AROTC Class of 2014 Branching

Aglahad,

what I should have done was put EN into my 1st slot as I am a mechanical engineering major. But hindsight is 20/20 and I am glad at least that I put IN into the 1 slot instead of copping out and wondering if the numbers would have worked for me.

I also thought my OML was fairly decent, at least enough to get me one of the combat arms. I had higher scores than many of my peers last year who received their 1st choice of combat arms. Alas, my OML was obviously not that high.

And, mbitr, it sure does seem that way doesn't it?:yllol:
 
Proud to report my daughter got AD for her second choice, Adjutant General. Like others, she reports shock that many very deserving cadets did not get AD or got their last choice, etc.
 
So I'm a bit confused as to how this all worked, I had an 82.55 and got branched NG, but yet people with scores lower than me got AD without the degree program. Anyone know why has happened?
 
AscoreD said:
So I'm a bit confused as to how this all worked, I had an 82.55 and got branched NG, but yet people with scores lower than me got AD without the degree program. Anyone know why has happened?
Click to expand...

Like I said on the other forum, its probably because their the way the scores fluctuated this year. We're probably comparing our scores from two different days. In less we both pulled our scores at the same time to compare there's no telling for certain that you slid across home plate with an 82.5 and I with an 81.
 
mbitr said:
Like I said on the other forum, its probably because their the way the scores fluctuated this year. We're probably comparing our scores from two different days. In less we both pulled our scores at the same time to compare there's no telling for certain that you slid across home plate with an 82.5 and I with an 81.
Click to expand...

That's really odd that you guys didn't get AD. I had a score of 84 something and I received AD and my first choice of AR w/ADSO. Others that got AD had around the same score and we all got our first choices. Two got MI branch detail AR and IN which were first choices.

7/17 got AD, but 3 of those were already going NG/AR so half of us got AD. This stuff is confusing.
 
The Brigade Commander is at my son's school today. It will be interesting to see if he has anything to say when he meets with the cadets.
 
say_what said:
This stuff is confusing.
Click to expand...

Any time the government (and political correctness, quotas, etc...) is involved, it's going to be confusing, screwed up and being the best qualified is definitely NOT on the agenda. Welcome to the real world :bang:
 
I was DMG and got my first choice with ADSO MI with a VOL detail IN. I had a 84.5 after my OMS dropped from 94.5
 
Bayonet6 said:
I was DMG and got my first choice with ADSO MI with a VOL detail IN. I had a 84.5 after my OMS dropped from 94.5
Click to expand...

Congratulations on the DMG and 1st choice.

At this point it would be nice to see the OML, not that its going to change anything for anyone. But the more you know...
 
OML will not be published publicly

I would bet my paycheck the OML (with or without names) will not be published in any way this year.

If published it will expose that there is no longer an AD cutoff line. There are too many exceptions that allow AD below this perceived cut line. The military schools (Citadel, VMI, UNG.....), the association of a specific degree to branch, G2G AD program, ........

I think the Career Satisfaction Program took a big hit this year.
 
Out of 14 MSIVs branching with this year group
8 DMGs / 1 in Top 10%
All 10 going for AD got it, all but one, with their first choice. One got his 3rd
3 Branch detailed from MI, 2 requested it, one did not.

4 chose to go Reserves/NG, 2 of those were SMP, one was GRFD.

Out of the cadets branched this year, it was about 50% AD & 50% USAR/NG. I have stats on which branches were requested the most that I'll post later.
 
AROTC Parent said:
I think the Career Satisfaction Program took a big hit this year.
Click to expand...

Not to make any decisions pre-maturely, still have 4.5 years to make up my mind, but I can definitely say my future plans have changed. Of course I am but one lone example and the other results seem to have many people on these forums receiving the branches they wanted.
 
Anyone know the average percentage a AD cadet goes up on the OML when NG/Reserves are taken out of the equation?
 
There are several factors new this year that, in my view, make it almost impossible for an individual cadet, or the PMS for that matter, to understand how they branched. In order of importance:

- the unexplained drop in OMS for some cadets by 10 points two months ago
- the new ADSO component in assigning Active Duty, not just Branch as before
- the guaranteed AD (with low minimum qualifiers) for seven branches if the corresponding college major is attached (e.g. Engineering major gets ENGINEERING branch AD even with very low position on OML)

I am not sure about the reference in a post above about gender, geography (urban), or URM status in all this... I had thought those were new initiatives in awarding scholarships, not in determining who qualifies for AD and who does not.
 
Aglahad said:
Anyone know the average percentage a AD cadet goes up on the OML when NG/Reserves are taken out of the equation?
Click to expand...
Two years ago a 20% for all cadets was a 30% for the AD component. I am going to guess that with fewer AD allocations this year, a 20% on the entire OML would translate to about 35% on teh AD OML. I think this would mean that some DMGs (top 20% of entire cohort) would not get first choice, without using ADSO, for MI and MSC, vs. getting those Branches without ADSO in 2011.

I'm starting to conclude that the new Branch model has taken some focus away from OML, and put more on the cadet who is willing to buy AD by committing to an additional three years of AD service.
 
AROTC Parent said:
I would bet my paycheck the OML (with or without names) will not be published in any way this year.

If published it will expose that there is no longer an AD cutoff line. There are too many exceptions that allow AD below this perceived cut line. The military schools (Citadel, VMI, UNG.....), the association of a specific degree to branch, G2G AD program, ........

I think the Career Satisfaction Program took a big hit this year.
Click to expand...

The only new change to what you mentioned above are the special degree programs. The academies and Green to Gold are not new. I wouldn't believe that it's a matter of a cut off not existing. The scoring got so confused this year that the OMS people think they have could be as off as much as 6 to 10 points. Downward pressure from the loss of 200 slots and upward pressure from special degree allocations probably squeezed out a lot of people who were on the bubble.
 
This accesions cohort is ridiculous. Cutoff was higher than 80 cause that's what I had and got rfd. We had a cadet in the 85-86 range not get AD. This cadet was not grfd or anything like that, plus cadet had a decent pms evaluation. What was also weird was there was a cadet with a 81 in my class who got AD MI with a branch detail in infantry
 
fxrocks8 said:
This accesions cohort is ridiculous. Cutoff was higher than 80 cause that's what I had and got rfd. We had a cadet in the 85-86 range not get AD. This cadet was not grfd or anything like that, plus cadet had a decent pms evaluation. What was also weird was there was a cadet with a 81 in my class who got AD MI with a branch detail in infantry
Click to expand...

Nobody is really going to be able to compare their numbers until or if they ever release a list showing where everyone placed. With all the increase a decrease of OMS point that CC did prior to branching the numbers could be far off what you were told during counseling. Add to all this the guaranteed AD for certain majors/branches program that is new this year and I would imagine the list was a mess.
 
I agree my pms said not to expect any number to be released this year. Cause the way people got Ad or not made so sense considering done people got it with lower oms scores than others who had higher oms scores. He said if they released there methodology it would cause a lot of complaints
 
I searched back through some old threads and found the link to the 2014 Accessions Brief that was supposedly presented at LDAC. I can't link it because I don't have enough posts, but it was in the thread was titled 'FY 14 accessions brief PowerPoint given at LDAC' started by fxrocks8 on 8-21.

At the time, it made no sense to me, but looking back through it now, I think it does somewhat explain some of the results being reported in this thread. If you start on slide 8 and read the comments below the slide as well as the text actually on it, you'll see some things like -
  • The key element of this process is one additional piece of information gathered during preference submission. The cadets must state if they would like consideration during pre-branching for their first, top two, or top three branch preferences.
  • This process will consider all 16 branch preferences in the DABM. By informing cadets that an ADSO will improve their chances of receiving their preferred branch, cadets higher on the OML should be more willing to ADSO and could create a more even distribution of ADSOs across the OML.
  • National OML will not be released to the Field.
  • Disadvantages:Optimization model outcomes more difficult to explain

If I am understanding correctly (that's a big IF), it sounds like the cadets who had not yet been branched when the pre-branching was completed were pretty much at the mercy of the model and subject to the constraints that the model was optimized for - whatever they were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top