Service Academies should not be ranked with LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. No, I haven’t previously posted about service academies, and, yes, I respect their graduates.

My thoughts were more around the weirdness of ranking them amongst non-military LACs for all the reasons I posted earlier. Again, while the schools may be fine, their students objectively are less brainy than those at the other schools they’re ranked amongst. For a ranking, that’s weird. But, yes, I understand that USNWR can do whatever they want to do, even if it’s not helpful for someone choosing a college.

You must not know service academy grads if you think they are less brainy. Time to educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

For reasons none of us will ever understand, you seem quite upset that people find service academies prestigious.

I am the IB teacher who posted above. Yes, I’ve seen 6-7 students in recent years choose an academy over top universities.

I’m sorry that somehow doesn’t match your perception of academies as “lesser than”.

I will remain impressed by ALL students who attend academies, even if (gasp) their SAT score is around 1400. The level of maturity and discipline required far surpasses what is expected at a regular university. They are the total package, and there’s no denying that.

[Anonymous]

^
I don’t think it’s that. It’s that we don’t find her old money east coast elite lacs more prestigious. Service academies are there for upward mobility (her words) for middle class and lower middle class kids. Not for her kids from elite liberal rich white east coast families! Why can’t we all recognize that strathmore etc, and the families that send kids there, are in a higher class than the naval academy and the families that send their kids there! What the hell is wrong with all of us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^
I don’t think it’s that. It’s that we don’t find her old money east coast elite lacs more prestigious. Service academies are there for upward mobility (her words) for middle class and lower middle class kids. Not for her kids from elite liberal rich white east coast families! Why can’t we all recognize that strathmore etc, and the families that send kids there, are in a higher class than the naval academy and the families that send their kids there! What the hell is wrong with all of us!

This makes sense. I can’t think of a better reason for OP’s question, at least.

I don’t spend any time wondering where my coworkers or friends went to college. I guess if your world is wrapped up in prestige, these things matter more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

I agree that it's odd to include the academies with the other liberal arts colleges on a ranking list. There probably aren't a lot of students trying to decide between Oberlin and West Point or Vassar and Annapolis. But nothing is perfect. On another posting, some are perplexed that tiny CalTech with its 1000 students is on the same university list as its neighbor UCLA with its 45,000 students. But I think we can all deduce that lists, rankings, and classifications are always going to be a trifle imperfect.

But to insinuate that West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy students are somehow lesser than your precious liberal arts students - as you clearly do - displays a remarkable amount of pure ignorance. The academies, of course, are selecting individuals for their aptitude as officers in the U.S. military. Whether someone scores a 1400 or a 1500 on the SAT is one factor among many. In addition to grades and the rigor of their classes, what matters is leadership, fitness, a sense of community, discipline, and a willingness to serve. Your average Colby or Swarthmore applicant isn't passing the Candidate Fitness Assessment or has the presence and grit to receive a Congressional Nomination from their state's U.S. Senators. Do you really think, in the absence of all other considerations, that someone with a tutor that eventually superscores to a 1540 is somehow better and more impressive that an individual that has all the additional qualities and skills necessary for an appointment to one of the academies?

That's a very narrow way of judging the value of someone.

Obviously, the military academies and liberal arts colleges are different educational experiences. And they attract different kinds of applicants. But anyone that has become familiar with the graduates of the U.S. military academies certainly do not regard them as lesser or dumber than those that went to more traditional liberal arts schools. You ought to try to meet some. And you'll meet quite a few in the graduate programs at Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

I agree that it's odd to include the academies with the other liberal arts colleges on a ranking list. There probably aren't a lot of students trying to decide between Oberlin and West Point or Vassar and Annapolis. But nothing is perfect. On another posting, some are perplexed that tiny CalTech with its 1000 students is on the same university list as its neighbor UCLA with its 45,000 students. But I think we can all deduce that lists, rankings, and classifications are always going to be a trifle imperfect.

But to insinuate that West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy students are somehow lesser than your precious liberal arts students - as you clearly do - displays a remarkable amount of pure ignorance. The academies, of course, are selecting individuals for their aptitude as officers in the U.S. military. Whether someone scores a 1400 or a 1500 on the SAT is one factor among many. In addition to grades and the rigor of their classes, what matters is leadership, fitness, a sense of community, discipline, and a willingness to serve. Your average Colby or Swarthmore applicant isn't passing the Candidate Fitness Assessment or has the presence and grit to receive a Congressional Nomination from their state's U.S. Senators. Do you really think, in the absence of all other considerations, that someone with a tutor that eventually superscores to a 1540 is somehow better and more impressive that an individual that has all the additional qualities and skills necessary for an appointment to one of the academies?

That's a very narrow way of judging the value of someone.

Obviously, the military academies and liberal arts colleges are different educational experiences. And they attract different kinds of applicants. But anyone that has become familiar with the graduates of the U.S. military academies certainly do not regard them as lesser or dumber than those that went to more traditional liberal arts schools. You ought to try to meet some. And you'll meet quite a few in the graduate programs at Harvard.

The bolded is all that’s relevant to the thread. We all know that academy grads are great, but that’s not OP’s point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

I agree that it's odd to include the academies with the other liberal arts colleges on a ranking list. There probably aren't a lot of students trying to decide between Oberlin and West Point or Vassar and Annapolis. But nothing is perfect. On another posting, some are perplexed that tiny CalTech with its 1000 students is on the same university list as its neighbor UCLA with its 45,000 students. But I think we can all deduce that lists, rankings, and classifications are always going to be a trifle imperfect.

But to insinuate that West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy students are somehow lesser than your precious liberal arts students - as you clearly do - displays a remarkable amount of pure ignorance. The academies, of course, are selecting individuals for their aptitude as officers in the U.S. military. Whether someone scores a 1400 or a 1500 on the SAT is one factor among many. In addition to grades and the rigor of their classes, what matters is leadership, fitness, a sense of community, discipline, and a willingness to serve. Your average Colby or Swarthmore applicant isn't passing the Candidate Fitness Assessment or has the presence and grit to receive a Congressional Nomination from their state's U.S. Senators. Do you really think, in the absence of all other considerations, that someone with a tutor that eventually superscores to a 1540 is somehow better and more impressive that an individual that has all the additional qualities and skills necessary for an appointment to one of the academies?

That's a very narrow way of judging the value of someone.

Obviously, the military academies and liberal arts colleges are different educational experiences. And they attract different kinds of applicants. But anyone that has become familiar with the graduates of the U.S. military academies certainly do not regard them as lesser or dumber than those that went to more traditional liberal arts schools. You ought to try to meet some. And you'll meet quite a few in the graduate programs at Harvard.

The bolded is all that’s relevant to the thread. We all know that academy grads are great, but that’s not OP’s point.

Since OP has questioned academy grad’s intellect at least twice on this thread, I don’t think we can say “we all know that academy grads are great.” I am fairly certain OP wants us to think they aren’t great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

I agree that it's odd to include the academies with the other liberal arts colleges on a ranking list. There probably aren't a lot of students trying to decide between Oberlin and West Point or Vassar and Annapolis. But nothing is perfect. On another posting, some are perplexed that tiny CalTech with its 1000 students is on the same university list as its neighbor UCLA with its 45,000 students. But I think we can all deduce that lists, rankings, and classifications are always going to be a trifle imperfect.

But to insinuate that West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy students are somehow lesser than your precious liberal arts students - as you clearly do - displays a remarkable amount of pure ignorance. The academies, of course, are selecting individuals for their aptitude as officers in the U.S. military. Whether someone scores a 1400 or a 1500 on the SAT is one factor among many. In addition to grades and the rigor of their classes, what matters is leadership, fitness, a sense of community, discipline, and a willingness to serve. Your average Colby or Swarthmore applicant isn't passing the Candidate Fitness Assessment or has the presence and grit to receive a Congressional Nomination from their state's U.S. Senators. Do you really think, in the absence of all other considerations, that someone with a tutor that eventually superscores to a 1540 is somehow better and more impressive that an individual that has all the additional qualities and skills necessary for an appointment to one of the academies?

That's a very narrow way of judging the value of someone.

Obviously, the military academies and liberal arts colleges are different educational experiences. And they attract different kinds of applicants. But anyone that has become familiar with the graduates of the U.S. military academies certainly do not regard them as lesser or dumber than those that went to more traditional liberal arts schools. You ought to try to meet some. And you'll meet quite a few in the graduate programs at Harvard.

The bolded is all that’s relevant to the thread. We all know that academy grads are great, but that’s not OP’s point.

Since OP has questioned academy grad’s intellect at least twice on this thread, I don’t think we can say “we all know that academy grads are great.” I am fairly certain OP wants us to think they aren’t great.

She also indicated they are for the lower classes since they’re great for “upward mobility.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hot take: colleges should not be ranked at all.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Make what you will of rankings. If you think service academies don't belong with SLACs, then recalibrate the list in your head without them.

[Anonymous]

Guys, OP tried to clarify 3 times and each comment was stupider than the previous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

I agree that it's odd to include the academies with the other liberal arts colleges on a ranking list. There probably aren't a lot of students trying to decide between Oberlin and West Point or Vassar and Annapolis. But nothing is perfect. On another posting, some are perplexed that tiny CalTech with its 1000 students is on the same university list as its neighbor UCLA with its 45,000 students. But I think we can all deduce that lists, rankings, and classifications are always going to be a trifle imperfect.

But to insinuate that West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy students are somehow lesser than your precious liberal arts students - as you clearly do - displays a remarkable amount of pure ignorance. The academies, of course, are selecting individuals for their aptitude as officers in the U.S. military. Whether someone scores a 1400 or a 1500 on the SAT is one factor among many. In addition to grades and the rigor of their classes, what matters is leadership, fitness, a sense of community, discipline, and a willingness to serve. Your average Colby or Swarthmore applicant isn't passing the Candidate Fitness Assessment or has the presence and grit to receive a Congressional Nomination from their state's U.S. Senators. Do you really think, in the absence of all other considerations, that someone with a tutor that eventually superscores to a 1540 is somehow better and more impressive that an individual that has all the additional qualities and skills necessary for an appointment to one of the academies?

That's a very narrow way of judging the value of someone.

Obviously, the military academies and liberal arts colleges are different educational experiences. And they attract different kinds of applicants. But anyone that has become familiar with the graduates of the U.S. military academies certainly do not regard them as lesser or dumber than those that went to more traditional liberal arts schools. You ought to try to meet some. And you'll meet quite a few in the graduate programs at Harvard.

The bolded is all that’s relevant to the thread. We all know that academy grads are great, but that’s not OP’s point.

Since OP has questioned academy grad’s intellect at least twice on this thread, I don’t think we can say “we all know that academy grads are great.” I am fairly certain OP wants us to think they aren’t great.

Jeesh. OP said that academy admits don’t have similar SAT scores to the schools they’re ranked with. If OP’s SAT range for academies is true, they’re right. That doesn’t mean academy students are dumb. You seem hyper-sensitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

I agree that it's odd to include the academies with the other liberal arts colleges on a ranking list. There probably aren't a lot of students trying to decide between Oberlin and West Point or Vassar and Annapolis. But nothing is perfect. On another posting, some are perplexed that tiny CalTech with its 1000 students is on the same university list as its neighbor UCLA with its 45,000 students. But I think we can all deduce that lists, rankings, and classifications are always going to be a trifle imperfect.

But to insinuate that West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy students are somehow lesser than your precious liberal arts students - as you clearly do - displays a remarkable amount of pure ignorance. The academies, of course, are selecting individuals for their aptitude as officers in the U.S. military. Whether someone scores a 1400 or a 1500 on the SAT is one factor among many. In addition to grades and the rigor of their classes, what matters is leadership, fitness, a sense of community, discipline, and a willingness to serve. Your average Colby or Swarthmore applicant isn't passing the Candidate Fitness Assessment or has the presence and grit to receive a Congressional Nomination from their state's U.S. Senators. Do you really think, in the absence of all other considerations, that someone with a tutor that eventually superscores to a 1540 is somehow better and more impressive that an individual that has all the additional qualities and skills necessary for an appointment to one of the academies?

That's a very narrow way of judging the value of someone.

Obviously, the military academies and liberal arts colleges are different educational experiences. And they attract different kinds of applicants. But anyone that has become familiar with the graduates of the U.S. military academies certainly do not regard them as lesser or dumber than those that went to more traditional liberal arts schools. You ought to try to meet some. And you'll meet quite a few in the graduate programs at Harvard.

The bolded is all that’s relevant to the thread. We all know that academy grads are great, but that’s not OP’s point.

Since OP has questioned academy grad’s intellect at least twice on this thread, I don’t think we can say “we all know that academy grads are great.” I am fairly certain OP wants us to think they aren’t great.

She also indicated they are for the lower classes since they’re great for “upward mobility.”

That’s not true. OP indicated that the academies rate well in upward social mobility, which is an aspect of the rankings. OP did not say that the academies are for the lower classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is my final post. Some of you are caught up in some weird defense of the academies while no defense is needed. THEY ARE FINE SCHOOLS! But, while there may be the odd case of a kid turning down Harvard to attend the Naval Academy, that is atypical. While the academy students are smart, the numbers objectively indicate that they are - on average - less well-qualified than their peers ranked next to them.

Another data point: the academies explicitly state that an applicant must be in the top 40% of their class. While I understand that not every applicant is accepted, a student of that achievement level stands no chance of admission to WASP.

DCUM, prattle on!

I agree that it's odd to include the academies with the other liberal arts colleges on a ranking list. There probably aren't a lot of students trying to decide between Oberlin and West Point or Vassar and Annapolis. But nothing is perfect. On another posting, some are perplexed that tiny CalTech with its 1000 students is on the same university list as its neighbor UCLA with its 45,000 students. But I think we can all deduce that lists, rankings, and classifications are always going to be a trifle imperfect.

But to insinuate that West Point, Annapolis and Air Force Academy students are somehow lesser than your precious liberal arts students - as you clearly do - displays a remarkable amount of pure ignorance. The academies, of course, are selecting individuals for their aptitude as officers in the U.S. military. Whether someone scores a 1400 or a 1500 on the SAT is one factor among many. In addition to grades and the rigor of their classes, what matters is leadership, fitness, a sense of community, discipline, and a willingness to serve. Your average Colby or Swarthmore applicant isn't passing the Candidate Fitness Assessment or has the presence and grit to receive a Congressional Nomination from their state's U.S. Senators. Do you really think, in the absence of all other considerations, that someone with a tutor that eventually superscores to a 1540 is somehow better and more impressive that an individual that has all the additional qualities and skills necessary for an appointment to one of the academies?

That's a very narrow way of judging the value of someone.

Obviously, the military academies and liberal arts colleges are different educational experiences. And they attract different kinds of applicants. But anyone that has become familiar with the graduates of the U.S. military academies certainly do not regard them as lesser or dumber than those that went to more traditional liberal arts schools. You ought to try to meet some. And you'll meet quite a few in the graduate programs at Harvard.

The bolded is all that’s relevant to the thread. We all know that academy grads are great, but that’s not OP’s point.

Since OP has questioned academy grad’s intellect at least twice on this thread, I don’t think we can say “we all know that academy grads are great.” I am fairly certain OP wants us to think they aren’t great.

Jeesh. OP said that academy admits don’t have similar SAT scores to the schools they’re ranked with. If OP’s SAT range for academies is true, they’re right. That doesn’t mean academy students are dumb. You seem hyper-sensitive.

Nah. I just object to the OP’s assessment of academy students as “objectively less brainy” (OP’s exact words).

But I am actually in the education field and view the SAT as a poor indicator of intellect. So the OP’s posts above don’t convince me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USNWR ranks service academies amongst national LACs, but this makes no sense given their specialized purpose, the narrow opportunities for application, and their relatively low test scores.

Perhaps, they excel at upward social mobility, but the quality of student - based on test scores - pales in comparison to the schools they’re typically ranked amongst (LAC top 10). For example, most service academies have SAT 25/75 around 1200/1400. That means the top 25% of academy kids are the 25th percentile of the schools they’re ranked amongst. Makes no sense.

Thoughts?

Agree 100%

Remove service academies from the USNWR liberal arts rankings.