The Naval Academy Acts Like An Ivy -- II

Through this link,

The Restoration of America Foundation (ROAF) is a watchdog providing transparency of the nation’s military academies’ oversight boards.

It issued a report on this past September's meeting of the US Naval Academy's Board of Visitors (equivalent to a civilian college or university's board of trustees), which included a presentation by Dean of Admissions Bruce Latta:

Latta has been in the position for over 20 years, including when USNA was sued in 2023 for using race-based admissions practices. Latta told the BOV that race, ethnicity and sex were never considered in determining qualification for admissions. That assertion contradicts Latta’s court deposition and evidence in the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) case against USNA.

In SFFA Latta said,

"If USNA was prohibited from considering race or ethnicity (across all minority groups) as one of many nondeterminative factors, I expect that USNA's class of admitted midshipmen would become less diverse, as it was before USNA began applying its current policies."

BOV member Earl Ehrhart, a Trump appointee, questioned Latta asking, “You testified under oath that enjoining [prohibiting] race-based admissions practices would harm the Navy. Have you changed your mind?”

Earhart continued his questioning when Latta did not answer, asking, “How do you reconcile the conflict between your sworn testimony in SFFA and what you just presented to this Board?”

Latta still didn’t answer the question.

Further discussion revealed that the Naval Academy's admissions process mirrors that of selective civilian colleges and universities, with the actual weighting of factors determining admission a closely guarded secret:

Latta said the admissions office sets the standards by which USNA candidates are selected and determines who is offered an appointment. When questioned on who determines the formula used for candidate selection—called a Whole Person Multiple—Latta responded that admissions staff determine the weighting of each category. That answer did not please Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI), a retired Navy SEAL appointed to the BOV by President Trump. He believes the admissions department had too much power, replying to Latta, “You can set the playing field the way you want.” Van Orden also suggested that the BOV may want to consider putting a member on the admissions board.

Another board member commented, “for way too long we’ve had no visibility into how this process works.” The Superintendent responded that he understood and shared the same concern and that they would have further discussions on the topic in a closed session.

But while the actual factors and their weighting are completely opaque, we do know that SATs were not used as an admissions factor for the classes of 2025-2028:

Latta’s presentation claimed SAT scores were not used for those classes due to limited availability because of COVID. While that may have been a factor for the class of 2025, SAT testing availability was not impacted by COVID for the classes of 2026-2028.

There are lots of arguments for civilian colleges and universities to bypass merit in admissions, for instance,

We think of college admissions as a meritocracy: the students who most deserve it get in. But that’s not actually true at all, according to Tufts University sociologist Natasha Warikoo, who studies college admissions.

. . . But the point Warikoo is making isn’t just that there are more deserving candidates than there are spots— a problem well known in California—it’s that the whole idea of college admissions as a meritocracy is fundamentally wrong.

. . . At most colleges, especially very “select” ones, there are a host of competing internal interests influencing who gets admitted. Sports coaches demand places for their recruits; development offices want places for legacy alumni and people attached to big donors; orchestras and bands need to bring musicians in; different departments want new students who are going to fill their rosters. There’s no single standard for what makes a “worthy” student, and it’s fair to ask: what has any of this got to do with merit?

“When we recognize the diverse goals that universities attempt to address through college admissions, it becomes clear that admission is not a certification of individual merit, or deservingness, nor was it ever meant to be,” she said.

OK, let's grant that Harvard is Harvard; foreign students pay full freight, so we admit them as maybe 40% of an Ivy enterng class, mainly because they're rich and willing to pay. Then they admit maybe 30% as legacies, preppies, and donors, because they donate. Deducting all the other special categories, maybe 20% of an entering class comes in on SATs, grades, and extracurriculars, except everyone's de-emphasizing SATs. Of course, everybody still believes a Harvard degree means you're smart, but that's their problem, not Harvard's.

But the US Military academies aren't Harvard. I asked Chrome AI mode, "if you go to the Naval Academy, is it expected that you will become a Navy or Marine Corps officer?" It answered,

Yes, if you attend the United States Naval Academy (USNA), it is expected that you will be commissioned as an officer in either the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Marine Corps upon graduation. This is a core part of the USNA experience and the service commitment that all midshipmen agree to.

But this mostly eliminates foreign students, a major category of civilian admissions factors. It eliminates most categories of major donor. It ought to be stressing personal qualities that would go to making someone a good officer. But somehow, the Naval Academy admissions office seems to retain DEI as a major category; for instance, as of a 2021 "Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan",

• “Increase the visibility of current midshipmen and alumni from underrepresented populations by including them in recruiting activities and marketing materials.”
• Review processes “for objectivity and influence of bias and unintended disadvantage to underrepresented populations.”
• Increase access to “underrepresented populations.”
• “Identify scoring factors that are directly influenced by school resources and familial obligations such as extracurricular activates [sic] and standardize [sic] test scores and make recommendations for adjustments.”

The big question that remains for me applies to both the Naval Academy and Harvard: why is there so much cheating? If admissions standards have any teeth, they ought to be favoring students for whom the graduation requirements are achievable without cheating. At the Naval Acedemy, it appears that some version of an electrical engineering course is a graduation requirement. Yet in the 1992 cheating scandal, it was widely estimated that 80% of the students saw the course exam before they took it.

According to Newsweek,

Midshipmen are intentionally overworked. Forced to carry heavy academic loads, they also march, train and perform trivial chores, like memorizing obscure facts about the Academy. The idea is to build character through adversity, but often the result is a weary attitude of doing just enough to slide by.

Wouldn't greater attention to factors that would favor an applicant's ability to graduate without cheating or sliding by be much more profitable than randomn social engineering? Nobody seems to want to answer these sorts of quewstions.