3Q questions

C

crair70

5-Year Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
257
Looking for some perspective on 3Q . How are sports factored in with the CFA? Are they weighted equally to determine if a candidate is physically qualified? As for other EC such as volunteer hours, leadership positions, and awards received... what category are they used to determine qualification? For Academically qualified I assume they combine overall GPA, Classes taken (Honors, AP) class rank and ACT/SAT scores but does anyone know the weight given to each? Wondering if a someone meets the ACT/SAT requirements on the preliminary application what that means in determining if a candidate is academically qualified?

I know that there may not be a black and white answer to this question but just looking for perspective for those of you who are BGO or have been through this process.
Thanks
 
sports are not factored into the CFA. CFA is a pass/fail and determines ultimate physical qualification. that being said, the board will note good/bad aspects of the CFA in the run, push-ups and sit-ups b/c that's a good indicator on how they will do on the Navy PRT (the physical readiness test you'll take twice a year).

during the BGO interview the BGO will assess the candidates "physical ability" based on what the candidate says about their physical regiment. i.e. if they are a 3 sport athlete we can at least assume they exercise on a regular basis. some candidates don't have any sports BUT when you are interviewing them you find out they run marathons/triathlons in their free time, are on ski patrol, an eagle scout which usually means time out in the mountains/camping/hiking etc...hopefully the BGO will capture those things in their interview write-up.

ECAs are weighed into the whole person multiple (they don't fall into the 3Q) but each of those things get a score. the scoring process is close hold to prevent candidates from gaming the system. but you can be sure areas showing ldrshp position are given extra points then just being involved in a activity.

for academic stuff all the things you mentioned are weighted to determine academically qualified. again, the weight given to each of the academic things you mentioned is close hold.
 
I think there is some confusion here.

To compete for an appointment a candidate must be scholastically (academics and non-academics), medically, and physically qualified AND have a nomination.

The "Whole Person Concept" and associated multiple falls within the scholastic qualification. That means ECAs (both athletic and non-athletic) fall under this category. As mentioned, the BGO interview can bring to light information not found on the application. There is no separate "academic" qualification. The breakdown and weighting of the multiple is not public knowledge and probably never will be!

The preliminary application is used to determine if a candidate will be competitive during the Admissions cycle and is not necessarily an indicator of whether the Admissions Board will find that person scholastically qualified (in other words, candidate number does not necessarily equal scholastic qualification).
 
Last edited:
jadler's got this on the money with one minor addendum. While I've not seen a recent weighting scale, there have been past scales shared. Now, that does NOT indicate how many points are given playing varsity football, captaining a team, being drum major, etc. But it did reveal how much "weight" was given each category. For example, the most heavily weighted factor in Whole Person scoring was SAT/ACT math score. I'll see if I can locate that dated information which might shed a bit more light on this subject, recognizing that point scoring and weighting, while both important to the WP evaluation and thus 1/3 or the 3 Qing process(as jadler rightly notes, the "scholastic" portion of it, which is essentially ALL of the important outcome, since physical fitness and medical "Q's" are both essentially pass/fail)

Which leads to somewhat simplifying this entire process into 2 things to be done:

1. Become scholastically qualified, noting the components there in ... tests, curricula and performance, relationships w/ recommenders, BGO interviewing, ECs showing performance and leadership.

2. Being physically fit.

2.a. Doing your best in your nomination interviews

The rest is out of one's control.
 
WP,

That is true, there was a thesis paper written "back in the day" that had weights for that time period. Also, remember it is up to the Admissions Board to determine scholastic qualification by majority vote. Therefore, one with perfect college exams, decent/great leadership activities, but a poor transcript might not be found qualified, though by WPM, they might look good.

WPM is a preliminary determination of the candidate's competitiveness and helps to order the candidates.

Knowing the weights isn't going to do justice, anyhow. You need to strive to be well rounded (as said).

While mentioning the physical aspect, the #1 cadre complaint for the incoming class is that their physical fitness level is poor. Something for future candidates/plebes to heed.
 
Agreed, it won't tell the whole story. But knowing for example, that the math exam score is the single most important factor ... well, it lends direction for action ... as opposed to being a member of the xyz team or hving ### hours working at the local Moose Lodge ... the issue is major in the majors. All elements are not equal. Which should be conventional wisdom, yet often gets lost in the morass of the process. Grades and test scores are THE major issues. And ... as you can attest ... once one arrives @ USNA, academics and "brain stuff" continue to carry the day in order of merit vs. PFT and military performance.
 
As has been stated, the pass/fail portion of the CFA determines physically being qualified. How one does on the CFA adds/subtracts points from the scholastically qualified portion of the 3Q process (these points are called WPMs-whole person multipliers). Therefore, theoretically, one could pass the CFA but fail to gain enough points to lift them into the scholastically qualified range. Thirdly, when the record goes before the admissions board, points can be added/deducted by findings of the board based on their opinion of the ability of the candidate to succeed (these points are call RABS-Recommendations of the Admissions Board). For those whose record does not demonstrate the probability of high physical fitness (did not play sports, disproportinate weight/height ratio, below average extracurriculars, etc) , the board will pay particular attention to the CFA results and adjust the final scholastic qualification accordingly. Therefore, the continuing advice throughout these forums to do as well as possible on the CFA is extremely valid.

I have been observing WPM totals for many years. My observations are that it is relatively easy to get within 10% of the total WPMs necessary for qualification/admission. It then become exponentially harder to achieve this last hurdle. An outstanding record presented well to the board will gain 5% of this total in RABs. My recommendation is that this last remaining 5% should be scratched out "tooth and nail" by each and every avenue available. This includes doing as well as possible on ALL FACETs of the CFA.

Additionally, I think most WPM percentage breakdowns posted on this forum have been by misguided AF types who think all SA admission procedures are the same. USNAs is a "work in progress" and certain facets might change annually with results of ever changing new data.
 
I think this is one of the best, clearest, most useful posts I've seen on this subject. Thanks Mongo Jerry!

And it confirms 2 greater truths: 1. That in MOST things, it's only the margin that makes any real difference in outcomes; and 2. That in this process, one should strive to do one's best in every aspect. And after all, isn't that what the process attempts to gauge? Despite its flaws and "work in progress" status, it would seem to have some validity, credibility.

Now, if they could just get beyond this idea that color and ethnicity somehow will lead to enhanced sailor performance.
 
A question taking things a step forward: about what percentage of candidates who are Triple Q'd and nominated ultimately receive offers of appointment? Obviously, the individual candidate's viability will vary depending upon the level of competition for his/her nomination sources. It's becoming increasingly apparent that being Triple Q'd and receiving a nomination still place one in still a rather large pool.
 
Dolphins2012 said:
A question taking things a step forward: about what percentage of candidates who are Triple Q'd and nominated ultimately receive offers of appointment? Obviously, the individual candidate's viability will vary depending upon the level of competition for his/her nomination sources. It's becoming increasingly apparent that being Triple Q'd and receiving a nomination still place one in still a rather large pool.
Click to expand...

For the Class of 2011: 3,827 nominations, 1,893 3Q'd and 1419 offers of appointments.

For the Class of 2010: 3,751 nominations, 1,888 3Q'd and 1510 offers of appointments.

These are modestly dated statistics, but trust they'll give you the picture. And as you can see, the "pool" becomes a relative puddle when compared to dramatically escalating candidate numbers.

Realities include a fixed number of nominations, 3Qed, and offers of appointment. Those don't change much from year to year. What does unfortunately change is the "mix" of those appointment offers.
 
Thank you for those numbers! My question is.. why did those who were 3Q w/ a nomination NOT receive an appointment?
 
Nobody ever knows. Maybe at that point they just draw names out of a cover. Or they have a more intensive search to pick the right young folks to receive appointments, and discuss the choices very thoroughly.

...The cover thing kind of makes sense, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top