Why are the service academies so selective?

[Anonymous]

Yes free and not many seats
job perspective is pretty good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question??

Do you want the leaders of our military to be anything but the brightest and best?

They are not the brightest.
Average SAT only 1300

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question??

Do you want the leaders of our military to be anything but the brightest and best?

They are not the brightest.
Average SAT only 1300

True. They don’t base admission solely on test scores. But they are certainly well rounded in leadership, athletics and academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question??

Do you want the leaders of our military to be anything but the brightest and best?

They are not the brightest.
Average SAT only 1300

True. They don’t base admission solely on test scores. But they are certainly well rounded in leadership, athletics and academics.

?? all the other good schools have the 'holistic' admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny to hear posters suggest that the admit rate is actually higher than advertised because you have to have certain physical requirements as a threshold. Not everybody has those requirements and that’s part of the reason why it’s so selective.

That’s like saying a division 1 athletic scholarship isn’t really that hard to get because you have to be really good at sports to get it.

Strawman argument. The acceptance rates are juiced because they include in the denominator everyone who ever clicked "apply" on the website, regardless of how little of the application they completed before abandoning it.

Right. Because they knew they couldn’t make the cut.

1. I'd bet more kids abandon SA apps because they decide they don't want the lifestyle than because they lose hope they'll be admitted. 2. Even if 100% of abandoned apps were due to the latter, it's still inaccurate to count them as "applications" when calculating the percentage of applicants admitted. Because, you know, they didn't actually apply.

Most probably just don’t want to jump through all the hoops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny to hear posters suggest that the admit rate is actually higher than advertised because you have to have certain physical requirements as a threshold. Not everybody has those requirements and that’s part of the reason why it’s so selective.

That’s like saying a division 1 athletic scholarship isn’t really that hard to get because you have to be really good at sports to get it.

Strawman argument. The acceptance rates are juiced because they include in the denominator everyone who ever clicked "apply" on the website, regardless of how little of the application they completed before abandoning it.

Right. Because they knew they couldn’t make the cut.

1. I'd bet more kids abandon SA apps because they decide they don't want the lifestyle than because they lose hope they'll be admitted. 2. Even if 100% of abandoned apps were due to the latter, it's still inaccurate to count them as "applications" when calculating the percentage of applicants admitted. Because, you know, they didn't actually apply.

Most probably just don’t want to jump through all the hoops.

Most don't want military lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question??

Do you want the leaders of our military to be anything but the brightest and best?

They are not the brightest.
Average SAT only 1300

The SATs are not a very accurate test of intelligence.

Beyond the bias issues which have been clearly established and accepted by academia as a real problem, a whole lot of kids who are very bright don’t get the benefit of interventions and test prep that UMC families can provide.

I personally faltered badly taking the SATs because of zero prep opportunities, test anxiety that I had no means of addressing, and the abuse I was suffering in the home that prevented me focusing on the test and academics in general in H.S.

Because of my low SATs I started college at a community college offshoot of the state university where I went on to earn two bachelors degrees with two concentrations and then a masters degree (very high GRE scores) with a TA position, then a LSAT score in the 98th% and acceptance at five top tier law schools and a JD from one of them. I’ve also since tested Mensa qualifying level IQ.

SATs are a really poor measure of best and brightest. There are plenty of duds in this society who once got a great SAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question??

Do you want the leaders of our military to be anything but the brightest and best?

They are not the brightest.
Average SAT only 1300

CB says "Students that get into United States Air Force Academy have an SAT score between 1320–1470 or an ACT score of 28–33. "

AF says 1200 is a soft minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question??

Do you want the leaders of our military to be anything but the brightest and best?

They are not the brightest.
Average SAT only 1300

The SATs are not a very accurate test of intelligence.

Beyond the bias issues which have been clearly established and accepted by academia as a real problem, a whole lot of kids who are very bright don’t get the benefit of interventions and test prep that UMC families can provide.

I personally faltered badly taking the SATs because of zero prep opportunities, test anxiety that I had no means of addressing, and the abuse I was suffering in the home that prevented me focusing on the test and academics in general in H.S.

Because of my low SATs I started college at a community college offshoot of the state university where I went on to earn two bachelors degrees with two concentrations and then a masters degree (very high GRE scores) with a TA position, then a LSAT score in the 98th% and acceptance at five top tier law schools and a JD from one of them. I’ve also since tested Mensa qualifying level IQ.

SATs are a really poor measure of best and brightest. There are plenty of duds in this society who once got a great SAT score.

You can make up all kinds of excuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question??

Do you want the leaders of our military to be anything but the brightest and best?

They are not the brightest.
Average SAT only 1300

The SATs are not a very accurate test of intelligence.

Beyond the bias issues which have been clearly established and accepted by academia as a real problem, a whole lot of kids who are very bright don’t get the benefit of interventions and test prep that UMC families can provide.

I personally faltered badly taking the SATs because of zero prep opportunities, test anxiety that I had no means of addressing, and the abuse I was suffering in the home that prevented me focusing on the test and academics in general in H.S.

Because of my low SATs I started college at a community college offshoot of the state university where I went on to earn two bachelors degrees with two concentrations and then a masters degree (very high GRE scores) with a TA position, then a LSAT score in the 98th% and acceptance at five top tier law schools and a JD from one of them. I’ve also since tested Mensa qualifying level IQ.

SATs are a really poor measure of best and brightest. There are plenty of duds in this society who once got a great SAT score.

But it's what colleges use. The academies are not the best and brightest (though they're great kids!), and I say that as the spouse of a USNA grad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because more people are interested in that education and experience than they can accommodate.

But why? We don't currently know any, and we're a military family (dual, at one point in time).

The academies, particularly West Point and Annapolis, have long been regarded as elite schools. There are very few 18 year olds who are fit enough, smart enough, and well-rounded enough to get a Congressional Nomination, which is necessary to be considered for admittance. Upon graduation - debt free - graduates are obliged to serve as officers for four years. The pay isn't bad these days, particulalrly since a young officer has basically no expenses, and the job is probably a lot more interesting than most first jobs. Academy grads tend to get first priority for the more desirable tracks.

The M7 business schools love academy grads. So too does MBB consulting. Not to mention the corporate world. An academy degree probably doesn't do much in tech, but elsewhere it opens a lot of doors. The networking is unparalleled.

It's not for everyone, but for the right kid, it's a great launching pad.

It actually opens a lot of doors in tech. Showing you can get a computer science or engineering degree from one of the academies while balancing the other demands is a huge plus for tech companies. We have a family friend whose kid is majoring in CS at one of the academies. He is a sophomore and has already been approached by tech companies about joining after he is done serving.

LOL. No tech company plans 6+ years ahead.

IBM does. So does Honeywell. Probably many, many others.

Strange, I work in HR for IBM, and this is not true. We'll look into freshmen as regular universities, sure. Not a sophomore with a 4-6 year commitment after graduation. That's almost a decade for things to change!

Strange, my DH graduated from USNA, went on to serve in the Marine Corp knowing that his job at IBM was waiting for him. Guess they just didn't consult you.

Strange, your DH lied. Not surprising he couldn't hack it more than 4-6 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the phrase dying for one's country is not just an abstraction.

And very few are willing to do it these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because more people are interested in that education and experience than they can accommodate.

But why? We don't currently know any, and we're a military family (dual, at one point in time).

The academies, particularly West Point and Annapolis, have long been regarded as elite schools. There are very few 18 year olds who are fit enough, smart enough, and well-rounded enough to get a Congressional Nomination, which is necessary to be considered for admittance. Upon graduation - debt free - graduates are obliged to serve as officers for four years. The pay isn't bad these days, particulalrly since a young officer has basically no expenses, and the job is probably a lot more interesting than most first jobs. Academy grads tend to get first priority for the more desirable tracks.

The M7 business schools love academy grads. So too does MBB consulting. Not to mention the corporate world. An academy degree probably doesn't do much in tech, but elsewhere it opens a lot of doors. The networking is unparalleled.

It's not for everyone, but for the right kid, it's a great launching pad.

It actually opens a lot of doors in tech. Showing you can get a computer science or engineering degree from one of the academies while balancing the other demands is a huge plus for tech companies. We have a family friend whose kid is majoring in CS at one of the academies. He is a sophomore and has already been approached by tech companies about joining after he is done serving.

LOL. No tech company plans 6+ years ahead.

IBM does. So does Honeywell. Probably many, many others.

Strange, I work in HR for IBM, and this is not true. We'll look into freshmen as regular universities, sure. Not a sophomore with a 4-6 year commitment after graduation. That's almost a decade for things to change!

Strange, my DH graduated from USNA, went on to serve in the Marine Corp knowing that his job at IBM was waiting for him. Guess they just didn't consult you.

How many decades ago was this pp?

New poster here. It doesn’t matter. Corporate America including IBM loves military academy graduates and gobbles them up for a whole host of reasons. Anybody who says they don’t is full of shit.

When they're TRANSITIONING OUT. Not when they're frigging sophomores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a serious question??

Do you want the leaders of our military to be anything but the brightest and best?

They are not the brightest.
Average SAT only 1300

The SATs are not a very accurate test of intelligence.

Beyond the bias issues which have been clearly established and accepted by academia as a real problem, a whole lot of kids who are very bright don’t get the benefit of interventions and test prep that UMC families can provide.

I personally faltered badly taking the SATs because of zero prep opportunities, test anxiety that I had no means of addressing, and the abuse I was suffering in the home that prevented me focusing on the test and academics in general in H.S.

Because of my low SATs I started college at a community college offshoot of the state university where I went on to earn two bachelors degrees with two concentrations and then a masters degree (very high GRE scores) with a TA position, then a LSAT score in the 98th% and acceptance at five top tier law schools and a JD from one of them. I’ve also since tested Mensa qualifying level IQ.

SATs are a really poor measure of best and brightest. There are plenty of duds in this society who once got a great SAT score.

Classic "American grit" story. We love it when people don't quit.

[Anonymous]

The professionals at West Point are super aware of what IBM can do now, and of what it will be able to do in the future.

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/artificial-intelligence-future-warfare-just-not-way-think/

And the professionals at IBM know a good customer when they see one. And if that isn't plain and clear enough here is a video of IBM and West Point cadets partnering together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB8_GnbQVy4