<p>Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request the USNA has released some interesting admissions statistics. Many of these facts should end some of the speculation about who is chosen and what SAT/ACT scores are needed to receive an offer of appointment to the USNA or it's prep school NAPS. </p>
<p>Gives hope for all who score a 410/370 SAT.</p>
<p>Of course, 7 yards per carry will help. :D</p>
<p>the most interesting thing about the article is that it appears this week is the time to be checking the mailbox for all those hoping for appointments!</p>
<p>tommyk:Along with missing the primary focus of the article you misinterpreted the appointment information. Some appointments have been released almost every week since early Fall. The majority will be released in March 2011.</p>
<p>Aglages
Thx for the info - i certainly got the point of the article - my D (and the rest of us) is just waiting for the decision to come - she is on the other side of the admission debate - great scores/grades - captain of xc (but not recruited) - school pres - 3 nominations -qualified medically, physically, academically- but i suspect bad geography (midatlantic) has her still waiting to hear - my hopefulness influenced the comment of hearing the results this week - we’ll (me) will be more patient</p>
<p>Good Luck tommyk to you and your daughter! With 3 noms, 3Q’d and all the rest I’d say (hope) that she has an excellent chance of receiving an appointment.</p>
<p>"“The unfairness is absolutely real,” said the officer, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity.</p>
<p>It’s unfair, the officer said, to admit marginal students ahead of their better-prepared counterparts, and Naval Academy officers and capable midshipmen are under constant pressure to tutor the underachievers."</p>
<p>Peer tutoring isn’t voluntary but isn’t mandatory. Mids aren’t only responsible for their own academics but but also for the grades of academically challenged shipmates. </p>
<p>Professionally trained tutors sometimes experience frustration in outcomes with academically challenged students. It’s wrong to require untrained college students to function in situations where there may be significant learning disability.</p>
<p>You are correct in that peer tutoring is not “mandatory.” But it is legislated. Mids are disallowed from working out during study hours, implication being …“if your work is done, be available to help your shipmates.” Conversely, firsties can go to Dahlgren and sip suds. Go figure. In any case, the “pressure” to tutor is among the least pressure these highly qualified Mids experience. </p>
<p>lol btw, there is no accommodation for LD students @ USNA. That is a DQ.</p>
<p>I think the caveat to this issue is that we are having a lot more mids get kicked out (USN downsizing may play a role as well). Since the new 'dant assumed command and even this spring semester already, several of my friends have got the boot.</p>
<p>someone correct me if I’m misremembering… but isn’t the diversity directive for the Military as a whole, as well as the Academies and ROTCs, from Congress (or some other civilian member of government?) </p>
<p>I was not aware that the Academy or ROTC had much say or latitude for viariance in meeting diversity goals.</p>
<p>The separate topic of how star athletes (diverse or not) are treated is another matter, of course.</p>
<p>^^^
What Congressional “directive” are you referring to? Do you have a link or just a fuzzy memory about something?</p>
<p>It’s a directive from above for sure. USNA would never bring this on itself. It’s PC at its “best.” 
</p>
<p>WP: A directive to ALL the SAs from Congress or something from a very high ranking Navy Admiral to the USNA?</p>
<p>For sure Mullen’s on board. I’ve heard him speak directly about this in testimony. But were I a betting sailor? This is not his gig. Nor Congress. Why in the world would they choose to kick this sleeping dog? Would make no sense. Even when one party controlled all branches. </p>
<p>No, this is a purely political agenda being pressed while the pressing’s good, imo. But it is what it is. No one said the process was fair. Or …did they? </p>
<p>Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations, says that “diversity is the No. 1 priority” at the academy.</p>
<h1>1. Above EVERYTHING else, diversity is his #1 priority for the USNA.</h1>
<p>Not education.</p>
<p>Not training.</p>
<p>Not survival skills.</p>
<p>Not seamanship.</p>
<p>Not diplomacy.</p>
<p>Not anything else, as nothing can be higher than #1.</p>
<p>From <a href=“Login - www.usna.com”>Login - www.usna.com;
<p>*28Apr09 - While visiting the Annapolis High School Navy Junior ROTC program yesterday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said his top long-term priority is increasing diversity in the officer corps.</p>
<p>He said he also is working to ensure the Navy gets the weapons systems it will need to defend the nation 30 years from now.*</p>
<p>Read it again.</p>
<p>Diversity is his #1 priority.</p>
<p>Ensuring that the Navy gets the weapons systems it will need to defend the nation 30 years from now is not.</p>
<p>It might be #2 or #3, but it’s not #1.</p>
<p>You can’t make this stuff up.</p>
<p>It didn’t come from ADM Roughhead. He is implementing … I’m really trying hard to remember where this came from… it was either Congress, or… trying to remember. Isn’t the Secretary of Defense a civilian?</p>
<p>OK, Google is my friend, but I don’t have time to drill down… I did find this very quickly: DoD Directive 1020.02</p>
<p><a href=“http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Issue%20Papers/50_DoD_%20Directive.pdf[/url]”>http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Issue%20Papers/50_DoD_%20Directive.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute - Home”>http://www.deomi.org/EOAdvisorToolkit/documents/DoD_Directive102002p.pdf</a></p>
<p>Clearly ADM Roughhead’s comments came after the issuance of DOD Directive 1020.02. He is just being a good seaman, as are the heads of the Army, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, Reserves, Coast Guard. DOD directives are all-encompassing.</p>
<p>Just a couple more minutes of Googling brings me to the home nest: the 2009 DOD establishment of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission in 2009.</p>
<p>[Military</a> Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC)](<a href=“http://mldc.whs.mil/]Military”>http://mldc.whs.mil/)</p>
<p>All the Academies and ROTCs are simply falling in line.</p>
<p>The MLDC arose out of Congress. Public Law 110-417 from Oct. 2008.</p>
<p>See pages 122 - 124 of this .pdf (section 596)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/olc/docs/2009NDAA_PL110-417.pdf[/url]”>http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/olc/docs/2009NDAA_PL110-417.pdf</a></p>
<p>So, to summarize:</p>
<p>1) Public Law 110-417 creates MLDC in Oct. 2008
2) MLDC issues DoD Directive 1020.02 in Feb. 2009
3) Military implements Directive 1020.02 Feb. 2009 - present.</p>
<p>Don’t you just love how government works!</p>
<p>Who were the sponsors? Are they still there? Any bets?</p>
<p>What we DO KNOW? Both the House and the Senate were controlled by …</p>
<p>You got it? We get it? OUCH! </p>
<p>“Selling” spots to USNA and other SAs, hoping for those en mass votes from the chosen elites.</p>
<p>Gotta wonder if some priority might soon be given to union members, compliments of an executive order. Why not? Gotta reflect the fleet make-up, right? </p>
<p>Can’t you envision nominating selection interviews? </p>
<p>“My daddy was a teamster.” “You’re in.”</p>
<p>“I belonged to the Grocery Packers Union in high school.” “You get a principal nom, son!”</p>
<p>“My mom’s an NEA member and teaches kindergarten.” “Terrific. Welcome to the Academy, Miss. Do you have a friend you’d like to bring along to room with. It’s all free, you know.”</p>
<p>“Both my parents work for the IRS and are AFSME officers.” “Well darn, we’re not even gonna bother wasting your time. Pick up your commission and orders from the gal at the desk.”</p>
<p>So silly …</p>
<p>If true diversity is the goal, they should be working the “problem” from both ends, enlisted and officers.</p>
<p>Instead of just increasing the number of minority officers, why don’t they also increase the number of white enlisted?</p>
<p>Or decrease the number of minority enlisted?</p>
<p>Seems that the goal of “making the officer corps look like the enlisted fleet” could be accomplished twice as fast.</p>
<p>But that won’t happen.</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>