<p>Looks like all 3 service academies are changing the PAE requirement starting with the class of '10. Details can be found on the USAFA site:
<a href=“http://academyadmissions.com/home.htm[/url]”>http://academyadmissions.com/home.htm</a>
(Click “Apply to enter the Air Force Academy now”, then download the booklet, then go to page 8)</p>
<p>The new PAE consists of:</p>
<li>Basketball throw</li>
<li>40 yard shuttle run (replacing the 300 yard shuttle run)</li>
<li>Situps (new)</li>
<li>Pushups</li>
<li>Pullups/flexed arm hang (women now have the option to do pullups)</li>
<li>Mile run</li>
</ol>
<p>Other changes:</p>
<p>-no standing broad jump
-max limits for each event
-a defined timetable for completion of each element of the test</p>
<p>I just failed the PAE with a low score in the standing long jump& a minimal score in the shuttle run. I did well in the other events. This was my second try with a 1440 SAT, Great ROTC recs, high GPA in HS & college & good leadership' </p>
<p>I am tall & slim & could do very well on the new test.</p>
<p>I have had 6 nominations and wonder if I could try again or are they tired of seeing my face.</p>
<p>I wonder if this is just another step in "dumbing down" the core requirements for the Academies. A professor at USNA - Sterling? - just wrote an article that only 50 percent of the slots at USNA are filled competitively and that standards - academic and physical - have been dropped for diversity's sake. Saw a piece on CNN where the Navy trotted out a woman who was getting special tutoring in Engineering and she said, "I'll have no problem being a leader". Hmmm - wonder what it will be like when she's in charge of the nuclear reactor and there's a problem.</p>
<p>I didn't interpret the change that way. If anything, it shifts the PAE to more closely match the APFT, used throughout the service, by adding situps and a longer distance run.</p>
<p>The new PAE looks to me to be more challenging, but more balanced (the standing long jump has always stood out as a low value added measure). I particularly like that it encourages women to shift from the flexed arm hang to pullups (one pullup is worth more than the max seconds on flexed arm hang).</p>
<p>I'm not sure Fleming was referring to women in his article - as they have the same average stats as the entire USNA class. He references the set-aside groups of athletes, minorities, and prior enlisted.</p>
<p>GoUSA-
I don't think you are really in a position to be bad mouthing the woman who was receiving tutoring. Do you have any idea how difficult it is at the Naval Academy? Just because someone needs tutoring doesn't mean they will not be a good leader.</p>
<p>GoUSA,
I dont want to insult you because my maternal grandfather was a hard-working, prosperous Iowa farmer, but I disagree with you and I suspect that you dont approve of women and/or minorities at the service academies. Overall, the academic minimums at USNA have never been higher according to the profile of the class of 2008. Many USNA alumni with successful military careers under their belts would be turned away from USNA/USMA if they applied today because their SAT/ACT/GPAs wouldnt be high enough! At USNA ship selection night last month, a female firstie with the highest order of merit had first choice; while the last choice based on order of merit went to Kyle Eckle, a white male star football player. Its safe to assume that both of these mids were successful at the academy and will contribute greatly to the Fleet! Most candidates who ultimately receive appointments to US service academies have qualifications that absolutely take your breath away!</p>
<p>Wstcoastmom: Glad to hear of your Iowa roots. No, I'm not biased against minorities or women. I respect anyone who considers themselves an American, understands the threats we are facing, and is willing to put themselves on the line in combat (more likely in Army than Navy). I'm not even concerned about grade point/SAT averages - someone who comes from a rural area or a bad school (mostly due to wasted, inefficient schools systems, not lack of money) may certainly be as bright as a someone from a privileged background. I am concerned about physical requirements being dropped. If the original physical requirement had any meaning, why lower it for women. What really concerns me is the difference in graduation rates between men and women. See below. It costs a fortune to educate an individual at West Point and Annapolis. Can we really afford such a large difference between men and women - and it's really larger than it appears since women typically graduate at a higher rate at civilian colleges. I think the academies need to tighten up their physical requirements for women and somehow measure psychological toughness in order to only take those women (and men) who can succeed. No system will be perfect but I'm afraid that we're "wasting" officer resources now. I lost a number of friends on 9/11 - we're at war and PC needs to take a backseat right now.</p>
<p>"At both academies, women are less likely to graduate in four years than are men. This finding, unusual in that women are normally more likely to graduate from college on time than are men, suggests the possibility that admissions preferences for women are used with regard to non-academic admissions factors."</p>
<p>"Four-Year Graduation Rates</p>
<pre><code> * 69.5 percent of women
* 76.6 percent of men
</code></pre>
<p>Like the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy graduates a smaller proportion of women compared to men. Women are less likely to finish, despite their higher verbal scores and higher high school rank (and only a 15-point gap in median math scores compared to men)."</p>
<p>Last Year's USMA SAT scores:
Average SAT scores:
V 623 M 643</p>
<p>USMA is very competitive because of the number of applicants who want to serve their country. It's not very competitive in terms of average SAT scores. USMA SAT averages would put it somewhere - maybe - in the top 80 schools in the US. Also, the scores were "recentered" about 8 years ago - so a 1500 today is equivalent to a 1400 twenty years ago.</p>
<p>SAT averages reflect the Army's desire to have well-rounded individuals. I wouldn't want the smartest officer in the foxhole with me - but the one with the best judgment and leadership skills (and hopefully they studied their engineering too).</p>
<p>These arguments get so tiresome . . . fact of the matter is that "preferences" exist throughout life. You are selected [deselected] for jobs, opportunities, etc. on any number of criteria throughout life.</p>
<p>Athletes, legacies, major contributors all get preferences; why not women or minorities? Being appointed to a flag rank is a political process. Does the "best" person always get appointed? Doubtful. </p>
<p>Do people get appointed because of who they are or who they know? Impossible to say in some circumstances; espcially when you are a white male and your father is commander of the pacific fleet. See John McCain. Does that mean he wasn't qualified? No. Does anybody question his qualificaitons? No. Why not? How about General Powell? Would he have been admitted in the 1930s w/out preferences? Who knows.</p>
<p>The point is, the Acadamies try to do the best they can to reflect the society they serve. If we lived in a color [substitute gender or anthing else] blind society, then all we would have to do is take a test to see who President of the United States would be. Everybody else could then be ranked accordingly; down to the person that made less than a 1,000 being automatically in line for homeless status.</p>
<p>The Acadmies exist to TRAIN leaders; if these kids alreay knew how to be leaders, they would not need the Academy. If women [minorities] don't graduate in comparable numbers, then so what. The ones that do apparently serve ably.</p>
<p>SAT/ACT averages are higher at USNA. They are important, but certainly not the only means of evaluating candidates. Did you read that USNA had three Rhodes Scholars this year? Only Harvard had more, five. Trust me, the service academies get the cream of the crop!</p>
<p>I would expect the Academies to produce Rhodes Scholars - here's a quote from the Rhodes webpage :
"Intellectual distinction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for election to a Rhodes Scholarship. Selection committees are charged to seek excellence in qualities of mind and in qualities of person which, in combination, offer the promise of effective service to the world in the decades ahead."</p>
<p>What better places to find "qualities of person" than the academies.</p>
<p>ahh, the PAE...I think the best part of the PAE is where it says you can be in the resting position while doing pushups while being in the 4 point position...yah i got 50 some in the first minute but only finished with 61 during that whole long next minute.....that resting position makes you more tired than anything.</p>
<p>The academies are not there to produce Rhodes Scholars. It's just a bonus when they do and inevitable given the caliber of their students. They (at least West Point does) exist to produce leaders in the military. George Patton sucked at academics at the academy, and probably would have been one of those "inferior SAT" scorers if he were to apply today.</p>
<p>As to women at the academies not deserving to be there?--Don't go there people.</p>
<p>The academies are not there to produce Rhodes Scholars. It's just a bonus when they do and inevitable given the caliber of their students. They (at least West Point does) exist to produce leaders in the military. George Patton sucked at academics at the academy, and probably would have been one of those "inferior SAT" scorers if he were to apply today.</p>
<p>As to women at the academies not deserving to be there?--Don't go there people.</p>
<p>it appears oib1 and gousa are the same person?</p>
<p>"I think the academies need to tighten up their physical requirements for women and somehow measure psychological toughness in order to only take those women (and men) who can succeed"</p>
<p>Let me intoduce you to my daughter sometime.</p>
<p>By the way, was your son able to determine where he is on the NWL? Hopefully he got all of his questions answered.</p>
<p>i would want to see the official testing requirements for the new PAE before I assume that it is easier or harder.....i dont see it posted on any website so far? (and the mile run seems like a good addition anyway)</p>