<p>One of our Senators is allocating all of 10 minutes to each of the candidates seeking his nomination. Is this usual? On the surface it seems awfully short for the potential impact the outcome could hold for these young people.</p>
<p>More than likely, it sounds like the interview is just a formality, just icing on a cake that has already been frosted.</p>
<p>When the transcripts, class rank, SAT/ACT scores, and essays have already been reviewed, some MOCs reach a decision without any interview at all.</p>
<p>Every Senator and Representative can choose their nominees any way they wish, there are no rules that they must follow, it’s all up to the individual member.</p>
<p>The Congressional options include NO interview. In this case you at least can present yourself. Consider it another opportunity to excel. You are doing well. Prepare and good luck!</p>
<p>I had one that lasted around 15 minutes, and another that was around 20 I believe. Most nerve-wracking time of my life.</p>
<p>Sounds pretty typical. Just because it’s a short time, doesn’t mean you don’t need to prepare though.</p>
<p>I concur w/ Luigi. Be prepared to do your best in 10 minutes with the assumption it matters. Even tho it may be purely politics, a pleasant way to press some constituency flesh, meet some great kids, keep the grumbling that “my Senator didn’t even bother …”.</p>
<p>Also, please keep in mind that the MOC’s are typically not at all part of the interview process. They usually have a committee with this responsibility.</p>
<p>I had an interview that lasted only 5 minutes. The longest one I had was 15-20 minutes.</p>
<p>My sons never met their MOC or Senator. Their interviews were with a panel of current and former officers. Each required a short speech then they sprung a controversial question on them to see how they thought on their feet. Stressfilled but over in just a few minutes. </p>
<p>Even though it is short, please remember to dress appropriately.</p>
<p>Update: </p>
<p>She was actually in the interview for less than 10 minutes. The two staffers asked a series of questions - none were curve balls - then reviewed her performance with her before saying thank you and good luck.</p>
<p>That was Saturday. On Monday she got a call congratulating her on receiving a nomination.</p>
<p>On Tuesday she got a call from our other Sen asking if she needed to be scheduled for an interview? Thanks - not necessary LOA in hand. Never did hear from our Representative. So they do share information - at least in CT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Make darn sure that it was a principal nomination before turning down the opportunity for another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>principal nomination???</p>
<p>The letter she received said (I don’t have it in front of me) From more than 250 applicants, I am pleased to nominate you for appointment to the NA. Congratualtions.</p>
<p>She doesn’t need a principal nomination. With her Letter Of Assurance, any nom will suffice.</p>
<p>Her LOA and her nomination equal an appointment (assuming her LOA was conditional on a nom only).</p>
<p>Congrats to your daughter.</p>
<p>The USNA catalog, which is unfortunately in revision and not available online, states that all candidates should apply for all nominations to which they are eligible. It mentions nothing about ceasing to pursue an application once a nomination is received. Kids get burned on this every year.</p>
<p>Only one nominee can be offered an appointment from each MOC’s slate of ten. The remainder will compete in the national pool for a nomination. By perhaps forcing your daughter to the national pool, she will compete by order of merit only with all the other thousands in the pool. Only a limited number of openings are available. Hopefully, USNA has gauged the number of LOAs so that sufficient openings are available and the quality of the LOA is sufficient to compete in the national pool. If there are problems, however, and one has applied to every source possible, there are ways of ‘finding’ an appointment. Not doing one’s part and not following instructions might make them less eager to help. However, apply to all sources possible and prior to canceling any of them, contact your area coordinator for their input. Only cease the process and not call once the appointment is in hand.</p>
<p>Mombee, thanks for your concern but I can’t see an issue. Here’s what the letter says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She did apply to all three so cannot be accused of scrimping there. It was our other senator and representative who canceled not DD. The senator’s aid actually tried to talk her into applying to the other SA (he was pushing the Merchant Marine Academy where he had gone) but once he heard of her LOA he said “Disregard everything I just said. Congratulations.” All that said, I’ll have her email Mr. Nelson for confirmation. </p>
<p>And thanks Luigi59. She’s very excited.</p>
<p>If they turned her down, great. She did everything within her control. Somehow, from your initial statement, I got the impression she turned them down, instead of vice versa:
</p>
<p>Her BGO should have explained the nomination process. The term ‘nomination’ is totally confusing and is used to mean several things. In the case of the LOA, it means a nomination that leads to an appointment which for congressional is only definitely a single candidate from the slate of ten. </p>
<p>For example, probably hundreds of ROTC nominations are awarded yearly. Only 20 appointments may be made from this entire slate. The remainder are not eligible for the national pool and therefore, unless they have another nomination from another source, they are out of luck. For LOA purposes, only the 20 who were successful would be considered to have nominations.</p>
<p>Bottom line, the more nominations that an individual has, the more flexibility CGO has with filling the class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So are you actually stating that a candidate, with a GUARANTEED LETTER OF ASSURANCE in hand, contingent on obtaining a nomination, who receives a nomination, now has to compete AGAIN in the national pool based on the “quality of the LOA”?</p>
<p>If that’s what you are saying, then a Letter Of Assurance from USNA means NOTHING.</p>
<p>If that’s not what you are saying, please explain why a candidate, with LOA and nomination, has to compete in the national pool when a guaranteed offer of appointment has already been offered.</p>
<p>
Unless he obtains a nomination from a source that leads directly to an appointment, absolutely.</p>
<p>
Not at all. What the Academy is telling the candidate that if they, the candidate, do everything possible to obtain a nomination leading to an appointment by competing for every nomination to which they are eligible, that the Academy will then do everything possible to grant that appointment.</p>
<p>
Please read carefully US Code Title 10 as it applies to the Naval Academy. No where does it mention anything about LOAs, which are solely internal to the Academy. These individuals must compete for an appointment exactly like everyone else. Those who do not receive principal nominations or are not deemed the most competitive in a competitive slate, are relegated to the national pool. LOAs are awarded for many reasons, only one of them being academic superiority. Those, by definition, would be highly competitive in the national pool. Not necessarily some of the others. </p>
<p>The backup is the Supts 50 at-large. However, these must also be utilized for other reasons and past Admissions administrations, not sure about this one, have seen any utilization of this source as a failure of the Department. Give them everything to work with and they will get you in. </p>
<p>An example, far fetched perhaps, of a problem would be should 21 individuals with LOAs decide that they only need a ROTC nomination and fail to pursue any other. Any of those not being admitted via the SecNav 20 ROTC appointments, would only then be eligible for the Supts 50 at large appts, hence putting a crimp in the system. Only MOC nomination ‘alternates’ are eligible for the national pool. Perhaps not so far fetched might be an LOA who decided that he only needed a Presidential. Should he,by order of merit, not be in the top 100 of this highly competitive group, he would not receive an appointment and would then only be eligible for the Supts slate of 50.</p>
<p>Again, pursue all avenues available and cease only at the recommendation of the CGO. I have personally seen candidates with a Presidential appointment in hand reprimanded for canceling their MOC interviews.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are essentially saying that a Letter Of Assurance from USNA is worthless, meaningless, and that every holder of an LOA will be again be judged on the quality of their file.</p>
<p>That a GUARANTEED appointment (upon satisfaction of a contingiency, usually a nomination) is not a guarantee.</p>
<p>Answer this question - Is a LOA (which is nothing but a contingent appointment), upon satisfaction of the contingency (a nomination in this case) a guarantee of appointment or not?</p>
<p>If your answer is yes, then everything you wrote above is false.</p>
<p>If your answer is no, then a LOA is a worthless piece of paper, a misleading trick to falsely induce a candidate to committ to USNA with a false guarantee of appointment.</p>
<p>luigi - define “nomination”.
The LOA doesn’t say you are guaranteed an appointment as a qualified alternate. A MOC submits 10 names and sends out 10 letters telling them all they have a “Nomination”. However, in reality there will be one “Nomination” and up to 9 alternates. If they submit a competitive slate, the academy will pick the “Nominee” and the alternates. If the MOC submits a Principle, the MOC will pick and if he/she doesn’t pick the LOA winner (or there are more than one LOA winners) he/she will have an alternate nomination.</p>
<p>Every candidate with an LOA should defintiely check with admissions before putting the brakes pursuing any nominations. This is the prudent course of action.</p>