Service Academies should not be ranked with LACs

[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.

Well said!

[Anonymous]

When you realize that test scores don’t mean anything about the student they are receiving …you’ll figure it out.

[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!

You could swap out “Naval Academy” for any WASP and it would still be true, so that’s not a distinguishing feature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[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!

“Less-well qualified” for what? The admission process is totally different at the academies. It isn’t all about a test score. What are you stating are minimum requirements to apply. That means nothing. Do Ivies even have minimums? I would venture to say an academy student/graduate is far better qualified than any student out of an Ivy. Not only are the academic standards high, but they have to be far more disciplined, work harder, maintain a high fitness started throughout, and hardly get any time off. Oh, and they have to do it all unmedicated and without help from Mom. This is why companies love service academy graduates. They know they have a high work ethic and are capable of multitasking, showing up on time, and actually putting in hard work.

[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!

“Less-well qualified” for what? The admission process is totally different at the academies. It isn’t all about a test score. What are you stating are minimum requirements to apply. That means nothing. Do Ivies even have minimums? I would venture to say an academy student/graduate is far better qualified than any student out of an Ivy. Not only are the academic standards high, but they have to be far more disciplined, work harder, maintain a high fitness started throughout, and hardly get any time off. Oh, and they have to do it all unmedicated and without help from Mom. This is why companies love service academy graduates. They know they have a high work ethic and are capable of multitasking, showing up on time, and actually putting in hard work.

Quit posting the same thing over and over. We know that service academy admits are smart and could physically run circles around most college admits. However, the latter has nothing to do with traditional college admissions and only underlines why these schools should be listed separately. You now seem to think that people are questioning the character of academy applicants; they’re not. Chill out.

[Anonymous]

Hi, OP.

Parent of both academy cadet and LAC student here who went to LAC myself so have experience with both.

While I agree that academies are very different experiences than LAC, not sure why you choose SAT scores as your basis for saying they shouldn't be ranked in the same USNWR category . I think that is why you got the pushback that you seem surprised by.

There are many other good reasons to support your argument that academies don't belong in LAC category. The 47 month academy experience and the daily responsibilities (academic, physical, leadership, military training) at academy are completely different. As are the admission requirements.

To be fair to you, I am reflexively defensive when I see the posts about average SAT scores for academies - my cadet went to TJ and had great scores - but the academies also absolutely openly practice affirmative action (at least until ongoing litigation gets to SCOTUS I guess), need kids from every single state in the country, and want a percentage of the class to come from current enlisted Soldiers. So SAT scores will vary widely, unlike most LAC where everyone is in the same score bands.

Academies not everyone's cup of tea for sure. But I agree with previous posters that your original post felt a lot more like you were asserting "academies have low SAT scores and are therefore less prestigious" than saying it would be more useful for potential applicants to not mix apples and oranges.

[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!

“Less-well qualified” for what? The admission process is totally different at the academies. It isn’t all about a test score. What are you stating are minimum requirements to apply. That means nothing. Do Ivies even have minimums? I would venture to say an academy student/graduate is far better qualified than any student out of an Ivy. Not only are the academic standards high, but they have to be far more disciplined, work harder, maintain a high fitness started throughout, and hardly get any time off. Oh, and they have to do it all unmedicated and without help from Mom. This is why companies love service academy graduates. They know they have a high work ethic and are capable of multitasking, showing up on time, and actually putting in hard work.

Quit posting the same thing over and over. We know that service academy admits are smart and could physically run circles around most college admits. However, the latter has nothing to do with traditional college admissions and only underlines why these schools should be listed separately. You now seem to think that people are questioning the character of academy applicants; they’re not. Chill out.

Firs post to this thread… clearly you are bothered by multiple opinions that disagree with yours.

Sure it does. Every single highly competitive college wants that whole-package well-rounded student. No one wants a perfect test taking student robot. The academies are looking beyond a test score, the factors being considered and information they have on each applicant are far more detailed that a common app submission.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure why everyone is attacking OP. She's not wrong about the lower academic prowess compared to SLACs. Like a PP said, this is a for a variety of reasons (open AA, admission of enlisted servicemembers, and a more holistic focus than SLACs), but the fact remains, there's a discrepancy in academic achievement. I agree that SLACs and service academies are strange ranking bedfellows.

- service academy parent, military spouse, and military brat

[Anonymous]

As an Academy grad with a graduate degree from Stanford I am amused by this thread. Imagine my Academy grad kids would be also, one went to Harvard Kennedy upon graduation and is flying F 22's and the other is an Astronautical Engineer in the Space Force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an Academy grad with a graduate degree from Stanford I am amused by this thread. Imagine my Academy grad kids would be also, one went to Harvard Kennedy upon graduation and is flying F 22's and the other is an Astronautical Engineer in the Space Force.

For all your and your kid’s academic achievements, you still have problems with reading comprehension.

The stats are what the stats are, and in this case academies have a SAT 25/75 of 1200/1400 while the schools they’re ranked amongst have a range of 1475/1550. Maybe you were an academic rockstar. Great! It still doesn’t disprove the data, which clearly shows that most academy admits are not testing at the level of the schools they rank amongst. Period.

Further, these schools are in no way similar to other SLACs, except that they have an education component. And no, no one is questioning the character, the conditioning, the discipline, or any other aspect of cadets.

It is what it is, and USNWR should remove academies from the current rankings. Rant over!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an Academy grad with a graduate degree from Stanford I am amused by this thread. Imagine my Academy grad kids would be also, one went to Harvard Kennedy upon graduation and is flying F 22's and the other is an Astronautical Engineer in the Space Force.

All that and you still don't know enough statistics to properly rack and stack SAT scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Likely because a certain percentage of each class is prior enlisted. There's a huge socioeconomic difference between a candidate just out of high school and one who couldn't afford college without enlisting first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an Academy grad with a graduate degree from Stanford I am amused by this thread. Imagine my Academy grad kids would be also, one went to Harvard Kennedy upon graduation and is flying F 22's and the other is an Astronautical Engineer in the Space Force.

For all your and your kid’s academic achievements, you still have problems with reading comprehension.

The stats are what the stats are, and in this case academies have a SAT 25/75 of 1200/1400 while the schools they’re ranked amongst have a range of 1475/1550. Maybe you were an academic rockstar. Great! It still doesn’t disprove the data, which clearly shows that most academy admits are not testing at the level of the schools they rank amongst. Period.

Further, these schools are in no way similar to other SLACs, except that they have an education component. And no, no one is questioning the character, the conditioning, the discipline, or any other aspect of cadets.

It is what it is, and USNWR should remove academies from the current rankings. Rant over!

Once again, highly amused. You obviously have no clue. Yet you keep yammering on. Go forth and prosthelitize!

[Anonymous]

OP, I feel you. Last week I was telling a colleague that my kid went to Bowdoin even though my colleague didn’t ask. I had to suffer not only the slight of them having never heard of such an elite school, but I had to explain to my colleague that it was ranked #9 by USNWR, and that it was only that low because of the grubby service academies with their SAT dummies. It should be #6!

I explained all of this in detail but after 25 minutes my colleague suddenly said she forgot to feed her cat and walked off. She seems to have been avoiding me ever since, I bet she wouldn’t if only my kid had gotten into a WASP!