Alternate Arithmetic

Colleges & Universities United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA)
1

<p>The statistical analysis side of my brain is working overtime trying to calculate the chance of a candidate in the alternate pool receiving a nomination. Based on information gleaned from online forums and the Academy’s own communications, I make the following assumptions:</p>

<p>1) There are approximately 400 nominations offered. Of course not all are accepted.</p>

<p>2) A minimum of 30% of the nominations are offered to candidates in the alternate pool.</p>

<p>3) The size of the alternate pool is between 200 and 300 candidates.</p>

<p>Doing the arithmetic on the assumptions yields the following:</p>

<p>A) Roughly 280 candidates received Early Decision nominations (70% x 400).</p>

<p>B) Roughly 120 nominations remain to be offered to the alternate candidates (400 - 280)</p>

<p>C) 250 alternate candidates are competing, all else being equal, for roughly 120 nominations which means any alternate has approximately a 1 in 2 or 50% chance.</p>

<p>These odds seem overly optimistic to me. I don’t know how many times a particular nomination is offered before it is accepted, meaning how many successful Early Action candidates go elsewhere.</p>

<p>Anyway, what am I missing here? Also, can anyone determine what the odds an alternate is facing now?</p>

<p>Thanks for the input!</p>

2

<p>Well you might be over thinking it a bit.</p>

<p>But you need to know:the alternates are not competing with EACH OTHER rather with all the applicants in the pool. So the odds aren’t actually as good as you might think.</p>

<p>50-50 may be overstating it. But I think candidates on the alternate list stand a decent chance of being admitted. They are usually very strong candidates to begin with and the school knows they have made an extra effort to get all their materials in early.</p>

<p>Since we don’t have exact numbers of applicants etc., we can only speculate at the overall odds. Somewhere between 30-40% is probably more realistic.</p>

3

<p>Hey a person can dream, cant they? hahaha</p>

<p>I liked the commissioner’s percentage better, but Boss thanks for the reality check</p>

4

<p>The US News website shows–</p>

<p>Proportion of freshman enrolled from early action and early decision:
39% </p>

<p>I would believe that closer to 50% or 200 slots were offered EA.</p>

5

<p>What is really remarkable about this discussion is the fact that it is necessary and that it is happening outside the CGA website, which for the most part is quite good in terms of detailing most everything you want to know about the CGA. Given how many years this annual “ritual” has been going on you would think there would be an “Alternate FAQ” to click on so candidates that have earned that status through a good application, (and yes maybe not good enough to make EA selection) could gain some understanding from CGA admissions personnel rather than having to rely on speculative assumptions. I also believe it would be in the CGA’s best interest, as it would cut down on phone calls to admissions personnel that I’m sure they get hit with right about now, and also help encourage applicants to hang in there. </p>

<p>I think everyone understands that there are many variables and percentages will change somewhat from year to year; the main point that a CGA FAQ could address is the process, so each candidate understands what they facing as they try and make a very important decision about their college choices and follow up actions. </p>

<p>The Alternate letter states that “typically” as much as 30% of the incoming class is selected from the Alternate pool. It does not say 30% of the total number of nominations offered, are allocated to the Alternate Pool. (30% of ~275-300 vs. 30% of 400). I don’t know this for a fact, but I would be willing to bet given individuals selected for EA have the most choices; other service academies, Ivy League schools, etc. the CGA is left with a lower yield in terms of the number of EA applicants that accept appointments compared to Alternates. </p>

<p>The good news, and this is based on comments from CGA admissions personnel, is that the Alternate pool is not as big as some have represented, which if you think about it, does make sense. If the CGA will only need another 100 cadets to fill the ranks after EA why would you need 300 Alternates? Even if you expected only half the Alternates to accept an appointment, and I would expect the historical percentages they would base their decisions on are much higher than that, you would only need to bank 200 Alternates to cover your requirements. Beyond that; the more kids they put in the Alternate pool the more kids they will have to re-review, so why not just set the bar a little higher and limit the amount of reevaluations you need to do? </p>

<p>Going back to the “what are my chances” question that is the basis for this thread; I think the pool size AND the number of Alternates typically selected are both smaller than discussed. My guess would be 150 Alternates with at most 75 selected, which ironically brings you back to about a 50/50 shot….</p>

<p>To make matters more confusing we were also told that the number of EA slots offered this year was going to be increased in an effort to increase their chances and getting some of the best candidates on board early, or at least give them the chance to take a hard look at the CGA before they commit to other EA applications from other service academies/colleges. I can tell you first hand they really pushed the EA process and strongly encouraged seniors to go for it and not wait. If their EA yield stays the same, and they offered more appointments, then the number of slots left for Alternates should be less. Once again, I don’t think that changes your chances, I think it just means the size of the Alternate pool is impacted. It makes no sense to decrease your potential requirements from the Alternate pool and maintain the same pool size. </p>

<p>The other comment that was made to us related to the selection of appointees from the Alternate pool. Alternates are not ranked; EA candidates that don’t earn an appointment but are deemed worthy of Alternate status along with applicants that apply after EA and again meet qualifications are added to the pool. Once the application deadline passes, (Feb/March) the review board reviews the pool for additional appointments and makes them as needed to fill the ranks. We were also told an Alternate could submit additional information; new SAT scores, grades etc that could impact their status and gain another look by the review board, potentially earning an appointment before the final review of the alternate pool. This second look does not put their alternate status at risk in any way, if the information they provide is still not enough to put them over the top, they would return to the alternate pool for a last look with everyone else. </p>

<p>Good Luck to all.</p>

6

<p>rjrzoom57, you make WAY too much sense. Hopefully someone at the CGA read your proposal for an Alternate FAQ and will take some of the mystery out of this process.</p>

<p>Thanks for your analysis and high quality contribution to this discussion thread!</p>

7

<p>I dug out the letter sent to Alternates by Captain Susan D. Bibeau. She wrote, “Traditionally over 30% of the appointments come from the “Alternate Pool” each year…”</p>

<p>I hate to parse words, but does “appointments” mean offers of appointment or accepted appointments? If we knew how many applicants were in the Alternate Pool, then we could calculate odds.</p>

<p>I interpret Captain Bibeau’s words to mean that “over 30%” of the appointments are being contested by the Alternates; those applicants who applied after the Early Action deadline are competing for something other than 30%. </p>

<p>As rjrzoom57 wrote above, the CGA could provide the answers. Since we are talking about odds, I am betting that they won’t because information is power and who likes to relinquish any of their power? :-)</p>

8

<p>“I would believe that closer to 50% or 200 slots were offered EA.”–afa81</p>

<p>According to the reliably-sourced number Bossf51 posted today, your guess is right on the money. Congratulations!</p>

<p>Going back and adjusting the original calculations at the top of this thread:</p>

<p>400 total nominations assumed
200 EA nominations granted
200 nominations left for everyone else
250 total alternates assumed
? competitive non-alternates</p>

<p>Even if there are 150 competitive non-alternates added to the 250 alternates, then 400 applicants are competing for 200 nominations. Still a 50% chance. Not bad.</p>

9

<p>122 Full Appointments (applicant needs to Accept or Decline by 1 May)
84 Conditional Appointments (applicant may need to complete a medical examination, physical fitness examination, etc)
162 Alternates (the applicant may still receive a full appointment)
107 Non-Principals (the applicant would need to submit better SAT scores and fall semester grades to become more competitive before their file will be reviewed again)</p>

<p><a href=“http://admissions.uscga.edu/partners/news_detail.asp?NewsId=10[/url]”>http://admissions.uscga.edu/partners/news_detail.asp?NewsId=10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>From hhsxc on another site</p>

10

<p>afa81, </p>

<p>Thank you for coming up with that great link/information, posted by the CGA no less, I would encourage you to post it on the CGA site as well, I’m sure there are a lot of Alternates that would appreciate reading it. </p>

<p>RJR</p>

11

<p>I brought over from another site, it was posted by hhsxc.</p>

<p>Figured if CGA wanted it there it would be there already on their BB site.</p>

12

<p>Posted about Class of 2008
 399 appointments offered
 279 Cadets sworn in
 Yield range 279/399 = 70% </p>

<p>US-News posting
 Posted proportion of freshman enrolled from early action: 39% </p>

<p>From College Board posting
 Number of early action applications received: 581
 Number admitted under early action plan: 172
 Number enrolled under early action plan: 121
EA appointments accepted vs. offered gives us 121/172 = ~70% yield</p>

<p>Data we have from the CGA posting: </p>

<p> 122 Full Appointments
 84 Conditional Appointments
 162 Alternates
 107 Non-Principals </p>

<p>Calculated EA percentage versus total slots: .39 x 279 = 109
From above CGA posting EA was offered to 122 + 84 = 206
If the EA yield is the same as the total applicant yield we should have 206 x .70 = 144. We don’t.<br>
Question: Why doesn’t the 144 match up to the 109 figure? EA Yield is more like 53% </p>

<p>If we go back and look at what the 39% is based on and this time recalculate EA yield against total appointments offered instead of cadets enrolled you have you get .39 x 399 = 156 instead of .39 x 279 = 109. The 156 figure is pretty close to the predicted 144, especially when you consider the number of assumptions we are making and the potential for mixing enrollment data for more than one year. </p>

<p>The posting from the College Board web site has lower figures but supports the same yield or ratio. We were also told the number of EA slots offered this year was going to be higher and sure enough the 206 they offered is more than the 172 cited for a past class. </p>

<p>The predicted remaining slots from overall EA yield (total # of slots offered compared to total accepted) ~275 – 144 = about 131 slots</p>

<p>We’ve been told; “over 30% of incoming class is drawn from Alternate pool” If “over 30%” is just a little over you should have about 90 Alternates pulled in. 275 x ~.33 = ~ 91</p>

<p>If we start with 275 slots, allocate about 150 to EA acceptances and pull in about 90 Alternates you have 35 slots left unaccounted for and presumably taken by applicants that missed the EA date. </p>

<p>After a whole lot of assumptions the best thing we can possibly conclude is if you are one of those 162 Alternates it looks as though you have a 50/50 shot. I think that’s a good thing to keep in the back of your mind as you wait this out. The one wild card is enrollment coming from applications received after EA. Without knowing a little more about the admissions process, “how do applicants that miss early action fit into this puzzle” we really can’t draw any compelling conclusions. To bring some closure to this question we really need to know how much the total applicant pool does expand; offered appointments, Alternates etc. I would be really surprised if more than 10-20% comes in after, so I don’t think we’re too far off the mark, but unless someone can come up with more admissions data this is really all just speculation.</p>

13

<p>You must remember there are guys at naps. I thought Boss had said there are 30? I maybe wrong. Boss correct me…</p>

14

<p>Yes that is correct. They need to be included in the 275. For budgetary reasons I don’t see the class being much larger than that.</p>

15

<p>Well we’re getting there as that’s one more piece of the puzzle, so if 150 go to EA with another 30 to NAPS, you’re down to ~95 slots left to spread between Alternates and late applicants. Unfortunately without some historical data on percentages of applicants coming in after EA we really can’t crunch or speculate much further…might have to just wait until May…</p>

16

<p>The next few months are very trying for those in the alternate pool. Considering the appointees have until May 1 (almost 5 months) to accept or decline it is very difficult to know if all EAs will accept. So many apply to a variety of schools and academies that they have to make decisions. Your figures show this as Out of all appointments given not all are accepted. </p>

<p>For those who have not accepted and those who are waiting. Please take into consideration for everyone of you who recieve an appointment there are many who want the same thing. Visit the Academy and learn all you can about it before accepting. I have been to 3 Report In’s and have seen so many drop on the very first day because it is not what they thought it was going to be. For everyone one that DORs there are at least 10 that would have loved to take that spot.</p>

17

<p>Good advice dq. a couple years ago a young woman came to R-day in high heels. By the end of the day she was crying for her mama and needless to say her CGA career was over.
Think long and hard…it’s a “tough slog” in the words of a former military official.</p>

18

<p>“I have been to 3 Report In’s and have seen so many drop on the very first day because it is not what they thought it was going to be.” – dqm54</p>

<p>The ‘fact’ that everyone in the alternate pool is said to be ‘equal’ meaning, I think, that the applicants are unranked is amazing to me. Isn’t a goal of the AIM program to dramatically reduce the number who drop on the very first day?</p>

<p>I would think that the AIM participants, especially those who made favorable impressions on the cadre and faculty, would have a higher standing in the pool because they have a much better idea of what to expect in the first few days than those who without any exposure to military basic training.</p>

<p>Considering the expense involved in processing appointees right up to R-Day and the value of the slot, shouldn’t the Academy admissions folks be doing everything they can to manage risk, right down to assessing risk on each applicant? Does the Academy ever figure out what went wrong with their evaluation process when an appointee drops on the first day?</p>

19

<p>The points you are making, taken alone, are certainly reasonable; considered in the context of who makes it to AIM and who doesn’t and why is where I believe the issue resides. To begin with the CGA can not or has chosen not to accommodate all qualified applicants to AIM, hence the lottery. Should you penalize those kids that can’t make it because of that?
To your point, does attendance at AIM (or the Fall Academy overnight program) matter? I’m sure it does assuming a positive report. How much does it matter? I would guess not a lot in the overall evaluation process. It’s a mixed message, but no different than the one sent regarding an interview. They recommend you have one, which makes a lot of sense, but they also say it really doesn’t count for much because they don’t want to penalize applicants that can’t make it to the Academy.<br>
I’ve also heard some of the same comments that you cite; “Alternates are unranked”, and that may be the case. That statement does not mean that Alternates haven’t been evaluated through a process that produces a quantitative outcome, as in a score applied to each and every Alternate in the pool. It also doesn’t mean that Alternates will never be ranked. At this time there may be no point in ranking Alternates as the admissions process has not closed. Once the process is closed and all direct appointments issued, I have to believe the process for Alternates unfolds with some ranking of all the people in the pool, including those that may have been added to the Alternate pool after early action. In order to fill the remaining slots candidates are pulled off the list starting with the highest ranking Alternate. Please understand that last statement is pure speculation on my part, I just don’t know how else you could get the most qualified candidates on board without resorting to such a process.
To your main point; the CGA should address and hopefully reduce the number of applicants reporting in only to leave in a matter of hours, I certainly agree, especially as the parent of an Alternate. Obviously the ability of a candidate to survive past R-day depends a great deal on the level of effort they put into understanding the CG and CGA as a fit. Have they done their homework and do they understand what they are really applying for? Perhaps the question should be; can the CGA do any more than they are already doing help applicants understand what awaits them?
I do believe they are dealing with a number of issues that makes their job that much tougher; starting with perceptions about the CGA and the mission of the CG compared to say the Navy. Some candidates may not be realistic or really honest with him/herself in terms of their level of preparedness physically and mentally, they may have applied for all the wrong reasons, their dad was in the CG, “it looks like fun”, or they just may not want it bad enough to endure the first few weeks.<br>
Assuming they got the same message we did, no one ever minced words, we repeatedly heard “come prepared for what will be at times a brutal summer”. “Show up in shape and be ready to be tested and pushed to your limits” I hope everyone that applies gets that message. We did during the three visits we made along with an interview and my son’s participation in the fall over night program (he missed the AIM lottery). I think you can take from that an applicant benefits from visiting the CGA, ideally for more than just a few hours. From what we’ve seen the CGA is working towards such a goal. Facilitating longer visits for all applicants may go a long way towards reducing early drop outs.</p>

20

<p>I couldn’t agree more with some of the comments on this post. It was sad to see prospective cadets show up on R-Day only to go back home. It is even sadder to see someone report in with their company and pass through the doors onto the deck only to not make it any further than that. Someone once said to be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it; so those waiting to hear about an appointment may want to spend this time thinking about the life of a cadet, a “swab” in particular, and realize that it isn’t just swab summer that is so hard, it is also the whole year as a fourth class. As they say, you’re a swab until you see another swab…translated to mean that you are a fourth class “swab” until that next R-Day when the next class reports. It is a fabulous opportunity, but if your whole heart and mind is not into it 100%, you are never going to make it through that first year and you shouldn’t take a spot from someone else who REALLY wants it and is prepared to endure the stress.</p>