AD after graduation

goaliedad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
goaliedad said:
Everyone plays the game. Some just watch the scoreboard more carefully.
Click to expand...

Absolutely love that line. Honestly, that is also going to be true in the AD world too. There are officers that are on top of plotting out their career paths regarding assignments to increase their chances for promotion.

I think you will continue to see higher caliber candidates for a very long time because of a few reasons.
1. The economy and the never ending double digit tuition increases. People are applying for every and any scholarship out there to reduce their debt for college.
2. Personnel reductions. With the draw down the Army needs to reduce their personnel.
3. Budget reductions. People tend to think that the sequester is just until Sept., but the fact is the budget is being cut for a decade, not just this 1 yr. ROTC is a large cost, see reason #1 regarding tuition. If they cut their budget it will impact the amount of scholarships awarded, which raises the caliber.

Final reason. With us leaving the sandboxes, parents/candidates are not as worried about war as they were even 5 yrs ago. Many parents during those yrs did not want their child applying out of fear. When that fear is gone, the idea of tuition being paid for, and they can go Guard or Reserve, it doesn't seem so bad. Johnnie/Janie can get their dream job with Goldman Sachs making buckets of money after graduating from that 50K a yr college, and all they have to do is weekends and a couple of weeks every yr. War is not in their mind like it was in 08.
 
Last edited:
Jcleppe said:
Add to all this that the max number used to be 101.5, it is now 102.5 since they are giving up to 1 point for engineerning and some STEM majors. I am sure this has raised the numbers a bit as well.
Click to expand...

Are STEM majors looked at more and have better chances for AD? or do they just get the additional point added to their score?
 
The additional point is a recent change, and no they aren't looked at more favorably per se. The extra point is just compensation for a Tech degree's added challenge to help equalize STEM majors with LA majors that have 4.0's. But the Army doesn't look at them more favorably, one should never major in engineering just because of an OML point or a scholarship or another like benefit, unlike several of my peers. Always major in something you like that you'll enjoy and receive good grades in, that'll pay off a lot more in the long run, especially in the military where a graduate degree will eventually be expected around the field grade level.
 
Aglahad said:
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
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
Full Metal Bulldog said:
Always major in something you like that you'll enjoy and receive good grades in, that'll pay off a lot more in the long run, especially in the military where a graduate degree will eventually be expected around the field grade level.
Click to expand...

Totally agree!! I'm an educator and just because your test score is higher doesn't necessarily mean that you will have more success. Attitude, determination, motivation, ambition, and heart make a huge difference.
 
Something I have never seen here.

Is there an exact formula for cadets?

I.E. AFROTC:

Cgpa (tech/non-tech...tech gets an edge)
PFT
AFOQT (AF's SAT)
SFT ranking (Army's LDAC ranking)
Commander's rec

That gives the cadets an idea before the board. They know X% is given to each section. A 3.4 cgpa, but a 85 PFA will hurt. Just like bottom 1/3 rd ranking will ding them for the OML.

Plus, if they want rated, is there a separate board, or do they fight it out in one board?
 
so the question on the table is whether the academic/leadership/fitness/bearing quality of the officer candidates in ROTC is higher now that a few years ago.

First, looking at APFT scores at LDAC, you might get an idea, but the scoring system changed two years ago so I'm not sure how you'd ever know that.

Second, the subjective scoring of a cadet both on campus and at LDAC is... subjective, so not sure if that would be of any help either.

Third, we're left with one objective criterion graded by a source outside of ROTC -- college cumulative GPA, which presumably is a very important indicator of officer quality, or it wouldn't comprise 40% of the OMS. Does anyone know what is the average GPA of an ROTC cadet in Advance Course from one year to the next?
 
Pima said:
Something I have never seen here.

Is there an exact formula for cadets?
Click to expand...
Yes, and no. There is an exact published formula, which tends to change slightly from year to year, for the % of the 100 possible OMS points that each evaluation component represents: APFT, GPA, LDAC score1, LDAC score2, PMS recommendation, Battalion OML, Campus Activities, etc. There is an exact conversion of GPA into OMS points, which is GPA*10 = OMS points, out of 100. Therefore 3.6 cum GPA at end of MSIII year = 36 OMS points. So this candiate loses 4 possible OMS points by having 3.6 vs. 4.0. There is a bonus 1 point for Engineering, and a bonus 0.5 points for science/math.

What is not published to my knowledge is how certain aspects of the raw scoring are converted by the OMS computer into OMS points out of 100. For example, suppose that APFT is 15% of the OMS, which means 15 out of 100 possible OMS points. How are the actual APFT score results converted to National OMS points? Are 270 APFT points (which is 90% of 300 total possible) 90% * 15 possible APFT points = 13.5 OMS points for APFT, or is there a curve, where 270 APFT points = 50th percentile, and therefore worth 50% * 15 possible APFT points = 7.5 National OMS points? Big difference. Straight conversion or % conversion?

Or how is the Battalion OML converted into OMS points? Let's say OML is worth 5% of the National OMS. If a Battalion has 10 rising MSIV, is OML position #1 worth 5 National OMS points, position #2 4.5 points, etc. and position #8 out of 10 worth 1 point, and position #9 worth 0.5 points?

None of those "raw points to OMS points" conversions are easy to figure out except for GPA, with what I've read. Somehow the computer at Cadet Command does it, but I've never read how. Maybe those conversions are published somewhere, but I haven't seen anything like that.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

In essence, that is the same as AFROTC. They know that the cgpa is worth X amount. but no idea how that will play out nationally.It is a crap shoot.

My other question still is out there...if a cadet wants to go rated for AF, they meet a different board than a cadet that wants to go non-rated. Does the Army have 1 board only?

AF requires a TBAS on top of the AFOQT test for rated, non -rated take only the AFOQT. Is there some type of test in AROTC for those that want to go Helo? Or is it just OML? Rack and stack.

I am not trying to be AF, AF,AF. I am trying to understand the Army's system when it comes to branching, aka AFSC for AF.
 
Pima said:
Thank you.

In essence, that is the same as AFROTC. They know that the cgpa is worth X amount. but no idea how that will play out nationally.It is a crap shoot.

My other question still is out there...if a cadet wants to go rated for AF, they meet a different board than a cadet that wants to go non-rated. Does the Army have 1 board only?

AF requires a TBAS on top of the AFOQT test for rated, non -rated take only the AFOQT. Is there some type of test in AROTC for those that want to go Helo? Or is it just OML? Rack and stack.

I am not trying to be AF, AF,AF. I am trying to understand the Army's system when it comes to branching, aka AFSC for AF.
Click to expand...


Yes, the Army has a single board. It goes in two phases -

1) They will do a single national OML and determine the AD cutoff line. Last year, it was about 76 points. So, anyone below that line who wanted AD, too bad so sorry.

2) The ~3000ish people who have 76 points or above get put in a separate, active duty OML. This OML is run through the branching algorithm to determine active duty cadet's chances at getting their branch.

There are, however, certain rules that pertain to certain branches, although it doesn't follow the rated/non-rated type of system. For example, if a cadet wants Aviation branch, they must list it as their first branch choice, and pass both an aptitude test and flight physical. Other branch specific limitations include a % of branch allocations going to degreed engineers only, and Signal has a similar requirement. Outside of those, however, it's based on AD OML ranking, which, as people have said boils down to GPA, PT score and your PMS evaluations.
 
Pima said:
Thank you.

In essence, that is the same as AFROTC. They know that the cgpa is worth X amount. but no idea how that will play out nationally.It is a crap shoot.

My other question still is out there...if a cadet wants to go rated for AF, they meet a different board than a cadet that wants to go non-rated. Does the Army have 1 board only?

AF requires a TBAS on top of the AFOQT test for rated, non -rated take only the AFOQT. Is there some type of test in AROTC for those that want to go Helo? Or is it just OML? Rack and stack.

I am not trying to be AF, AF,AF. I am trying to understand the Army's system when it comes to branching, aka AFSC for AF.
Click to expand...

There is also a Secondary Board for Aviation, not known by many cadets.

Very few are selected through this method, I think last year there were around eight.

What happens is that a cadet that wanted Aviation but was selected for a different branch can be put up for the secondary board. Not sure if there is a set number that can go before this board. Obviously these cadets need to be very high on the AD OML to start with, if they are selected then their branch is switched to Aviation.

There was recently news that the Secondary Board has been suspended for now, they didn't say how long or if it will come back. So for current cadets this won't be an option for a while.

My son went before this board, mainly because he had not taken the AFAST (Now SIFT) or the Fhlight Physical during LDAC as required. Once he returned to school he had 7 days to complete everything to be able to meet the Board. It was a real Roller Coaster for a couple months while waiting it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top