<p>
[quote]
JAM, Profmom,Navy2010 - </p>
<p>Thanks for the helpful info. I for one greatly appreciate it!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't forget USNAMom. Her's was as convoluted as the other three.</p>
<p>Thanks, USNAMom!</p>
<p>OK, since there seems to be an argument that the academically qualified exceptions for foundation are far and few between, I'll offer another one... myself</p>
<p>A few quick stats:
SAT- 1420 (750 math, 670 verbal)
GPA- 4.0 (unweighted)
Class rank- 5/app. 200
3 sport captain (xc, indoor and outdoor track)
ECA senior officer
Took 2 classes per semester at Lasalle U my senior year</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I didn't get a nom until the end of March. I was specifically told by my admissions officer that I was overqualified for NAPS, however, I was qualified for Foundation. Applied for and got foundation. Was ready to take that until I got the appointment at the end of May.</p>
<p>At the risk of further "inflaming" things, let me restate what I said initially. The PRIMARY purpose of NAPS/Foundation (outside of assisting enlisted in their transition in the case of NAPS) is to provide additional academic preparation to those who, in the view of USNA, need it.</p>
<p>There are exeptions to the above. How widespread those exceptions are is open to debate. But, if people are academically qualified for an appointment, it makes little sense to provide them additional academic prep.</p>
<p>There are also candidates who are academically qualified to receive an appointment but aren't given one (for various reasons) but are not offered NAPS/Foundation because they don't need the additional prep.</p>
<p>No formula, no magic. Just the vagaries of admissions for USNA. Can't speak to USMA -- those questions are probably best addressed on the USMA board.</p>
<p>I have many things to say but first and foremost is THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH. I didn't expect such support and empathy, and am sorry I caused controversy among some of you.
I'd like to clarify a few things, I'm a newbie and don't know the protocol of posting and quoting......o even how to do the quotes...
The night we got the call from the Regional Admissions Director I called him back and asked on his v/m if he was aware those are college courses on my son's high school transcripts, and would he verify he has all the correct info in son's file as get this; the Doctor that examined son for Concorde and DoDMERB somehow submitted another person's medical along with my son's. The other person had 5 things in their med. history. Allergies, ADHD, asthma, a hernia, and a recent knee operation. Took a month to clear the confusion and then my son was Medically Qualified.
But my point is that mistakes do occur and possibly son's file will be re-evaluated.
A piece of wisdom, the power of positive thinking, perseverance and hope; My son as you can imagine was crushed. I told him "It ain't over till the
fat lady sings!!!!!!" "We won't give up honey." After I posted the Distress signal to all of you, post popped up on my computer screen out of nowhere, I kid you not; appeared the thread from Tridude87. Saying the same, but in caps as he was so excited. After months of perseverance he'd been appointed.<br>
I do believe it was a clear message from God. Everything will be fine one way or another. I also believe that God will put son where he wants him, hopefully NAPS, or USNA but also think son would benefit from NAPS so he doesn't struggle during Plebe year, but he's working on back ups-NROTC. I'll also mention my academically strong daughter struggles through college, smart as a whip but the transition from high school to college is challenging for most to say the least.
So I say 3qd, and feel free to correct as I think you will, because he was first sent a rejection letter stating he wasn't strong enough academically to become a Candidate, but then he provided more info as required for review, and was issued a candidate number. Wonderful. He'd been recommended for the college courses from his high school teachers which I'm sure helped him and is on the Honor Roll with those this year, as a senior in high school.
Completed the CFA and passed. Actually did very well! Verified by his RAD.
Deemed Medically Qualified on DoDMERB by USNA.
Then our Congressman's liaison called and told him they were so impressed, had spoken to both the academy and BGO, they were canceling the interview and issuing the nomination from the MOC. I've learned since they didn't elect a principle nominee, but I believe from the phone call if listed in preference son comes at the top.
My son has so many ECA's he was accepted at a Military Academy with the contingency that he has to keep ECA's at an absolute bare minimum. Hoping for the NROTC scholarship for that one, (almost 50K a year,) but still feel he may struggle as he's real strong in science's (one college course is Physics) but a bit weak in math and organization skills which the NAPS website indicates they stress org. skills. Truly perfect for my son.
In the meantime he's modifying his motor vehicle and maintaining a very strict fitness regimen. For fun he'll run 25 miles although not marathons. LOL. but not kidding. Volunteers for almost every possibility available to him for the simple reason of trying to help others which is a value I've stressed in raising my children. All of you out there must have been raised with the same values as I reiterate I'm truly overwhelmed by the support and advice. I never expected this and truly birds of a feather do flock together.....IMO it's part of what draws son to USNA. A common commitment and utmost determination to be the best leader and person he can be. </p>
<p>Today, I commemorate the 18th year of the birth of my son. He celebrates it in another state and century. After one year of being Youth Champion of a medieval re-enactment group, he's put on the real armor, most of it made by him with his own forge, and has joined the Adult Heavy List battles. He doesn't believe in bubble wrap. YIKES.</p>
<p>In closing, I sit here with my deepest prayers that all of you candidates and parents that have worked so hard and care so deeply for your goal of entering the Academy have your dreams and aspirations come to fruition. Our country and our world needs more of you. Idealistic I know but wouldn't it be wonderful if all strived to be what our loved ones and you parents out there on this forum are????? Let's all be proud, and again THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU ALL.</p>
<p>Thank God for your peace. You've got it Thanks for your witness here and the blessing you are to many. Here's that you and your son may one day soon be a member of this wonderful fraternity. You'd be a grand addition, for sure, and trust your son will be as well. His best to you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We should have paid more credence to mom3boy’s initial statement. This makes a lot more sense. The issuance of a candidate number does not indicate scholastically qualified, one of the 3Qs. To become scholastically qualified, one has to ‘pass’ the admissions board. Hence, the BGO comment about the Jan 31 board (even though he does not normally have access to this info and is, perhaps, guessing). So, unless you have received information somehow that he is scholastically qualified and are basing your comments on the fact that he has a candidate number, he is probably not 3Qed.</p>
<p>Therefore, when the CVW call was made, the Regional Director, defending their earlier decision of not offering CVW probably did a cursory glance and made the comments he did. I have, in the past, had the RD make exactly the same comments to me and subsequently the candidate become 3Qed. With that said, I certainly hope you followed the advice of the above posters and had your son take the SATs yesterday.</p>
<p>If your MOC submitted a competitive slate, there is no way that the Admissions Office will know how he ranked them. And even if they did, they would have no choice but to award the nomination based solely on order of merit.</p>
<p>Also, now that we possibly have established that he is not 3Qed, he is a perfect candidate for NAPS. Both it and the Foundation are fantastic programs. And what some of the posters above have lead you to believe that they must be Rhodes Scholar candidates to be eligible for these programs is slightly unfounded. Ensure that both your BGO and RD are very aware of his desires. A personal trip to Leahy Hall might even be in order.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2010, it is the jibberish that you have just posted that makes it extremely difficult for me to be a positive influence on this forum. You make it sound as if they use an Ouiji board to pick the candidates. Not true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>quite the contrary. </p>
<p>
[quote]
We should have paid more credence to mom3boy’s initial statement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe the majority of us were.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, now that we possibly have established that he is not 3Qed, he is a perfect candidate for NAPS. Both it and the Foundation are fantastic programs. And what some of the posters above have lead you to believe that they must be Rhodes Scholar candidates to be eligible for these programs is slightly unfounded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They are wonderful programs.
And no one implied they needed to be Rhodes Scholars to be offered a "slot." On the contrary, what was suggesed, and verified, is that these candidates may not be as academically challenged or deficient as **you **implied. </p>
<p>What I did state was that may factors- tangilbe and intangible, go into the admission decision making process, that we are not privy to them, and that there are lots of kids - all deserving, that get selected, and many, just as deserving, that do not. </p>
<p>What I will add is this. The foundation program sets a limit on how many of its sponsored candidates are "athletes".... if I recall correctly, the max number of "athletes" was 20%. I do not believe that has changed.</p>
<p>USNA69- while I know you offer advice with the best of intent, have you ever stopped to consider that as well versed as you present yourself, *even you may not have all the answers? * What you fail to acknowledge is that there are "exceptions" made all the time....kids gaining appointments with preexisting color blindness, law infractions, other pre-existing "disqualifiers," appointments to fill gender and race benchmarks, appointments to boost navy athletics, heck, appointments to candidates with one year of a foundation scholarship- followed by another year of NAPS!!!....shuffling of nominations when one is needed, etc, etc, etc..... and I will add, no different from any other school of higher education. I will also add that, despite this, IMO the academies bend over backwards to be "fair," geographically and otherwise. I also believe they, the admissions folks, make the application process as "open" as possible; heck, I even recall reading a post describing the "whole person score" and i believe it was Whislepig that even posted the "manditory questions" asked on a BGO interview!!! :eek: </p>
<p>And I would not want to be in their seat, trying to whittle down 11,000+ applications to the "final 1240" (give or take a few). It seems an impossible task, yet they get it done. </p>
<p>What I continue to hold to is that the best way to gaining an appointment is for a candidate to present their "very best"...working hard so that they have the grades, class rank, CFA, recommendations, SATs, interview, etc., etc to give themselves the best shot possible. If one works hard and to the full extent of their capacity, then there can be "no regrets" even if they still come up short in the end- for they could "do no more." </p>
<p>What I think candidates struggle with is how to explain when it appears all of one's "ducks are in order" that it fails to gain an appointment; the admissions board reports on the number of t-q'd candidates that get turned away each year....somehere in the neighborhood of 200-300 candidates! The questioning to "understand" is "understandable", but therin, again, lies the trap of "why him and not me" instead of "what do I need to do differently if I choose to attempt this again." </p>
<p>
[quote]
...makes it extremely difficult for me to be a positive influence on this forum
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With all due respect, I can see why this is so challenging for you; not sure I agree with your outcome, but will give you credit for the effort and the intent. </p>
<p>USNA69-Please do continue to offer your insights.
But while you are at it, please exercise a bit of restraint and respect for those with *first hand experience that differs from yours * who also try and offer theirs. If for nothing else, it would help to keep my PM box from maxing out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think if you go back and look at all my early posts on this thread, I, like USNA1985, acknowledged that exceptions are made. ‘Have you ever stopped to consider” that to give advice based on exceptions is foolhardy. I would never stoop to give false hope when the Academy’s position is very straightforward to the contrary. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never implied anything. Please note my quotes from both NAPS and Foundation websites which states the reason for their existence which is to bring candidates up to the academic level required for success at the Academy. They are deficient in relation to Academy standards, not mine. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice but I doubt that, at my age, I will change. Again, first hand experience that is not general procedures should not be presented as such. Furtehermore, I don’t intend to change my statements to ‘sugar coat’ things for the insensitive. It leaves too much room for misinterpretation. Also, apparently every time I disagree with someone, people see me as being disrespectful so you are placing me in a no win situation. I would ask you and several others to simply stop arguing with me for the sake of argument. Sometimes the positions get quite farfetched, and humorous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think if you go back and look at all my early posts on this thread, I, like USNA1985, acknowledged that exceptions are made. ‘Have you ever stopped to consider” that to give advice based on exceptions is foolhardy...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>absolutely. What I did state, and will repeat, is that it appears "exceptions" are made more frequently than you choose to acknowledge. That is not a value judgement, nor a message of "hope" to others- it is simply a statement of what I have witnessed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
apparently every time I disagree with someone, people see me as being disrespectful so you are placing me in a no win situation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>perhaps it has less to do with what is being said than how it is said. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I would ask you and several others to simply stop arguing with me for the sake of argument.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not argue for the sake of arguement.</p>
<p>What I do offer is what "our" experience has been to date....my Mid, and the extent to what I know regarding it. That is our reality and the basis for what I post. One perspective. Simple. </p>
<p>As for "false hope"...
To the best of my knowledge, I have never offered anyone on here anything that suggests "false hope." If you are suggesting that the posting of well-known "exceptions" amount to "false hope," then you are incorrect. </p>
<p>What I post is what I understand to be true. If anything, I have cautioned- repeatedly- that one should not place all their eggs in one basket, the need for a plan B, the reality that plan B might very well be plan A, that one needs to stop trying to "figure out the game" and keep doing what they can to put their best effort forward, to stay focused on what is "really important", tips for interviews (on that I am an authority), etc, etc, etc. If anything, I have strived to be a "voice of reason" on these forums, lest the bullies try and chase some hopeful candidates away before they even get started.</p>
<p>We have been down this road before, and I don't wish to walk it again. You are entitled to your opinion, and me mine. We will continue, no doubt, to agree on some things, and disagree on others. So be it.</p>
<p>Just a quick question, Profmom. Since you are stating that the above individuals are so highly qualified, why do you think they are agreeing to waste a year of their lives going to prep school when, if you are correct, they don't need it. And why is the Academy wasting my alumni contributions sending them there?</p>
<p>Just to answer part of your question, my daughter was one of those exceptions. 3Q'd blah blah blah, passed dodmerb with flying colors etc. etc. She went to NAPS even though she had wonderful offers, NROTC, merit scholarships etc. to wonderful schools. Why you ask? Because her dream was USNA. Quite simple, really.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am confused. A verbal SAT score of 590 is below the USNA 600 minimum and would have required an ‘exceptional’ package otherwise for a waiver. Apparently, his case was not an exception but validation of the policy which I have been attempting to outline.</p>
<p>
[quote]
that to give advice based on exceptions is foolhardy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree and I think in the end the young men and women that stop in and ask questions about their applications are best served with candor, not because we want to discourage them from pursuing their dream and application, but because they should have as clear an understanding of the how the “normal” or typical process unfolds. We certainly don’t want to contribute to a situation in which applicants have unrealistic expectations for entrance and end up paying less attention to backup plans than they really should have. </p>
<p>You would not tell your son or daughter to plan for retirement based on potential lottery winnings, nor should we paint an unrealistic picture of the application and evaluation process. It’s certainly reasonable to make them aware of other avenues or opportunities for their application so long as they understand the associated limitations on numbers of candidates eligible for such opportunities.</p>
<p>I know I said back in post #25 that I was going back to the USMA forum - but, if I can just chime in here.</p>
<p>rjrzoom57 - bingo. but you don't want to chase away candidates who think they don't have a chance if they don't have 1400 SAT's.</p>
<p>My daughter is at a prep program this year. Sponsored by an academy. There are kids there for Army, Navy, AF and CG. About 80/100 are sponsored by an academy in the program.<br>
They SAP kids checked in a day early - they had special programs for the parents etc..... The SAP Director in a talk with parents that very first day made it clear that ACADEMICS came first. These kids were there for ACADEMICS. They all needed to retake the SAT's and take a SAT prep class. Each academy prescribed the curriculum so the kids took an academy specifc curriculum. Academics is so important that the AOG (USMA) sponsored kids had to get advisor approval to join ANY extra-curricular activities - and they were allowed only one.</p>
<p>My daughter is no dummy and neither are any of the kids there. One kid was stressing out worried he would get a B and had never gotten a B in his life.
They are all there for a reason - that reason is academics. If the respective academies had thought they were not deficient in academics their WCS would have been high enough to directly admit them.
The academies are required by federal law to admit according to merit. Most of that merit score is made up of academics.<br>
The academies will NOT purposely deny direct admission to a candidate if their WCS is high enough for direct admission. </p>
<p>The danger in reading about all these superstars who were denied direct admission and sent to a prep program is that kids who are not qualified or just barely qualified will think they don't have a chance and nothing could be further from the truth.
When exceptions are presented then the people for whom these programs were intended do not get the message. </p>
<p>Prep programs are intended to give kids a chance. Kids who are stellar in leadership and athletics who need an academic year to prepare for the rigors of the academy. It is NOT remedial high school. It does not mean they are dumb kids. The academy recognizes that these kids have POTENTIAL. Potential to succeed and make good officers.
Again - if you are a candidate and bring leadership, athletics and a desire to gain an appointment AND you are not quite "qualified" or "on the cusp" of qualifying then a prep program is probably perfect for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am confused. A verbal SAT score of 590 is below the USNA 600 minimum and would have required an ‘exceptional’ package otherwise for a waiver. Apparently, his case was not an exception but validation of the policy which I have been attempting to outline.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>makes sense when it was at 590; looses something when it was 600. </p>
<p>w/e. He is better for it, academically, physically and mentally. It acomplished what it was meant to accomplish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they should have as clear an understanding of the how the “normal” or typical process unfolds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>point well taken. What I believe posters were responding to was the stereotyping that was universally applied to those attending prep programs. To deny there are "exceptions" to almost every aspect of the admissions process would be overlooking the obvious. Will agree that it happens "on occassion", will repeat that it happens "more than we know," and will agree that one should, in no way, bank on it.</p>
<p>During ppw I was in alumni hall doing the walk around and stopped at the admissions table and inquired about the 600 min on SAT and he said that 600 wasn't the specific minimum. That is what he said anyway. Just thought I would share that with you</p>
<p>I'm accepting an offer to NAPS because USNA is the path I want to take.</p>
<p>And if 600 is a minimum, boy did I cut it close! :P</p>
<p>From the class profile, 31% of those admitted to last years class had sat scores under 600 in English and something like 18% had under 600 in Math. those numbers are not written in stone.</p>
<p>My son recieved a foundation scholarship to USMA last year and hear is a direct quote for the letter that he recived</p>
<p>"the WPPSP is a program that provides partial scholarships for one year of post high school work to highly motivated, fully qualified candidates who just missed being admitted to West Point. These scholarships are very competitive: about 60 are awarded each year."</p>
<p>We were told by my son's regional officer that the reason he was not awarded an appointment was because his nomination source did not have any slots available at the academy last year.</p>
<p>I understand that USMA is not USNA and vise a versa, but they are both United States Military Academy's and procedures are simular.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, while running the risk of appearing stereotypical, those SATs at the lower end of the spectrum are typically from those appointments who have attended NAPS or Foundation. However. they do retake the SATs while in the prep program and some do raise their scores. Average SATs for those appointments directly from high school are in the 1375 range, Foundation is around 1200, and NAPS is slightly less.</p>
<p>In this case, they are totally different. USNA, as a rule does not offer prep programs to those 3Qed individuals slighly below the acceptance cutoff. USMA does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the admisssions literature states is that they are "Looking for 600/600 SATs but can waiver below that for other extraordinary qualities." It requires a very rare waiver on a very strong, otherwise, package and these are exactly the candidates most likely to end up at NAPS or Foundation.</p>
<p>I think what this entire discussion has validated is the importance of SATs. Start taking them early and retake them again and again up through the January cycle deadline.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yep, while running the risk of appearing stereotypical, those SATs at the lower end of the spectrum are typically from those appointments who have attended NAPS or Foundation. However. they do retake the SATs while in the prep program and some do raise their scores. Average SATs for those appointments directly from high school are in the 1375 range, Foundation is around 1200, and NAPS is slightly less.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>would like to see the data supporting that.</p>
<p>It is my understanding the SAT scores from NAPS and foundation are not included in what gets reported.</p>
<p>Average SATs of 1375 is overstating the stats reported by the admissions office. </p>
<p>and they DO NOT retake SATs during naps or foundation.
Your information is outdated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
think what this entire discussion has validated is the importance of SATs. Start taking them early and retake them again and again up through the January cycle deadline.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>will agree- and would add to that "dont wait until SATs... be working on GPA well before that."</p>