wpcadet.com

<p>TacticalNuke and M4M: </p>

<p>Affirmitive action, quotas, and politics are a HUGE part of admissions, and you are completely blind if you choose to ignore that. How do you think the academies account for exactly 17 percent female enrollment every year? Through a specific system of quotas that they are required to fill.</p>

<p>Here at NMMI there are probably 15 preps from each of the big 3 academies (USAFA, USMA, and USNA) and out of each group every single member except one is a white male. Don't tell me this is a result of someone being more qualified than them. In some cases this may be true, but what it is really going on here is a failing of the system.</p>

<p>Not that prepping isnt beneficial, I'm just saying. Most people I know have a love/hate relationship with their prep year. </p>

<p>Mostly hate, if you're in rosHell</p>

<p>I'm not going to talk about what I think of "Affirmative Action" and "Equal Opportunity". Let's just say my thoughts aren't exactly PC.</p>

<p>However, quotas aside, if you're more qualified than the other guy, you're going to get in. Hands down, that's how it works.</p>

<p>Like I said, there's no point complaining about the things you can't control, so just deal with what you can. Make as strong an admission file as possible, and go for it. If you have to prep, there's no shame in that, just shows you're that much more dedicated.</p>

<p>"Admissions personnel don't play darts with qualified names, they objectively and quantitatively analyze each applicant against all others. Certain years will be more competitive than others for appointments, and certain areas for nominations."</p>

<p>Yes you are right there, but then the question is how do they decide who gets a civil prep slot? Out of the hundreds on the waiting list, how do they pick? Just maybe it is kids who are not deficient to the academy in any areas but they are in a very competitive district and miss getting that congressman's nomination by a few points. Their score may exceed others in the U.S. but not within their district, so the nomination goes to someone else. It is a numbers game but just because someone beats you by a few points does not mean you are "deficient". </p>

<p>Here is a direct quote from the letter my son received from his admissions officer: “Thanks for your continued interest in the USMA and the West Point Preparatory Scholarship Program (Civil Prep). Accordingly, you are 1 of the initial 8 candidates from across 11 U.S. states that I have selected to submit for our Civil Prep program, should you not receive an appointment this year for the Class of 2010.”</p>

<p>Hmmm…only 8 out of 11 states, doesn’t sound like they are picking people who are deficient to the academy's standards. </p>

<p>By the way, I recognize that you are entitled to your opinion but so are the rest of us.</p>

<p>Once again you didn't read my whole post.</p>

<p>Like I said, acceptance standards in one state may be lower than another, and you can't change that. Fact is, for your state area, if you're more qualified than x number of people, you'll get in. To blame not getting accepted on "being in a bad state" is a poor excuse and placing the blame in the wrong direction. The process is meant to admit a certain number of people from each district and state to each academy every year. It's not meant to admit only WA students, or VA students, even if their scores beat the rest.</p>

<p>The system operates in a specific way. That is not going to change.</p>

<p>To address your quote from that letter, it says "1 of 8 initial candidates from across 11 states". Unless 3 candidates live 2 states, the math isn't working out for me. Also, notice the "initial candidates" portion. There are going to be preppies from every state.</p>

<p>What do you say you stop building straw men and start reading what I write?</p>

<p>The fact that they have female and minority quotas does not mean that the people who fill those spots are not qualified and competitive candidates. I'd just like to point out how irritating it is to hear from ignorant people that the only reason I got in is because I was female. My SATs and leadership are WELL above average and I'm quite certainly not the only female that this is the case for. There are quotas, but as TacticalNuke said, they're not going to fill those quotas with unqualified people. It is insulting that you suggest the only reason some females receive appointments or nominations is because of their gender.</p>

<p>I am pretty sure there is no need to do math. The 'from 11 states' is referring to 8 candidates coming from the Northwest US...correct me if i am wrong WAmom.</p>

<p>I am also a girl, so calm down BU09WP10. I didn't say the gender is the only reason girls get into academies. But take a look around at your female classmates. Would some of them have recieved appointments if they were male? Or were they competetive in the pool of female candidates?</p>

<p>Last year, Air Force Civil Prep boasted exactly 0 female preps. This was right on the heels of scandal regarding their attitude towards female cadets. All qualified girls were accepted. Go ahead and tell me this isnt politcs, go ahead and say its a coincidence. But you'll be wrong!</p>

<p>(Shogun decides to keep his mouth shut)</p>

<p>naaaaaaaaa......</p>

<p>From the Class of 2009 profile</p>

<p>57% of women who were found academically and physically qualified were offered appontments.</p>

<p>57% of men who were found academically and physically qualified were offered appointments.</p>

<p>Doesn't seem like women were being accepted at a rate higher than men does it?</p>

<p>When you get to West Point look around at your fellow female cadets. Learn from the ones that are doing better than you, and help the ones who are not. I guarantee there will be some of each.</p>

<p>Quantitative data: 1. Qualitative assumptions: 0.</p>

<p>lc06 - you are correct. The quote refers to an 11 state area in the West/Northwest US that is covered by Maj. Houston. </p>

<p>Regarding the "initial candidates" part of the quote, yes, there may be more than 8 eventually, but that still does not answer my question about how these people are picked. They don't go and pick people they feel are deficient, these are people whose whole candidate scores may or may not get them in depending upon how many LOA holders decline their offer of admission. That tells me they are not deficient in any way, it just means that admissions wants to make sure they get these candidates into WP one way or another. Which means they do their time at a prep school and get in next year.</p>

<p>I do not think I live in a "bad state" it is just the opposite, we live in a state/district that has too many excellent candidates and so some do not get an offer of appointment. I am not blaming the system, it is what it is.</p>

<p>I have read your previous posts and my big issue is with things such as this:
“There's nothing wrong with prep-school, but it's for people who are, in general, deficient in some area (usually academically) but qualified in all others.”
It smacks of an "I'm better than they are" attitude.</p>

<p>Once again...I am entitled to my opinion so if you don’t like what I have to say you can quit reading it.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how many more times you're going to say that you're entitled to your own opinion. As far as I can tell, we're having a discussion here, and it appears you're the only one who feels their opinion is somehow in jeopardy.</p>

<p>Nuke, I like your thoughts about not placing blame. Ignoring the "political aspects" of who gets in, quotas and whatnot (call me naive), I'm just saying that it isn't always academics that gets a kid a prep slot and not a direct appointment. It might very well be something else that made them a sliver less competitive than the next guy/girl. Bottom line is, the academy wants them and is actally subsiding 5 years for them instead of four. Pretty good deal.</p>

<p>It's not always academics, that's for sure. Generally though, from what I've seen and heard, it's academics. The prep schools are designed to prepare the candidate academically.</p>

<p>TacticalNuke, the official prep school, yes, is there for the most part for academics. That is because the vast majority of their cadet candidates are athletes, minorities, or prior service cadets who've been out of school for long periods. You, however, do not understand the civil prep scholarships. These cadets score ABOVE many of their fellow admitted candidates do on the admissions eval, but due to certain 'intangible' elements, such as gender, race, and potential at athletics, do not get the nod over them. You are right, there are no unqualified candidates, but you really underestimate the power of these other factors.</p>

<p>I don't know about West Point Prep school, but I read that the AFA prep school (NOT CIVIL PREP) is typically used for athletes that MAY need a little more academic preparation. Could be similar.</p>

<p>i got a prep school scholarship and a waiting list slot because i didnt get throught with dodmerb until late march...</p>

<p>While gender and race are factors, and that's a shame, being athletically "up to par" is part of the "whole man" concept and should be used for admissions criteria. After all, this isn't MIT.</p>

<p>Lord, I must've been distracted by Yankees-Redsox with my last post. Spell much? </p>

<p>Folks who are at WP....Does anybody know or care if somebody is from MAPS, Civil Prep, Prior enlisted, HS, prior college/ROTC after the first week or so? Surely at some point it's just all "cadets".</p>

<p>I know I won't care. However, you'll be able to learn more from the preps, ROTC and prior enlisted, at least in regards to military stuff.</p>

<p>I'm not going to make it obvious that I was in college for 2 years, although I may look older. I think it's best to just blend in, as nobody is that different, and nobody cares what you did before you get there.</p>

<p>You won't look older. You'll all look exactly the same, trust me. I can't tell who is 19 and who is 23.</p>