<p>It can happen !!!!!</p>
<p>LOA (late November, 2008) + NO Congressman nomination (late December, 2008) + NO Senator nomination (late January, 2009) + NO Vice President nomination (date unknown)* = NO Appointment</p>
<ul>
<li>reasons unknown or withheld ......candidate applied to all nomination sources which was eligible</li>
</ul>
<p>In the above situation, a Supes nomination would be available.</p>
<p>the “reasons unknown” would be key to the “why.”</p>
<p>Anything can happen. My question is why a candidate with a LOA, as determined by Admissions, would not qualify for a Congressional Nomination in a relatively small pool of representatives candidates? Even state wide from the Senators this seems unusual. Three chances from one state and no nomination? As navy2010 says “reasons unknown” has to be a key somewhere.</p>
<p>Everything that I have read on this forum…is that the admissions process and the nomination process are totally mutually exclusive processes. The admissions process does not influence the nomination process…so…</p>
<p>If the admissions process “liked” a candidate and the nomination process “did not like” a candidate…I can logically see how a LOA can get generated from the admissions process and NO nomination from the nomination process.</p>
<p>Am I too naive or misguided in my logic, or is it more complicted than this? It would be interesting to learn, if anyone factually knows, if the admissions process does indeed influence the nomination process.</p>
<p>
There are 540 or so totally individual nomination ‘processes’. So long as they submit their slates in one of three approved manners, their method to arrive at their decision is pretty much however they want to do it. I am sure that you could find ‘factual’ information to support whatever statement you wished. I personally know of MOCs who have left candidates off the list simply because they had LOAs and I know of instances where LOAs have been awarded principal nominations. There is reasoning to support both approaches.</p>
<p>Thank you MomBee…</p>
<p>My question was more around the question below, in a context of an LOA candidate…</p>
<p>Does the admission process have any influence at all on the MOC nomination process…or is the admissions process 100% divorced from the MOC nomination process…meaning …that the admissions process will not try at all to encourage MOCs to give a nomination to a LOA candidate?</p>
<p>The intent is, for which both the Academy and the MOCs, in general, acknowledge, is for them to be two totally independent separate processes. With that said, Admissions does notify the MOC with qualification, LOA, etc status. Again, they can do with this info as they see fit.</p>
<p>But the admissions process will never say to the nomination process…nominate this LOA…correct?</p>
<p>
Of course they do. They do this by informing the MOC of the LOA status. It is solely up to the MOC whether or not to heed the advice to nominate.
Admissions can’t <em>force</em> a MOC to nominate a specific individual.</p>
<p>Certain information gets shared between admissions office and MOC’s. Included is a list of candidates from that MOCs area. LOAs are available for review, as well as recruited athletes [blue chip]. Candidates can also inform the nominating committee at respective MOC office that they have received an LOA.</p>
<p>One should not influence the other, but an LOA is an additional piece of information that gets factored into the process. The admissions office does not request a nomination for a candidate- however they can communicate candidates of particular interest to USNA. This is NOT something that is done on a regular or standing basis- it is held to select cases, and may not come through the admissions office at all. </p>
<p>Bottom line- the MOC is free to nominate who they want, LOA or not. Thus, an LOA is not a guarentee of an appointment- the canidate is informed that it is contingent on obtaining a nomination.</p>
<p>The short answer on exclusivity of the admissions and nomination processes would seem to be …</p>
<p>They are only separate IF the MOC prefers them to be such. </p>
<p>It appears most MOCs do NOT prefer the processes to remain distinctly exclusive of each other.</p>
<p>
I am not sure what the evidence would be to support such a statement as this. If the MOC slate mirrored exactly the Academy’s rankings, would the assumption be that they are working together or could it possibly be that the MOC was doing a stellar job in the selection process and just coincidentially picking the same selections? It would seem to me that the only visible evidence in this discussion might be if the MOC left an LOA off their slate to the expense of obviously inferior candidates which would refute your assumption. And there are not enough LOAs awarded annually to formulate a trend with an individual MOC. The one common thread between MOCs seems to be that LOAs and even regular candidates are often intentionally excluded from all but one MOC slate. This is not in the best interest of the Academy and most often not even in the best interest of the MOC and their state even though they think it is.</p>
<p>Over the years I have been involved with eleven different MOC’s offices. Ten have expressed indications that they wish to maintain seperate processes. The CGO mirrors their desires.</p>
<p>Furthermore, as navy2010 points out, for a candidate to assume a working relationship might prove deadly if it caused that candidate to exert an other than total effort in obtaining a nomination. Pursue all nominations available.</p>
<p>The MOCs I know rely heavily on the recommendations of their own [select] nominating committees, which in turn may, or may not, inquire as to and LOA status. What I can say with absolute confidence is that if the candidate interviews with the nominating committee, and does not impress them on their own merit, they will not be placed on the top of the list for nomination recommendations.</p>
<p>Does this speak to their superiority over another candidate without an LOA?
Absolutely not.
A candidate with an LOA in their back pocket can blow the interview with over-confidence that reads as “arrogance,” and that will sink their boat faster than anything else I know. </p>
<p>LOAs, for the most part, are based on the paper record, which may or may not reflect on them accurately.<br>
There are just a few opportunities for a candidate to put a face to a name- count into those opportunities coach interactions, BGO interview, and the MOC interview. EVERYTHING ELSE is submitted on paper, and I will add to that the folks involved in this process- in EVERY STEP of this process- are well aware of parental influence over this- ESPECIALLY the paper record. Interviews are where the candidate has to stand on their OWN. There has been more than one promising LOA candidate that has fallen flat.</p>
<p>A wise candidate will keep in mind that nothing is guaranteed.</p>
<p>NOTE to PARENTS:
Please do not bombard me with my comment on parental influence. Unfortunately, there has been way too much of it to not have it as a “given.” Yes, I know it was “not your candidate”, who did it “all” on their own. Trust me when I tell you it doesn’t matter. One can argue that a wise canidate will utilize all available resources- parents included- in this process. Thus, there are no “brownie points” to be earned, or lost, in this regard.</p>
<p>The assumption is that parental assistance is a “given.”
Thus, the required BGO interview.
Thus, the nomination interview.
Both, without parents.
And both will seek to find out the “extent” of parental involvement. AND support.
It is what it is.
But as hard as it is, this is the time they need to stand on their own.
I mean that most respectfully, and fully aware of my own parental hat.
How you can best help is to give your candidate access to USNA information, encourage their interaction with their BGO, and practice interviewing skills. The latter is a learned skill for sure.</p>
<p>Navy 2010…it sounds like this scenario below is a total possibility, and that you might have actually seen this happen???..</p>
<p>LOA (paper based “award”, like you suggest) + bad or arrogant MOC interviews (candidate personally stands on own, like you suggest) = No nominations from MOCS + No nominations from other sources for which the LOA candidate was qualified and did apply to (like VP or Prez-for whatever reason) + No Sup nomination bailout (for whatever reason) = no appointment for the LOA candidate</p>
<p>Do you know a case where this has happened?</p>
<p>I will sum it up by simply stating that until the appointment arrives in the mail, one should not count on having chicken for dinner. </p>
<p>NOTHING surprises me any more.</p>