Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes very

Honestly I'd consider them up there with Harvard and Yale too. In addition to needing great grades, you need the athletic ability to be there.

Plus the commitment to a service career, risk of going to war, etc.

There's a reason why a lot of future politicians come from the academies.

LOL. You are FUNNY!

They don't want independent thinkers. They want kids who follow orders without questions. Certain types of kids.

Anonymous wrote:I know quite a few service academy grads and I think of them as hard-working, goal-oriented, self-disciplined, athletic doers who generally have their acts together, but I don't necessarily find them particularly smart, creative, or innovative as a whole. Bright enough for sure, and nothing to look down on, but if they didn't go to the academies, most of them wouldn't have gone to a top academic university or college. I mean, does Mike Pompeo really strike anyone as the sharpest tool in the shed? Or Roy Moore? Or Oliver North? So academically, I don't think they are that prestigious; their prestige comes from other qualities. It's really apples and oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes very

Honestly I'd consider them up there with Harvard and Yale too. In addition to needing great grades, you need the athletic ability to be there.

Plus the commitment to a service career, risk of going to war, etc.

There's a reason why a lot of future politicians come from the academies.

LOL. You are FUNNY!

They don't want independent thinkers. They want kids who follow orders without questions. Certain types of kids.

So a requirement, in your mind, for prestige, is "independent thinkers"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes very

Honestly I'd consider them up there with Harvard and Yale too. In addition to needing great grades, you need the athletic ability to be there.

Plus the commitment to a service career, risk of going to war, etc.

There's a reason why a lot of future politicians come from the academies.

LOL. You are FUNNY!

They don't want independent thinkers. They want kids who follow orders without questions. Certain types of kids.

Anonymous wrote:Yes very

Honestly I'd consider them up there with Harvard and Yale too. In addition to needing great grades, you need the athletic ability to be there.

Plus the commitment to a service career, risk of going to war, etc.

There's a reason why a lot of future politicians come from the academies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average SAT at West Point and AFA is about 1300. Lower at USNA. Not nearly as difficult to get into as an Ivy or any hyper-elite college. Great schools and much respect to the kind of kid who makes the commitment but not nearly the same level of academic performers.

Have at me. (If it helps, I did earn a congressional nomination to the AFA but was denied due to a failed color blindness test. I had no clue I was color blind. It hurt but I would’ve made a lousy cadet. Couldn’t get out of bed. )

I also noted that the SAT are surprisingly low compared to the reputations.

I guess if your measure of a good school is the average score that its students got on a standardized test they took when they were 16 or 17...then maybe you’re right. Most normal people don’t look at it that way, though.

Or you could just...think something and make no effort to quantify. Pretty uniforms and patriotism I guess. The fact remains that a 1250 gives you a good chance at the USNA and gives you no chance at Williams or Yale (short of some other factor which would just as easily get you into an academy). We see the kids who get into the academies. They are uniformly excellent students and really solid kids. We also have kids who get into Stanford, and they are brilliant and extremely accomplished. They aren’t even close to the same caliber academically.

Your turn. Produce something quantifiable that demonstrates academy difficulty of entry as greater than other elite colleges. I’ll wait.

I think your premise of measuring success is flawed. The SAT is designed to predict success in an academic program in college. And it is an arms race to get ever higher scores to compete for admission at the “top schools”. The reality is that the predictive power of the SAT is limited to more academic outcomes and there is little variance in performance at school above a certain threshold. (Please see college board validation research for details.)

But the more important criterion for success is building a successful life (career, family, etc) after school. This depends on conscientiousness/ discipline, emotional intelligence, managing relationships etc. And kids heading to the academy typically have real achievements in those areas that are strengthened through their time at school.

People here talk a lot about the network built by attending the Ivies, and it is good. But there is nothing like the alumni network of a service academy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know quite a few service academy grads and I think of them as hard-working, goal-oriented, self-disciplined, athletic doers who generally have their acts together, but I don't necessarily find them particularly smart, creative, or innovative as a whole. Bright enough for sure, and nothing to look down on, but if they didn't go to the academies, most of them wouldn't have gone to a top academic university or college. I mean, does Mike Pompeo really strike anyone as the sharpest tool in the shed? Or Roy Moore? Or Oliver North? So academically, I don't think they are that prestigious; their prestige comes from other qualities. It's really apples and oranges.

I have also worked with one, and noticed that the guy could work in a pressure cooker, but did not stand out as very smart. The guy was very friendly and pleasant to work with.

Agree. They aren't smart but they're very patriotic and mission-driven. Since most corporations were built on a military model of chain of command leadership ... military guys can do well in corporations. That just means they know how to follow orders and buckle down ... not that they have high IQs or anything. Your examples are good. Pompeo seems as dumb as a brick and so did North.

OP .. they are not "prestigious" ... that is the wrong word choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Average SAT at West Point and AFA is about 1300. Lower at USNA. Not nearly as difficult to get into as an Ivy or any hyper-elite college. Great schools and much respect to the kind of kid who makes the commitment but not nearly the same level of academic performers.

Have at me. (If it helps, I did earn a congressional nomination to the AFA but was denied due to a failed color blindness test. I had no clue I was color blind. It hurt but I would’ve made a lousy cadet. Couldn’t get out of bed. )

I think the low SAT average is partially based on the forced geographic distribution of nominated and appointed students. I'm sure they could load up on high stat kids from NY, CT, NJ, MD, VA, CA etc. like most prestigious colleges do. But they are looking for more geographic balance.

It is interesting that their average SAT/ACT scores are well below even top state schools like W&M, UNC and UVA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know quite a few service academy grads and I think of them as hard-working, goal-oriented, self-disciplined, athletic doers who generally have their acts together, but I don't necessarily find them particularly smart, creative, or innovative as a whole. Bright enough for sure, and nothing to look down on, but if they didn't go to the academies, most of them wouldn't have gone to a top academic university or college. I mean, does Mike Pompeo really strike anyone as the sharpest tool in the shed? Or Roy Moore? Or Oliver North? So academically, I don't think they are that prestigious; their prestige comes from other qualities. It's really apples and oranges.

I have also worked with one, and noticed that the guy could work in a pressure cooker, but did not stand out as very smart. The guy was very friendly and pleasant to work with.

Anonymous wrote:I know quite a few service academy grads and I think of them as hard-working, goal-oriented, self-disciplined, athletic doers who generally have their acts together, but I don't necessarily find them particularly smart, creative, or innovative as a whole. Bright enough for sure, and nothing to look down on, but if they didn't go to the academies, most of them wouldn't have gone to a top academic university or college. I mean, does Mike Pompeo really strike anyone as the sharpest tool in the shed? Or Roy Moore? Or Oliver North? So academically, I don't think they are that prestigious; their prestige comes from other qualities. It's really apples and oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post really bothers me. Are you kidding? How do people not know that these schools are some of our best and brightest.

Our school systems have completely failed.

+1. The problem is I’ve never been aware of any high school presentation or college counselor explaining the service academies. Do they have admissions reps traveling the country? Do they visit private high schools? Another issue is US News doesn’t include the service academies in their national rankings. If they did, and they were say within the top 30 (?), it would REALLY elevate their profile amongst laymen. As it stands, the only families REALLY tuned into service academies tend to have military vets in their immediate family.