<p>Bill-
Im gonna throw your words back at ya…</p>
<p>You complain about bureaucrats…so why add ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy to the CGA admission system, with Congressional Noms? All those do is penalize prospective cadets from highly competitive areas, and give those spots to cadets from less competitive areas. (which in many areas translates into kids who are not as academically qualified or ready for the rigors of a service academy…) Is ensuring geographical (note, I did not say racial/cultural) diversity worth turning away kids who are the most qualified just because they come from a competitive area? </p>
<p>Don’t give the govt. any more power than they already have. Their track record for managing our country’s most important issues is ****-poor. Stay out of CGA please! Let the most qualified rise to the top. 24% URMs this year is progress, up 8% from last year. If I got an 8% raise I’d be happy…so let’s see where CGA goes with this, and if they are able to continue the trend of finding qualified cadets of all races to fill the very competitive (and smaller) class of 2015.</p>
<p>BTW, I am enthusiastically in favor of opportunities being brought to those who may not know about CGA well before High School when it may be too late. What I don’t agree with is taking it to the extreme and using a disproportionate amount of the already scarce recruiting budget (don’t have the numbers, but it would stand to reason that the budget is significantly smaller than Navy, Army, and AF) to target URM for the sole reason that they are URM’s. Plant the seed early in these diverse communities, water them and IF they grow, then GREAT. Keep recruiting those who have potential and ambition for the CGA Scholars program…talk about a great opportunity for ANY kid, of ANY color, race, etc! If, after all these efforts URM’s (including women?) don’t want to attend…well, maybe they just didn’t want to go to CGA? At this point I think CGA can step back and say that they tried…you can’t force someone to serve.</p>
<p>Ok…there ya go. This may not be a PC stance, but it’s how I see it. I enjoy reading the differing views on this board.</p>