<p>"You need officers who are minoritiesto lead them as well."</p>
<p>Bingo! This is why the service academies were using affirmative action before it was "cool." This rationale is alluded to in the U. Michigan affirmative action cases of 2003.
I'm not sure if I actually agree with this reasoning, but this is unquestionably the government's reason for pushing for miniority matriculation. </p>
<p>DeepThroat</p>
<p>"Hmmm, I think Congress has this covered.
And that means ????????"</p>
<p>-Who do you think provides oversight and funding for the academies? USNA reports annually on the results of its admissions boards to Congress, and if something looked fishy, you can bet that the academy would be called on it by a rowdy Congressman. </p>
<p>"However, according to the Class of 2008 profile for the USNA, less than 1% is hispanics."</p>
<p>-As another poster pointed out, your statistic here is just plain wrong.</p>
<p>Your definitions were mildly interesting, but I don't really know what they add to the discussion. I already told you why "legacy" is a factor (however small) in admissions.</p>
<p>DeepThroat</p>
<p>Somewhere, (I do not remember where) I read that a goal of the military is to have the composition of its officers reflect the composition of its enlisted. In this regard, there is a special branch of the Acadmy's admissions office which is responsible for minority admissions. Since the composition of the class of '08 (I have not gone back to research other classes) is fairly reflective of the enlisted population composition, I would say they are doing a pretty good job.</p>
<p>Coastie, with all due respect, there are many candidates whose records are superior to yours (and I do not want you to think that I am putting yours down because it certainly looks good from here) who were offered nothing last year. They just didn't make the cut. No NAPS, or Foundation, or anything. There are so many factors to admission besides a candidates' credentials, the primary one being one's residence (District) and the competition within it. They would have been happy with an offer of NAPS or Foundation, knowing that is is an alternate route to the Academy, with a very high probability of acceptance the following year. </p>
<p>Some have posted here that they are re-applying for this round from civilian colleges (some with ROTC) with great anticipation. These candidates did not have the opportunities you seem to be insulted by. I'm sure that if offered, they would have been more than happy to accept what you imply is an inferior option. </p>
<p>Obviously the Academy sees something in you that they think will translate into a good military leader. That is why they are offering you NAPS, and the opportunity to grow for a year (whether academically, or leadership-wise, or independence-wise or for some other reason). They see in you a potential and believe that this path will allow you greater chance for success. </p>
<p>Read the postings of those currently in attendance at NAPS or Foundation. They were certainly initially as disappointed as you seem to be, but you can detect a maturity in both their writing and attitude which can be attributed to their additional year of preparation.</p>
<p>In addition, those coming from NAPS and/or Foundation are better prepared for the mental and academic rigors of plebe year, and have an easier adjustment, and are less likely to be separated.</p>
<p>You can either see the glass as half-empty or half-full. Stop blaming the admissions office, and make the choice of whether you really want to be a naval officer or not. If you do, then the path to get there is of little consequence. Be grateful for the opportunity you have been offered, seize it, and move on.</p>
<p>If you merely want the accolades and glory and the ability to boast about being appointed to the Naval Academy, then maybe it is not the right place for you to be.</p>
<p>CM</p>
<p>Correction, 110 is only 9% of the 1227 Class of 2008</p>
<p>usnaforce: I just dont think it is likely that 13.7 of the academy would be hispanic. The academy does do quite a good job in being fair to all minorities from my point of view. Well from your opinion, I can see why you just don't think it is likely that the academy will ever reflect our society.</p>
<p>deepthroat: "cool" or do you mean "accepted". Affirmative action exist for a reason, seems, there is still room for improvement.</p>
<p>Candidatemom, I was not implying NAPS nor NROTC are inferior, I have worked hard and have earned everything I have been offered, as everyone else on this website. </p>
<p>I am not "blaming" the admissions office, I am simply stating an opinion and observation of the statistics. Seems to me there are a lot of opinions being stated throughout this entire website. No disrespect intended: we all know what they say about opinions.......:) I am just joining the band wagon and posting my own.</p>
<p>Wanting the accolades and glory and the ability to boast about being appointed to the Naval Academy, is one the major motivating factors in wanting to attend the academy. Anyone who says differently is lying to themselves and to others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wanting the accolades and glory and the ability to boast about being appointed to the Naval Academy, is one the major motivating factors in wanting to attend the academy. Anyone who says differently is lying to themselves and to others.
[/quote]
I am from North Dakota. Hardly anyone here has heard of the Naval Academy or knows what it is. I don't need to be praised by anyone. I wanted to go to the Naval Academy for lots of different reasons. Boasting about being accepted there was definitely not one of them. I really doubt anyone could get through 4 years at the Academy, with their only motivation being "Wow, I can really boast about this after I'm done".</p>
<h2>We had a discussion about this topic in English class. My English instructor emailed the whole battalion an article wrote by an English professor, Bruce Fleming at USNA saying how NAPS students are a bunch of "set-asides". That we're all a bunch of minorities, athletes who don't deserves to be there. I e-mailed this article to a CCer here, I think his name here is Admiral Thomas. Well that professor for sure had a lot of responses to his article and this is what he had to say:</h2>
<p>Students at the Naval Academy take for granted they're here in
something of the same immature way children assume they were inevitable:
in fact they were undoubtedly the result of a combination of conscious
action on the part of their parents, and chance. Typically this thought
upsets young children. Similarly, midshipmen typically don't realize,
and don't like to think about the fact, that their presence here at USNA
was the result of decisions made by others. If admissions policies were
different, which they very well could be, they might not be here at all.
Many of them are here because someone at some point decided to have a
program for blue-chip athletes, another for priors, and for the minority
recruitment program, and in each case people made decisions about how
large those programs would be and what form they would take. There's no
force of nature behind individual midshipmen being at USNA, but a series
of human decisions. If these programs had been different, many of the
people wouldn't be here at all. </p>
<p>I thinik that what the people screaming the loudest want to believe is
that they are here because they deserve to be here. No, I say, they're
here because this someone decided X or Y kind of applicant would be
admitted. </p>
<p>Apparently what upsets people is my pointing out that their being at
USNA is not an act of God, it's the result of specific decisions
regarding whom to let in. Nobody says there has to be a program for
priors, or one that lets in this many, or that NAPS has to be as big as
it is, or that there must be as many blue-chip slots as there are.
That's precisely what I want to spur discussion about. We've got to the
position we're in largely as a result of decisions taken behind closed
doors. As far as I know, nobody has ever asked the professors what it's
like to teach the people we let in. I'm giving my version. Others may
have their versions; they can submit articles to Proceedings too.</p>
<p>Most of the hurt feelings seem to come from people resentful at being
"stereotyped." But I'm not the one sterotyping them. The Admissions
Board does that by setting up a separate pot for admission. My point is
merely that we shouldn't be surprised when people with lower predictors
do less well in the classroom, and to the detriment of the overall
learning experience. Too, they're unable to distinguish between a
statement and its converse. I said close to all of my low-flying
students in a particular year (that yes, I'm implying is typical) were
what I call "set-asides." (Some people objected to the term
"set-asides": of course I'm using it here in a technical sense, people
who are offered direct admission and don't have to further compete.)
Unfortunately, many people decided I was asserting the converse, that
all set-asides were low-flying. Those who themselves were admitted
direct (would that way of saying it have been more neutral?) felt I was
saying they had to be my poorer writers/thinkers. Some were, some
weren't. Read the article for what I do assert.</p>
<p>The best people to decide whether admissions programs should be
retained in the form they've drifted into (and I think this is close to
the truth: what began as well-meaning programs have gradually expanded
to the point where they have eaten half the class) are clearly not the
beneficiaries of those programs. The article wasn't aimed at them; it
was aimed at the people who ultimately must make the decisions about the
shape of the Naval Academy to come. My questions are these: why half the
class for these directs? Why not something different, say l0%? I'd be
happy with the very best of each category coming in. My point, once
again, was that I'm here to give one man's experience that what we now
have is not the "very best," and it's impacting education negatively at
USNA.</p>
<p>Another whole group of screamers were those who seemed to say that
academics didn't matter at USNA anyway: it's all about being a warrior,
a leader, crawling around in the dirt, and so on. If that's true, we
shouldn't be giving a BS, and we shouldn't be competing for students
with the top-flight schools. And yes, there are always people who don't
seem too promising on paper who blossom at USNA. But if there's no
correlation at all between things like HS grades and success here--and
in the fleet--we should merely be picking the strongest individuals (or
tallest, or whatever) and leave aside the transcripts and test scores.
And those determine the entrance of half the class. The other half is an
"exception" that's ballooned to the point where it's as large as what
it's an exception to. Maybe we should conclude we have no idea at all
what makes a good officer. But if this is so, let's just throw the dice
and be done with it. </p>
<p>A few repeat points: the WPM, whole person multiple assigned to each
applicant takes into account leadership and physical ability. It's a
fallacy to think that those who get in through WPM scores are
pencil-necked geeks and that somehow we need athletes to counteract
them. For every direct admission, we're sending rejection letters to
several others who had strengths in enough of the things we give points
for (academics, athletics, leadership) to have a score almost always
higher than the person we guarantee a place to. Sometimes people shake
the "diversity" stick, but the fact is that the directs are actually
much less diverse than the WPM candidates--they always lack at least one
of the facets of the "well-rounded individual" who does well on the WPM.</p>
<p>In general, I'm here to say that the generally unprofessional,
irrational, disrespectful, and emotional e-mails I've been wading
through today have showed me I'm right: at least a proportion of the
Brigade is not ready to lead as part of the fleet. Most of the people
writing have no idea how to analyze an article, pick out its main
points, identify what it's saying rather than what it isn't, and offer a
contrary argument. They emit instead cries of primal rage, and include
slurs on my competence, my education, and my thought processes. In the
trade, that's known as "ad hominem" attacks: I don't agree with you, but
can't say why, so what I say is, "you're ugly." Midshipmen as hooligans,
unfortunately, rather than officers-to-be. I'm sorry to say they
completely prove my point. </p>
<p>Best,
Prof. Fleming</p>
<h2>"Truth will out."</h2>
<p>It's really a slap in the face to us but the staff reassures us that everybody that made it in had something the academy wants therefore we should work harder to prove people like this wrong. I just wipe the dirt of my shoulders :/</p>
<p>How do you do the quote "boxes"?
CM</p>
<p>tyleroar: Please don't take what I say out of context. I said it was a motivating factor not the only reason. </p>
<p>On this website there are many that have received appointments and scholarships they are proud to have recieved yet look at how many are wiilling to wait for the response from the ever desired USNA. Ask any one of them, HONESTLY, does the prestige of attending the United States Naval Academy, in their opinion, supersede other schools and scholarships.</p>
<p>Coastie: The answer is, yes. Some candidates turn down more prestigious offers to attend the Naval Academy because they are committed to serve. Prestige alone would drive them to places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, et al. Prestige is very much in the eye of the community you're in...some communities do not hold the worth of a service academy appointment quite so high.</p>
<p>Candidatemom: The mechanics are (and I'll have to spell it out for you to read it, and not automatically create a quote box):</p>
<p>[ followed by the word 'quote' followed by ], then the phrase you are quoting, then [ followed by '/quote' followed by ]</p>
<p>We use Apple computers and wonder if we can use quote boxes and smiley faces on OSX. Any suggestions?</p>
<p>Also, we heard plebes can't have music on their computers, but USMA cadets are allowed to have portable CD players. Can plebes at USNA use iPods/CD players?</p>
<p>katelewis: I agree with what your saying: I would like to add; I think everyone still hoping for a package in the mail holds the USNA appointment in high regard.</p>
<p>CM and wstcoastmom-
You use vbCode. It should matter if your on a Mac or not.<br>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode</a></p>
<p>wstcoast mom:
USNA plebes may not use CD players or Ipods on the yard. They may be used at their sponsors. They may not have speakers on their computers, but were allowed to have their headphones to watch the superbowl game on their computer.</p>
<p>Thanks Kate Lewis for the technical assistance.
CM</p>
<p>You didn't say it was a motivating factor, you said it was one [of] the major motivating factors. </p>
<p>I quoted your entire paragraph, how could I have possibly taken you out of context?</p>
<p>Coastie:
[Quote]
But should a minority with SAT1320, GPA 3.3u/w, numerous AP classes, counties' HS top in Nation, Newsweek, 2004, consider NAPs or foundation an opportunity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sounds to me as if you do consider an offer of NAPS or Foundation beneath you.</p>
<p>If you were really motivated to be a Naval officer, you would be grateful for the opportunity to get there, even if the pathway was less direct than what you had planned. </p>
<p>Success at the Academy is so much more than looking good in the uniform, or the accolades for having gotten there. Once June 30 arrives, everyone is immersed (hopefully) in a sea of anonymity, where success depends on the collective efforts of people you have just met. No accolades here!!! Only the inner drive to be a naval officer will sustain you when you are hot, hungry, exhausted and are being pushed to the limits of your endurance. </p>
<p>You must take some time to reflect your true motivation. You say you want the appointment, and yet are not happy about attending NAPS first to get it, (you sound insulted, as if somehow going to NAPS first was beneath you). I can only assume that what you really wanted was the prestige and recognition of the appointment, and do not have a full understanding of what it represents or the personal committment required once it is accepted.</p>
<p>I apologize if I have misunderstood.
CM</p>
<p>One can accept an offer at a prestigious institution and still be committed to serve. There are alternate routes to obtaining a commission as an officer in the uniformed services.</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly, sempergumby.</p>