AFROTC EA stats

Nursing also is a critical field too, so you might want to add that into the mix.

muddster said:
We were never told ours to maybe ensure their was no flaunting or taunting as "I am better than you" mentality is all i can suspect and maybe to prevent cadets from getting discouraged and dropping if they got a low commanders ranking. Just a guess though
Click to expand...

I am not sure how I feel about that, because one aspect of ROTC is to prepare future officers, and that is real world AD. I think it is best to have the big boy/girl approach not only from the real world perspective, but also from the FT and C300 perspective.

FT cadets will get a ranking out of there that will be part of their OML as a 300 for their AFSC. Best to give them a shock now so they know what is in front of them than to wait and give it next yr.

Additionally, I think any CC worth their weight in salt, would say to a cadet that is their bottom 1/3, remember, historically for our det., you are going to be safe, but because I know your AFSC goal is this, and what the % are historically for that field, you need to step it up a notch to feel safe next yr.

Real world is coming for all of these cadets, be it AF or civilian, and they will not sugar coat anything to prevent discouragement. It will be get with the program or goodbye. Rated world at UPT is not hold handing and singing songs. It is chewing you out and making your arse look like hamburger meat on a daily basis. JMPO, but this is a disservice to any and all cadets because if telling them as a cadet they are the bottom of the class, and that will make them want to drop, what will they do when they are AD and face it at that time?

Sorry for diverting. Back on topic
 
homewith4
Tech major
3.72 GPA
100% PFT
AFOQT Unknown
CC Rank middle third


muddster89
Non-Tech
3.68 CGPA
96.3PFA
1120SAT
CC Rank Unknown

Ieatsquirrels
Non-Tech
GPA: 3.44
PFA: 96.7%
ACT: 20
CC Rank Unknown

JeRDLe
Non-Tech
3.44 GPA
99% PFA
1320 SAT
CC Rank bottom third

bpenguin
Tech Major (Computer Science)
CGPA: 3.5
AFOQT AA 77
PFA: 96.8
Ranking: Unknown, but probably middle third

StrikeGently
Non-Tech
CGPA: 3.27
PFA: 94
ACT: 31
Ranking: Unsure, but most likely top 1/3

Norix
Tech
3.3 GPA
99.3% PFA
ACT 28
CC Rank unknown

utlee
non-tech
commander's ranking: top third
PFA: 94
GPA:3.81
ACT:27

Powers45
non-tech
3.41 GPA
100% PFA
SAT 1150
CC Rank unknown

WorleyT
non-tech
3.093 GPA
90.7% PFA
SAT 1140
CC Rank unknown

AirForceTrojan
Non-Tech
GPA 3.47
PFA 95.2
SAT: ~1950
ACT: 30
AFOQT: Aptitude: 93, Verbal: 86, Quantative: 91
CC Ranking: Middle Third

Eagle 1
Standing by

Moosestache
GPA 3.5 non tech
PT 92%
SAT 1300
They weren't told the Commander's Rankings.
He was a 250 student

Agagles
Nursing
 
Pima said:
I am not sure how I feel about that, because one aspect of ROTC is to prepare future officers, and that is real world AD. I think it is best to have the big boy/girl approach not only from the real world perspective, but also from the FT and C300 perspective.
Click to expand...
Agree. One should know where they rank. If you are not getting it done they owe it to you to tell you that. That is the way the world works. JMPO.
 
Although, sometimes not knowing is more of an incentive than knowing. If you are in the top 1/3 and know it, are you going to push you self as much as if you don't know where you stand?
 
I feel for the AF if your premise is true.

What kind of leadership will they have if they stop striving?
 
I am not trying to change the thread subject, but I have a quick question. Why are standardized test scores taken into account when attempting to obtain a spot? It seems as if the AFOQT is a suitable replacement, especially since the ACT and SAT was taken in high school. I am just trying to understand its relevancy.
 
Approx. 2 yrs ago they stopped administering the AFOQT to C100/200's. Now they use either the AFOQT or the SAT.

Personally, I think it would be wise to administer the AFOQT to 200's, but money is money and as a 200 you can still walk so the SAT/ACT are in play.
 
Pima said:
I feel for the AF if your premise is true.

What kind of leadership will they have if they stop striving?
Click to expand...

LOL I think it is wonderful to believe that every officer in the USAF and every officer candidate is constantly striving and needs no incentives to push themselves to give every single bit of themselves to be the very best they can be. It just isn't a realistic view.
 
Moosestache said:
I think it is wonderful to believe that every officer in the USAF and every officer candidate is constantly striving and needs no incentives to push themselves to give every single bit of themselves to be the very best they can be. It just isn't a realistic view.
Click to expand...

So your answer is to strive for mediocre?

That is how I read it. You are saying number 1 will stop fighting to be number 1 once they achieve it.

I am assuming your position is telling no one their ranking is motivation. I am going to tell you in the AD world that is not true. This selection would have been DP, P or DNP.

As an AD officer you would get an OER 6 months after arriving on station, than on a yrly basis. PCS and there will be an exit OER.

PME it is DG, 1% or squat.

FT it is DG, 1%, 10%, 20%. 30%, 50% or below. That goes into your OML for AFSC

You may want to believe that not telling a cadet is the right module, but what good will it do when they get to OML as a C300?

What good does it do because behind their back the CC writes it down on their rec?

Would you rather not know? Or would you rather know so you can fight to be the best AF OFFICER EVER?

I don't think any of us want a number 1 who rests on their laurels, but I also have more faith in your brethren that are number 1 because I believe their goal is to raise their right hand and say:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Which officer do you want covering your six?
 
Army must be different.

Cadets at my son's school have always known exactly where they were on the OML each year.

I saw it as great incentive, son ended his first year at the bottom of the OML, ended his second year No. 1.
 
Pima said:
So your answer is to strive for mediocre?

That is how I read it. You are saying number 1 will stop fighting to be number 1 once they achieve it.

I am assuming your position is telling no one their ranking is motivation. I am going to tell you in the AD world that is not true. This selection would have been DP, P or DNP.

As an AD officer you would get an OER 6 months after arriving on station, than on a yrly basis. PCS and there will be an exit OER.

PME it is DG, 1% or squat.

FT it is DG, 1%, 10%, 20%. 30%, 50% or below. That goes into your OML for AFSC

You may want to believe that not telling a cadet is the right module, but what good will it do when they get to OML as a C300?

What good does it do because behind their back the CC writes it down on their rec?

Would you rather not know? Or would you rather know so you can fight to be the best AF OFFICER EVER?

I don't think any of us want a number 1 who rests on their laurels, but I also have more faith in your brethren that are number 1 because I believe their goal is to raise their right hand and say:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Which officer do you want covering your six?
Click to expand...

@Pima. I think you're setting up a false strawman here. The choice isn't necessarily between striving to be the absolute best you can be and mediocrity. Someone might settle for just being pretty Damn good. Of course no one should be striving to just get by. There are always tradeoffs one makes.
 
I received an AFROTC EA slot with the following statistics:

Non Tech
3.0 cGPA
98.4 PFA
64 AFOQT Academic Aptitude score (equivalent to a 26 ACT or 1200/1600 SAT)
Bottom 1/3 Commander's Ranking

I'm in Arnold Air Society for the record but I don't think that has any direct relevance.
 
Pima said:
So your answer is to strive for mediocre?

That is how I read it. You are saying number 1 will stop fighting to be number 1 once they achieve it.

I am assuming your position is telling no one their ranking is motivation. I am going to tell you in the AD world that is not true. This selection would have been DP, P or DNP.

As an AD officer you would get an OER 6 months after arriving on station, than on a yrly basis. PCS and there will be an exit OER.

PME it is DG, 1% or squat.

FT it is DG, 1%, 10%, 20%. 30%, 50% or below. That goes into your OML for AFSC

You may want to believe that not telling a cadet is the right module, but what good will it do when they get to OML as a C300?

What good does it do because behind their back the CC writes it down on their rec?

Would you rather not know? Or would you rather know so you can fight to be the best AF OFFICER EVER?

I don't think any of us want a number 1 who rests on their laurels, but I also have more faith in your brethren that are number 1 because I believe their goal is to raise their right hand and say:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Which officer do you want covering your six?
Click to expand...

I want the best officer possible serving our country. I also realize that there are lots of different ways to get the most out of people. What may work for your son, may well not work for my son. I hope that the kid's commanders are good enough leaders to understand that and do their best to make all of our kids succeed.

Furthermore, if what we read can be believed, it looks like they will be greatly devaluing Commander's ranking in so far as the field training decision goes next year, if they didn't already this year. Perhaps they have decided that it isn't a fair, equitable, or good way to judge sophomores. Therefore, they don't want to share it, or make a big deal of it until after the cut downs for field training.
 
Moosestache said:
Furthermore, if what we read can be believed, it looks like they will be greatly devaluing Commander's ranking in so far as the field training decision goes next year, if they didn't already this year. Perhaps they have decided that it isn't a fair, equitable, or good way to judge sophomores. Therefore, they don't want to share it, or make a big deal of it until after the cut downs for field training.
Click to expand...
Very good point. I would agree that having such a large portion of ones score being one persons opinion may not be a good idea.
 
homewith4
Tech major
3.72 GPA
100% PFT
AFOQT Unknown
CC Rank middle third

muddster89
Non-Tech
3.68 CGPA
96.3PFA
1120SAT
CC Rank Unknown

Ieatsquirrels
Non-Tech
GPA: 3.44
PFA: 96.7%
ACT: 20
CC Rank Unknown

JeRDLe
Non-Tech
3.44 GPA
99% PFA
1320 SAT
CC Rank bottom third

bpenguin
Tech Major (Computer Science)
CGPA: 3.5
AFOQT AA 77
PFA: 96.8
Ranking: Unknown, but probably middle third

StrikeGently
Non-Tech
CGPA: 3.27
PFA: 94
ACT: 31
Ranking: Unsure, but most likely top 1/3

Norix
Tech
3.3 GPA
99.3% PFA
ACT 28
CC Rank unknown

utlee
non-tech
commander's ranking: top third
PFA: 94
GPA:3.81
ACT:27

Powers45
non-tech
3.41 GPA
100% PFA
SAT 1150
CC Rank unknown

WorleyT
non-tech
3.093 GPA
90.7% PFA
SAT 1140
CC Rank unknown

AirForceTrojan
Non-Tech
GPA 3.47
PFA 95.2
SAT: ~1950
ACT: 30
AFOQT: Aptitude: 93, Verbal: 86, Quantative: 91
CC Ranking: Middle Third

Moosestache
GPA 3.5 non tech
PT 92%
SAT 1300
They weren't told the Commander's Rankings.
He was a 250 student

Eagle 1
Non-Tech
GPA: 3.528
PFA: 97
ACT: 27
CC Rank: Top Third
 
The CC's rec is rumored to drop from 50% to 35% with the increase to go over to the AFOQT/SAT portion. For rated the TBAS will take over the AFOQT/SAT portion = 40% of the OML and I believe the CC will reduce even further down to @20%

I am not opposed to the drop because there will always be personalities in the equation, just like when you go AD. However, in the AD world you must learn to work with those commanders to become a better officer.

In the AD world they will rack and stack you. If the T in ROTC stands for TRAINING, this is part of training for the AD world. There are many 20 yrs old (enlisted) right now in the AD world getting the harsh reality of their performance, why should we say treat a future officer differently at the same age than the AD world, when this is the make or break for the AD world?

We trust ROTC CC's to be the best and to use their military experience in training and grooming cadets. To say to them they shouldn't reveal rack/stack to the cadet when they will place it on their packet is unfair to the cadet and the CC. How do they groom if they can't discuss exactly where they fall? They all get a semester review, it would be common curiosity when given the opportunity to ask any question, to ask, how do I compare to the class in general? Or do I stack high enough for FT/AFSC to get my 1st choice? What I am reading is the CC is saying "I am not willing/able to discuss that, just ...." all the while knowing in their mind they want to say, look you are X and you need to do this to either stay at X or move up the ladder.

My point about striving is that to say a number 1 ranked cadet has no incentive to strive is IMPO wrong to assume. Just as it is wrong to assume that the bottom cadet will walk or be in despair. If they are than the question really has to be how bad do you want it? If it is not bad enough to put more effort in, than maybe it is best you walk now instead of a yr or 2 when you can't walk without a penalty.

If you look at the list many have the bottom 1/3rd and they stuck it out, but also on other threads many posters have stated that their original C200 class shrunk by @35-40%. Posters have stated they were told by CC's it doesn't look good and they chose the option to walk. There is absolutely nothing wrong with walking, and I think because the CC was brutally honest they helped those cadets in the long run. There is nothing worse than a scholarship cadet finding out they weren't selected and now trying to find a way to pay for the college or transfer in March, especially since schools right now are enrolling for fall 2012 classes.

I am just a spouse and a Mom who watched over the yrs how it worked from my perspective in the rated AD world. Bullet had CC's that we joked were prison wardens. He CC's that had their golden children. Every new move or every 2 yrs there was a new CC with their own philosophy regarding the ideal officer. Every yr that CC signed off on his OER, and every few yrs it was a PRF. They always racked and stacked, and you always knew where you stood because these forms have Bullet statements. There will always be 1 of the following because it is known to be the key statement that they all use:
~ My Number 1 officer
~ 1 of my top officers
~ Asset to the squadron, integral in XYZ

AKA
Top
Middle
Bottom

We can pretend that the CC's voice doesn't matter, but remember the CC is AD and an O6. We should want them to tell cadets. We should want the CC rec to mimic the AD world, thus the reason it is going to 35% from 50%. The goal here IMPO is to ensure that cadets enter the AD world and not get a wake up call on the AD.

There is a running joke among officers in the rated world that have about 9+ yrs regarding the younger officers.

SNAPS and SNACS. Sensitive New Age Pilot/CSO. They get a big wake up call when they go to training, and not in a positive way. It may very well be because of ROTC CCs that never rack and stack. The rated world is known to eat their young which is probably why I believe best to do it now so they have the reality check under their belt before they are set free to be told you stink!
 
homewith4
Tech major
3.72 GPA
100% PFT
AFOQT Unknown
CC Rank middle third

muddster89
Non-Tech
3.68 CGPA
96.3PFA
1120SAT
CC Rank Unknown

Ieatsquirrels
Non-Tech
GPA: 3.44
PFA: 96.7%
ACT: 20
CC Rank Unknown

JeRDLe
Non-Tech
3.44 GPA
99% PFA
1320 SAT
CC Rank bottom third

bpenguin
Tech Major (Computer Science)
CGPA: 3.5
AFOQT AA 77
PFA: 96.8
Ranking: Unknown, but probably middle third

StrikeGently
Non-Tech
CGPA: 3.27
PFA: 94
ACT: 31
Ranking: Unsure, but most likely top 1/3

Norix
Tech
3.3 GPA
99.3% PFA
ACT 28
CC Rank unknown

utlee
non-tech
commander's ranking: top third
PFA: 94
GPA:3.81
ACT:27

Powers45
non-tech
3.41 GPA
100% PFA
SAT 1150
CC Rank unknown

WorleyT
non-tech
3.093 GPA
90.7% PFA
SAT 1140
CC Rank unknown

AirForceTrojan
Non-Tech
GPA 3.47
PFA 95.2
SAT: ~1950
ACT: 30
AFOQT: Aptitude: 93, Verbal: 86, Quantative: 91
CC Ranking: Middle Third

Moosestache
GPA 3.5 non tech
PT 92%
SAT 1300
They weren't told the Commander's Rankings.
He was a 250 student

Eagle 1
Non-Tech
GPA: 3.528
PFA: 97
ACT: 27
CC Rank: Top Third
 
homewith4
Tech major
3.72 GPA
100% PFT
AFOQT Unknown
CC Rank middle third

muddster89
Non-Tech
3.68 CGPA
96.3PFA
1120SAT
CC Rank Unknown

Ieatsquirrels
Non-Tech
GPA: 3.44
PFA: 96.7%
ACT: 20
CC Rank Unknown

JeRDLe
Non-Tech
3.44 GPA
99% PFA
1320 SAT
CC Rank bottom third

bpenguin
Tech Major (Computer Science)
CGPA: 3.5
AFOQT AA 77
PFA: 96.8
Ranking: Unknown, but probably middle third

StrikeGently
Non-Tech
CGPA: 3.27
PFA: 94
ACT: 31
Ranking: Unsure, but most likely top 1/3

Norix
Tech
3.3 GPA
99.3% PFA
ACT 28
CC Rank unknown

utlee
non-tech
commander's ranking: top third
PFA: 94
GPA:3.81
ACT:27

Powers45
non-tech
3.41 GPA
100% PFA
SAT 1150
CC Rank unknown

WorleyT
non-tech
3.093 GPA
90.7% PFA
SAT 1140
CC Rank unknown

AirForceTrojan
Non-Tech
GPA 3.47
PFA 95.2
SAT: ~1950
ACT: 30
AFOQT: Aptitude: 93, Verbal: 86, Quantative: 91
CC Ranking: Middle Third

Moosestache
GPA 3.5 non tech
PT 92%
SAT 1300
They weren't told the Commander's Rankings.
He was a 250 student

Eagle 1
Non-Tech
GPA: 3.528
PFA: 97
ACT: 27
CC Rank: Top Third

Frisbforce
Tech (research meteorology)
GPA: 3.0
PFA: 100
SAT: 1240
CC Rank: Top Third
 
We have sort of gone of topic here. The question was asked why many of the candidates weren't told their ranking and I came up with a possible reason. I really have no idea, but based upon all of the other evidence I have seen, it looks like the USAF is trying to devalue the Commander's rankings.

My guess is there isn't an awful lot of time for the Commander's to interact with the students, and there really isn't much to judge them on, other than their grades and their PT scores, both of which they are already being judged on. My understanding is the students do PT one morning, take a class one afternoon and have leadership class along with pt for the rest of the afternoon. I guess they also have other activities, but they are rather sporadic. It just doesn't leave much time for them to interact. The question then becomes, where does the Commander's ranking come from and how accurate is it.

Now this isn't like an enlisted airman who is at his job 50 hours a week. He is graded on his performance. It isn't like basic training, or Field Training where the kids are living and breathing the military, and they can be judged easily against their peers. I just imagine it would be very difficult for a Commander to really get to know these ROTC kids, especially when you add cross town schools and , in the past, lots of extra kids who might not even make it to FT.

I am not trying to say this is the "right way" or the "wrong way" it just looks to me like it is the new USAF way.
 
AFROTC mimics ADAF.

The CC has a DO that reports to the CC. The FC reports to the DO. The officer is reviewed by the FC that pushes it up the chain of the command.

In the AFROTC world, the AD instructors have FCC's write reviews. Know that because DS was an FCC and had to write them. That AD instructor reviews it just like the DO in the AD world, and from there it goes to the CC.

FCC's and CCC's meet weekly prior to PT and discuss the cadets with AD leadership. C100/200's may have a show time of 6 a.m., but FCC and CWC will be there at 5 a.m.

Yes, you are correct the CC doesn't spend a heck of a lot of time with the cadets, but the fact is their decision came up the line. They were taking the recs from other people too.

The CC had the final voice, but there were many voices he listened to during the yr.

It is not as if the CC just goes off on what little he knows from interaction. The cadet has just like the AD world, a performance review, and it will include things, like jobs within the det., PF scores, cgpa, AFOQT/SAT, national awards, etc.

The CC will place that into the equation. He may feel that the 3.2 cgpa in EE with a 96 PF and a 1300 SAT is stronger than the 3.4 cgpa Business, 97 PF and 1320 SAT.

That is where the qualitative comes in.

As I stated in the AD world it works the same way. The NCOIC will write their rec., the officer he reports to will sign off. (Actually has 2 boxes...concur or do not concur), the CC will sign off, the Wing King will sign off. The wing king that has 5K AD members reporting doesn't know every officer, let alone every enlisted. He is placing faith and listening to his/her chain regarding their decision.

The exact same thing that the O6 is doing in AFROTC. It is not personal, it is professional. If anyone makes a judgement that impacts the cadet's ranking, the cadet should look at the C300/400's because they are the 1st line in the process. The AD officers will look to the CWC/CVWC because they know all of the cadets. The CWC/CVWC will look to the FCC because it is their flight. The FCC may look to the PT instructor for guidance regarding the cadet.

It is actually a bottom up approach, not a top down approach. As you can see there were about 4 voices the CC heard, and although I do not know, but if they do the concur/do not concur, the CC has as much interaction with the cadet as the E-3 has with the CC in ADAF.

Even for ADAF officers, I will bet my avatar (beloved dog) that the avg wing king does not know every O3 up for O4 when it comes to PRFs. They try, but if the officer wasn't wearing a name tag, they would bump into them at Wal-Mart on a Saturday, apologize and move on as if they were a stranger. Look at the Pentagon, the running joke is if you are an O4 your job is to get coffee! Yet, there will be a GO signing off on that PRF!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top