<p>navy2010 - I am missing your point.
All Pat Buchanen did was quote Fleming’s article. He didn’t seek out any new information. He never even said if it was true. Are you now agreeing with Fleming and find him credible since PB finds him credible?
The challenge of getting out the other end is easiest at Navy, since they have the highest grad rate of all the SA’s - are you saying the Naval Academy has dumbed down the curriculum?<br>
I suppose when kids come on here asking which academy is the toughest, it definitely won’t be Navy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As with most editorial pieces (which is how I am viewing this article) it adds to the discussion by presenting another perspective, either in support or not of the original points. In this case, it is in support of the author. It would be just as interesting, to me at least, to see a counter argument.</p>
<p>
Well, that’s a leap- especially as I have been a critic for some time!
My concern is strictly personal, in that, IMO, we need to recruit the best. I go to all levels of schools and with great effort- public, private, privileged and underprivileged, looking for just that. I can only speak to the fact that I could care less how they come packaged in terms of color- I want the best, and they can be purple for all I care. I have a good idea of what it takes to be successful at the academy, and I am looking for candidates that have what it takes- and academics, while an important factor, is just one factor out of many.</p>
<p>As for Fleming, do I find Fleming credible? On some points, yes- but I am not a supporter of his other writings, including his previous work on “set asides,” “Autumn in Annapolis,” and a few others I have come across. Then again, I have never heard him speak, nor had an opportunity in any forum to Q&A for clarification. But, as with most discussions, he raises points worth a deeper dive- and whether or not I agree is of no consequence in an appreciative inquiry.</p>
<p>
I said no such thing, and you infer way too much.
The challenge of getting out of Navy is no different than the challenge of getting out of any of the other service academies- there are standards that need to be met, bottom line. Has the curriculum been “dumbed down?” I have no evidence of that. What I can say is that the number of hours of EI has gone up significantly, and I will assume it is in order to make sure standards are being met. </p>
<p>What I can also say, absolutely, is that the number of study hours outside of EI have also gone up significantly under ADM Fowler, which I have not a doubt contributes to the higher rate of graduation from an academic standpoint. I can also say, with a good degree of certainly, is that a grade of 89.5 at USNA is rounded to a “B” no matter how you slice it. No pluses, no minuses, no grade inflation. If you don’t get that 90, you are walking away with a B.</p>
<p>What I do believe is that those admitted with academic shortfalls will translate to increased challenges in making sure academic standards are met- to me, it is not a far stretch to assume that means more hours of mentoring by teachers, peers, and others to ensure that happens- and I have absolutely no evidence that any standard has been lowered, nor do I believe that to be the case. It is also a reasonable to assume that more mentoring and EI translates to an increased workload placed on Fleming and others that would certainly have an easier road if everyone came in a literary genius to start with. On the flip side, I am not sure how many literary genesis we need out on the field of battle. Like everything else in life, it is all a matter of balance, and some of our best leaders- even those from up on the Hudson, have not always been the best in the classroom.</p>
<p>When I make the point that getting in is the easy part, I am not just referring to academics, although that is a key component. There are many other things that can derail one’s path to commissioning- physical injury, behaviors unbecoming, inappropriate choices just a few that come immediately to mind. All common to this age group, and USNA is not alone in this. It is a choice kids make every day- most of them tow the mark- some make stupid choices that have devastating consequences. For many, the academics turn out to be the easy part of the equation.</p>
<p>
Well, that is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. It certainly is the hardest one to gain entrance to for the majority. Time will be the test of the other.</p>
<p>JustAMom…all one need do is read the column to glean that Mr. Buchanan clearly deems Prof. Fleming’s points to be true. To the contrary, as the piece emphasizes, USNA officials BRAG about this scenario. And in fact NO ONE @ USNA denies them. Do you really think a local prof living and making a living in and around the Yard could make false allegations and not be shunned, edited, and corrected in a mega-second?
</p>
<p>It would seem that Buchanan thinks quite highly of the courage of the piece, and its author. No matter if he’d “like him” or otherwise.</p>
<p>And it would also seem, especially when one looks back thru this spring’s CC posts of a number of young women and men …4.0 gpa/2350 SAT types who were outright rejected, the JAG Corp should be put on alert. Let’s hope so. Indeed, as Buchanan suggests, this is a moral, legal, and patriotic outrage. So much for the notion that all men (and women) might have an equal opportunity based upon their own efforts.</p>
<p>And sadly, we need look no further for even more likely injustice than the upcoming ascendency of Queen Sotomayor. One, who despite the very “best education” money and location could provide from middle school on thru Princeton and Yale Law, could not score even close to her classmates. Yet, here we are, watching her being dragged to the top by her skin shade and ethnicity. Where is the outrage of this pathetic scenario.When will good people get beyond the warm fuzziness of false promotion because of historical injustice. Seems there are indeed, plenty of young men and women of color and different eye makeup who have done exceptionally well, competed and won against their very best peers, and will now …thanks to this PC fiasco…be deemed by all but their closest associates and classmates to be there as a function of political do-gooders and their favors. What a tragedy for both groups. Those who are exceptional and were given no opportunity, because they were white. And those who are exceptional and were given no credit, because they were not. All that a couple admirals could say, “I did what I was told.” How’s that for a profile in courageous leadership.</p>
<p>Do trees ever get tired of listening to each other fall?</p>
<p>Do bears ever get tired of watching each other ____ in the woods?</p>
<p>Do bees ever get tired of hearing each other bzzzzzz?</p>
<p>Bill0510 -</p>
<p>Not sure about the intent of your posting but it appears that you are implying that others should stop talking about the lowering of standands at USNA and if so, I disagree strongly with you! </p>
<p>We will never move beyond racism in this country until we actually start acting “color-blind”. That means the best, most-qualified people receive the positions for which they are applying…no quotas, no set-asides, no attempting to right past injustices by punishing the “other” side in the future! As a parent of a young man who was not offered a slot at USNA(or NAPS) for the class of 2013, I have a very personal interest in this subject. Our surname is one that appears to possibly be Hispanic and it was very frustrating to be asked point-blank by the BGO about our ethnic origins! The fact that my husband is first generation from a Scandinavian country means that our son gets no preferences, despite the fact that my in-laws never even graduated from high school and worked hard their entire lives to allow their children to realize the American dream. But we’re not a “targeted” minority no my son’s scores have to be hundreds of points higher than someone who has a different skin tone or eye color. How can that ever be called OK - no matter which side of the argument you are on? </p>
<p>My son is reapplying for 2014 - he has a passion and a desire to serve his country and everyone who knows him believes that he will be an outstanding officer. He has been taught his whole life to be fair, to be honest, to always give 110% and to treat others as he would like to be treated…all that he asks is that he be judged on his merits and his strengths and I believe that if those standards are applied to each candidate, then the very best people will be admitted and the military will have the Officers who are best able to do the vitally important jobs to which they are assigned!</p>
<p>These arguments go on and on . . .
Your son WAS evaluated on his strengths and merits by the only people in a position to judge the needs of the Naval Academy: The admissions board. Other candidate must have been considered by the admissions board to be better than your son.</p>
<p>Just as for ANY civilian college or job opening, subjective considerations determine who gets the position and who doesn’t. That’s life. </p>
<p>The only objective winners in life [the “best” so to speak] are those who are objectively measured, e.g. olympic runners and high jumpers. </p>
<p>I was speaking to a person about this very issue last week. So, let me ask you: Who is the “best” person in America? Who is the “worst”? Who is the “best” billionaire in the world? Is Michael Dell “better” than Bill Gates or are either bested by Richard Branson? Is the wealthiest person in the world "better’ than the next wealthiest person? So, in your fantasy world, establish the standard to determine the “best” person in America or, for that matter, the “best” applicant to the N.A. </p>
<p>The fact is the admissions board is charged with making that decision. You are not. The admissions board, based on criteria and objectives set forth by their superiors, is presumably doing the best they can with they informaiton they have. Information you simply do not have.</p>
<p>Keep on felling the trees, I’m sure somebody is listening somewhere.</p>
<p>Point well made, Bill. Everything is relative and subjective. I think it depends on who is evaluating the application at that one moment in time. Who is succesful and who is not once they arrive is a whole other ball game…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While those appear to be legitmate, genuine observation and questions, in truth, USNA has long been precise and specific on who is the best, and those measures have nothing to do with this distractionary, rhetorical questions. Long it’s been publicly noted, best grades, best scores, best ECs, best public service, best effort …these are the measures of well, “best.” Competitive, head-to-head performance vs. peers. </p>
<p>And as we see, these are not changed. “Best” remains a critical, essential concept. </p>
<p>Except that it’s now been determined that for some ethnic and racial groups to be determined “best” they generally must be measured against others of their ethnic and/or racial group. They simply can’t and won’t measure up to the traditional measure.</p>
<p>So in order for these to compete, we now need 2 competitions. That USNA might have the “best” by its longstanding traditional measures, and then “best” of the rest. A sort of “losers” bracket to get 'em back in the game.</p>
<p>And the point that is totally avoided here is THE critical point that the Navy has long determined. And that is that the former group, simply the “best” have been, and will be, those most likely to be able to perform in life-and-death areanas. This should not be about enabling underperforming ethnic groups to have a shot at driving the aircraft carrier …simply because there are some folks who look-alike downstairs prepping the bombers for takeoff. “Wheeeeeeee! This is fun!”</p>
<p>No, indeed, until now, USNA has clearly determined what “best” is …or was. Those “best” measures are identifiable, measureable, and variable, lending hope. Those who might be “good” or even less than that, could, via their drive and commitment, strive to be better. Even “best.” </p>
<p>But no matter what those might do in this scenario, they can never become more colorful. Unless Michael Jackson’s medical procedures to reverse his racial composition might be reversable. Ah, but there’s a catch 22…DoDMERB dumps those who might medically alter their ethnicity.</p>
<p>No, this is the ultimate in violating one of America’s most powerful and poignant. There is a preferred caste system being implemented here. And those not in it can ever get in it. And all on their own tax dime.</p>
<p>I believe the Supreme Court got it right on the Sotomayor and Michigan attempts to lend political favor to those unable to compete in the major league competition, whatever their genetic makeup.</p>
<p>I am not attempting to beat a dead horse but I feel that I must respond to Bill510 and UDMom. I completely understand that there are subjective criteria in play in every situation which involves human beings - it is simply impossible to completely remove all of our personal feelings. </p>
<p>However, I believe that the point that we are all trying to make (felling trees, if you will) is that in some situations there should be baseline objective standards which must be enforced. I think that being in a position where lives depend on your decisions is one of those situations. If you are honest with yourself, you will realize that you prefer or even demand objective standards in your life every day. For instance, while I am pretty well versed in human anatomy, relatively speaking, if you needed an operation you would insist that the surgeon be fully qualified by objective standards. If your house is on fire and it is your child who is hanging out the second story window, you are not going to feel good that the person who hired the firefighter was subjective about height requirements and now the first person off the engine can’t reach the ladder or the rack of hose and the next engine is five minutes away.</p>
<p>My point is simply to say that if the Academy has a standard of requiring all applicants to have a minimum of 500/500 on the SAT for Math and Critical Reading, then those standards should exist for all applicants or they should be done away with completely. (I am simply using those numbers as an example-not an actual concrete fact.) </p>
<p>Sadly, this issue probably isn’t going away anytime soon and that is the real tragedy!</p>
<p>No, suggesting this is beating dying ponies is another classic, leftist distractionary attempt. Suggesting that this is old and/or a dying/dead issue. All of a sudden redefining the “higher road.” Simply false baloney that the public has been fed for years now, hoping truth somehow gets lost in PC attempts to be nice, right some historical miscarriage of human justice. </p>
<p>To the contrary, for all Americans, let’s hope that people committed to our nation’s legacy that anyone …ANYONE…can make it…not because of who they are, how they look, some political favor, or some mystical magical blood corsing thru their veins …but not others’ veins, some caste system where none can cross over. And that in working to “make it” they have an equal opportunity to get there, and an opportunity that is God-given not politically mandated.</p>
<p>The great tragedy in this would be if the discussion is squelched by name-calling or political correctness or trivial, trite labeling …when the injustice prevails. And the public pays for it.</p>
<p>The U.S. military has long been considered perhaps the purest of meritocracies. Where skin shade, ancestral ethnicity, who your old man might @ the office, who you know in D.C., be were less important than “can you do it.” And in asking the question, making or losing a few bucks on Wall St were not the issue, a promotion in the HR dept was not at stake. In the end, there are only 2 issues here. Our nation’s protection and preservation (along with its values), and survival of the brave young men and women being thrust into harm’s way. That’s it. And PC has no place …just so it all “looks good.” What poppeycock!</p>
<p>So, I believe that’s what this is about. And shame on anyone(s) who knuckle on this gross miscarriage of justice. Crushing of dreams among many who bought into the American dream idea, and whose spot was consumed because of this.</p>
<p>And does this ongoing discussion have any place on a forum like this? Where better that young men and women contemplating such should learn this is not merely about crisp white uniforms and military mystique. This is about life and death. And there is no more important, pertinent issue than who leads and how they are chosen.</p>
<p>
Actually he is careful to qualify is comments with “IF TRUE” - and then goes on to editorialise as though it is true. He added no new information or points of view.</p>
<p>
Are you serious? Admissions should get into a public ****ing contest with a tenured Professor? The Naval Academy has actually disputed a number of Flemings claims and assertions:
[url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202588.html]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202588.html]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>]
This is the price the Naval Academy pays for having tenured professors. Probably why we don’t see professors at West Point slam their employer the way Fleming does. </p>
<p>To do what you suggest is to overhaul the entire system. Do away with Congressional Nominations, Presidential Nominations and Nominations for prior enlisted. Current Sailors and soldiers would no longer have a chance to advance their careers through USNA.
You want to take the Academies back to the 60’s where kids were appointed by their Congressman and their parent’s political favors. When White Congressmen refused to appoint Black candidates. Your true colors are showing - that is to have an academy filled with white suburban upper middle class males. Sorry but these guys don’t corner the market on leadership.
I suggest you take your beefs to Congress and the Board of Visitors. They have the ultimate say.</p>
<p>Momathome - would it make you feel better if you knew that the “inferior” candidates with low SAT’s were Sailors and Marines who have exemplified themselves as enlisted combat veterans?
That these Sailors and Marines were admitted in a category (Sec Nav nomination reserved for active duty) that you son would not be eligible for?</p>
<p>That’s NOT the issue. And none knows precisely who these are. Who you kidding, JustAMom? That’s an attempt to clothe a PC racism issue in red,white,blue patriotism. </p>
<p>But even if your allegation had any validity, it would make no difference. And were a betting guy, I’d bet the vast majority of underperforming admits were NOT priors. Some yes. Most no way. How can we deduce that? Because we know the # of priors admitted from prior years and this one. Little change there. Nope. Your nice hope won’t hunt. </p>
<p>No way that you or any of us know the “who.” Only the groups.</p>
<p>What will be interesting to watch, and it’s already been modified in some reports, is how this year’s class is reported. Will it be apples to apples. Showing not only the top of the class, but also the bottom. Keep watching …</p>
<p>JustAMom…interestingly, and obviously unknowingly, your point of view …
</p>
<p>…makes the classic and valid case, as we see, why those who know must not be muffled in fear of their employer. Especially in the Academy’s academic arena where “truth” is not considered relative. Unfortunately, no administrator, absent this protection, ESPECIALLY with military rank, can do anything but buy into the order. So, no, you’ll hear not a word of this from those you’d think most likely to edify or correct Prof. Fleming’s allegations, i.e. the Admissions Dean and his staff. Not a word will come from them. For unlike Prof. Fleming, their price to be paid for spilling these beans would be far too great, both personally and professionally. Thus you’ve illustrated the enormous value of indeed having tenured professors, like them or otherwise, who can without fear of firing, tell it like it is. Prof. Fleming has and simply because you or I may not like it, makes his allegations no less true.</p>
<p>And why do we think they are true? Because indeed, the USNA officials are touting the fact of this diversity without denying the reality of those candidates sacrificed or the profile of those given favor.</p>
<p>Now, lastly, to a bit more personal item. You impune …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is neither true nor fair. My position is simple …NO FAVORS! (And frankly, I would not care if that stance meant losing to USMA every season.) Each should do it on his or her merit. Not his or her ancestry,color, race, or gender. Don’t know about you, but indeed, I want what the USN and USMA have traditionally deemed their “best” to be leading your child and mine into hell. No more, no less. Period.</p>
<p>You may deem it fully in order that your daughter might be sacrificed for political expediencies. I refuse to buy that bull.</p>
<p>Can you answer the question: Why should a leader of color or whose grandparents’ grandparents were born in certain foreign countries be given special favor? I’ve been waiting for your thoughts on this one.</p>
<p>The Academy is not in the habit of admitting ANYONE that they do not feel will be successful. Be real here. When women began being admitted, they were a priority. It is simply a fact that they are now trying to become more diverse with nationality…so obviously those individuals will be admitted with priority. NO ONE who is admitted is inferior! It is simply an issue of what they are looking for at the moment. What in the heck is wrong with that? I just don’t see why this is such a sore spot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really??? I have never understood the arguments against tenuring professors. Without tenure, professors lose academic freedom which is extremely important in an institution, which if anything, can be accused of doctrinal conservatism throughout its history. Just as importantly, a university that does not offer tenure loses its ability to recruit the outstanding professors that are to be expected at a top notch academic school.</p>
<p>
No. and No. not at USMA. There is plenty of that and it’s well documented.
I was just making a point that they both have essentially the same policies/goals with minorities yet you don’t see articles in the news and folks getting up in arms about West Point’s policy.</p>
<p>None of it matter to me personally, regardless of what Whistle Pig would have you think. The “danger” I see is that angry moms and dads will (attempt) to influence their own children as to why they were or were not admitted and those who are white upper/middle class will arrive on the Yard with pre-conceived notions about their future classmates.</p>
<p>Huh? </p>
<p>You totally lost me on your last post, Justa…Can you expand some, please?</p>
<p>expand on what?</p>
<p>Perhaps explain, edify, restate, clarify …may have been better used. Your last post misses me. I don’t know what your point(s) may be. Can you help me?</p>