<p>Here's another perspective ...</p>
<p>Remember ...</p>
<p>Only approximately 380 - 400 candidates in past year who were triple Q'ed AND nominated failed to receive an appointment. And that's out of about 10K that got a candidate's #, as it's noted in Genesis. "In the beginning, when earth and all wannabe USNA parents were alot younger ... "</p>
<p>That's my view ... and I'm stickin' to it! :p:</p>
<p>At least until someone proves me wrong ... again. Still. More. ;) :eek: :confused:</p>
<p>I'd like to buy in to the 80% thinking but I think the most accurate assessment is from Profmom as stated:
"80% of those with nominations that are 3Q'd will get an appointment; "your probability" of receiving that appointment (being in that 80%) lies somewhere between x% and 100%!"</p>
<p>On the 300-400 who don't get appointments (who are nominated) - are those NAPS/foundation school bound or is that group pulled from a different 'pool'?</p>
<p>Only more questions....not more answers!!!</p>
<p>will i be medically qualified if i have a soft disqualification for my eyes? as in, will i get a triple q'd letter? because i know i'm physically qualified, or i should be. and i just finsihed my remedial tests. i should be notified about my status in a couple of weeks.</p>
<p>The thing that worries me most, right now, is his CFA. He has taken it a couple of times, but it's the basketball throw that gets him. Running is great, shuttle runs are no problem and he can crank out the push-ups and pull-ups, but he's about 20 ft. short on the basketball throw. How much does that figure into things, or is it "whole person" and basketball throw just counts for a certain percent? </p>
<p>He is working on the throwing. Any other suggestions on how to improve that puppy?</p>
<p>My understanding is that you get a letter if you are scholastically qualified but no letter saying you are 3Q'ed. The Medical Qualification comes from DoDMERB and your Physical Qualification is a minimum CFA that you should know if you made it. Please correct me if I am wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The thing that worries me most, right now, is his CFA. He has taken it a couple of times, but it's the basketball throw that gets him. Running is great, shuttle runs are no problem and he can crank out the push-ups and pull-ups, but he's about 20 ft. short on the basketball throw. How much does that figure into things, or is it "whole person" and basketball throw just counts for a certain percent? </p>
<p>He is working on the throwing. Any other suggestions on how to improve that puppy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can relate entirely! We were in the same boat.... in the year that the thorpedo won all-county for the shotput (and in only the first time he ever tried that event in track) he couldn't throw that basketball further than his shadow!! (well, a bit exaggerated i think, but trust me, it didn't go very far)...</p>
<p>everything else he aced.</p>
<p>His track coach suggested going from an over-the-head throw to more of a side-throw, with a little rocking back and forth on the knees with a swinging of his upper torso side to side (like leaning back with one sholder rotated back a bit, then coming forward on the knees with shouler rotating from behind to out front).....think that added momentum added a few yards...</p>
<p>anyway, wouldn't worry about it too much, especially if his other strength numbers are good (pullups, pushups,etc). Trust me, if he gets in, they will work him so hard he will get muscles on top of the ones he shows up with, and that basketball will be headed to space!</p>
<p>The guy who does CFA's for his school demands that they throw overhand (however, I think to the side is just as good; they want to check balance, too). Anyway, I'm not so sure how well this guys understands this stuff, since he hadn't turned in Nick's newest CFA and Nick kept asking him about it. He said he didn't know how to submit it, so Nick had to go into his office and show him how to submit it online, leave the room, and hope like heck the guy put everything in correctly. It showed up as being received, but you can't see what he put in. Lord willing, he put the scores in correctly. It's not like this guy hasn't done this before. He did it last year with Nick's friend that is now a "doolie" at USAFA.</p>
<p>However, thank you for the advice and I WILL pass it on to the boy. I expect that IF he goes, he'll come home a more muscular, skinny boy.</p>
<p>Hope ya'll have a great Thanksgiving today!</p>
<p>socaldreamer ... well, like everything in this issue the answer is definitely yes, maybe.</p>
<p>@ the CVW, we were told by Dir of Admissions that they'd "probly not get a 3 Q letter." But there was no discernable, definitive answer aside from definite maybe. ;)</p>
<p>Go figure.</p>
<p>Okay, my head is now starting to spin. :o. Let me get this straight (if that's at all possible). To be triple Q'd, you need:</p>
<ol>
<li> Scholastically qualified</li>
<li> Dodmerb qualified</li>
<li> CFA qualified </li>
</ol>
<p>Then have a nomination on top of that? :confused</p>
<p>Have I missed anything? Plus, how do you find out if you passed your CFA? I feel completely inept, here. :D</p>
<p>You got it!</p>
<p>Who's on first!</p>
<p>Right!!</p>
<p>This is dated info, but should help.</p>
<p>check it out ...</p>
<p>Everytime I think I have a leg up on things, I realize how short my legs really are. Additionally, everytime I think I see a glimmer of hope, I realize that I may be hallucinating.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Thanks, Whistle Pig. I think I'm going to hybernate until May and we find out for sure. :D</p>
<p>Humbling to say the least...</p>
<p>Whistle Pig great link to the 2002 Admissions Brief for the Class of 2006</p>
<p>This link has a good chart which summarizes the nomination and appointment numbers, I believe on another thread GA pointed out the "allotments" for each type of nomination. </p>
<p>For those who cannot view the PowerPoint file this chart summarizes what happened for the class of 2006 (admissions cycle in 2002)</p>
<p>Senators (100) 99 appointments, 890 Noms
Reps (435) 500 appointments, 4000 Noms
VP 1 appointments, 10 Noms
Total: 600 appointments from 4900 Nominations</p>
<p>Presidential: 75 appointments, 440 Noms
SecNav: 170 appointments, 450 Noms
Children of Deceased / Disabled Vets: 5 appointments, 10 Noms
NTOTC/JROTC: 20 appointments, 150 Noms
Superintendent: 30 Appointments, 50 Noms
Totals: 300 Appointments from 1100 Nominations</p>
<p>Total of 6000 Nominations for 900 Appointments, leaving only 300 spots to go to qualified alternates to fill a class size of 1200.</p>
<p>In this admission’s cycle, which they say is typical, there were 6000 nominations of which 1900 were 3Q’d; 900 received their appointments through the allotted appointment sources, 1000 qualified alternates competed nationally for 300 spots thus a 30% chance of receiving an appointment from the national pool. </p>
<p>Additionally there were 2900 of the 6000 nominations scholastically qualified, taking a leap here, that means for every MOC’s nomination slate only 50% will be scholastically qualified and of the 2900, 1900 will be fully qualified (65% of the scholastically qualified nominations) Thus a MOC’s pool that started out at 10, has 5 scholastically qualified candidates with 3.25 candidates 3Q’d. So your chances of winning your nominating slate is 31% and those left in the national pool have another 30% chance of getting an appointment.</p>
<p>For that year 63.2% received appointments yet if you were 3Q’d each person only had a 30% chance of gaining an appointment from a MOC or the national pool of alternates. </p>
<p>-The powerpoint brief given at PPW for the Class of 2010 did not go into the detail presented for the Class of 2006 only that there were 3751 Nominations with 1888 3Q'd so the number of candidates fully qualified remained about the same as for the class of 2006.</p>
<p>^^^ oh my gosh, my head is spinning! :eek:</p>
<p>great post! Good luck to all traveling down this path! Hold on tight- "it's going to be a bumpy ride!" :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Just wake me up when it's over. Okay? :confused:</p>
<p>Ok WhistlePig, I think we are birds of a feather. I have been doing a similar calculus for several months now, but with less accurate data. However my calculations account for something that yours may not.</p>
<p>Your calculations seek to know the statistical percentage of being enrolled in the class of 2011.</p>
<p>My calculations seek to know the probability that you will be offered an appointment.</p>
<p>In the year you cite and as with most years, the Navy must offer between 200 to 300 more appointments than they have slots in order to fill the class. For example, it usually takes between 1400 - 1500 offers to fill a class of 1220 - because some will turn it down.</p>
<p>For this reason, I argue that these 200 to 300 3Q'd applicants who turn down an appointment must be removed from the 3Q pool (just as if they were never there to begin with) so that they do not throw off the percentages. I believe your analysis counts anyone who turns down an appointment as an unsuccessful candidate and this is not the case - like in baseball walks do not count as an at bat. Thus the pure odds are really better. That being said, my gut tells me that my kiddo has only about a 20% chance no matter what the odds say, because as you have said, this isn't a lottery it's a competition and competitions produce measures that can be scored.</p>
<p>Your thoughts?</p>
<p>Why that's such a ridiculously simple answer, even my driver, affectionately known in these parts as profmom2, could answer that. And since it's late, I'm beat, profmom could you help this GA cracker crack this code, please? </p>
<p>:eek:</p>
<p>btw, might we agree? WHO would say nay after going thru all of this?!? :confused:</p>
<p>Of those 200-300 that turn it down, some accept a different SA having been triple Q at the other SA's. Some may get appointments to 2 or even 3 SA's. The odds change if equally willing to go to any SA vs a single preference or single application. </p>
<p>It is tough to play the odds game. The odds really don't tell much because there seems to be an "art" more than a "science" to the admissions decisions and art is not so easy to quantify. (there is a "science" component - but sometimes you hear of candidates that are accepted with far fewer apparent qualifications than someone who wasn't accepted making it difficult to reduce it to science). </p>
<p>I agree though - after all the work to get an appointment, I can't imagine someone who would turn it down to go to a non-SA. However, that is far better than getting to the SA and leaving since by turning it down at least you have provided an avenue for a qualified alternate to make their way to the SA.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Ok WhistlePig, I think we are birds of a feather.
[/QUOTE]
Oops, I meant to say "ProfMom2"
[QUOTE]
after all the work to get an appointment, I can't imagine someone who would turn it down to go to a non-SA
[/QUOTE]
Not that hard to imagine really. Some of the really super, super smart elect to enroll NROTC to Harvard, MIT etc. They get a mostly free education with a different pedigree. A football jock may decide that they really have a shot at the pros and therefore decides to go to Notre Dame to avoid the 5 year committment.</p>
<p>But the stats do not lie, each year the SA's must offer approximately 200 to 300 more appointments than they have slots for in order to fill up the class. The Naval Aacdemy receives the fewest declines. </p>
<p>A candidate who voluntary rejects an appointment should not be counted as someone who failed to get in, thus the pure odds of getting in as calculated by ProfMom2 may be overly pessimistic.</p>
<p>Chess Dad: you are correct; probably more than a bit pessimistic but based on the actual enrollment figures not total offers of appoinments.</p>
<p>The appointment numbers for the class of 2006 given in the parents brief were actual enrollment figures so you never know how many more appointments were made and where they were made from. Consequently there really is no way to figure out an individual’s exact probability of obtaining an appointment unless that information was made available. </p>
<p>If you randomly remove 300 from the 3Q’d pool you are left with 1600 3Q’d candidates, since you really don’t have a way of knowing what pools those additional offers would have been from you really are only guessing. Removing 300 from the 3Q’d pool leaves you a 36% chance of winning your nominating slate - as before for every MOC’s nomination slate only 50% will be scholastically qualified and of the 2900, now 1600 will be fully qualified (55% of the scholastically qualified nominations.) Thus a MOC’s pool that started out at 10, has 5 scholastically qualified candidates with 2.75 candidates 3Q’d. So your chances of winning your nominating slate is 36% and 700 qualified alternates competed nationally for 300 spots thus a 43% chance of receiving an appointment from the national pool. </p>
<p>If you assume 300 more offers are made, your chance of winning your slate has to stay the same since it is only one candidate from the MOC’s slate of fully qualified candidates (31% -using the numbers from 2002 - although for the class of 2010 that would be 50%. - 1888 of 3751) To account for the additional appointments, now you have increased your pool in the qualified alternates to be 600 out of 1000, 60% probability. This scenario may be just a bit overly optimistic. </p>
<p>For all cases you have to make an assumption that the “fully qualified with nominations” are evenly distributed across the nominating sources…that is probably not a valid assumption.</p>
<p>Since I doubt we will ever be privy to all of the data, we can either be pessimistic or optimistic, but somewhere in between lies realistic!</p>
<p>The numbers are available for the Classes of 2009 and 2010. This isn't that difficult folks.</p>
<p>Applicants and Nominees</p>
<p>.................................................................2009.............2010</p>
<p>Applicants (includes nominees)........................11,259......... 10,747</p>
<p>Number of Applicants with Nomination................4,320........... 3,751</p>
<p>Nominees qualified scholastically, medically, CFA..1,812........... 1,888</p>
<p>Offers of Admission........................................ 1,503........... 1,510</p>
<p>Admitted..................................................... 1,220........... 1,215</p>
<p>**Percentages<a href="%">/b</a></p>
<p>Number of Applicants with Nomination..................38.4..............34.9</p>
<p>Nominees qualified scholastically, medically, CFA....41.9..............50.3</p>
<p>Offers of Admission ......................................... 82.9..............80.0</p>
<p>Admitted ...................................................... 81.2..............80.5</p>
<p>In plain english, 50 percent of the nominees are qualified. Eighty percent of the qualified nominees receive offers of admission. Eighty percent of those who receive offers of admission are inducted into the Navy as Midshipmen.</p>
<p>QED (Quite Easily Done)</p>