<p>mvl … while your points are well taken and appreciated, unfortunately, the allegation of diversity of qualifications because of divesity of candidate skin color, race, ethnicity and gender still remain unknown. Little is revealed to the polity by collectively good SATs, ranks, ECAs as to the diversity of those items within those categories of USNA applicants that the USNA itself has identified. Great pride is taken on one hand with much touting and pursuit of diversity. No touting on the other of how each category does on the presumably objective measures. The most common thread is athletics. Nearly all have participated and lettered regardless of the degree of diversity.</p>
<p>But what is not known is how many otherwise potentially qualified (or even dare one say, “more qualified”) candidates are rejected because they lack “diversity”, and how that group would alter the stats that are presumably desired and reported. </p>
<p>The observer simply doesn’t know, and is left to speculate. And does. Obviously, reading this thread. The implication from both “sides” appears to suggest that SATs, ranks, gpas would be collectively higher, there might be more class officers and student body prexies, CFAs would be more stellar, etc. IF there were more “awb’s”. Who knows? The Navy might, but probably not. That would be politically dangerous information that I trust none wants to know or risk escaping to the media or public.</p>
<p>So it would seem the measures the Acad reports aside from the diversity aspects, i.e. ranks, grades, courses, ECAs, even athletics, test scores, CFAs, etc. would seemingly be measured differently for different groups, and that frustrates many. It’s like trying to learn what outta-staters need on their SATs vs. kids from Roanoke or Mouth of Wilson need to go to UVA or Chapel Hill. But everyone knows they’re drastically different.</p>
<p>And USNA reality is just that, too. The real problem is trying to make the argument aside from PC that diversity is as important, or moreso, than traditional measures identified by the of academic achievement and potential and leadership when it comes to training-up the “best” officers for leading the USN. </p>
<p>Can’t impact this so why fret. Do your best recognizing it is not, nor will it be in the forseeable future, a fair-or-level playing field re: the measures for successful appointment. Different rules apply. Go for it, and have a viable plan B, C. And that goes for awb’s, abg’s, Hawaiian kids, etc.</p>
<p>p.s. broke my own rule in this rambling. brief.</p>