<p>Yes, the Naval Academy has it's own Prep School. They also use about 10-15 other prep schools/jr. colleges for the same reason.
<a href="http://www.usna.com/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?&pid=484&srcid=425%5B/url%5D">http://www.usna.com/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?&pid=484&srcid=425</a>
Yes, it is just for PG's.</p>
<p>It's interesting about the Naval Academy using outside prep schools. As far as I know, the schools don't advertise it (at least NMH doesn't), but it certainly helps to explain why FIVE of my son's classmates were admitted to the Academy. I don't know if they were athletes as well; I would have to ask my son.
On a side note, Linda, my son always wanted to fly for the Air Force. We are not a military family and I never really understood where he got that idea from. He insisted on accepting a full ROTC scholarship and immediately hated the military experience. (Now he lives in loan city). He switched his major from Aerospace Engineering to Research Meteorology, gave up his scholarship to be a "civilian" student, is taking private flying lessons (several of his friends are pilots and his roommate just received an Air Force pilot slot), and is a much happier camper as a result. So....yes, things do change (as I am sure you know).</p>
<p>When I saw NMH stats that 20 in the last 4 or 5 years were admitted to the Naval Academy I called and asked if it was a typo and they asked "is it a problem?" Then they explained they are a prep program and about 4 each year are PG's and 1 or 2 are "traditional" students. Interesting, I'm sure NMH does not advertise it because they are known to be a politically liberal school. I was surprised to see Vermont Academy on the list too because they got the same label as Proctor from my son ("hippie school"). However, none of the schools advertise it on thier web sites, the only way I found out about it was on the Naval Academy Foundation site.</p>
<p>The Q&A portion listed on the website Linda referenced is interesting reading. If I am reading it correctly, it seems that a foundation provides financial assistance and the portion of financial aid awarded is split between the foundation and the school. See #10 on the Q&A page. Perhaps that explains why you don't see the "more selective" schools listed on the Naval Academy list - those schools not needing to offer the discount. </p>
<p>I also found other items listed int the Q&A interesting:
1/3 of every Plebe class has gone through either a prep school program or some college
they mention the sports factor various times including not losing a year of NCAA eligibility by attending a PG year</p>
<p>*Perhaps that explains why you don't see the "more selective" schools listed on the Naval Academy list - those schools not needing to offer the discount. *
Good point, but it seems to me that not getting accepted to the Naval Academy and doing a PG year at Andover doesn't seem to be as good of an option as not getting accepted outright and going through the NAprep program at NMH where you are almost guaranteed admission the following year (If your goal is to get accepted the following year). </p>
<p>They definately mention sports and developing. Is it maybe their way of redshirting freshman? I'm thinking they have stricter rules than other colleges and maybe this is how they do that.</p>
<p>Linda,
You may be exactly right about redshirting. By admitting PG athletes from preps, the Naval Academy gets the physically more seasoned athlete PLUS the more intellectually challenged scholar, perhaps indicating the student will be able to handle the rigors of both while at the NA.</p>
<p>Why wouldn't a prep school want a potential Naval Academy (or USMA) nominee?</p>
<p>(Extremely) Motivated-check
Excellent Student-check
Leadership Qualities-Check
Athletic-check
Character-check</p>
<p>Where's the downside? The prep schools that admit these students absolutely love them.</p>
<p>I'm not saying the prep school wouldn't want them, I'm saying for the student, there is an advantage to do a PG year at Vermont Academy for example - a designated USNA prep school in the USNA Foundation program vs. doing a PG year at a school that isn't a designated program - like Andover for example. Not schools normally compared as "equals."</p>
<p>My guess is maybe the PG candidates need some polishing on the "excellent student" part of the equation. Some one who is hitting on all the points fun is fun has listed probably gets into the academy w/o a PG year. </p>
<p>If you are and Exeter or Andover, you can attract plenty of excellent PG athletes without giving the discount alluded to on the Q&A link listed above.</p>
<p>Baseballmom wrote:
[quote]
Linda,
You may be exactly right about redshirting. By admitting PG athletes from preps, the Naval Academy gets the physically more seasoned athlete PLUS the more intellectually challenged scholar, perhaps indicating the student will be able to handle the rigors of both while at the NA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I had to laugh a minute as I understand what you mean by your answer, but when I hear someone referred to as "intellectually challenged", I usually think of that as the PC way of saying stupid. I'm sorry, I just couldnt resist chuckling.</p>
<p>I do agree with the intent of your post, though!</p>
<p>goaliedad...thanks for the laugh! That one slipped right by me while writing it. :)</p>
<p>creative 1 - I am not sure what you mean by the more selective schools not needing to offer the discount? Are you saying that the more selective schools have plenty of high-end athletic PG's to choose from who can afford to pay full-boat? That must not be right because the more selective schools tend to have large endowments and it is no secret that recruiting is practiced, particularly with PG's. The best athletes are not necessarily the wealthiest.
I do think the reason most athletes go for the PG year is to improve their chances at being recruited, not so much for academic polish. At least that has been the case with the PG's I have personally known.</p>
<p>I think with the more selective (and well endowed) schools, the FA issue depends upon the sport as those schools could very well afford to buy the best PGs out there (with both cash and prestige), but don't seem to dominate at most sports, indicating that schools tend to pick and choose what sports they want to use a little push with (usually success brings more clout with the FA office). </p>
<p>I know with girls hockey, Andover usually is a better team, whereas Exeter struggles and SPS is somewhere in between. From what I know, the difference in quality of program tends to center more around the coaching (a good coach will draw players) than FA.</p>
<p>Now a top school should be able to attract a top coach, given the resources available to them, however, I think many of the top schools value the other things a coach brings to a school (think teaching here), than how well they coach a particular sport.</p>
<p>In the end a "good program" (as defined by how well it places its grads for its mission - be it Ivy League or Top D1 teams) doesn't need to offer $$ to PGs, but some will because they can (they've brought enough positive press and are being rewarded) which only helps their program (if they do a good job).</p>
<p>Sorry to drag this OT.</p>
<p>Choate girls' hockey won the New England Ice Hockey Championships this year. :)</p>
<p>My guess is some/many PGs do pay full freight but I am not an expert...
PGs I have known were looking for more rigorous academics and some academic polish to get into a higher tier college.</p>
<p>Yes, indeed they did win, Olivia. From the chat I participate in, much of the credit for that championship goes to 1 player who tended to dominate their games. She was selected for the current 22U National team (the only one of her birth year IIRC) and has a fine college career about to start.</p>
<p>Choate usually does better than average generally, though and has had stability in coaching over the years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps an aside that no one is interested in but thought I would follow the tangent olivia started. There is some interesting debate in the hockey world right now as to how strong Choate will be this year in girls' hockey. Not that they have a bad team and they do have a good coach, but a big part of their success last year was attibutable to one player who graduated. It may seem hard to believe that one player can have that much impact in a team game like hockey where players are constantly rotated off the ice, but this girl was really good - clearly the best in the US at that age. While still at Choate last year she was included on the roster of the US senior national team for international competitions (rare for high school players in women's hockey), so arguably one of the top 20 women hockey players at any level in the US. Going to be an interesting year for them this year with her gone (to University of Wisconsin which as has won NCAA Div. 1 championship last two years in a row).</p>
<p>oops, looks like goaliedad and I were typing the same effective message at the same time. Oh well, I will leave it.</p>
<p>Yeah, Hilary Knight was amazing. She was a main reason, but a lot of people say that she was the only reason.</p>
<p>Yeah, I remember they also graduated 3 Olympic Ice Hockey players in the span of 4 years or so. Julie Chu...Angela Ruggiero (Sp?) and someone else...</p>
<p>I might be wrong with the names though.
;)</p>
<p>Olivia - Choate should pay you, not the other way around. You are quite the booster!</p>