AFROTC 2012 EA Results

My son is a sophomore, he transferred in this year and picked up ROTC this year. I'm not sure what number that makes him, but he had never had a physical done. The day after they got back from Christmas break, he along with a few other cadets, were taken 1 hour away to have their military physical done. He called me at 630 am because he needed to have some paperwork, a W2 or something faxed down. I guess they had hopped in a van at 5am and driven to the MEPS center.

Serves him right for waking me up at 4am every day for the first 2 years of his life.

Keeping my fingers crossed he will get some good news this week.
 
People at my Det are saying that our EAs are going out tomorrow! Also the percentages are way up from last year!
 
This is just to add more to the speculation on the EA selection rates,

The cadre at my detachment informed me that the selection rates were close to 90%, and that we would get results tomorrow. I didn't believe my commander at first when he told me, but since this seems to be the case with all the other detachments mentioned on here, and what Colonel Dunn said. It looks like this is true
 
This year the dets themselves did alot of the cutting process, rather than just sending in EVERYONE's file. It was weeding out those who the cadre deemed 'unworthy' to progress. They were told flat out their chances were poor and encouraged to drop. Our 200 class went from 65 to 36 because of this.

Thus, when packages went in, there was yet another cut in number of competetors on top of those who had already dropped after seeing last years numbers.

Moderate increase in number of EA slots, in addition to considerable drop in applications, results in significantly higher selection rate.
 
I've got a briefing with one of our cadre at 1500h today; that's when I find out. I wish the best of luck to all of you!

I'll post here what the results were for me!
 
Last edited:
JeRDLe said:
They were told flat out their chances were poor and encouraged to drop. Our 200 class went from 65 to 36 because of this.

Thus, when packages went in, there was yet another cut in number of competetors on top of those who had already dropped after seeing last years numbers.
Click to expand...

In the end than the numbers really aren't 90%, but still in the 50-60% from the start of the C200 yr. because many of the applicants never submitted a package, whereas in previous yrs everyone went up.

This is important for candidates of 16 to understand. Yes, the rate is 90%, but look at all of the numbers, do not lull yourself into "guaranteed". It just happens to be that the cut is at the det level.

Curiosity question here. I wonder if this is because they changed the system, reducing the CC's rec %. Allowing the CC to not submit or discourage cadets that they feel won't get it, brings the weight back to them.

In other words, if now it is 35% of the score, was 50% prior, by submitting select packages, the CC is a big player in this process, if not the biggest.

I am torn on this because, from an AD POV, everyone eligible will meet the board, granted it would be with a DNP or a weak P, but they still met the board. In the AD world, the command has a % breakdown of DP, P and DNP. I am not willing to bet this is the case, but would be willing to assume that the CC's(usually O6s) used that formula regarding their sit down with the cadets. Thus, why I am torn.

Maybe a cadet at VT is eh, but at ERAU under a different commander would have shined. Leaving it to the board to decide who goes forward.

Yet, than the rational person comes back and says "welcome to the AD world!"

OBTW, they did this in the 90's too. It is all about managing the pipeline flow at the lowest fiscal cost possible while maintaining the highest standards.
 
It certainly sounds like they were able to get rid of many of the marginal candidates ahead of time this year. Of course when you are told at the beginning of they year that unless you have a gpa above 3.0, PT scores over 90%, and are very active in the detachment you wouldn't have made it last year, and oh, by the way, we may be putting a lot of weight in this years numbers on your SAT scores, so you better have done pretty well on those too. Couple that with the time commitment and lack of scholarships, I certainly can't blame kids for really looking hard at the commitment.

It will be interesting to see if the %'s ping pong up and down from year to year based upon the prior years acceptance rate, or not.
 
Moosestache said:
It will be interesting to see if the %'s ping pong up and down from year to year based upon the prior years acceptance rate, or not.
Click to expand...

My guess will be that next year the 200/FTP class size will be a lot bigger since they see the acceptance rate for us, but as a result their's will be smaller because more are competing.
 
I think it will be interesting to see the stats of those that will go to SFT.

It will illustrate if the % went up, did the cgpa go up too? In other words, did the avg cadet have 3.4 cgpa, or did they have a 3.2?

For cadets 15 and candidates 16 it will give them a glimpse into the future of what they need to be competitive.

I agree with you Moosetache about looking hard. I also believe it is honorable of the AF to say, you can stick it out, but let's be realistic right now. Previous yrs they were not as forthcoming as it appears they are this yr.

Again, I am torn over this, but I do feel it is best to rip off the band-aid fast compared to a slow long drawn out process.
 
Eagle,

If the new path is to allow det CCs to "pick" their cadets, the class size will not be larger because the cadet will not have a voice regarding competition. No offense, but even if they could say "submit" anyway, the reality is they know 35% of the score is CC. I can't see how anyone can overcome that %. Hence, they most likely will not roll the dice.

Let's be honest, they know the following yr for AFSC this will repeat again regarding the CC.

You have to really, really, really want this to fight not only the SFT issue, but 1 yr later the AFSC, and even harder if you want rated.
 
My son never mentioned anything about people being "picked", rather, they were simply made aware of the probabilities of them making it based upon last year's %'s. Everyone we spoke with was very straightforward with us.
 
Moosestache said:
My son never mentioned anything about people being "picked", rather, they were simply made aware of the probabilities of them making it based upon last year's %'s. Everyone we spoke with was very straightforward with us.
Click to expand...

Think Pima is saying more or less they get "picked" via Commanders Ranking. I think (rumors) the plan is to slowly reduce the importance of the Commanders Ranking because it was originally 50%, this year it could be 35%, and it is speculated to drop to around 20%. But can't be too certain.
 
Pima said:
Eagle,

If the new path is to allow det CCs to "pick" their cadets, the class size will not be larger because the cadet will not have a voice regarding competition. No offense, but even if they could say "submit" anyway, the reality is they know 35% of the score is CC. I can't see how anyone can overcome that %. Hence, they most likely will not roll the dice.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling the new path will be Det CC descretion (ours said he wouldn't put anyone up who didn't get an 85 on the PFA...so we made our minimum score a 90 :wink:), but at the same time, I don't feel as if the pressure is on this year's 100s as much as it was for us last year.

We were told since day one that our class was going to be hit hard and it would be extremely hard to get an EA - so a lot dropped because they didn't want to push this far only to get cut now.

The way this is working in my head at this point is that the current 100s are not under as much pressure, and assuming they keep their GPA and PFA scores high it will be hard for the commander to straight up keep people from competing unless there's a compelling leadership issue. As a result, I see a lot more sticking around and actually being entered to compete, which means the cuts will come from the HQ level more than the det.

At the same time, we were constantly hounded by both cadre and POC to get our GPA and PFA as high as possible because of the cuts. The 100s now still get that but not as direct so they may end up screwing themselves over and getting cut because of that. So a message for 100s and prospective cadets: you have no idea how things will turn out, and even after EAs your careers are still on the line - don't slack off now or you will regret it later.


Powers45 said:
Think Pima is saying more or less they get "picked" via Commanders Ranking. I think (rumors) the plan is to slowly reduce the importance of the Commanders Ranking because it was originally 50%, this year it could be 35%, and it is speculated to drop to around 20%. But can't be too certain.
Click to expand...

We were told a couple of months ago that this year it was changed back to 50% CC ranking because a lot of dets couldn't get ACT/SAT scores in on time but they expected it to go back to the new plan next year, where SAT/ACT, and GPA held a lot of weight, while PFA and CC went down.

Edit: I think it's pretty fair to say that all of our comments relating to the future have been guesses based on our own points of view. We probably won't have any real clear picture of it until about the same time next year when the official word starts getting thrown around from Det CCs. Until then the best advice I can give to cadets is to really look deep inside of you and see what you're fighting for. Hold onto that each and every day, and put the same fight into your grades, physical fitness, and leadership capabilities as you would in a fight on the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
Eagle 1 said:
The best advice I can give to cadets is to really look deep inside of you and see what you're fighting for. Hold onto that each and every day, and put the same fight into your grades, physical fitness, and leadership capabilities as you would in a fight on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

A million times this. I competed for an EA slot this semester after a long and hard battle back into AFROTC, and this is what got me through it. Hopefully today I'll find out if that struggle paid off, but I have zero regrets because I fought tooth and nail every step of the way.
 
It'd be really interesting, as we receive notifications, if those who were accepted post here that they were, and what their stats were. Might help to understand where the line was drawn for this board.
 
I am going to say my wording was poor regarding "Pick". Support should have been the term.

I look at this as the AD world for Field grade promotions, where it is a DP, P or DNP system.

It appears that the CC's are stating if you move forward you would be a DNP in the AD world. As hard as that is to read, at least for cadets they can walk, AD you can't.

I agree with Eagle 1, this may be the new AFROTC direction where cadets are told flat out day 1, make this to be deemed competitive, don't and I won't support you.

Off topic, but a 90 PFA is low IMPO. I would worry for the cadet arriving at Maxwell with that score because AL in June/July/Aug is hot and the humidity level is high. A cadet from ME will have issues adjusting to the weather and their score will reflect that if they are a 90.

Moving on, as Eagle stated, DO NOT REST ON YOUR LAURELS...EVER!
~ Their unit is stressing grades.
~~ Do not think scholarship will save you. Scholarship for selection is what the AD world calls "masked". In other words the board doesn't know.

Attend SFT, you will get a ranking out of there which will be placed into the equation for your AFSC.
~ You can't just go to FT and think all I need to do is graduate. You need to bring not 100%, but 150%.
~~ OML will award points for FT, DG, Top 1%, 10, 20, 30, 50, and below.

Everything you do in your AFROTC career will pile on to what you have accomplished prior.

C200's need to also understand they will take an AFOQT, and if they want rated a TBAS. There will be more tests to come that are like the SAT...national.

Eagle 1 said:
We were told a couple of months ago that this year it was changed back to 50% CC ranking because a lot of dets couldn't get ACT/SAT scores in on time but they expected it to go back to the new plan next year, where SAT/ACT, and GPA held a lot of weight, while PFA and CC went down
Click to expand...

I have read that on other forums.

I have to admit I don't get why they don't give the AFOQT for C200, it maybe a cost saving issue. To me, giving it to all 200's would be the most current academic profile compared to something they took 2 yrs ago.
 
Re: Shift from 50% CC weight to 35% and possibly ultimately 20%:

IF the CC evaluates candidates in roughly the same manner as the selection Board does, than this is irrelevant and simply shifts the duty from CC to Board.

IF, however, the CC evaluates completely differently than the Board, this is significant. The CC like anybody else has biases and blind spots. That's WHY there are Boards. Just as in a classroom, every professor has favorites. Who knows why. Maybe one cadet is a relative. Maybe the cadet is a brown nose. Maybe the cadet and CC are from the same home town. Maybe they're both Free Methodists. Maybe both their parents immigrated from Russia. Maybe the CC is homophobic and has suspicions about a couple of cadets. Maybe the CC is a misogynist, anti Jewish or anti Muslim, or anti rich kid, or anti something else. Maybe the CC likes anybody over 5' 10" tall. Maybe the CC will favor a cadet whose parents were military. Who knows. There are a thousand possible biases/prejudices and most of us, including CCs, have quite a few.

Regarding biases, I have coached for a few years in softball/baseball. I put a great amount of emphasis on hitting statistics, in particular On Base % and Slugging %, and the combination of the two called OPS. There was a book called Money Ball that describes what happened when a professional baseball team started using stats instead of "gut feel" in making lineup decisions, and decisions about trading players. It made a huge difference, for the positive, to use unbiases stats over biased perceptions. I use OPS to determine the starting hitting lineup, as well as the order in the lineup. If I don't consult the stats, I am left with gut feel or faulty memory. X player has a nice swing, has good size, and looks like a great hitter! Y player has an unorthdox swing, is smaller, and has never hit a home run. Of cours X gets into the starting lineup.. they just LOOK the part. But when I consult the OPS, I see X is at .645 and Y is at .880 (note: higher number is better). What he heck? I don't remember that! My memory is influenced by my BIAS... X LOOKS like more of a hitter than Y. But the data tell me Y should start ahead of X. I can even ask other players or co-coaches who haven't seen the stats -- who do you think hit better last year, X or Y? And almost everybody will say X. But the two wouldn't even be close to equally productive.. Y is more productive per the stats.

My point is that Boards can be much, much more objective than CCs can, because they don't see how much a cadet LOOKS like a great cadet, or how much they relate personally to that cadet, but see the data about the cadet, which includes the CC's subjective remarks.

The fact that an individual CC can have so much power over a cadet's future is scary when you think about the frailties of every human being and putting that much power into one person's hands.

I think it is overall good that the balance of power is shifting, if that is true, from the CC to a selection Board that will use more objective selection criteria.
 
Last edited:
Pima said:
Off topic, but a 90 PFA is low IMPO. I would worry for the cadet arriving at Maxwell with that score because AL in June/July/Aug is hot and the humidity level is high. A cadet from ME will have issues adjusting to the weather and their score will reflect that if they are a 90.
Click to expand...

Our average was a 98, with eight 100s :thumb:


I have to admit I don't get why they don't give the AFOQT for C200, it maybe a cost saving issue. To me, giving it to all 200's would be the most current academic profile compared to something they took 2 yrs ago.
Click to expand...
I've heard two takes on this. One is the cost option, where simply put there will just be less people taking it if it's offered later. The other one was that while offered as an option to those without an ACT/SAT score or who wanted to shoot for a better score, cadets just weren't preparing for it so it was stressed as a last resort.

In the future I would expect 100s to be told to start preparing for and taking it their 200 year.
 
When DS entered in 08, every 100 had to take it. I got moving it to 200 because not every cadet enters as a freshman.

I just think, MPO, that if the AFOQT is required by the AFA, AFROTC should also require it. Maybe wrong, but I believe C3C's =C200s AFROTC take it.

JMPO, again, but I would tell any candidate for 17, take the ACT, AFOQT is more like the ACT than the SAT. Lot's of graphing, situation awareness. SAT's do not stress that.


98 is strong, 8 100's illustrates that your det is in it to win!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top