<p>If you happen to be blessed to have a family that grows apples or makes maple syrup in Vermont or happen to live near Ted Turner in Montana or in the hills of Dakota, you are indeed fortunate that there isn't as much competition to get into the Academy. At one time, there were less than 10 Mids from either state. If you happen to live in Maryland, Northern Virginia, San Diego or Woodland, TX, competition for appointments will be much, much tougher. You may be lucky indeed where your parents live; however, in all respects, if you get in you've passed the Board and that says a whole lot about you. We're definitely beating a dead horse on this.</p>
<p>Well...From Oxford English Dictionary...
1. a. Fortune good or ill; the fortuitous happening of events favourable or unfavourable to the interests of a person; a person's condition with regard to the favourable or unfavourable character of some fortuitous event, or of the majority of the fortuitous events in which he has an interest. Often with adj., as bad, hard, evil luck, GOOD-LUCK, ILL-LUCK. Also, the imagined tendency of chance (esp. in matters of gambling) to produce events continuously favourable or continuously unfavourable; the friendly or hostile disposition ascribed to chance at a particular time. </p>
<p>So I take it back! It's just fine to call it luck! Because luck actually has nothing to do with "random chance" as it seems a number of forum members here (including yours truly) believed it did!</p>
<p>And boy, has our family been lucky!! ;)</p>
<p>How did I miss this discussion of luck!</p>
<p>Let's just say that George Bush is one lucky [descriptive term of your choice]. Because we sure know that skill had very little to do with his election.</p>
<p>Time for another drink on a Friday afternoon. Cheers!</p>
<p>So.....</p>
<p>"The Few, the Proud, the Marines" </p>
<p>should now be</p>
<p>"The Many, the Lucky, the Marines" </p>
<p>?????</p>
<p>I don't think so....</p>
<p>It is obviously not "pure chance" to be offered an appointment to any academy. No one has sad that.
What does proud have to do with lucky? All these kids should be proud to even get close to being admitted.
Bottom line...it does take a lot of hard work and determination for these kids to get to the final steps in the selection process.<br>
Admitting these kids are "some of the best" and not "the best" shows humbleness. This just might be a quality these future leaders should possess.</p>
<p>I find I'm lucky in a lot of things. This one is directed at Bill - How lucky am I to have just enough dry vermouth for not one but two! martinis? </p>
<p>Answer is: I'm lucky enough. Pass the olives.</p>
<p>Well I guess I am feeling a bit lucky tonight that Dad2B'2010 is actually agreeing with anything I have posted. </p>
<p>Bill-that was a good one. Glad to see that tired old lawyer in you has not lost his edge! </p>
<p>And MamaSparrow- not really getting the rationale behind your substitution analogy at all....<br>
Personally, I would never mess with "The Few, the Proud, the Marines" .... they do indeed represent a select "few" of the "many" that wear the uniform....and I have not a doubt in the world that the ones that make it home feel like the luckiest guys in the world- and no doubt heartbroken that those they left behind were not as fortunate.</p>
<p>Miracles are good too. ;)</p>
<p>Someone wake me up- I think I'm hallucinating! :)</p>
<p>We just returned from CVW and someone asked the question about if two noms are better than one. The answer was YES. They said you get looked at again for each slate you have been nominated for. Someone told the admissions rep that MOC are telling parents that they won't give the nom if the applicant already has one. The rep said that is up to the individual states and they can give noms to those who already have one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That will be the easier of the 2 from what I hear- Zaphod will no doubt tell us that it is the mental side that will really put them to the test.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep.</p>
<p>One can always work out and be able to run 20 miles, but then crack under a grilling by an upperclassman. OTOH, someone who isn't Mr. Fitness can somehow tough out the whole thing on sheer bull-headed stubborness willpower. </p>
<p>Ask me how I know! ;) </p>
<p><--- Has only run 5 miles ONCE. Almost died, too! :D</p>
<p>With regards to the "Multiple Nominations" topic, I am a little confused...I have repeatedly been told that all you need for the Academy is one nomination, and one is really all that is taken into account...With my situation, the MOC's representing my state collaborated and discussed who was going to nominate who, making sure to spread their 10 nominations each as far as possible. If the Academy does take into consideration or looks upon receiving two nominations as a "+" over someone who did not receive two nominations, that doesn't seem fair to the ones who weren't able to receive multiple nom's due to their representative's hopes of giving as many of their students as possible a nomination...I am not trying to discredit the ones who have received multiple nominations by any means, just trying to find out how large of a factor receiving multiple nominations to the same academy plays into an indviduals appointment prospects...Thanks for all the support and help so far and congratulations to the people who have received their appointments...</p>
<p>I'm always been under the impression that while a person may receive multiple nominations, that alone will not be a major factor in selection. I may be wrong, however.</p>
<p>As to the subject of fairness: LIFE ISN'T FAIR. If someone is sufficiently qualified enough to receive more than one nomination (or smart enough to have applied for more than one) then those that didn't are SOL by comparison. It's no different than when two people apply for a job, but one has a degree and the other doesn't. The reason why one does and the other doesn't is irrelevant; the fact remains that one does and one doesn't, and it makes one more qualified than the other.</p>
<p>That said, there are any number of OTHER variables that get thrown into the mix when admissions are being debated and made, and the percentage of influence this one factor has is probably not as high as you might think. Remember that nominations are meant primarily to whittle the number of applicants down from 10-12K to about 5K. After that, each applicant is on his own.</p>
<p>Thanks Zaphod...</p>
<p>Multiple noms are a plus because it gives more flexibility. Each MOC has a slot - if you are the #2 candidate in the state and the #1 candidate is also in your congressional district and you both just have one nomination from your congressman, then the #1 candidate is in and your out. If you have multiple noms, the academy can prioritize and juggle between the senator and congressman's (and other) slots to put the best people in the open positions. It doesn't indicate you are any more qualified to have more than one nomination, it just makes it easier to make sure the most qualified people get to fill the available slots.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It doesn't indicate you are any more qualified to have more than one nomination
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unless you and the competition applied for the same types of nomination. If both a Senator and a Congressman from MD found person A to be worth nominating, but only the Congressman nominated person B, then chances are that person A is "more qualified" than person B.</p>
<p>Now, I put "more qualified" in quotes because SO many different factors are involved, including a good bit of blind luck.</p>
<p>All that said, the person with more nominations has more flexibility (as nickmom said). In my book, that translates into a better chance to get in.</p>
<p>Incidentally, another factor I just remembered: Some nominators send only individual names for each slot they have. Others send a list with a priority (Primary, First Alternate, Second Alternate, etc.). I even remember (back in my day) some nominators sending a list of names and telling USNA to pick however many was appropriate. Not very professional, mind you, but we ARE talking about politicians here. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Like I said, sometimes it's just blind luck.</p>
<p>Currently, 70-75% of the MOCs use the Competitive Nomination method, which is what the Academies prefer. Using this method, they submit an unranked slate of up to ten nominees for each vacancy. The Academy is then free to select whichever nominee from that list they want.</p>
<p>Interesting.</p>
<p>You know, maybe it makes sense that they'd prefer it that way; so that biases from the politician's office don't transfer to the Admissions Board.</p>
<p>In my case, my MOC submitted the primary and three alternates. The first year I was the second alternate. I ended up at NAPS. The next time around, I was the Primary from the MOC, and I got SecNav due to being at NAPS.</p>