LOA Explanation

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
1

<p>Okay. . .</p>

<p>I know this has been addressed countless times, but does an LOA put you in a group of candidates vying for appointments other than through their nominating sources?</p>

<p>According to the USNA website:</p>

<p>"If your record of achievement is truly outstanding, you could receive an early offer called a Letter of Assurance. This indicates our intent to extend an Offer of Appointment, provided all your remaining requirements (nomination, CFA, Blue and Gold Officer interview and medical) are successfully completed. A Letter of Assurance could be received as early as September of your senior year. . . If you are found scholastically qualified but do not receive a Letter of Assurance, you will be competing for an Offer of Appointment from within your nominating sources."</p>

2

<p>As far as I know it does. LOAs are given to outstanding candidates, ones that could be lost to either the Ivies or someother equally competitive school. It's kind of like an Early Action notification, but one still has to get all of the other requirements. I know that medical waivers are sped up. I've heard the majority of candidates requesting an eye waiver when they have not recieved an LOA are still waiting. I recieved my waiver after 2 days of getting my LOA.
I think that was a tangent, but to answer your question: you still need a nomination to get that spot that they saved for you. But a candidate is more likely to get a nomination because those who recieve LOAs don't go against a MOC's number of spots (there are 5 at any given time) at an academy.</p>

3

<p>And it seems that while there is no such thing as an LOA for nominations, the USNA officials can and may become involved in securing such for otherwise LOAs. But no guarantee of appointment in the absence of such. </p>

<p>And if I understand correctly, and there are others who can and will lend clear insight to this, even IF an LOA has a nomination (that is not a "principal" nomination) there is no guarantee, only a very high liklihood that they will receive an appointment.</p>

<p>Apparently there are triple Qed LOAs who've NOT received appointments. So, comparing it to EAs seems to be inappropriate in the absolute sense. There is no requirement of USNA to appoint LOAs, it seems.</p>

4

<p>Even IF an LOA has a nomination (that is not a "principal" nomination) there is no guarantee, only a very high liklihood that they will receive an appointment.</p>

<p>Again if you read the paper work as long as you meet all of the requirements for admissions you are guarenteed an Appointment. The LOA states this in bold print. Guaranteed an Offer of Appointment as long as the remaining admissions requirements are completed.</p>

<p>The LOA's we have heard about that did not get the offer did not receive Nominations or didn't get their waivers. </p>

<p>LOA with all admission requirements met = Guaranteed Appointment
Comparing to a EA is valid as long as the recipient understands that they must successfully complete any outstanding admissions requirements. Loa's can be issued with the Nomination, medical, and cfa outstanding. I beleive for the class of 2011 the B&G Interview had to be completed prior to the LOA.</p>

5

<p>Again, I believe there is no legal or binding requirement of USNA to appoint LOAs. De facto, it seems we may be quibbling as it seems most once triple Qed do in fact receive appointments, but in this case, IF I'm understanding correctly, there is no legal or binding requirement of the Academy to appoint LOAs. And that is why it may not be analogous to an EA. The USNA is not bound to appoint, while my understanding of EA is that the offering institution must accept.</p>

6

<p>I wonder if I want to get into this one! When the issue came up for our family my D asked the academy admissions officer specifically what guarantee the LOA has. Answer: The Air Force made a promise when they sent out the LOA. If you keep your end of the bargain (pass DoDMRB, get nomination . . .) AFA will honor their end of the bargain and you WILL get an appointment. The only thing that could change it would be doing something stupid (like getting arrested). </p>

<p>Perhaps there is no "legal" obligation of an academy to offer the appointment once an LOA is out - but one could say the honor code runs both ways. AFA made it clear that they will keep their word to every LOA they send. It was stressed very strongly that AFA gave their word and AFA takes their promise to LOA recipients very seriously. I would assume other SA's take a similar position where their word is concderned.</p>

7

<p>See if these equations are right, and maybe another way to look at it.</p>

<p>LOA + qqq + nomination = Offer of appointment</p>

<p>qqq (raised by a high WPM) + nomination + success in competitive slate = Offer of appointment</p>

<p>I can't speak to the primary nominee deals, as we didn't suffer that route...</p>

8

<p>Momofhopefull 2011 since I'm already in this one and will say it until blue I am blue in the face..you are correct… It is a guarantee, clear and simple and very much stated on the document. </p>

<p>If you will the LOA is a contract so yes as long as you have held up your end of the contract - completed your remaining Admissions requirements…
1. Nomination
2. Passed the physical and
3. passed the CFA
…then the Academy is under an obligation to award the Appointment, it is very much stated on the document. As you said the only thing that could change that is if you do something stupid. </p>

<p>The wording on the LOA from USNA is very clear and emphasized in bold print. I do not believe the Academy is into misleading an applicant. Clear and concise: YOU ARE GUARENTEED AN OFFER OF APPOINTMENT AS LONG AS THE REMAINING ADMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS ARE COMPLETED. The letter also goes on to tell the specific applicant what remaining admissions requirements they need to complete. And then welcomes them to the Brigade of Midshipmen.</p>

<p>There certainly wasn't this confusion last year.</p>

9

<p>At the risk of tar, feathering, being boiled at the stake ... allow me to revisit one important element to professormama's definition concerning the LOA "guarantee" and the way I've come to understand (in light of the explanation of others far more knowledgeable than I, and with experience as USNA BGO) this promise to its recipients. And I believe this is central to the confusion.</p>

<p>Indeed USNA will provide that which it promises. An appointment is guaranteed pending all of those noted issues including maintenance of scholastic qualifications, medical qualifications, and receipt of a nomination.</p>

<p>It's the latter issue that I believe is confusing. While it's published, printed nowhere that I've located, the definition of nomination which guarantees appointment is in fact the PRINCIPAL nomination. A candidate gets that, and he/she is appointed and will be admitted so long as the appointee maintains all the right stuff up to I Day.</p>

<p>What does NOT lend to the guarantee are the as-many-as-9 alternate or ordered nominees of an MOC. In these cases "the nomination" is not THE NOMINATION called for in the LOA. Rather in this case, the LOA recipient goes into the national pool and it becomes a crap shoot, NO MORE GUARANTEE OF APPOINTMENT even though they still have that LOA letter. And there is no going back. For them, it's a new day, new game.</p>

<p>Now, let me add one more piece of what I think I understand. Let's assume the LOA recipient is now in that national pool, and the Admissions Committee is stirring the pot and waitng for the remaining cream appointees to rise there in. Presumably, those LOA candidates that are now in that pool will in all likelihood rise and be skimmed out and appointed because they are good, and the USNA has recognized them as such already in sending the letter of LOA. In fact exceptionally good but without THE nomination. Merely A nomination But it's because they're good, stellar candidates that they are pulled out and consequently offered appointment. But the appointment is NOT because they are LOA recipients. That LOA guarantee is no longer valid. The appointment is because they're among the top of the heap in that new pool.</p>

<p>So ... summarizing ... IN FACT many, if not all LOAs will receive an appointment. Some as a function of being recipient of LOA guarantees AND then getting a principal nomination from MOC, others as a function of being top-shelf candidates and coming out of the national pool consisting of the remainder of all the other 9 alternates/ordered X approximately 650 MOCs (i.e. those who've also become triple Qed).</p>

<p>There! That's pretty doggone clear! So clear and bright I need my shades.:cool: Clear to me. :confused: Well isn't it?</p>

10

<p>What does NOT lend to the guarantee are the as-many-as-9 alternate or ordered nominees of an MOC. In these cases "the nomination" is not THE nomination called for in the LOA. Rather in this case, the LOA recipient goes into the national pool and it becomes a crap shoot, no more guarantee of appointment.</p>

<ol>
<li>a B&G on here even admitted he had never seen a LOA - not sure I would say he understands anymore than the rest. </li>
<li>Per Admissions, a nomination is a nomination, primary or otherwise.</li>
<li>Per Admissions very few MOC's send up their nominations with a principal or even numbered most are just a listing of 10 nominations - and that is the way admissions would prefer it.</li>
</ol>

<p>Mine was nominated by two sources, not charged to either source and received his appointment within a week of the nomination. LOA did exactly as it stated. </p>

<p>I do believe it is time to say that we agree to disagree on this one.</p>

11

<p>Indeed we do disagree. And with all respect, he was credited to an MOC as are all LOA appointees unless he was no longer under the LOA, i.e. he was not a principal nominee.</p>

12

<p>I do give up. </p>

<p>Respectfully, please don't tell me I am wrong when it is my Midshipman that we are speaking of and it is his MOC's and Admissions Regional Director that told us that the LOA's are not charged to them. I will believe my sources over any posts here and would recommend that any candidate with a LOA who has a question about the workings of the LOA direct it to their Regional Admissions Director.</p>

13

<p>Now don't get mad at me.</p>

<p>Let's look at this a different way ...</p>

<p>Check out this link: <a href="http://www.usna.edu/Admissions/BGO/briefs/2002%20Master%20Admissions%20Brief.ppt#11%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usna.edu/Admissions/BGO/briefs/2002%20Master%20Admissions%20Brief.ppt#11&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This is the distribution of nominations and appointments from the USNA Admissions powerpoint. </p>

<p>It clearly indicates where each and every appointee comes from and all are designated with but one group of exceptions ... 300 appointments of what they call "alternates". And these are the alternate nominees from the MOCs that have been triple Qed. These are the only appointments not designated or assigned to a nominator.</p>

<p>Now, if you're saying that these are in fact LOAs ... which they'd have to be since there is no other category to comprise the class ... well that would mean that virtually none of the MOC alternate nominations received appointments as they'd have to all go to LOAs. </p>

<p>Help us to know where else the unassigned LOAs might be in this illustration? I can't find them. And we know there are several hundreds of LOAs. The Dir of Admission told our CVW parent group ... " there are about 500 LOAs out there at any given point in time in the rolling admission process."</p>

14

<p>Whistle Pig,</p>

<p>In the slide you provided, I noted the 500 appointments from the MOC</p>

15

<p>Whistle Pig,</p>

<p>In the slide provided, I noted the 500 appointments from the MOC</p>

16

<p>Whistle Pig,</p>

<p>In the slide provided, I noted the 500 appointments from the MOC’s. Each MOC gets at least one appointment per year. (Every 4th year they get two, which probably explains the extra 65 appointments).</p>

<p>The Academy fulfills its promise to the senators and MOC’s first, filling the class with their allotted appointments first.</p>

<p>For instance, in my experience, the very first candidates to hear of their admissions status are the Principal Nom candidates, who, assuming they were already triple Q’d, are directly appointed to fill that MOC’s USNA appointment for the year. </p>

<p>But let us assume that the MOC in question just provides an unranked slate of nominees and at least one of those candidates is an LOA candidate. It stands to figure, when in the next round of filling each of those 435 slots, that the Academy would select the LOA candidate to fill that appointment. Geography is important. These candidates are not competing in the pool yet, but against each other within that congressional district. An LOA candidate will get the appointment if the Academy is given the choice. </p>

<p>If a MOC does not have a Principal Nom or an LOA candidate in his or her district that slot will be filled by the best candidate under the whole person multiple in that district. In the end, each district has at least one appointment (excepting districts that had no candidates).</p>

<p>So it seems as if your group of “alternates” would be filled only by candidates with high whole person multiples that were outperformed by either a Principal Nom, an LOA, or higher ranked multiple candidate and did not earn that reserved spot from their MOC or senators.</p>

<p>This may be what ProfMom2 means when she says that the LOA’s are not “charged to” their MOC. Only the first appointment is “charged to” the MOC, whether it was a Principal Nom, an LOA holder, or unranked competitor in the pool of Triple Q’d candidates.</p>

<p>The important thing is that once each MOC and senatorial slot has been filled, the Academy can fill the class with the best candidates from wherever they wish. I think these are the 300 alternates (from your slide).</p>

<p>Moral to the story, work to be the Principal Nom or secure an LOA, it dramatically increases your odds of appointment.</p>

17

<p>I was inexact in my last message.</p>

<p>I stated that, absent a Principal Nom, an LOA candidate was going to be the next selected candidate.</p>

<p>It was very kindly pointed out to me that the actual method of selection would be to select the most qualified, based on order of merit. If that happens to be the LOA, great. If not, the LOA becomes a qualified alternate.</p>

<p>This was actually much more accurate than what I said.</p>

18

<p>You've said it well and clearly, imo. Thanks.</p>

<p>Precisely. Most likely LOAs in the alternate pool are the ones who will be selected among that 300 ... BUT there is no more guarantee as a function of holding that LOA letter. All bets are off at that point. And consequently, there have been LOAs in that pool of alternate candidates, with a nomination, i.e. they were not a principal nominee but rather an alternate of MOC, and thus at that point there is no guarantee. </p>

<p>But these are the 300 lone rangers not credited to a specific nominating source. There are no others as the slide illustrates. </p>

<p>So, is it possible that an LOA is appointed and not credited to any nominator? Absolutely. But should that be the case, at that point they were chosen on their merit relative to the others in that alternate pool. And conversely is it possible that an LOA in that alternate pool is NOT appointed and thus left without an appointment. My understanding from those who've been involved in this, is YES. There was no guarantee because the candidate failed to secure those conditions of the LOA. </p>

<p>Again, thanks for additional articulation, clarification.</p>

19

<p>Quote by Profmom2:
"a B&G on here even admitted he had never seen a LOA - not sure I would say he understands anymore than the rest."</p>

<p>It is unbelievable that I am slammed on a thread of which I have had absolutely no part.</p>

<p>Profmom, may I remind you of the six blind Indians and the elephant. Just because you have blindlly grabbed the tail doesn't give you the ability to disprove the sighted person standing there observing the entire elephant.</p>

20

<p>"But these are the 300 lone rangers not credited to a specific nominating source."</p>

<p>After looking at the slides you reference, I was wondering where the NAPS graduates fit into the total; if they make up ~200+ of the incoming class, where do they fit into this spreadsheet? Do some come under the SECNAV allocation? or Alternates or ???</p>