Nomination statistics

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
1

<p>I was looking through the Naval Academy admissions catalog and couldn't help noticing a rather stunning statistic. For the Class of 2009, over 4000 received nominations only 1800 of which deemed academically/physically qualified for admission.</p>

<p>That is a rather dramatic reduction in the pool of potential appointees.</p>

<p>Am I to conclude that our congressman and senators are not very discerning as to WHO is best qualified for entrance into the Academy?</p>

<p>What's going on here? Are they nominating students with SAT's below 900? Are they nominating students who are 5'2" and can't do a single pull-up? What?</p>

<p>The disparity in the number of nominations and the number of those who are actually qualified is too vast - and it begs an explanation.</p>

<p>Why the disparity?</p>

<p>David Emerling
Memphis, TN</p>

2

<p>Assuming that the Senators, Presidential, and SecNav lists are mostly duplicates of Congressional lists, which may or may not be true, around 7000 nominations are possible if every congressman filled every nomination. Only a maximum of 700 of these could be true nominations from which appointments are offered. The remaining, if qualified, will enter the national pool. </p>

<p>Congressmen may make up to 10 nominations for each opening that they have. Some districts have 10 highly qualified nominees. Some districts don't even have 10 applicants. They are probably going to fill their lists with applicants, qualified or not. In some of the more remote districts, there are no qualified candidates.</p>

<p>Congressmen do not have access to medical and CFA results. They will nominate some highly qualified candidates who will not be able to pass the DoDMERB exam and/or the CFA.</p>

3

<p>Memphis - great observation. We too have question why such large disparity. At the interview he did see a few kids that were being interviewed that he knew would probably not make the academically qualified list - politics if you will.</p>

<p>USNA69: some members of congress do ask for the results of the CFA on their application forms: <a href="http://isakson.senate.gov/academyform.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://isakson.senate.gov/academyform.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

4

<p>


</p>

<p>And how was he able to determine that they were "political" interviews? Were they, perhaps, wearing a sign around their neck?</p>

5

<p>My congressman interviews every kid. Complete the application and you get an interview. We have one senator that has a "minimum" SAT score standard to get an interview. I think the other senator interviews everyone. </p>

<p>Remember, kids get to NAPS/MAPS etc BECAUSE they are not academically qualified. They can get nominations too.<br>
Since the interviews are conducted in the fall - lots of things can happen - medical issues, fitness issues, social issues.
Our MOC's asked for CFA results - if the candidate had them. If a candidate didn't go to SLS or NASS they may not have their CFA done until later in the fall. My daughter didn't do hers until Jan. She was however, a two sport varisty athlete - that probably matters more to the MOC anyway.</p>

<p>There are also probably a number of kids who lose interest along the way - do the paper work, get the nom, don't quite finish the whole application if they get accepted to another school.</p>

<p>I doubt anyone with a 900 SAT is getting a nomination.
As for being 5'2" - lots of girls are 5'2" and are successful at the academies - can't do a single pull up - well that is a whole 'nother issue.</p>

6

<p>I really don't see why it is of any concern whatsoever. One is a process required by law to ensure that the appointments are spread equitably around the country. The other is a rigid indepth review by a qualified group to find the best candidates. Allowing a ration of 10:1 simply assures that the vast majority of the qualifed candidates will get a nomination. The qualified alternate route assures that the best of the rest will get an appointment. They err on the high side, the very high side. Leave no stone unturned, so to speak.</p>

7

<p>If my memory is up and running, I seem to recall a number for the class of 2011 of right around 1800 kids that were triple Q'd with a nomination so the number cited is not out of the ordinary. If you look at the progression of applicants for the initial 12,000, that change represents the next major reduction in the candidate pool prior to the final awarding of appointments. </p>

<p>Speaking of 5'2", prior to his CVW visit my son was a little worried that he would be on the small side of the class of 2011, I think he had these visions of guys standing 6'-4' shoulder to shoulder while he stood there just over 5'-11" still trying to will himself to hit 6'. In one of his first letters to us this summer he commented " Dad you should see all the little people" which in turn sent me back to visions of the Wizard of Oz... suffice to say Mids comes in all sizes from the guy he stands next to in his platoon that must be close to 6'-6" all the way down to the Mids at 5'-2", what they may lack in height, I'm guessing they more than make up for in determination</p>

8

<p>Our MOC did not ask for CFA results-
not for lack of candidates-</p>

<p>nor do they have access to DoDMERB results.
While I am not sure if our local congressman's panel interviewed "all" seeking a nomination, I know both our state senators did not.</p>

<p>All MOC in our area asked for GPA, class rank and SAT scores- as well as "other notable achievements/activities".</p>

<p>As USNA69 pointed out, each MOC can nominate up to 10 candidates per open slot (max 5 at the 4 academies, USCGA not requiring nominations)- their "candidates" can be "ranked," "unranked," "primary with ranking", or "primary / no ranking". So where one "falls" on that list can also factor into who gets an appointment....clearly, not all do.</p>

<p>Understanding the process is of value- but part of that understanding is that this is something not in your control. I keep repeating myself, but the best you can do is bring "YOUR BEST" package to the table- you have no control over who else you are competeting against....what is in your control is making grades, sat scores, eca's, athletics, leadership, essay, interview- the best you can make it. Concentrating on that is key- the rest, while "of interest," really doesn't matter.</p>

<p>"What are my chances"......
we all ask.
we all try to figure it out.
it's an exercise in futility.
chances fall around 1 out of 10...give or take a few.
what does it matter- really?</p>

<p>if you chances are "good," are you going to apply? of course you are! Are you going to have "back up plans?" you would be foolish not to!</p>

<p>if your chances are "bad," are you going to apply? you should! How do you know they are "bad?" It might be a long shot, but 100% guarentee that chance will be 0% if you don't take that risk.... so anything else only improves those odds! If this is what you want, then you need to move forward with the process and take that risk- but when I see things like this, it makes me question "well, if my chances are bad, then I will save myself the work and not even bother with the whole thing".....which, to me, equals an interest/motivation/determination/desire that is, frankly, lacking.</p>

<p>Most candidates find themselves "somewhere in the middle." Are you going to apply? You should. Will you be successful (as in gaining an appointment)? 1 in 10. Worth the effort/risk/time/energy....???? You bet. </p>

<p>In the end, this is no different than applying to any other "school"... some of which, no doubt, will be reach schools, safe schools, and perhaps that one "out of the question but you never know-stranger-things-have-happened" school. Yes, the academy admission process throws some extra steps in along the way to whittle things down...... I like to think of those "hurdles" as "another opportunity" to get looked at.....as opposed to other institutions that meet at the table for a massive "yeah, nay or hold" vote..... what are your chances at those schools? hmmmmm....it all depends! At schools on the same "Ranking" as the service academies, most likely they all fall around that same 1:10 ....</p>

<p>Is the process "Fair?" While not "perfect," it strives to be so. I remember attending an information session at another "irish" university that flat out told us that "if you are a legacy, you have about a 30% better chance of getting admitted"....and this was at a "recruited athlete" invite!</p>

<p>Anyway, wish you better luck at "figuring it out"....
it took me about 6 months to "figure" that, while interesting, my time was better spent on arranging other college visits, assisting our son to keep an open mind and "look at all the opportunities available", and then encouraging him to remain focused on what was "really" important..... senior academics, athletic and EC committments, family and friends.... in that order. We got lucky- he did.</p>

<p>Dare I mention "luck" again"? (the last time I did it prompted about 6 pages of dialogue on cc"...... :eek: )</p>

<p>I do believe "luck" figures into the process as well- so I will admitt to adding in a few extra prayers! </p>

<p>In the end, our son said it best..... when congratulated by his BGO on his appointment, his comment was that he felt he was "one of the lucky few of the deserving many." </p>

<p>Those words I will never, ever forget- and they remain a small reminder, framed and sent to a plebe during his plebe summer, that no matter how difficult the path he has chosen, how "lucky" he is to travel it!</p>

<p>Best of luck folks- this is just the start of a very long roller coaster ride- and you are just getting on line for it! Hang in, and hang on- and have faith that if you have what the academy wants, they will find you! At the same time, use your time wisely and make sure the academy is what you want!</p>

9

<p>rjrzoom.....
believe it or not size works for you no matter what you are. Smaller people do much better in alot of PT as they have more proportional muscle mass than a larger, bulky frame. </p>

<p>Out in the military some of the best snipers, sub people, tank guys and SEALS are NOT your football built or basketball built people - but your wiry, unassuming ones.</p>

<p>And sometimes being 'tall' means YOU'RE the scrunched one in ship or sub berthing!</p>

<p>So no matter what your height/mass - our armed forces needs all kinds! tell your kiddo not to worry!</p>

<p>:-)</p>

10

<p>Audie Murphy was 5'5" / 115 lbs when he enlisted in the Army (after being rejected by the Marines). ;)</p>

11

<p>"Are they nominating students who are 5'2" and can't do a single pull-up? What?"</p>

<p>Just because someone is short doesn't mean they are not physically fit. I'm quite short and take offense to that statement. Have you ever watched the olympics? Have you SEEN the gymnasts? Some are under 5'0 and I bet they could do more pull ups than you.</p>

12

<p>Peskemom, </p>

<p>He's fine now, as much as he may want to hit 6' just so he can say he is, I haven't heard another peep out of him about the subject. In the end I think they just suffered through one too many Schwarzenegger and Stallone/Rambo movies. </p>

<p>On the same subject, son # 2 is a gymnast, been doing it since he was 4, he's about to turn 16 and went through a growth spurt last year that really set him back. He was state champ a few years ago in his age group, now he's struggling to control LONG arms and legs that used to be a lot easier to get around the apparatus. You can't win....</p>

13

<p>Yeah, I regret having made that comment. I apologize.</p>

<p>My intent was only to convey the idea about whether nominations were being issued to individuals who are not qualified, either academically or physically.</p>

<p>I had a vision of an unathletic, scrawny, weak kid with a nomination. </p>

<p>I agree with you about the size. There was a guy in my company (back in the day) who was probably no more than 5'2". He was extremely athletic and ran varsity cross country. And I'm quite certain he could do more pull-ups than me ... and I was 6'3". I never could do those damn pull-ups very well. :)</p>

<p>David Emerling
Memphis, TN</p>

14

<p>If some kids accepted to NAPS get nominations, and virtually all are there because they are not academically qualified, Why would a congressman give a nomination to unacademically qualified canidate?</p>

15

<p>There are "degrees" of qualification. Congressmen nominate based on a candidate's resume, transcript, and interview. Just because a candidate meets the "minimum" requirements does not mean that there will be an appointment forthcoming.</p>

<p>There are numerous reasons that a candidate will be offered NAPS, or Foundation. Not all of the reasons are clear-cut to us; there are no specified criteria for selection. Even though a candidate reaches the 1200 mark on the math/cr SAT and is "qualified" does not mean that others may not be "more qualified" and as a result the candidate loses out on the initial appointment. The admission board may decide that the individual has qualities that will translate into good leadership, and that with an additional year of school, the academics will not be as much of a challenge, and thus offer a year at NAPS or Foundation.
CM</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
If some kids accepted to NAPS get nominations, and virtually all are there because they are not academically qualified, Why would a congressman give a nomination to unacademically qualified canidate?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>not all kids recommended to, and accepted into, NAPS or foundation are there because they are not "academically qualified." There are many reasons why a candidate may be referred..... academics being one, but only one of many factors.</p>

<p>And keep in mind- even if there for "academic" reasons, it is hardly because their "academics" are in the toilet. Far from it. Once a year the foundation folks give out a "bio" of the candidates selected for that program- and every one of them would make your head spin! </p>

<p>So if the assumption is that somehow these candidates are "less deserving," it would be a huge mistake.</p>

<p>The process is challenging....every step of it...and there is no lack of those seeking to gain an appointment....thus, no need to "admitt" anyone that does not "meet the mark." The academy takes the cream of the crop- for direct appointments, to NAPS, and to the foundation program- every single one of them has "earned" their seat!</p>

<p>As for MOC....
just as there are some sections of the country with an abundant number of candidates seeking nominations, so there are areas of the country that receive NO applications at all.........and while the USNA, in particular, are well-known along the coastal regions, it is not as popular a choice in some mid-west and land-locked states....
thus, while the competetion can be "fierce" in some areas, it can be less so in others..... and it is up to the admissions board to rank and make sense of all of it, yet still maintain the geographic constraints that they are bound by. </p>

<p>And while I like to believe "politics" does not play a role in MOC decisions, who is to really know? I think our MOC go out of their way to keep the playing field level (they do not interview themselves, but instead have nominating committees to make the recommendations).... but who is to say what happens in some districts? Again- NOT in your control, therefore why get all wrapped into speculation about it? Instead, make sure YOUR application, YOUR essay, YOUR interview turns heads and makes them sit up and take notice so it is a matter of "we WANT this kid, we NEED this kid!" </p>

<p>Yes, you are competeting with other candidates...... that is the harsh reality. But again, I remind all of you, that the person you should be competing with is "yourself." YOU CANNOT CONTROL WHO ELSE IS APPLYING. You CAN control what YOU bring to the table. So worrying about "less academically qualified," even if it is remotely in the cards (which I believe it is not) and not concentrating on making YOUR application the BEST it can be is a HUGE mistake and a HUGE waste of time and energy!</p>

<p>You can moooo till the cows come home that someone else got an "appointment" or a "nomination" that is what.....yours to get????..... and it won't matter a hill of beans..... YOU need to make YOURSELF competetive to earn that for yourself! </p>

<p>Just my opinion folks.....</p>

<p>and if I may, I would like to repeat something CM posted above that is worth repeating......"There are numerous reasons that a candidate will be offered NAPS, or Foundation. Not all of the reasons are clear-cut to us..."</p>

17

<p>There is an easy answer to this. They are SIMPLY ALLOWED to nominate that many people, and West Point can only select so many out of the pool. It's not because they congressman/senators are nominating random people.</p>

18

<p>I think another reason many of these applicants end up at NAPS is because the weakness of their high school courses. They may have a high GPA, class ranking, and a respectable ACT/SAT score, but they have not had enough math or science exposure with their classes.</p>

<p>Also, many highly sought after athletes, end up in NAPS to prepare them for the rigorous academics at the Academy. The athletic department desperately wants these students, but they have come up a little short in some academic category. NAPS fixes this, ostensibly.</p>

<p>David Emerling
Memphis, TN</p>

19

<p>The Academy states that there are six reasons to send a candidate to NAPS:</p>

<p>Average Grades/Good Leadership Potential
Low Grades/High SATs
High Grades/Low SATs
Away from Academics for a Year or More
No Chemistry or Physics
High Grades/Weak Leadership Experience</p>

<p>The first reason is by far the most common and the last listed one is extremely rare. Five of the six reasons are an academic deficincy of some type. Additionally, the candidate will have gone before the Admissions Board and found to be Scholastically Unqualified.</p>

<p>NCAA compliance limits the number of recruited athletes to the same percentage as intercollegiate athletics in the USNA student body which is around 17% if memory serves me correct.</p>

<p>My experience has been that by far the most common typical NAPS candidate has an EC package that most would kill for. Very, very active. NJROTC AND athletics. Student government. Eagle Scouts. Involved in church and community. The type where one asks, "Where did they find the time?" Well, in their case it is usually weak academics, either lower grades than the typical candidate or a not-as-strenuous course load. The ability to spend long hours and focus is there but the guarantee that they can survive the academics at USNA is not.</p>

<p>Some people see NAPS as a stigma and try to invent reasons for being there. It is not. It is usually the high school kid who tried to do it all and took a ligher course load in order to fit it all in. Their USNA graduation rate continues to be higher than the brigade at large.</p>

20

<p>I have to differ here-</p>

<p>I don't know of anyone that views NAPS as a "stigma."</p>

<p>While I know MANY that are/have attended one of the prep programs that do not fit any of the 6 catagories listed above. One look at the bios of the kids that attended foundation over the last 5 years will attest to that. Lighter course work? Less-than-the-mean SAT scores, GPA, class rank, leadership, strength of schedule? It would be a huge mistake to make that assumption.</p>

<p>I am also of the opinion that, while not the "official" line, there is a "7th" reason to offer NAPS or foundation..... and that is for athletics, specifically. </p>

<p>There is a reason why their "USNA graduation rate continues to be higher than the brigade at large." It is certainly not for lack of cognitive ability.</p>

<p>I don't think anyone has to "invent" anything, and suggesting such is a huge disservice to those that are motivated and determined enough to devote another year of time and effort towards their goal ....and I will add, turning down many other "just as stellar" opportunities in the process.</p>