<p>Thanks for the reminder- I was hoping they were long forgotten! :eek:</p>
<p>ignoring the facts and trying to disparage the poster will not change the current policy of the academys, lower standards for some segments of the applicants. i said i agree with the policy as there is a lopsided officer corps after years of an old boy network.</p>
<p>You won't go wrong putting either in this situation.</p>
<p>Airforcewings - I think you are not quite getting the fact that even though there are targeted segments of the population - under represented at the Academy - they still have to qualify Academically, Physically and Medically. Those standards are not lowered for their admittance to the Academy. If they are not academically qualified they have the same opportunities as you put it "as the good old boys network" to go to NAPS so that they can be academically successful.</p>
<p>The Academy probably does a better job of offering admissions to students that will actually be able to graduate than most colleges or universities do.</p>
<p>Current ...of course they must qualify ...I believe AFwangs pt is they must qualify to lesser standards. You're modestly delusional if you believe otherwise. And as you learn, the standards are modified accordingly once on campus to fit the segment. Not PC but consistent with reality. The silly scenario comes when attempts to justify it overcome simply recognizing the politics of it all.</p>
<p>Whistlepig maybe what you fail to realize is that there are minimum standards to arrive at the Academy and everyone meets those standards. Yes every once in a while they "adjusted" so that certain individuals make it here i.e. Naps going below 2.0. What I have been told by someone definitely in the loop is the targeted undeserved groups do not have their standards lowered to gain admissions. They may be at the bottom of the criteria but the standards are not lowered for them to be included in the applicant pool</p>
<p>Maybe what you are confused about it recruited athletes - that is another story.</p>
<p>I am certainly not delusional and take offense to being thought as such - after all who is at the Academy? There are exceptions made for every person at the Academy if you want to know the truth. Exceptions are made at Boards every semester, they are made for Academic deficiencies, physical deficiencies, and honor offenses. These exceptions are made for every segment of the population on the yard - women, minorities, good students, athletes and good leaders. Yes people are separated, but most, if not all are given plenty of "opportunity" to succeed. </p>
<p>To diminish anyones appointment to the Academy and claim that they had not earned it or were gotten in through a back door disappoints me especially coming from a parent of a Mid.</p>
<p>CM "gets" it. Discussions such as this are a fool's run. </p>
<p>One erroneous assumption, however: That some who sound as if they are parents of a mid [or even have a connection to the Academy] are, in fact, parents of a current mid. The gateway question you [CM] might want to ask is: What is your connection to the Naval Academy?
The answer to that would put many comments in perspective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
maybe you could try to read it again and concentrate this time?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh I did read it, I actually read it when it was published. I am just not sure what your point is with it.
You obviously have very little knowledge of academy admissions or the mission of service academies.
Contrary to the belief of some on this forum service academy admission is NOT an SAT race. It is about producing Military Officers for the United States of America. Period.</p>
<p>They operate under Congress - your Congressman and mine - who want a broad representation of Americans. The fact is not every high school student has the same advantages. Not all come from the same geographical or socio-economic background. Not every kid can afford hundreds of dollars to take SAT prep classes and to take the SAT's 6 times in order to gain a "qualifying" score.
Additionally, there are numerous kids who have great SAT scores but who are not a good fit to be either a mid/cadet or an Officer.
Kids who have potential to make good officers but who have not had academic advantages are often sent to prep school. If they prove themselves there then they have the ability to handle the academics.</p>
<p>Perhaps Airforcewings you could elaborate specifically on what you found offensive in the article that you posted.</p>
<p>Current, don't be so naive. Of course they meet minimum standards. It's precisely the same as the general education system and its challenges. Lowest common denominator becomes the driving factor. And of course, as you know well, the minimums are variable, by groups. You know that, I'm confident. The more interesting issue is the silliness of assuming that the Academy should somehow reflect the superficial characteristics of the Navy. But that said, it no longer remains a meritocracy. Unless one subdivides.</p>
<p>Sir the only thing that I am naive about is my assumption as to your connection with the Academy. That one I will concede and on that note will move on to other posts.</p>
<p>AFwings: The point of the SAs is to provide the Navy and Marine Corps with well-qualified officers. The powers that be have decided that the officer corps demographics should mimic the demographics of the fleet. Their decision, not yours to make.</p>
<p>Someone else brought up differences in socioeconomic backgrounds. Numerous studies have shown that gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are significant predictors of success on standard tests such as the SAT or ACT. It is pure fact that the median PSAT scores in Massachusetts, for instance, are significantly higher each year than in poorer states such as MS, WVA, or KY. That's why a number of top universities (including Princeton and some other Ivy league schools) are either not using those scores, or are minimizing the weight of those scores as they calculate their equivalent of the "whole person score." Lowering the impact of these scores does not mean letting in incapable people. It means providing a more even playing field.</p>
<p>You don't like it that certain groups may have higher or lower test score ranges be acceptable for admittance. Tough. Life's not fair. So long as every candidate who walks in the door on I-day has the ability to make it through to toss their cover at graduation, and they commit themselves to service, they're good enough.</p>
<p>Since people have questioned posters' ties to USNA, most who have read my posts know that I have a current Plebe daughter. Did she receive any "special favors" to get in? Nope.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One erroneous assumption, however: That some who sound as if they are parents of a mid [or even have a connection to the Academy] are, in fact, parents of a current mid. The gateway question you [CM] might want to ask is: What is your connection to the Naval Academy?
The answer to that would put many comments in perspective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sir the only thing that I am naive about is my assumption as to your connection with the Academy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CurrentMid- once again you hit the nail on the proverbial head.</p>
<p>"Mom of...Oh I did read it, I actually read it when it was published. "</p>
<p>mom, OK fine, then why did you say you didn't understand the article in the first place...to argue???? I only posted it to inform others of the current USMA policy
there was no need to complain about me ;)</p>
<p>TYIA</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am a filipino and grew up in the pacific islands of guam and hawaii.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By the federal definitions, a person who is Filipino is Asian. </p>