<p>Quod Erat Demonstrandum =)
It has been shown.</p>
<p>I go to a very classical, very Catholic college prep school which forces us to take Latin :D</p>
<p>You are right on the money. Taking Latin is good for you; it will help you on the SAT exams.</p>
<p>There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli
British politician (1804 - 1881)</p>
<p>So to interject more 'calculus' into this math (just because it is actually fun to spar with those that seem to be as intrigued by the math as me...)</p>
<p>I think the odds are might be a bit better if you consider the following assumptions:
1. The senatorial nominations are more competitive than the representative nominations (except in those states with only one representative!)
2. There are possible overlaps in nominations between senators and then between senators and representatives moderately diminishing the 'unique' nominee pool from a specific state
3. Not every nominee is qualified</p>
<p>So if your total competitive set of nominees is 30 (2 senators and 1 district). Apply the qualification math, and the 30 becomes closer to 15 - let's go with 17 to be realistic. If you have a nomination from 1 senator and your congressperson, then the pool is actually only 16 people, because you have 2 nominations. If this applies to more than just you, then the pool grows smaller - maybe to 14. </p>
<p>Now in that 14 are people who are the best on their representative's slate and they will get those nominations....further reducing the pool of people. If you have state with 8 districts, that could take 4-5 people out. That leaves 9 people, some that have 2 nominations. If those with 2 make up 50% of the pool, and they take one appointment - that leaves you plus 3 others and 1 appointment - a 25% chance!!!</p>
<p>Since all of these are assumptions...none of this could be true, but it sounded good when I thought of it!</p>
<p>To those who said you can't eliminate those who decline upfront, I agree. They are not eliminated until it's all 'over' and then perhaps it is a waitlist game, so the odds there are very hard to determine (as if the other odds are not!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli
British politician (1804 - 1881)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Figures can lie and liars can figure.</p>
<p>QED (Quite Easily Done)…not really… </p>
<p>You are drawing a very skewed view from your numbers GA, you say it is not that difficult, in reality it is not that simplistic…as an engineer with years of studies in statistics and probability this is a common mistake:</p>
<p>Just because the 80.5% of the nominations get appointment in no way means that your child has an 80.5% chance of getting that appointment. The statistic is an 80.5% success rate for the ENTIRE APPLICANT POOL and that number is very different from each member of that applicant pool’s individual probability of getting an appointment. </p>
<p>Distributions and order matter when you are computing probabilities, your individual probability goes up with the more slates you appear on or goes down the farther down the applicant order you are.</p>
<p>Take our congressional district that had 9 of 10 nominations 3Q’d for the class of 2010, 3 received appointments. I guess in that district, in the end, each individual only had a 33% chance of getting an appointment and that is very different from the 80.5 probability that they supposedly had. </p>
<p>Please do not mistake the success rate for the “applicant pool” as each member of the pool’s individual probability for success. </p>
<p>"Figures can lie and liars can figure."</p>
<p>Wow...not sure how to take this...only trying to help so that in the end there are not kids out there who have a false sense of assurance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow...not sure how to take this...only trying to help so that in the end there are not kids out there who have a false sense of assurance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The assurance is that if a candidate has a nomination and he/she is fully qualified, he/she has an 80 percent chance of receiving an offer of admission. It is simple.</p>
<p>At the USNA Open House held at the Navy Memorial on 11 November 2006, the figure provided at the briefing by Captian Ripley, was a 75 percent chance for an offer of admission with a nominaton(s) and full qualification.</p>
<p>The assurance is, at the end of the day, that only those who are offered appointments have the opportunity to go. It is doesn't matter one little bit what your chances are if you don't get an appointment. So, there is no need to worry about the odds of success. </p>
<p>As was once was said, in paraphrase: Worry about those matters you can change and don't worry about those you cannot.</p>
<p>If you don't get an appointment, your chances of entry are no better than those who are not 3Q'd.</p>
<p>Okay, dumb question time. When one says "competitive nomination," does that mean 1) One had to compete against others to receive it (congressional, senatorial, etc.) or 2) That it has more pull than a presidential or a v.presidential? I know it is a dumb question. :o</p>
<p>A competitive nomination means that the academy gets to select one candidate from the slate of ten nominees for an appointment. The selected candidate will count against that MOCs quota. The other nine nominees are then placed in the national pool.</p>
<p>The source of a nomination carries no weight. A Presidential nomination carries as much weight as a Congressional nomination.</p>
<p>What are you chances of pulling four aces in a row out of a deck of cards?</p>
<p>Answer: 1/52 * 1/51 * 1/50 * 1/49 = 1.53908E-07</p>
<p>In other words, you have a heck of a better chance of getting an appointment to the Naval Academy than pulling four aces in a row out of a deck of cards.</p>
<p>Got it. Thank you for being patient and explaining it in a clear manner. :D</p>