<p>I am trying to decide between Navy and Coast Guard and I was wondering if anyone else has this delemma. Any pros or cons or personal oppinions would be great.</p>
<p>The Coast Guard Academy in my opinion is very very concentrated in engineering. My dad graduated from USNA and his dad from CGA and he said it is much more technical based. Also I was in NYC in Aug and saw some midshipman cadets at a party I was at. At the time I was debating where to go and they said hands down that the naval academy was a better place and they would have chosen it instead. So there's my two cents.</p>
<p>Gopherkitty-
I think if you would have talked to a plebe during plebe summer he would have told you hands down, he would have rather gone to Coast Guard Academy.</p>
<p>Statistically speaking, doesn't Coast Guard have an academically inferior entering class? </p>
<p>As far as hazing goes, I believe it is FAR more severe at USCGA . . . </p>
<p>Plus, who wants to work in the Transportation department?</p>
<p>DeepThroat</p>
<p>It's under the Department of Homeland Security</p>
<p>DT</p>
<p>Have you ever been on a coast guard icebreaker during a storm in the winter on the Great Lakes? Thats why some people like the Coast Guard. Those guys and gals have GUTS.</p>
<p>"It's under the Department of Homeland Security"</p>
<p>Mea Culpa!</p>
<p>"Those guys and gals have GUTS."</p>
<p>Never said they didn't. The ship-boarding stuff they do is insane!</p>
<p>DeepThroat</p>
<p>Which school is more prestegious in terms of academics? Which would be better for someone who plans to be applying to an ivy league grad school after the first tour of duty?</p>
<p>Your individual performance matters the most. Undergrad GPA is very important to grad schools, almost more so than the school you attended because it reflects more about you.</p>
<p>Personally, CG is just too small. I'm sure that it is a great school, but it is not very well known and for that reason has less of a reputation than a top 25 school or even USNA.</p>
<p>That is what I thought, although percentage wise, CGA is more selective, nobody really knows about it whereas if you tell people you went to usna then you get a lot of praise.</p>
<p>dt</p>
<p>"Statistically speaking, doesn't Coast Guard have an academically inferior entering class?"</p>
<p>Where did you get those statistics???? Are you aware, that it is harder to recieve an appointment to the USCGA than any of the other service academies.
Only 7% got accepted last year.</p>
<p>Coastie-</p>
<p>USCGA is like the 4th most selective school in the country by percentage but on the class profiles, USCGA is lower in standardized test scores and such than USNA, but I don't know how accurate those profiles are because I have never talked to anybody at AIM or on the forums that recieved an appointment with test scores as low as the "class averages".</p>
<p>"Where did you get those statistics????"
--I didn't cite any statistics. I was posing a question. </p>
<p>"Are you aware, that it is harder to recieve an appointment to the USCGA than any of the other service academies."</p>
<p>--Oh, come now . . . I don't know what kind of fuzzy math was used to reach that result (I'm not saying it was YOUR fuzzy math, as I've seen that figure elsewhere), but let's look at the hard numbers. USCGA's website shows that appointments to applications received numbers were 399/1848. That's not 7%. The corresponding USNA figures (via the website) are 1,472/14,425, which is about 10%. </p>
<p>At any rate, even if the 7% figure WERE correct that doesn't show that it is comparatively more difficult to gain admission to USCGA--for reasons that I'm sure you can discern.</p>
<p>DeepThroat</p>
<p>"The corresponding USNA figures (via the website) are 1,472/14,425, which is about 10%."</p>
<p>Actually, it really isn't 10%, nor is it as selective as it appears. When all is said and done, out of those that are physically, medically and scholastically qualified and have a nomination, the selection rate is closer to 75%. The 14,425 includes all files and many are disqualified because of the medical. Same holds true for civilian colleges in many ways making the institution appear more selective. By no means am I saying the USNA is not a good institution, you really just need to disect the numbers.</p>
<p>However, doesn't the preliminary application eliminate those not even marginally qualified?</p>
<p>It depends on what you consider marginally qualified-the suggested SAT minimum is around 530 verbal and 570 math. Many do not complete the application itself, some fail a portion or all of the PAE and many are medically disqualified.</p>
<p>According to the handbook-
In a typical year, the admissions board reviews the COMPLETED applications of approximately 5,000 candidates. Of these, approximately 2,000 are found to be qualified scholastically, medically, and physically ("triple qualified" = "triple Q'ed"). From this pool, approximately 1,500 offers of appointment are tendered to yield a class of about 1,200 midshipmen. The need is for a large potential applicant pool, on the order of 10,000 - 15,000, to produce approximately 1,200 appointees. The higher the number in the pool, the higher the quality in the incoming class. This higher selectivity is the primary reason to seek out all potential applicants for the Naval Academy.</p>
<p>Applicants (includes nominees) 14,425
Number of applicants with an official nomination 4,599
Nominees qualified scholastically, medically and in physical aptitude 1,951
Offers of admission 1,472
Admitted 1,227</p>
<p>(Pardon the formatting)</p>
<p>"The 14,425 includes all files and many are disqualified because of the medical."</p>
<p>--By definition, nearly 8,000 of the 14,425 have been disqualified for failure to get a nomination. These aren't necessarily people who are medically disqualified (though some of them might also be), but folks who just couldn't get a nomination. </p>
<p>We don't see any medical cuts until the 4,599 drops 1,951. Out of these folks, however, we don't know if people were dropped because they were color blind, could only do 3 push-ups, or were just deemed incapable of hacking the academics. We can only speculate as to whether one deficiency is more common among those nominated but not fully qualified.</p>
<p>To say that the acceptance rate among those FULLY QUALIFIED is 75% is certainly correct--but what does that statistic really mean? It doesn't mean that USNA accepts 75% of applicants, nor does it really speak to the school's selectivity. It's a meaningless stat, in my humble opinion. </p>
<p>Example: The US Olympic Track Team has a tryout for the three spots they have open on the 100m dash team (bear with me--I'm not a track guy :) ). The tryout will have a preliminary round and a final round. Anyone who can run sub-9.9 secs will be invited back for the final round to see who makes the team. Only 4 guys run sub 9.9 during the preliminary round. Thus, when the final is held, the top 3 out of 4 prelim qualifiers make the team. Is it fair to say that 75% of the 100m dash olympic team wannabes made the team? That seems to be what your post is saying . . . </p>
<p>DeepThroat</p>
<p>DT:
I agree with your analysis. </p>
<p>One can't use the 1900+ as the basis because to arrive at this number, (the final pool for selection, so to say) there were applicants already eliminated for various reasons.<br>
One must use the number of original applicants (1400+) as the basis, because this is the total number of submitted applications.
After that, the disqualifying factors come into play, and applicants are deselected, to arrive at smaller pools for consideration, until the final list for appointments is determined.</p>
<p>CM</p>
<p>I believe a file is opened for each Summer Seminar applicant. If there are approximately 4000-5000 applicants and the majority do not receive an invitation to SS, I suspect that a number of these don't continue with the application process. In addition, any potential candidate who fills out the initial pre-candidate questionnaire represents an opened file. Therefore, we are looking at stats that reflect files opened rather than applications received.</p>
<p>I'd love to see each service academy add that 1 line that tells us how many real applications were received. Then we could tell what % of candidates actually earn nominations and what % are QQQ'd and how many really earn appointments.</p>
<p>not quite what I was implying
1. one can not use the "number of original applicants (14,000+) as the basis..." because they were not completed applications, only a third are actually completed applications (the same holds true for civilian colleges)
2. most people refer to the academy as being selective in the same sense that other colleges are selective and will compare (as you will find in The Princeton Review and other such books) the admission rate for Harvard to the admission rate for the academy when in fact one is comparing apples and oranges. A student with a 4.5 gpa, 1500 SAT, leader of organizations, etc... applies to Harvard and USNA, is offered admission to Harvard but fails to get an appointment to USNA because he could not do a single pull up and has asthma.</p>
<p>DT-
"To say that the acceptance rate among those FULLY QUALIFIED is 75% is certainly correct--but what does that statistic really mean? It doesn't mean that USNA accepts 75% of applicants, nor does it really speak to the school's selectivity. It's a meaningless stat, in my humble opinion. "</p>
<p>It most certainly does represent the school's selectivity if comparing it to other selective colleges which is what most people do. The fact is that variables beyond academics play a big part in the selection process-nominations (competitive state), PAE (not physically fit) and medical exam (beyond one's control and the most frustrating/heartbreaking); all of which need to removed from the equation if you really want to compare the selectivity of the academy to other prestigious institutions.</p>