<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t? Everything he writes has something akin to the following in re athletes. It’s pretty obvious to me what he thinks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since WPM is an indicator of success probability at the Academy and he alone personelly feels that athletes do not rise to his standard, yet they graduate in numbers greater than the brigade at large and set themselves up for successful military careers, in my way of thinking, disputes his theories.</p>
<p>mombee …on 10-28-09 you stated:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words you contend, the algorithm has simply been adjusted, and that being, let’s say, African-American merits, let’s say 5-10K points that are not available to his white counterpart. But the WPM remains as the ultimate “qualifier.”</p>
<p>Contrary to your contention, Prof. Fleming states that in fact, the “qualified/unqualified” level of about 58,000 pts. does not matter and that the algorithm has not been altered to benefit those giving racial self-confirmation. Further, he suggests that to do as you’ve suggested, i.e. give special “credit” for having been born black instead of a white Irishman is specifically against the Constitution and thus the law. He notes the Supreme Court case w/ Michigan, concluding diversity is a good thing (something we’d all concur w/ I suspect) but that race cannot be the deciding factor. Unfortunately, the data suggests in a great many of the diversity cases this past year, race was the solely identifiable reason for a the vast majority of diversity students. And for a few, football.</p>
<p>It seems we have a bit of a conundrum. Can you support your allegation? Is there a racial multiplier? How would you know? Who says?</p>
<p>A record is ‘graded’ by someone in admissions and a WPM is totaled. The record then goes before the board where the WPM is adjusted. These are called RABs. Someone out of high school for a few years will have the same initial look by admissions but, due to their varying life experiences and a more unique package, will have many more opportunities for board RABs. This is that to which I was referring above. No intent at all to imply adjustments for simply being a minority.</p>
<p>WPMs are assigned proportionate to each activity contributing to a probability of success. The color of one’s skin contributes nothing and any WPMs assigned would be legally indefensible and is not done. Blue chip athletes have a higher graduation rate than the Brigade at large. They have higher quality careers. Therefore, RABs for athletes would be perfectly legal.</p>
<p>Around 2300 annually are 3Qed. These are those who Admissions and the board feel have a reasonable chance of success. Appointments are only offered to 1500 or so. Why the excess? They have to extend to those MOCs with minimally qualified candidates.</p>
<p>If you read all the news releases and notice the differences in the method that they class profile was presented this year, you can surmise that minorities are being treated slightly differently. SATs are biased. These are being adjusted. Much ado is being made about minorities in the top 5% of their group being highly successful in any college they attend. This is being taken into account. I am most positive that they have statistical data to support these actions. But points for simply being a minority? No way.</p>
<p>
My take on Fleming.</p>
<p>The candidates whose board which Fleming sat on, graduated in 2008. The Class of 2008 had the highest graduation rate ever to date. Around 80%. Those who went to NAPS graduated in 2009. Another stellar year. NAPSters graduate at a rate about 5% higher than those coming directly from high school. I seems to me that the board which he sat on, contrary to what he might think, did a fantastic job. Just part of my premise that he doesnt have a clue what he is talking about.</p>
<p>When one examines the class profile SAT scores, they are a composite of the entire class, which is a blend of two groups, those who came directly from high school with an average of around 1370 for the Class of 2008, if I remember correctly, and an average for the NAPSters around 1150, with this being inflated somewhat from retakes during NAPS. An average of 1370 could not have included a lot of 400s. </p>
<p>As we all know, the purpose of NAPS is to assist the academically deficient, normally all with stellar leadership and extracurriculars, the majority of who have low SATS (Flemings rantings about 400 SAT scores) and high grades, and a few with high SATs and low grades (Flemings rantings about Cs-normally the suspicion of the board is that these were too involved in extracurriculars and academics took a second place). Again, with the graduation rates of 2009, apparently Flemings board, again contrary to what he might think, performed superbly. Apparently they were able to utilize the WPM on its entirety for the purpose for which it was intended, look beyond the anecdotal examples of Fleming, find true performers, give them a chance, and allow them to excel as the above observations indicate.</p>
<p>How could it be that Fleming could sit on an Academic Board and not understand the selection process? We all have mental images of the Board sitting around agonizing over each record and whether or not that individual should receive Congressman Smiths nomination or not. This is just not true. The CGO prepares each record, summing up the WPMs, and emphasizing the highlights. It goes before the board which determines only scholastic qualification and final determination of the WPM. That is all they do. They qualify 25% more than will be offered appointments and then they go home. The real work is left to the CGO. For each nomination source, a stack of all qualified records by WPM ranking alone is utilized to determine appointments. Fleming, back in his office, has no idea if the subjects of his aforementioned rantings were even offered appointments.</p>
<p>Fleming has given a negativre anecdotal partial portrayal of a process that, from all indications, contrary to what he says, is working superbly.</p>
<p>WP, I just went back and read your Post #120. Totally different than what I read last night.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true at all. It is both unfortunate and sad that the Administration has had to address it at all. Go back and read Fleming’s allegations of last summer. Then read the Academy’s press release. It is almost an item-by-item rebuttal of everything Fleming asserts. Heck, place Fleming’s allegations side-by-side with the Academy’s diversity statement release. Sadly, even it is again an almost line item rebuttal. Unfortunately, one needs to understand the process somewhat to really appreciate the rebuttals.</p>
<p>For example, if one carefully reads all aspects of federal law, ALL appointments selected by the Academy with the exception of the Supts 50, will be based on competitive merit alone. The Academy states that they are following the law. The BOV, who is paid to provide unbiased oversight, agrees. This, in itself, refutes about 90% of Fleming’s ascertations.</p>
<p>In the continuing interest of selecting the absolute best available, there is an requirement for the absolute secrecy of the Board’s actions and the reasons thereof. This places the Academy at somewhat of a disadvantage in a line item rebuttal of Fleming’s ascertations. He knows this and consequently has given himself free reign in his mostly anecdotal allegations. For example, while the above legal compliance statement may seen vague to some, anything else would violate the confidentiality of the board’s selection process. For me however, the BOV’s confirmation assures me that a court case would rule in favor of the Academy.</p>
<p>
Since SATs seem to be both yours and one of Fleming’s major concerns, let’s address them. Does one size fit all? Do all socio-economic groups of all races and both genders perform equally well on the test? Are you aware that the SAT is so gender biased that females waged a successful class action law suit against the College Boards. National Merit Scholarhips were so stacked in favor of white males that the Writing portion, for which females score higher, was added solely to even the overall score for scholarship purposes. Incidentally, this does not help female USNA applicants at all. Do you realize that an inner city black kid will be more favorably disposed to spend the necessary time on a math basketball statistic question, a white kid a baseball question, and a female neither? It is a generally accepted fact that the SATs are economically, gender, racially, and ethnically biased. Since the sole purpose of the SATs is to determine relative probability of success freshman year, and since USNA maintains copious statistics on every facet of performance, do you not feel that, for example, that if a black kid scoring 600 on the math portion, a female scoring 630, and a white male scoring 650 all had the exact equal plebe year academic performance, to score these different grades anything other than equal on the WPM would, in itself, be discriminatory. </p>
<p>USNA, to the exclusion of GPAs, weighs heavily on class standings. They are looking for a competitive person, someone who will do what it takes to be the best of his peers. They find that no matter the setting, this demonstrated competitive attitude will bode them well. What if the Academy has discovered that this competition is indeed more strong with others in the same ethnic, racial, and gender group, that females want to be the best female and that minorities want to be the best minority. That a top 5% minority student will perform in college equal to the top 5% overall white kid. Since the sole purpose of WPMs is to determine success at the Academy, would it not be discriminatory to award them anything other than equal scores?</p>
<p>Okay, I’m done. Please refrain from the ad hominem rebuttals but go at it.</p>
<p>None of your posts have provided any proof whatsoever to dispute Professor Fleming’s assertions (and proof, I might add) that there is a two-tier ADMISSIONS system at the US Naval Academy (the thread topic, by the way) - one for non-minority students and one for minority students - and that equally poor ADMISSIONS SAT scores and transcripts will universally disqualify the non-minority applicant but not the minority applicant.</p>
<p>If anything, your obfuscations about athletes, NAPS, and graduation rates have only confirmed it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I stated in one of my posts, it is useless to attempt to understand this without a basic grasp of Admissions procedures. </p>
<p>In response to your post I have only pointed out that a two tiered admissions policy would be in violation of federal law and both Academy officials and the BOV state that the law is being followed. That is enough for me to believe unequivocally that there is no two tiered system.</p>
<p>Further more, I have pointed out the way the Academy is promoting diversity. By targeting congressional districts that have historically not provided their full quota of five midshipmen, these candidates only have to be minimally qualified, not national pool competitive. As taxpayers, these districts will be getting their due, but more importantly they will be supporting our armed forces more to the extent expected of them. As with any effort, when these newly appointed midshipmen return home, they will increase awareness and the need for the Academy to provide extra focus will diminish. To me, a win-win situation all around.</p>
<p>My obfuscations about athletes, NAPS, and graduation rates were more in line with WP’s request that I state why I thought Fleming was misinformed more so than to prove anything about admissions.</p>
<p>Gotta go w/ Luigi on this one. </p>
<p>Were I a USNA prof, you’d get A if your paper were evaluated on the basis of pounds and persistance. Great, laudable effort on both.</p>
<p>But in the end “F” would you have to receive. All you’ve offered is an op ed piece, well beyond the 500 word limit btw, without a single footnote or piece of documentation beyond “he said …she said.” </p>
<p>Your many ongoing arguments sound great and are well written. But in the end, no matter your plea, they are just your opinion and worth every cent one must pay for them.</p>
<p>We could go on debating many points. Ex: You proclaim since the Admin and the BOV say so, it’s legal. You need to read some history of the amazing, chronic, ongoing fallacy of your claim. It’s ridiculous and silly. </p>
<p>Or let’s take one more…you state:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds good. Seems to make sense. Until one looks at it in context of the end need: The ultimate end-objective for USNA is to NOT merely admit NAPS and lower level minority students …but to GRADUATE and COMMISSION them. That’s the way the score gets kept there. Recognizing that athletes and minorities are chronically, consistently, and increasingly so due to number needs, at the bottom of the class, virtually all ahead of them must also be graduated. This one’s simple, no brainer. The bottom doesn’t finish, many above them don’t …the result? You did get that correct. In fact, there would be a MAJOR outcry if these students failed to finish. It would be “racism.”</p>
<p>Let’s look further at your contention:</p>
<p>You proclaim Napsters graduate at a 5% HIGHER rate. That is simply not true. You conveniently forgot to include the many NAPsters who matriculated to RI and never made it to USNA for various reasons. Let’s get real. Of course, those who do attend are guaranteed admission w/ a 2.0 (or lower in many cases), have no need to come up w/ a nomination altho it would be nice says USNA, and are nearly always minorities and male athletes (many of whom are minorities). Your claim is misleading and inaccurate. You get “F” in stats.</p>
<p>One more example…as you note:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, does that smack of arrogance, as though this was all brain surgery and that us po folk couldn’t possibly understand.</p>
<p>But ironically, you’ve hinted at the simple answer that would resolve this discussion once, for all, forevermore:</p>
<p>USNA come clean on this. Put out the numbers, the procedure, etc. Oh, we know. Some of this must be deemed “top secret.” Wonder why? </p>
<p>Yes, the answer is simple. Simply state how it works who got admitted and why, why skin color has become the defining determinant for both many Mids …and for a great many unsuccessful others who were superior on virtually all measues to these successful candiates. ‘Ceptin’ one.</p>
<p>Can one get a pigment transplant? That is sure to make them a better-qualified captain! </p>
<p>Two final questions for you, mombee: </p>
<p>Does one need to LOOK ethnic …or merely BE ethnic? But if one doesn’t look “ethnic” will they be given a ribbon or some kind of marker that the enlisted might know they had a granny who’s daddy was a slave?</p>
<p>By the way, who validates ethnicity? How?</p>
<p>In these tough economic times, with many people of all skin colors looking for work, don’t you think it would make way more sense to enlist a properly balanced racially enlisted force (one reflecting societal composition) than trying to impose a currently skewed model upon the officer corps? Nah, that’d make way too much sense. And in taking that approach, the USNA and USN would have to become 52% women. Whoops. Can’t go there. </p>
<p>And in fact one of the points all this implies: The enlisted ranks are better suited to minorities. Why so? Wouldn’t THAT be a far more worthy objective, i.e. to make being the enlisted ranks be as attractive to white dudes as non-whites? Nah, I guess not.</p>
<p>In any case, let me repeat the main point of my post:</p>
<p>This could all be put to rest by one thing. The USNA telling the truth to those paying all their bills. Now that would be honorable. And simple. Unless we’re either not smart enough to take it all in …or in fact, we are.</p>
<p>
For my argument not to be correct here, I would have to assume, which, in my wildest imagination, I cannot, that your conspiracy of illegality (for it to be true would require the willful participation of ever junior officer in the CGO) is correct. Furthermore, it is a slap in the face to all those who have chosen of their own free will to dedicate their careers to the defense of their country. Even further, I cannot imagine someone with this attitude providing constructive support to a son or daughter embarking on a military career. I now have to question your motives for participating in this forum.</p>
<p>I could never lower myself to your hypothesis. I guess we will just have to disagree.</p>
<p>
Are these minimally qualified candidates the best (regardless of race) officers that the USNA can recruit?</p>
<p>
This is immaterial. Each congressional district has both the right and the responsibility to provide 5 midshipmen to the academy. USNA is simply ensuring assistance to provide the fullest compliance with federal law. Again, it is also the policy which AFA just adapted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s baloney, a classic sidestep to avoid the hard issues and data …none of which you’ve yet offered…and a sorry attempt to shoot the messenger when all else fails. Thank our God, truly, that George Washington, TJ, Madison and a whole bunch of other real patriots didn’t buy your loyalist slop. Like you want to do, we’d all be kissing the queen’s ring and fanny, if your dream comes true.</p>
<p>And all of this from one who avoids addressing the conection between honor, honesty, and behavior. Then pretending to be on the lofty high horse where attempting to validate with hard facts is beneath your so-called dignity.</p>
<p>At last we see some transparency. And as anticipated, it’s not so lovely. Stick to the facts, oh great sage. </p>
<p>Indeed the world has sadly seen many who share your worldview…ones who’ve blindly, mindlessly justified and proclaimed it all legal and honorable, all for the Motherland. And then pounded their little chest, proclaiming “I love her more than you.” Uh huh.</p>
<p>Or like so many men and women higher up than any of us or those whom mombee puts on his pedestal as infallable and true blue …think our current Sec of Treasury …think our former “green czar” …think Charlie Wrangel …think of the Louisiana lawmaker who stashed his stolen cash in the frig…think…</p>
<p>Yea, I know that asks much mombee …vs. spewing the company line and proclaiming oneself as loyal, honorable, patriotic. uh huh. Your approach reminds of Sgt. Schultz in Stalag 13. “I see nothing …nothing!”</p>
<p>
Do you really mean to say that you honestly see no difference between career military officers and career politicians?</p>
<p>“ya put your left foot in, your pull your left foot out, put your left foot in …and you shake it all about …”</p>
<p>“Who’s on 1st?”</p>
<p>“Yea, that’s right.”</p>
<p>Keep shakin’ it, boss.</p>
<p>:Originally Posted by aglages
Not immaterial to me. I’d prefer having the best of the best leading the best Navy. But then diversity is not my first priority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You somehow seem to imply that the end result is more a product of the raw material than the molding thereof. Not true. Due to a combination of the congressional nomination process and the factors comprising the WPR, the class which shows up on I-Day is probably one of the more heterogeneous student bodies in the country. This is by design. There are the smart and the not so smart. There are the jocks and also those who can’t chew gum and walk at the same time. There are leaders and there are those who could not lead a squad of starving plebes to King Hall. You should give credit where credit is due. Somehow, with a lot of effort, the Academy makes good officers of the vast majority of them.</p>
<p>Good coaching is important, for sure. But you pose a false argument …again. </p>
<p>All great coaches will affirm …never scored a TD, hit a 3, or won 100 m dash. Even John Wooden stockpiled the best talent. Mike Jordan played with 4 other NBA studs @ UNC for Deano. Shouldn’t be an either/or when USNA could have both/and. </p>
<p>Rather, they say, no, we need to make it all look right for the photo op.</p>
<p>And I’ll bet this one describes just what USNA admissions has gone after …
</p>
<p>This gets more ridiculous the more mombee digs …</p>
<p>Just want to thank mombee for the logic and intellectual rigor she has demonstrated on this thread. Her argument is powerful and she is right despite the innumerable willy nilly arguments to the contrary. Personally, I like the professor and have had the opportunity to sit in his classes. He is a charismatic figure and my dd enjoyed his class immensely. However, he is an academic scholar and that is his perspective, which I also respect. On the other hand, SA scholars don’t always make the best officers. I’m reminded of Admiral Mullen’s humorous remarks to the graduating class of 2008. He stated that at his five year class reunion many members of his class were surprised that he was still in the Navy because he was a mediocre student, graduating around 635 in a class of 850! Look at him now, respected Chairman of the Joint Chiefs!</p>
<p>
^^^
This from a goat promoter?</p>