Quote:
|
It's not much of a secret that there has been a relaxing of the standards to allow Athletes, minorities etc... into the academies. But really- SO WHAT? The standard such as it is (and the reality is that there is no standard but there is a norm that most Mids/Cadets fall into for SAT performance etc) is an arbitrary number to winnow the field down to a reasonable number. But is the academic prowess of an 18-21year old much of a measurement of whether someone will be "the best damn officers the Navy can get its hands on?" No I don't believe it is. Correlating admissions criteria to success is pretty tenuous
|
So what??? Standards are compromised and the response is "so what?" To use Admissions standards alone to determine whether or not an applicant will be successful is, as you put it, "tenuous" at best. However when using admissions standards across a wide spectrum, say for instance, an entire class there would be some limited correlation to success. For example, there are two Naval Academy classes. One is a random cross section of the American public, while the other is selected based on their academic record, club/sport involvement, personal interviews, and demonstrated leadership ability/potential. Which one would you put your money on?
Quote:
|
that's the point- the relentless drive to quantify the "best" by some arbitrary academic exercise like SAT's or Class Rank just doesn't make sense and if you applied the standard that this academic wants you to - you would have excluded some of the great leaders of the past. It's the folks who are defining quality and standards as "must have high 600's or better on all SAT's and a 3.99 GPA while taking at least 5 AP courses" who are using the wrong measurements for success of the Academy.
|
There are many examples of outstanding and high ranking officers that were not ranked high in their respective classes. None of the three McCain's were ranked above the bottom. Patton and Grant have also been used as examples. Hell, the youngest general in history, Custer, was ranked dead last in his class (there is even a story about him breaking into his prof's house the night before an exam to steal a copy of the test). But if we are going to use the example of a few who gained success from the bottom of their class, then what about all those great leaders who never were because someone less qualified was admitted over them?
Quote:
|
Each academy has 170 slots available each year for enlisted folks. They are admitted under different standards than high school students. Where is the out cry?
|
What do black, white, red, brown, and green high school students have in common? They are all high school students of course. Prior enlisted however, are a different breed They bring to the table things that no high schooler could even recognize. They offer not only their fleet experience, but also the perspective of being an enlisted sailor to the incoming plebe class. They have already demonstrated to the Navy their abilities, and depending on their academic pedigree, the Navy will invest in them further by either sending them straight to the incoming class, or to Naps for a year of polishing.
Quote:
|
How then does USNA have such a remarkably high graduation rate? The majority of appointments are made within the confines of a Congressional Nomination - which admissions has no control over.
|
The true question is why isn't it higher? As Prof. Fleming points out in his article, attrition rates are higher among minorities.
Quote:
|
Why does a body of officers need to reflect the ethnicity of the enlisted? My personal belief and answer is role models.
|
This is a very convincing argument. For example, a young black sailor who maybe never had any advantage in life, who thinks he can never rise above E-3 sees his new Div-O fresh from the Naval Academy with shiny new ensign bars who looks like him. He may be more likely to identify with that officer and believe that maybe if he works hard that he might become an officer too. I just wish we could increase diversity without compromising standards.