<p>you betcha’ ;)</p>
<p>Even though I swore that I was going to get out of the pen and quit wallowing, here goes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the attributes of what makes a good officer candidate were only so simple as holding a stop watch for 9 seconds. You ask that USNA “have both”. They do. And they get it by scoring an individual via the WPM. The WPM is derived not to reward someone for outstanding high school achievements but to assess their potential value as a Naval officer. This system has been around for many years, at least as far back as the era when one could count the total minorities on both hands. This statement was true then and it is true now:
</p>
<p>“Explaining” diversity has absolutely nothing to do with it. Again, one needs knowledge of the system to fully understand it, however reams andreams of statistics have been accumulated over the years and fine tuned to achieve the Brigade mix desired. What makes a good officer? Neither you or I can answer that. However, I will guarantee that those who achieve 60k WPM points will provide the mix to which the Navy is seeking. Every since the uproar when Admiral Fowler reinstated youngster cruise in lieu of a summer sailing ‘experience’, I have questioned the direction the WPM was leading. Why are we promoting a candidate who is more comfortable sailing to Newport in Topsiders and Polo shirts to the expense of someone who would look forward to mingling with sailors down in the bilges of a destroyer working on a pump. I ask you, which will provide the best leadership training? </p>
<p>Adm Mullen makes a valid point. It seems that lately the probability of a career officer is somewhat inversely proportional to their class standing. Is it because we are commissioning officers who feel that their potential is wasted on a mere military career. Is it because their intellect somehow interferes with their ability to relate to sailors, the prime attribute of a good Ensign?</p>
<p>
I have heard the same thing about Fleming. All his students, due to the fact that he makes them think, seem to appreciate his classes. I truly enjoyed his Christmas reading list. It is his Admissions insight with which I have problems. I am positive that he knows what makes a good academic student. That he expounds this to the expense of the remaining attributes of a good Naval officer, of which he apparently knows nothing, is what irritates me. Also, since I would think that more outstanding students would make his job different, in the back of my mind, I question his motives.</p>
<p>What are the ‘innumerable willy nilly arguments’ to which you refer? All I see are ad hominem replies and the ‘trashing’ of Naval leadership. Perhaps the fact that a goat supporter also supports my opinions is the most insightful of all of them. However, it would be great if we could get a good discussion going.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting observation. Seems like the answer to this problem is clear …and Mullen is pursuing it. Admit more less bright. Average Joe’s. </p>
<p>You have hit on another major problem of USNA and more widely, USN. Retention of the best. Most experienced Navy personnel would proclaim Tailhook and the ensuing PC issues (especially including diversity and sexism) that discriminate against traditional top guns for the benefit of appearing to look good …is rampant. You are right. Increasingly the best are bailing too soon. </p>
<p>But your simplistic implication …the smart dudes can’t relate…is pure poppeycock. An insulting suggestion I’m confident to a great many who’ve achieved a great deal. And the ultimate empirical proof? Anecdote of one …Mullen either performed poorly, underachieving …OR…Mullen was a sluggard, bottom-dwellar and we need to fill the class from the bottom up. Eliminate or at least minimize those Rhodes Scholar types. Now, wouldn’t that be the ultimate.</p>
<p>Still, in your point-by-point opinions, despite nary a shred of hard evidence, do offer some potentially enormously valuable insights and understanding. </p>
<p>You are offering a master seminar in “Understanding the PC Logic.” Your exposes offer bizarre insight into the mind of the enemy and justification for dumbing down the system to fit the lowest common denominators. And the reality that freedom is most endangered by the cancer creeping from within. Iranian nukes are nothing compared to guerilla attacks like this one.</p>
<p>You seem hesitant to answer my question as to what you feel makes an ideal officer candidate. Allow me to assist? Even though, on this thread, you seem to discount all other than native intellectual acumen, I have seen your responses to candidates asking for their odds. Three major areas; academics, leadership, and teamwork (sports). These attributes are submitted as a part of the application, graded, and compiled. A WPM is assigned. Basically, based solely on this score, either the candidate is accepted or rejected. We have all heard urban legends of those who were accepted at Harvard but not at USNA, those who had a perfect 1600 SAT but were rejected, etc. Therefore, we assume that there are, in deed, qualifiers other than academics that are examined. We also know that a minimum SAT of 1100 is normally needed to establish official candidacy and that a 1200 SAT is needed to avoid the necessity of a Board waiver. These procedures have basically been in place for a half century. To imply that they solely rationalize diversity is not true. To state that a diverse individual can be admitted under existing guidelines is obvious.</p>
<p>Therefore, candidates show up on I-Day with varying academic, leadership, and teamwork attributes, some well rounded, some with varying degrees of ability in each of the different areas. One thing is common however. They have demonstrated that they at least possess the minimum attributes in each category to be successful. Again, at the Academy, there are the same three areas of focus; academics, sports (teamwork), and Professionalism/Brigade leadership. As I stated on another thread recently, everyone has the ability to succeed in one area, a few in two, and those who excel in three are those that you mention who get recommended to cross the pond for a couple more years of study. Are those who focused on, and excelled in, academics going to bring the same thing to the fleet as those who excelled in Brigade activities, for example? Not at all. Are both valuable? Are both needed? Absolutely. What are the ratios of graduates we need to fill each role? I have no idea but I am sure that there is a statistician out there somewhere closely tracking this very thing. </p>
<p>The midshipman who truly benefits from the Academy is the one who acknowledges his strengths and uses his four years to hone his deficiencies. But is that to say that those who see the Academy as a necessary stepping stone simply to be endured, do not make good officers? Not at all. Could they do better? Of course. But then we would have to introduce dedication, attitude, and drive into the equation which the WPM admittedly does not address that well.</p>
<p>Yes, the Navy can do more, and they have been making strides in this area, to challenge the truly smart ones.</p>
<p>Cleaning up loose ends:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are attempting to compare apples and oranges. One of the primary reasons for sending a candidates to NAPS is due to the question of whether or not they can handle the academics associated with the Academy. It is much easier to find out there than to waste an appointment on them and find out later that they are not suited. By design and by definition, there will be failures. Like you are so want to proclaim, there are thosre who are just not academically suited to the rigors of an Academy education. First off, NAPS will determine if they are suited, and, if so, will prepare them. Those not suited, of course, are sent packing. With questions answered.</p>
<p>CDR Salamander: Diversity Thursday
- link on page 8 //post #116</p>
<p>Um, I’m not sure people are reading what I am reading. My classmate had to go through the freedom of information act and drop some money to obtain information that was easily and freely accessible in prior years. It was posted in full on the CDR SALAMANDER BLOG. Anyone with a class in statistics or even some basic math can understand it.
Now, if you believe other things, I won’t deny you that right. We’ve got the “Athletes make the best leaders” crowd (and God forbid you be smart-smart). We’ve got “Diversity is important crowd”, and even “Grades don’t determine leadership” people.<br>
What somebody does not seem to remember is these points are not being argued. You want to start your PhD thesis, knock yourself out! All are great theories.
The premise, point, theme, and focus is that there is a two track system for admissions to USNA. The proof is that if scores were reversed and white candidates were admitted with the sub 600 SAT scores and the minority students required the over 600 SAT there would be grounds for a lawsuit. THAT IS ALL, folks.
If you think that is great, FINE. There are some laws that disagree, but laws can be changed. If you don’t like the implication, FINE! Get that PhD paperwork going!
What is NOT FINE is that one system is presented and another is in practice. If you want to talk about unfair, I’d go chat with the Commanding Officer of NAPS who was relieved for ‘loss of confidence’ and replaced by the USNA Diversity Officer. Things that make you go, Hmmmm.
So if you believe some of the PhD theories, please start another thread. This was about Diversity in the Admissions program. There are facts out there that are unpleasant to say the least.<br>
If you rig the process for buying the next aerial refueling tanker, don’t tell me later that what I got was a better tanker. If standards are set; price, weight, range, endurance, I can understand that. Later I find out you didn’t follow the guidelines, spent more, etc, NORMALLY there would be an investigation. This NORMAL reaction is being squashed in this two track admissions information.
I think there is a fundamental disconnect. These are classically AMERICAN institutions, in that they are open to all Americans. Tall, short, black, white, rich, poor all are welcome. We are created equal, remember? All you have to do is work hard, stay out of trouble, and really want it and you are at least eligible. THAT is the diversity that makes it so strong. If you show loyalty to America, America will put you through school.
It is the betrayal of this that makes the two track system such a tragedy. It is not how we are supposed to be as Americans. Apparently, we are not equal, or, some are more equal than others (stolen quote)…
While some people believed that the Academy treated minorities as equals, now we found out the Academy installed a discount express lane.
I’m not trying to insult anybody. There is abundant evidence that there is a two track system. Shine a light on it. If they can take the public scrutiny, many on this post can cheer and crow how right they are. But like the Global Warming crowd, I think a cursory inspection of the facts and the many actions to hide the facts will give quite a different outlook on this program.
I hope this was long enough to make me look smart-smart.</p>
<p>
Okay, let’s start simple. A dual system would not be in compliance with the law. Dean Latta, Admiral Fowler, and the Board of Visitors all state that Admission’s policies are in compliance with the law. Are you going to join Whistle Pig in declaring the administration a group of liars and denouncing the naivety of anyone who happens to believe them?</p>
<p>Fleming very carefully deflects any of the blame from the Board in his accusation of a two-tiered system. How do you account for the fact that the Board itself had to scholastically qualify every one of the individuals who he is so offended to whom appointments were offered? He and his board found every single one of them qualified. Why?</p>
<p>All your classmate found was SATs in relation to a 600 benchmark. Is there that much difference between a 590 and a 610?. For all we know, that could be the spread for which he is so offended. Do you honestly not believe that there is a gender, ethnic, and racial bias in the SATs? If so, how do you suggest that it be compensated for?</p>
<p>USNA has repeatedly stated that the increase in minorities was due to a concentrated effort to go into the 30 or so historically underrepresented districts which coincidentally happen to be minority and find qualified candidates. The objective would be minimally qualified, not average, and, by all means, not the top candidate. Do you not feel that every Congressional district in the United States has a right to provide the five midshipmen which they are authorized by law? If the Board can agonize over a very marginally qualified white candidate who happens to be the only candidate in his Montana district close to qualification, do you not feel that the candidate from Harlem deserves the same consideration? It is not a two tiered system if a qualified candidate, no matter which side of 600 his SAT scores are, happens to be the MOC’s primary candidate. Your classmate is making a fool of himself.</p>
<p>Do you not feel that the Navy of the 21st century would be better served by a more diverse officer corps? You went to the Academy and were in the Navy during the growing pains of female integration. Do you feel that the entire effort was wrong?</p>
<p>Don’t compound the paranoia. SAT scores have never been published by racial and ethnic groups.</p>
<p>
These 30 coincidental districts must be different from this recent article from the AP dated 20 Nov 2009:
[AP</a> IMPACT: Some lawmakers send few to academies - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_re_us/us_military_academies_minorities]AP”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_re_us/us_military_academies_minorities)</p>
<p>
I think you made an assumption, based on absolutely no fact, that USNA did not already successfully target these particular districts last year.</p>
<p>Yup, I try to stick with facts.
I don’t do the personal attack thing. Don’t think it adds to the conversation. And what do we get? MOMBEE! My classmate, a Naval Academy Grad and good person, has to get a FOIA request, and he is blasted for “…making a fool of himself” by publishing SAT scores?? REALLY? Is that how you want to play?</p>
<p>First, let’s keep this simple. Go back and count how many times you use the word “feel” in your diatribe. I don’t “feel” you are way off topic. I KNOW you are off because we are trying to deal with facts. Avoid them all you want. The truth is out there.</p>
<p>Look. Believe what you want. Hold someone’s hand and sing Kumbaya. “Feel” free to believe whatever you are told. Since the military said it, it must be true! Maj Hasan was killed at the scene. He was killed by a petite female police officer. She fired her gun after being wounded. She alone killed the guy. This was not a terrorist act. How you doing so far? The most important thing is that you BELIEVE and that you “feel” the world is fair…</p>
<p>If there is paranoia, don’t look at me. There might be a flat, shiny object in your bathroom you could use to get closer to the paranoia source. You should throw the word ‘shrill’ in there when you get around to it. And as far a ‘joining’ others, I’m not much of a joiner. I don’t need to. There are facts out there, and you just don’t want to face up to it. Plus, by your own admission, I’ve been there. I’m source material. But I’m “wrong” and you aren’t making “a fool of yourself”. Cool to be you! Why not write another hundred paragraphs letting us know how you feel. By all means don’t face the facts. We have plenty of that going on in this country right now.</p>
<p>There is a two track system. Get used to it. But don’t take it from me. Somebody said there was, and somebody said there was not. This is America. Let the games begin. If you believe in your cause, allow an inspection of the system. Myself and others welcome it. Methinks thou dost protest too much…</p>
<p>The easy way is to just go with it. You certainly are on that bus. Why can’t I just be quiet? Why did my classmate take the time to follow through? Unfortunately, the Academy spends a lot of time training students to do what is right, not what is easy. Do I “HOPE” USNA has NOT been breaking the law for years? Absolutely. Will the school and by proxy its graduates look bad if/when this is revealed. Assuredly so. So neither my classmate nor myself have anything to personally gain. No pet theory. No social justice cross to bear. No refund of money spent.</p>
<p>So why spend time, effort, money trying to do what is best for the Academy? Well, you seem to ‘feel’ everything is great. The trick is, you don’t get to great by doing the easy thing. Some people understand that, and some people never do. </p>
<p>When a President can get out of trouble by defining what the definition of “is”, is, I think the definition of “two track” could be equally clouded. I absolutely expect no charges to be filed against any Academy official no matter what is discovered. The effort to stop any inspection is enough for me. In the Military, “…the appearance of impropriety” is a criminal offense. Damn those high standards. At this time, USNA is looking bad. There is a way to fix this. </p>
<p>You have made your point. Repeatedly. You believe. Good for you. And my classmate is a fool, I apparently called somebody a liar, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. You never stop. Keep at it. You’re convincing everybody. What matters most is HOW MUCH you write, not what, or providing sources, or facts.
You’re winning! You should be able to ‘feel’ it any time now…</p>
<p>Yep, when your classmate goes public with his accusations, he sets himself up for criticism. Are we supposed to bow down to him because he doesn’t know what he is talking about.</p>
<p>I have stated my position. Repeatedly. State yours. Don’t cop out. Let’s have a discussion. You can start by answering a few of my questions.</p>
<p>j-scam wrote:
</p>
<p>Spare us the AM radio double-talk; same goes for the serial poster who exposes his bias with the repeated ‘PC’ nonsense.</p>
<p>Ditto heads? AM radio? Bowing down?
Yea, a real desire for discussion.<br>
While my inclination to respond in kind is great, allow me to simply say, “…your bad manners are only exceeded by your bad manners”.
This isn’t a private tete-a-tete. People throw things out, some worthy, and some sorry. A few- as we see- despicable. There was an original position thrown out days and pages ago. Probably forgotten. Some people have morphed this into what they FEEL. After reading some of these posts I don’t believe that some are open to any change in their position. THAT would be a discussion, which is obviously NOT what you want. Good for YOU! Don’t go bowing down! Hooray! (I ‘feel’ there is room for a remark about ‘The Man’ in here, but that might make me both racist and sexist, a double whammy even I couldn’t survive)
There are some people who look to this forum as a resource. In that sense I am giving information. Maybe it turns into a rebuttal to Mombees many positions, backed up with FOIA data and inputs from a tenured Professor at the Naval Academy. Sorry about those darned facts! Mombee can say whatever she wants (and it seems she often does). You too, usna09mom. I don’t have anything against ANY of the incredibly opinionated, non-bowing Moms out there. You go, girls. Plus, you’re MOMS! Jeez, who can argue with that?
So it seems we don’t agree. You don’t agree? Challenge away. This is a forum. If THAT was what was happening it would be a pleasure to participate. I bet we’d have more questions and fewer lurkers. But instead, READ WHAT YOU’VE WRITTEN! Any wonder there are so few takers? Saucer of milk, anyone?
It is just amusing that having a background, experience, etc can be so quickly turned against you. My classmate asked to be “Bowed” to? Because he’s a Grad? Wow. Hey, let’s discuss THAT! Oh, yea, it didn’t happen… Darn FACTS again!
So have a nice ‘discussion’. Apparently any disagreement is turned into a personal attack. Well, you know what they say about wrestling with pigs. Oh, and that is just an expression. I don’t know any of you. That would NOT be personal. Actually, I think I’m learning how this works now… Any pigs that are offended just let me know where to send the apology.
I was just hoping to put some additional info out there. Apparently, it is all about how you feel. Scores, statements, statistics be damned. Tough to be an engineer with the importance placed emotions.
Good luck out there! Some of you need it.</p>
<p>j-scam, please throw some opinions/facts/anything out to support why you believe what you do. You also allude to the refusal to allow an inspection. I am unaware of any official request for any type of outside inspection. I do know the Board of Visitors, whose role is outside oversight, has conducted inquiries and is satisfied that the Academy is acting properly.</p>
<p>You make innuendos as to the reason the NAPs Commanding Officer was relieved. Do you have facts?</p>
<p>j-scam, here is as concise a rebuttal to Fleming as I can make. What do you find wrong with it? I am beginning to think that you have nothing at all to back up your opinions. Is it the right thing to do to blindly follow any naysayer who cries wolf? What is hard is defending your beliefs. Defend them.</p>
<p>Lets start with the two-tier system. Flemings contention is that the Board played straight and did not award extra WPMs for being a minority but that Admissions simply ignored the WPM in awarding appointments. There are 50 Supts appointments that can go to anyone he so chooses. Keeping in mind that there are a few LOAs and a some blue chips which come out of the 50, yes the Supt could award a few to minorities which Board had qualified but Fleming deemed not really qualified. The Supt can appoint whoever he wants so long as they are qualified so this could in no way be construed as a two tier system. </p>
<p>Who are these candidates and why are they so offensive to Fleming (and Salamander, I assume, and perhaps your classmate who is guilty by association)? The Board meets, reviews a record, assigns RABs, calculates the final WPM, declares the candidate either scholastically qualified or unqualified and then goes home.</p>
<p>Every single last one of these candidates to be admitted must obtain a nomination. Ignoring the Presidentials and SecNavs which really do not apply to Flemings targeted group, every one must either receive either a primary nomination from a MOC or a secondary nomination and enter the national pool.</p>
<p>First off, lets look at the primary nominations. If the MOC lists a primary candidate, CGO must award the appointment to that nominee. If the MOC submits a competitive list, the CGO is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to select, by merit, the most qualified (read highest WPM). Anything else is a violation of federal law. However, this is really not an issue here because the MOC, his staff, and his constituents provide a built-in check and balance. Do you really think they would allow the Academy to select anyone other than the most qualified? Even if they slightly suspected it, dont you think that in subsequent years they would submit a primary candidate to alleviate their suspicions.</p>
<p>This leaves us with only one other source of appointments, the national pool. I am sure this is to what Fleming was referring as the conduit for his two-tiered accusations. Again, FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THE SELECTION OF THE MOST QUALIFIED IN ORDER OF MERIT ( again, read WPM). To do otherwise would violate the law. Dean Latta, Admiral Fowler, and the Board of Visitors all assure us that the law is being followed.</p>
<p>So how could Fleming think what he does. Each year 1500 or so are offered appointments. However, the Board scholastically qualifies in excess of 2000. This is to capture those less than average candidates who must be found qualified in order to meet a MOCs lone qualified nomination. The top 1500 have not always been the successful appointments. And so long as the present MOC nomination system is in effect, they never will. The list of qualified candidates must be expanded for those few districts where qualifications are marginal. Is the 2000th rated individual is as qualified as #1? Of course not. Might there be a marginal SAT in the crowd? A C or two? Someone who doesnt meet Flemings standards? Probably. Will they be offered an appointment. Probably not. And if they are, it is as a MOC Primary nomination, perfectly legal and perfectly normal. The same thing has been happening since the beginning of the nomination system. Fleming was a part of a board who blessed 2000 records. The board then disbanded and went home. He had no idea who was offered appointments and who was not.</p>
<p>For any of the WPMs to be ignored in the award of appointments from the national pool would require a collusion of illegality from all members of the Admissions Office, Junior and Senior Officer alike. I truly believe that this could not happen.</p>
<p>The SAT stats simply reflect the Admission’s Departments foray into underrepresented districts and finding candidates that though qualified, were less than what had been the norm in the past. More districts participation. A noble cause. Unless you think that there are certain congressional districts that don’t deserve to support our Navy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure Professor Fleming knows that the correct term is “principal” not “primary.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33212_20090127.pdf[/url]”>http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33212_20090127.pdf</a></p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Mom. How can you be so wrong so many times in a row and still have the courage to post? I have to defend myself? From the likes of you? Game on…
I have ONLY provided references. Statements from a tenured Academy Professor, Freedom of Information Act data, statements from an H.R expert. Oh, and statements from Naval Academy Grads. Or, as you like to call it, unsupported opinions. And with this insignificant input I come up against YOU and the wall of HOW YOU FEEL. Sounds silly now that I put it that way… What was I thinking?
I have simply placed facts out there to be evaluated on their own merit. Your simple counter is that it is “against the law…”. Well, there you go!
Plus you get to throw in “guilt by association”, since any who do not follow your opinion are guilty. WOW, you are quick to tar and feather. So now there is “guilt” in not agreeing!<br>
But so little is that simple. You propose enormous webs of collusion for a two track system to function. Why? Prof Fleming has been clear that there are two tracks. There is plenty of supporting evidence. But in this case you require proof. You expect statements from the Board? If that is what you require then there is NO PROOF! Guess it didn’t happen. There you go. See how easy that was.
For ten years there were 2 tracks to get into the University of Illinois. It was only stopped this year. The guy in charge killed himself last week. No trial now! Did it not happen the last nine years? It should have been stopped, but there was no proof. Hey, isn’t that Illegal? Hmmmm. This doesn’t fit your perfect world. “…But the Academy is DIFFERENT!” she shouts. Oh, well then I guess it would be impossible at the ACADEMY…
Do I 'KNOW" why the NAPS CO was relieved during the year that had the largest increase in minority appointments, and then he was replaced by the Naval Academy Minority Affairs Officer? Nope. Well, then you got me again! Seriously, you’re good at this. If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!
You are so quick to require proof, and yet your positions are filled with what you feel. I simply provided evidence. You can dismiss it all you want. I really don’t care. But your silly attacks? Really! Heck, when a GRAD says it, you are expected to BOW after all. I think it shows more about you that you dismiss with contempt any opposition. You recite the “steps-to-an-appointment” and then act like it’s proof. That is the way it happens? Because it is written down? They CAN’T do two tracks because it is against the law? Really?
So let’s be clear. You BELIEVE. There is NO possibility of discrimination because it is AGAINST THE LAW. Yippee.
I BELIEVE there is evidence to the contrary. I have provided it. I hope it is wrong, but there you go.
You ATTACK, personally, those that dare have a different opinion. Like my classmate. Nice. Oh, and then you cite your attack as evidence, since they have ‘guilt by association’.
Have I myself stated the Academy DID something? Hmmm. Damn facts again. You might get stuck there. But of course, not YOU! You “FEEL” I “IMPLIED” something, so that will get you off the hook. Here, on your forum (because to oppose you makes you guilty) that is good enough.
I don’t know that I have even given a questionable position, but, WOW, are you willing to fight it!
My position? There is supporting evidence that there is a two track system. Then I documented the support. WOW, what a crazy thing! To SAY something and then PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION! Call a Mom somewhere to stamp out this insanity!</p>
<p>Take a deep breath and get over yourself and the idea that one position is right. There are different opinions other than your own.
Many opinions are supported by statements by people who should know what they are talking about. It seems they don’t count if they are people you distain. You seem well read enough to know about the cover-up in the Tillman case, and yet you state without embarassment that there could be no senior involvement. I could mention more, but you won’t understand. You BELIEVE in the perfection of the Academy. Good luck with that.
And good luck with whatever else it is you support, because, jeez, to not agree is to be buried by your volume of words. ACORN, Big Foot, and UFO’s all could use your dedication and support. Not a lot of FACTS against them, either. Go with what you feel.
Did I mention wrestling with pigs? Just to be clear, I’m not enjoying this…</p>
<p>Oh, you should be bowing about now…</p>
<p>FACT: j-scam can provide no evidence as to the reasons the NAPS Commanding Officer was relieved. Innuendos on his part are pure speculation.
FACT: There is no official “investigation” that USNA has refused to “allow” to happen.
FACT: Fleming sat on a single Admissions Board almost 10 years ago. The Board only determines qualification and finalizes WPM. They are not involved at all in the actual appointment process. Any theories on his part are only that of a casual layman.
FACT: Admiral Fowler states that there is no two tier admissions system.
FACT: j-scams classmate, Dave Quinn, even reports that Dean Latta states that there is no two tier admissions system.
FACT: The Board of Visitors, whose job is oversight of the entire Academy, has investigated and states that there is no two tier admissions system.
FACT: African Americans do not perform equal to white males on the SATs. Even the College Board acknowledges this on their website.
FACT: An anonymous blogger and a single academic faculty member who do not even begin to understand the admissions process, seem to want to prove it corrupt, armed with nothing more than casual anecdotal evidence.
FACT: In most arenas, an anynomous blogger would not be considered “supporting evidence.”</p>
<p>Fact-Mombee is really upset
Fact- JS-Cam presented the information as is
Fact- There is an enormous disparity between SAT scores of minorities and of white students. The SAT’s should NOT be significant in that they are scored as part of a Whole person point system. An HR expert and Academy professor who sat on the admissions board have indicated the info as statistically significant to the extent that minorities could not be logically be admitted in the same system if that system was uniformly applied.
Fact- The two track system has been mentioned for many years. The recent endorsing FOIA SAT info only reinforces the position.
Fact- The badly abused Blog has broken the most recent Naval Academy Honor Guard story and is often quoted by national journalists.
Fact- You just can’t convince some people that they don’t have a monopoly on information.
Fact- JS Cam HOPES the Academy is not doing anything illegal, but is not blindly optomistic with the information available.
FACT-Mom knows all is well with Academy admissions because otherwise it would be against the law.
Fact- JS Cam hopes people can think for themselves and use information to draw their own conclusions.
Fact- JS Cam has been proven to be wrong when he thinks all people can think for themselves and use information to draw their own conclusions.
Fact- Trying to keep up with Mombee is silly and makes JSCam feel silly.
Fact- JS Cam listed more facts, but they probably are as opinionated as Mom’s “facts” although there was less time with the colorful adjectives like 'anonymous, corrupt, casual, etc" .
Fact- Hiding information never works.
Fact- This has gone too far and is not contributing to anyone’s knowledge. I’ll have to leave the last word to Mombee, no matter how fraudulent it might be…
Fact- The last fact will not be a fact if Mom continues to besmirch my classmates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lets examine more closely the ‘enormous disparity’ of these ‘statistically significant’ facts. I suppose the following is that to which your are referring which is your proof of improprieties in the Admissions department:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, a 7.9/49.7 ratio of blacks to whites. 1:8. Sounds about right. In the past there has been roughly 100 blacks in each class. With the increased emphasis on diversity by targeting underrepresented districts, 130 or so last year. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake 130:900.</p>
<p>Seveny-one percent compared to fourteen percent. Pretty damning huh. First off, these numbers are for the entire class, both NAPS and direct entry. What if we could pull out the NAPS candidates and do a true comparison of the direct entries which is where Fleming is having his problems? Since we know, by definition, that NAPS entry is pretty much based on sub-par SAT scores and that the overall average for everyone is around 1100, assuming that they all had below 600 math SATs is probably more true than false. How many kids go to NAPS? Heck, if one listens to some of the people on these forums who claim to be “in the know”, if one is not either black or an athlete, preferably both, to forget about it. But just an overall educated guess, I would say 40-50 blacks . Around 1/3 of the blacks entering the class. 33%. Now we have direct entry of less than 40% of blacks with less than 600 Math SAT scores. Still high but more reasonable (and a more accurate representation). But stll not a true ‘statistically significant’ fact to support a two tiered system. No one seems to be arguing with the fact that to gain this increase of 30 black midshipmen this year that Admissions targeted historically underrepresented districts. Since there appointments were proper and legal, totally above board, their SAT scores should not contribute to any attempted evidence of disparity. As someone who has closely watched hundreds of applicants over the years in districts where SATs are demographically low, I would make an educated guess that the majority of these principal nomination legal direct entries were below 600 in math SATs. So we can take off another 20% - 25%. Now we are faced with the fact that 85% or so of direct entry black kids who would be susceptible to be included in a two tiered admissions scheme have math SATs in excess of 600. And for those under 600, since no real breakdown was given, how are we to know that they were not in the 590 range.</p>
<p>Additionally, no one has answered my hypothetical question. SAT scores are to be utilized solely to gauge the ability of a student to succeed in his freshman year studies. We know that USNA maintains copious statistics. We all know the SATs, among other issues, are racially biased. What if USNA statistics show that a black kid with, say a 50 point lesser math SAT score, performs exactly equal to the white kid with a 50 point higher score? Should this be acknowledged in the admissions process?</p>
<p>Bottom line, we can see that the so-called facts are really nothing. That apparently it was an intentional attempt to manipulate data to ‘prove’ that which was not there.</p>
<p>Hence my initial assessment:
</p>
<p>Why is it that when I went to bed last night instead of having nightmares about the Navy football team in hula skirts on every play standing around watching the clock run down, they were about lemmings, thousands and thousands of them, following each other over a cliff on Waikiki Beach?</p>
<p>Luigi, thanks for the ‘principal/primary’ correction. I should have known better. Not sure about Fleming though.</p>