make a convoluted argument that it is, but I think the honest answer is that USMA is willing to compromise its pursuit of its overall mission in order to acheive another unwritten mission - to produce reasonably competitive Division I athletic teams. A compromise made by way too many colleges and universities. Oops, I think my bias is coming through. Can recruited athletes make fine officers? Certainly. So could many of the candidates that don't receive appointments. However, let's be honest about the selection process.</p>
<p>Read the mission statement yourself and make your own conclusion.</p>
<p>To educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country; professional growth throughout a career as an officer in the United States Army; and a lifetime of selfless service to the Nation.</p>