- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,332
You point out the variables that make it difficult to predict what it takes to get the commissioning path of preference (the choice ultimately is Uncle Sam's as earlier mentioned).
Yes, it is quite clear that the OML scores necessary to have the choice (when there are more cadets wanting AD than AD slots available) have been steadily rising.
The number of cadets commissioning for AD hasn't shrunk significantly if at all during this time either.
Which brings me to ask is it that we are getting higher scores because our cadets are truly more qualified OR because cadets are figuring out ways to raise their scores because they are gaming the system?
There are certain parts of the OML score that for better or worse are fixed - Battalion rank comes to mind here - there is only 1 #1 cadet (unlike valdictorians in HS).
Other parts are clearly through the effort of the cadet - PT scores (at least theoretically - I hope cadre don't count push ups generously to enhance their cadets' AD chances).
Other parts, though I wonder if with the word out the AD is harder to get, are being engineered to make cadets look better. GPA and ECs come to mind here. Downgrade to the easier major. Move tougher classes to the Senior year. Take a 5 hour/wk job to check a box. Play an intramural sport to check another.
I don't mean to disrespect the hard-working cadets here who have put in the hard work to be top quality candidates, but one has to wonder whether the scoring system is steering the effort that enhances the score.
Heck, we spend a lot of time here advising cadets on how to enhance their chances of AD... Maybe my recollection is bad, but when I came here 4 years ago, there wasn't as much information being passed around about the OML scoring system to the incoming classes.
That being said, as a cadet, you cannot ignore that the rules are out there and the competition is based upon those rules. Everyone plays the game. Some just watch the scoreboard more carefully.
Pardon my brief response, PC is down and I don't have much time at work to type up responses so mobile response will have to do.
First off, Jcleppe said a lot of what I was going to say in terms of applicant pool from 2008 till now. Perhaps I exceeded I some categories ( SAT and Athletics) but the average 4 year winner today probably has better stats than me and my peers did in 2008. That's a little bit of a rag on myself but it's true, today's awardees are higher caliber at least STAT wise.
From what I have observed, the Army is really all about the numbers. This isn't a shot at my own branch but it's obvious that we make up the largest contingent of the US military. Because of this our branching and scholarship process might no be as stringent as AF or Navy. Now do I think people game our OML system? Yes of course but I also realize it isn't realistic to think every cadet coming in would want to major in science. I met a chem engineering guy who went FA. That's a brutal degree program that will be of little direct use in his Army career. As much as I would like there to be more STEM interest as the Army focuses on industry/economic needs its just not going to happen en masse.
With respect to higher caliber officer cadets coming into the program I really don't think it will make a difference with the final product. Leadership doesn't come from high tests scores or a myriad of shallow club positions in high school, in the end we are all very very green when we pin on that gold bar and that will never change. Which reminds me, I already have some funny new LT stories...haha