<p>I would have to agree that the women do very well at the academy, often outpacing their male counterparts (the head cadet at USMA is a female this year!) It is a shame more do not apply, but having said that, I am glad to see that the academy makes it a point to actively recruit women into the brigade. I wish there were more of them!</p>
<p>Could you explain exactly how the academies "actively recruit" women. All I saw was a slim brochure with women on it that I picked up during Plebe Parents Weekend. In fact, I believe the exact opposite is true. Women still face an uphill battle when it comes to receiving appointments to the service academies. That is why I stated that many of them are in fact superstars when compared to male applicants. My daughter's BGO said in a rather offhanded manner, that he didn't believe women should be part of the Brigade. This is not hearsay because I heard his remark. So my daughter got her appointment "in spite of her BGO." The only active recruitment that I have witnessed at the service academies involves varsity athletes and minority candidates.</p>
<p>Oh my goodness, I feel that I need to reassure anyone on here. Looking at your guys' scores I was starting to worry. Juniors, I only got a total 1360, 640M (this should be higher for the Naval Academy) and 720V and a 680W. You don't have to have above a 1400 to get in, if those numbers are looking daunting for anyone. The Naval Academy looks at the full record. I got an LOA despite not having well over a 1400. My other qualities were strong. If you feel that your SAT may come up a little short just kick it up in other areas. I must admit I did not study, so I did not have a chance for my score to go up 100-200 points, so I highly recommend studying. Now that I think of it the possibility of over 1400 would have been nice... so study little ones, study.</p>
<p>If sub 1400 got you an LOA, then sub 1400 should be more than fine.</p>
<p>usna09mom: I think we exhaused this some time ago; correct me if I am wrong. Rather than get into it all again, I found the link to the discussion we all had back in July of 05- many good points raised- interesting to read it again- but the basic premise, if I recall, is to get the percent of women candidates up higher and better reflective of the number in the field- and to get those numbers up as well. I think women represent 18% currently, and I read somewhere they want that up to 25%.</p>
<p>Funny, in re-reading those posts, I was reminded that our son's BGO told him the exact opposite- that "white caucausian males were a dime a dozen"....that being a woman or minority was an advantage- and what did Bruce Flemming call them (women, athletes and minorities): the "set asides." Ouch.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, it is a tough road no matter where you are coming from, what "pool" you end up in- like you, I hate the stereotyping - women, athletes, etc- and as I have stated before, I admire the women and the athletes and the others that persevere. The academy claims openly that they actively recruit women and minority candidates- as our son falls outside those groups and into the white male category, you are in a much better position to share your daughter's experience in this regard. We battle the athletic stigma- we all know how undeserving they are. :/</p>
<p>I was at a luncheon on Wednesday where the Dean of Admissions was a speaker. He mentioned that the ratio is 8:2 in the service, and that the Academy is nearing that ratio. They are not trying to get to the ratio. They are simply giving appointments out merit based. There is no preference for women over men. The Dean said that "tweaking" with women and men would not begin to happen until the ratio of women surpassed that of the actual Navy. Once it naturally reaches 20% that's about where they want to keep it, assuming the # of women officers in the Navy don't go up.</p>
<p>"the set-asides" is NOT a word at the academy with a negative connotation, nor one prof. flemming coined-rather, the set-asides are proud of that status, they have t-shirts proudly proclaiming it. and yes, women at the academy face an uphill battle, but the experience is what YOU make of it.</p>
<p>Being a woman/minority is an advantage. I've heard this from about every level of admissions. It still is a tought road as navy2010 said.</p>
<p>We are recruited, but we are not given preference. We are just as capable of earning our place at the Naval Academy as the men.</p>
<p>As you've seen on the earlier posts on this thread, the women are very outstanding.</p>
<p>Wheelah: I had read that the mids wore t-shirts citing their pride at being a "set aside and proud"....in response to the furor over the article by Prof Flemming that appeared in Proceedings- I believe the article attributed the term to him, as a result of his arguement that certain groups were "set aside" for special consideration/handling in the admissions process, thus reducing the caliber of the academics overall. (He stated he based his arguement on what he witnessed first-hand as a member of the admissions committee for a short period of time). There was, if I recall correctly, a strong rebuttal by the USNA Supe posted on the Navy site as well.<br>
ANYONE making it in, in my opinion, should be proud of their accomplishment; it is the stereotyping that is unfortunate.</p>
<p>prof. flemming is very controversial, yes its true.</p>
<p>Honestly,
I would like to hear about ANY female candidate who was recruited based on GENDER.</p>
<p>Actually now that I think about it, I think the word I was going for was needed, not necessarily recruited. I have never heard it either.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm missing something...because all of the female candidates/mids/cadets that I know are highly qualified with STELLAR SATs/ACTs, high class rankings, high GPAs, leadership experience, varsity sports, community service...they would have gotten early appointments even if they were white males.</p>
<p>again, I would refer you back to the previous thread- perhaps post #45-
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=81640&page=1&pp=20&highlight=women+academy%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=81640&page=1&pp=20&highlight=women+academy</a></p>
<p>We have a story of our own I could share, but I think all that needs to be said has been. </p>
<p>The reality is that no one knows what goes on behind closed doors. "the Gatekeepers"- an interesting inside view of one admission cycle- worth the read. </p>
<p>The reality is that we will never know. All we can do is trust that the academy knows what they need/want, that they do the best job they can to fill the mission, and be proud of the kids that are able to make it through. I have no doubt in my mind that the kids who will be reporting in on June 28th are all there because they have worked their a$$'$ off to earn a seat. Quite frankly I could care less if they were pink, blue, purple, gray, green or otherwise, just as long as they give it their very best effort.</p>
<p>I heard the opposite. When talking to my BGO and regional manager, and friends at USNA admissions, they said I would definately have recieved an early appointment if I was a female/minority. I am not saying that women/minorities are not as qualified (the females at USNA are all very very qualified). I heard something about after you take away all the spots saved for NAPS and Prep schools, fleet, recruited athletes, and the minimum designated number for women/minorities, something like 40% of the spots are left for the 85% of white males out of high school.</p>
<p>"When talking to my BGO and regional manager, and friends at USNA admissions, they said I would definately(sic) have recieved an early appointment if I was a female/minority."</p>
<p>Why are you grouping females and minorities together? It would be more accurate to group recruited athletes and minorities together as set-asides.Women are NOT considered set-asides.</p>
<p>"I am not saying that women/minorities are not as qualified" Yes you are because you and others are saying that they were given preference based on GENDER not MERIT.</p>
<p>The fact remains, that overall females outperform males academically at USNA and USMA.</p>
<p>Why would they give an unqualified woman an LOA when they could just give her a normal Appointment? The women who get LOAs deserve them, as do those who get appointments. I have not heard of an unqualified women yet. I would say I am the least that I have seen online, and my SAT scores are still 50 points above the norm.</p>
<p>My BGO told me that the Academy was trying to increase its female numbers to 25% next year, so that was good for me. Don't know if it's true, but it's interesting....
I believe USNA has like 19% women in the freshman class this year?</p>