<p>Actually, I was quoting someone else, check the post timestamps. :)</p>
<p>Speaking of time... I was just catching up on the latest round of postings and thought for a moment that we must have veered pretty far off topic by now. I looked up just to make sure which thread I was reading as it's sorta hard to tell from the postings, and this is what I saw: </p>
<p>"Very Distressed-any advice? "</p>
<p>How about that...we're still on topic....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, I was quoting someone else, check the post timestamps
[/quote]
</p>
<p>oopps!!! my bad!! :o</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Very Distressed-any advice? "</p>
<p>How about that...we're still on topic....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>go figure! :eek:</p>
<p>thanks for the process check nevertheless! ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
please do not bother profmom
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think by posting she is presenting herself to be bothered</p>
<p>
[quote]
I will assume the word you were looking for is synonymous
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was looking for antonymous. These darned spell checkers. Or is it these darned glasses?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do us all a favor- call Captain Wallace
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don’t need to. Every five years, BGOs get to spend a week at USNA, attending lectures by everyone associated with the admissions process. I have attended two of Captain Wallace’s fine presentations and still have copies of his power points covered with copious notes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Nowhere near the 1375 you are claiming.
If you see USNA data that reports otherwise, please do share!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, from those BGO weeks at USNA. Dean Vetter always included these numbers in his very informative presentation. From my notes, one year the average for those appointees entering directly from high school was 1375 and another it was 1360. I was hoping that another BGO would step forward and validate this.</p>
<p>Can’t seem to find your statement where you were going to continue to fire missiles, no matter how errant, at me but here goes one last attempt at SATs. </p>
<p>Here is my original statement, boldface added:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Average SATs for those appointments directly from high school are in the 1375 range.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You seem to have either misread my statement or are intentionally misinterpreting what I say in order to convolute the issue and to discredit me. Of course I don’t know which. No where ever on any thread have I ever stated or implied that the overall SATs for ALL appointees is anything higher than 1300.</p>
<p>Let’s assume a hypothetical college where 2/3 of the students come directly from high school and the other 1/3 come from some sort of prep program. US News & World Report lists the overall average SAT of ALL those entering the school as 1300. Let’s assume the 1/3 prepsters had an overall SAT average of 1200. Then, with a little simple math, we can determine that, in order to maintain the 1300 OVERALL average, those 2/3 directly out of high school would have to have reported a 1350 average. Were the 1/3 prepsters reporting 1190, the 2/3 directly out of high school would have to report a 1355. 1180>>>1360, 1170>>>1365, 1160>>1370, 1150>>1375, etc. In our particular case, we know that in various years the vast majority of these prepsters, the NAPS students, commence with SATs in the 1130 range. From the various profiles we see that they don’t always reach the 600/600 non waiverable status. I have never seen USNA's post prep SAT averages published. Oh, If your blanket statement that they did not retake SATs were only true, these calculations would be so simple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I appreciate your concern for my attempts to follow your reasoning, however flawed it might be, please note the following statements which I have made previously on this very thread that, had you understood them, would have precluded your above questions. Your refusal to acknowledge them does cause concern for your motives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, if you will go to the Naps thread on this forum which has resurfaced from last summer, on the first page Oskiwow has published, what appears to be a very good official explanation of NAPS selection. While Foundation is similar, since it does not involve federal funds, certain leeways with non NCAA athletes may be made. For example, if a hypothetical candidate had a 590V SAT and their overall package was not strong enough to warrant a waiver, they could be processed for either NAPS or Foundation. Should they, after the January deadline, retake the SAT and achieve a 600+ score and their package would be qualifiable, they might no longer be eligible for NAPS but could continue with the afore commenced Foundation scholarship.</p>
<p>With all of this said, I was having a PM discussion the other day about USNA admissions and should probably relate it here. The Academy is concerned about the ability of each and every candidate to succeed in Calculus. It is a technical school and a math foundation is important. The admissions process is designed to acknowledge this. When someone is rejected, probably the first thing they should go back and do is to reevaluate how they presented themselves mathmatically. An 'A' in AP Calculus will allow a lower math SAT. 'B's and 'C's in a math curriculum culmunating with pre-calc or lower will require a much higher math SAT. Most of my candidates with high scores in AP calc often breeze through the acceptance process while those others which I have mentioned above often end up at NAPS. And upon completion of an outstanding program at NAPS, do quite well with USNA math. Chemistry, however, for mine, is another story.</p>
<p>With all due respect to all parties, I believe this topic has been flogged beyond death and probably is no longer helping the candidates, parents, etc. it is designed to assist. We might all be better off waiting until the next real candidate question to continue this debate.</p>
<p>As usual, USNA1985, you have stated the position clearly and succinctly. Thank you.</p>
<p>with all due respect to USNA85, I do appreciate the above post from '69.</p>
<p>After a good nights sleep and reading through it again, I realize what it is I am taking exception to.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>That 1385 was presented as an overall SAT and not filtered out to "direct from HS" only. Thus, add in prep programs and the average falls closer to what is reported elsewhere </p></li>
<li><p>the vast majority of candidates fall into one of two categories, high grades and low SATs or high SATs and low grades. *
While no doubt this is true, the "vast majority" does not mean "all." And while I would agree one should not count on being an "exception" to the rule, exceptions do exist. </p></li>
<li><p>And last- I stand corrected. I will ammend to say that while some NAPs and founation candidates **MAY **be asked/required to retake SATs, some candidates **WILL NOT.* I will leave it to anyone needing more information to ask USNA69 for an explaination as to why that is. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Will agree to move on.
Me thinks USNA85 is blowing the whistle that the ship has left port! </p>
<p>**Time and tide wait for no man- unless you have a tugboat and a very large purse! * *</p>
<p>mdfromct: Several have chimed in to respond to your posting. Here's my take - It took me 3 tries to get admitted to the Naval Academy. I was a mediocre HS student, but was able to beef up my SATs enough by taking them multiple times (5-6??). I attended JC for a year then was picked up by the Foundation for another year. Won the appointment through the Foundation. So - What I'm saying is that it all depends on how BAD you (not the parent) want it! Best of luck...my prayers are with you as I know what you are going through. I have a 17 year old who is beginning the admission process now - Can't say I'm looking forward to it as a parent.</p>