Armor Officer?

[dunninla]

under AR you can see that everybody pretty much up to 30% on the OML got their branch,

Can you explain how far cadets typically move within the OML between their position before LDAC, and their position after?

Reason I ask, is that it looks like LDAC (without counting the APFT portion of LDAC) composes about 22.5% of the OMS. Counting LDAC + LDAC APFT, LDAC is about 32% of a cadet's total OMS. I think it is reasonable to count the APFT given at LDAC as part of LDAC b/c what if a cadet is feeling physcially subpar at LDAC and his/her APFT from school is 280, but at LDAC is 250), it can change the OMS substantially.

 

[Jcleppe]

Can you explain how far cadets typically move within the OML between their position before LDAC, and their position after?

Reason I ask, is that it looks like LDAC (without counting the APFT portion of LDAC) composes about 22.5% of the OMS. Counting LDAC + LDAC APFT, LDAC is about 32% of a cadet's total OMS. I think it is reasonable to count the APFT given at LDAC as part of LDAC b/c what if a cadet is feeling physcially subpar at LDAC and his/her APFT from school is 280, but at LDAC is 250), it can change the OMS substantially.

LDAC scores can get a bit confusing.

There is the Overall E, S or N, but there are also dimensional scores, 17 I believe. There are 6 categories, if a cadet gets an E in 3 and an S in three then they need to have at least 9 dimensional E's to get an overall E.

The LDAC score is not simply whether the cadet gets an overall E or S, it also has to do with how many dimensional E's they get. If a cadet gets an overall S but their score was 6 E's and 6 S's with 8 dimentional E's they can still get a fairly good point total for LDAC.

As far as the APFT there isn't much they can do if they have a bad LDAC APFT, tha's why it's so important to have good scores your junior year. My son was one of those that had 325 plus APFT scores on both graded tests his junior year and got a 287 at LDAC. They didn't count 20 plus PU's, the guy next to him didn't have one that didn't count, it was pretty arbitrary grading. I think now that the NCO's are grading the APFT you will start to see more balanced grading. I'm sure the APFT score at LDAC hurt him a little, it kept him from getting Recondo which would have added an extra .5 to his OMS, it was just something a lot of cadets had to deal with.

As far as how much the cadets move on the OMS score after LDAC you would have to look at the final OMS eval for each cadet. It is hard to determine the difference because of the dimensional scoring how they figure those into the overall LDAC score.

I can give you one example:

My son had a 3.5 GPA, received an overall E at LDAC with 3 E's and 3 S's and 12 Dimensional E's, he was ranked #2 on the battalion OML and attended Airborne and took one semester of critical language. He finished at 6.43% on the National OML.

A fellow cadet at his school had a higher GPA, 3.7 I believe, he received an overall S at LDAC with 6 S's and 5 dimensional E's, he was ranked #1 on the battalion OML, did not go to Airborne or any summer training, and took one semester of critical language. He finished 21.9% on the National OML.

So from that you can see that LDAC can have a real impact on the OMS score.

 

[dunninla]

^ my head hurts.

I keep falling back on what most everyone concludes: "Max out everything you can, at all times"... GPA, APFT, ECs, Summer Training, ROTC Leadership, LDAC.

Still, I think it might be useful for cadets to be able to track their OMS score as they progress through their MSI - MSIV years. For example, how are scores converted? The only score we believe we know converts exactly is GPA * 10, where a 3.4 GPA = 34 OMS points.

Example:

Fall, MSIII APFT score that goes into OMS: 1.69 possible points per the FY11 Accessions Briefing. So, is a 270 APFT in the Fall of MSIII year then 270/300 * 1.69 = 1.521, whereas a 285 that day is 285/300 * 1.69 = 1.606, etc?

Or what about the OMS score for Athletics, a 1.5 total possible, again per the Accessions Briefing slides. Is Varsity Athletics 1.5, Intramural 1.0, and community .75?

I'm sure this could come across is being WAY too concerned about a point here, a point there, but the way I understand the system, 2.5 points for Language/Cultural is exactly the same as a GPA increase from 3.0 to 3.25, so these points are extremely important. Maybe a cadet would be wise to choose study of a Critical Language to pick up those 2.5 OMS points, vs. taking five times longer to try to get his/her entire CUM GPA up .025 points. Given that every point is important, and the sole measure that determines whether a Cadet is top 10% of the AD OML and gets his/her Branch of Choice, or top 20% to be Distinguished Military Graduate, or the difference between top 17% AD OML (in 2011 gets Military Intelligence without ADSO) or to 18% AD OML (needs ADSO to get MI), it seems knowing how the points are awarded, and creating goals to participate in and excel in those measured optional activities to reach and exceed those point threshholds, would the the route of an intelligent cadet wanting to maximize their choices for Branch.

Here's a silly example but I think it might illustrate the point: What IF:

a cadet has 90 minutes per week to give extra attention to some aspect of their ROTC activity. Given the choice, should the cadet spend those 90 weekly minutes doing additional distance running, to get the Run portion of the APFT from 81 points to 99 points, or spend the same amount of time doing IntraMural soccer?

The points work out like this, if I understand them correctly:

- Intramural = 1.5 OMS points
- Increase from 81 to 99 points in the APFT 2 mile run, by lowering the run time from 14:24 to 13:06. raises the APFT score eighteen points for the Fall, MSIII APFT test. That makes an increase in the OMS of 1.69 (total possible OMS points for the Fall, MSIII APFT test) *18/300, or 0.1 OMS points.

1.5 vs. 0.1

see my point? The Intramurals points are worth 15 times the points compared to the increase in APFT running score. Would that cadet then be well advised to use those 90 minutes per week on Intramurals rather than on trying to increasing their APFT running score by 18 points?

Or better yet, what about a cadet looking at the OMS score sheet, and choosing to take a critical language (Arabic, Chinese, etc.) instead of a few other non-OMS scoring liberal arts courses like Sociology, Psych, Anthro, Econ, etc.? This costs the cadet zero extra time... the only price the cadet pays is not taking four other courses that interest him/her. The Critical language would give that cadet about 2.0 OMS points, the alternative, 0.0

 

[Jcleppe]

^^Now my head hurts.

 

[dunninla]

so both our heads hurt.

p.S. made a mistake reading a chart. For FY 2011 (the year we are just ending) Military Intelligence Branching required top 31% of the AD OML to get in without ADSO, and top 40% of AD OML to get MI using ADSO. from 41% -50% of AD OML was Dead Zone for MI.

I found it even more interesting that out of the USMA, getting MI required top 26% of OML without using ADSO... I think there are fewer slots in MI for USMA grads, as a percentage, than out of ROTC. So I suppose if a 17 yr. old is intent upon Branching MI without using ADSO, ROTC would present a slightly higher change of achieving that goal. That was the toughest Branch to get out of USMA this year. MI ran out of slots using ADSO at the 53% OML at the Academy, also the quickest any Branch filled using ADSO.

http://www.west-point.org/class/usma1979/old/2011_Branch_Results_Summary.pdf

Incidentally, top 31% AD OML was equivalent to approx. top 20.5% of the full OML. DMG, which is top 20% of full OML, was about top 31% of AD OML, and top 10% of AD OML was approx. top 6.2% of full OML.

 

[Jcleppe]

Incidentally, top 31% AD OML was equivalent to approx. top 20.5% of the full OML. DMG, which is top 20% of full OML, was about top 31% of AD OML, and top 10% of AD OML was approx. top 6.2% of full OML.

That sounds about right.

My son was 6.43% on the National OML and 10.3% on the AD OML. Didn't hurt him though, still received AD Aviation without ADSO

 

[dunninla]

^ you mean he might have been 20 pushups-not-counted at LDAC from being top 10%?

You're right though about it not mattering in the end for FY 2011. Any cadet at the 16% AD OML (that was Aviation's cutoff for non-ADSO) was still able to pick all 16 Branches without using ADSO.

AD OML placement needed to get Branch without using ADSO:

Aviation: 16%
Infantry: 19%
Med Svc: 24%
Armor: 29%
Engineer: 30%
Mil Intel: 31%
Mil Police: 38%
Finance: 39%
Signal: 46%

and so on.

 

[dunninla]

JCleppe, can you please ask your new 2LT about Detailing?

There is an implication in the Accessions slides, page 22, that a cadet can request their Detail Branch, or request to not be Detailed. Does the placement on the OML determine this 2nd step?

For example, the 178 cadets who got MI in 2011 without using ADSO were ranked between top 1% and top 31% of the AD OML. Another 53 used ADSO above the Dead Zone at 31% - 40% of AD OML, and another 124 used ADSO below the Dead Zone. Assuming 50% of those MI Control Branch are required to be Detailed to Infantry, Armor, Engineering, etc., does a cadet's OML position within the 1% - 31%, the 31% - 40%, and the under 50% categories govern their priority to request where/if to be Detailed out of MI?

 

[Jcleppe]

^ you mean he might have been 20 pushups-not-counted at LDAC from being top 10%?

I don't think he took the time to really disect his scores. Sure those 20 PU's may have cost him some points but so did a lot of other factors.

Missing an A on a history final by one question which would have raised his GPA
Getting one more dimensional E at LDAC
Doing another semester of a critical language
Adding another leadership position

It's sort of like a basketball game when your team is down by one point with 3 seconds to go and you miss the last shot. Everyone first say's "If only we had made that shot, it cost us the game" When in reality it's what happened over the entire four quarters that caused the outcome, the missed free throw in the first quarter, the missed 3 pointer just before half time. The same is true for ROTC, it's a collection of points and events throughout the first 3 years.

 

[Jcleppe]

JCleppe, can you please ask your new 2LT about Detailing?

There is an implication in the Accessions slides, page 22, that a cadet can request their Detail Branch, or request to not be Detailed. Does the placement on the OML determine this 2nd step?

For example, the 178 cadets who got MI in 2011 without using ADSO were ranked between top 1% and top 31% of the AD OML. Another 53 used ADSO above the Dead Zone at 31% - 40% of AD OML, and another 124 used ADSO below the Dead Zone. Assuming 50% of those MI Control Branch are required to be Detailed to Infantry, Armor, Engineering, etc., does a cadet's OML position within the 1% - 31%, the 31% - 40%, and the under 50% categories govern their priority to request where/if to be Detailed out of MI?

I haven't looked at the 2011 Branching slides.

The thing is, when they show 178 for MI, those are the cadets that received MI as a control branch, many of those will be branched detailed, most to infantry. Many cadets use the control branches such as MI or Signal as a way to get a MFE Branch. Many will volunteer for a branch detail so they can get the MI slot.

Those slides they show for branching always suprised me a bit, a cadet last year from my son's school was at 35% on the AD OML, listed Infantry 3rd on his Branch wish list (They are required to list at least one MFE branch in their top 3) AG was his first choice, he received Infantry, go figure, tried to switch branches but the request was denied. I knew this cadet, funny thing is, he will make a great Infantry Officer and PL.

 

[Marist College ROTC]

To attack this question from another angle, if you are an SMP Cadet in an armor unit, your chances of being branched armor are pretty close to 100%.

 

[Jcleppe]

To attack this question from another angle, if you are an SMP Cadet in an armor unit, your chances of being branched armor are pretty close to 100%.

Now you've gone and done it.....you've added another spoke to the wheel of speculation.

Cadets would drive themselves crazy trying to work out all the senarios in the branching system. I would imagine most of them just don't have the time to even begin. I still feel the best advice is to work hard, do your best, and take advantage of the opportunities your given.

 

[khergan]

To further clarify a very confusing bunch of numbers, I got the data on exactly how numbers are crunched for LDAC itself.

What really matters is your dimensional scores, of which there are 17. Each of these dimensional categories helps determine whether or not you get an overall N, S, or E at camp. However, the overall rating itself does not give raw points, it's the number of dimensional Es that does. All the overall rating does is give campus cadre a good idea of how well you did at camp.

Now, in terms of dimensional points, you get 100% of available points for an E, 85% for an S and 70% for an N. What that effectively means is that the more dimensional Es you get, the more points you can earn total out of LDAC. I haven't looked at the slides recently, but I believe there is an 11.5 or 11.25 point for PLT TAC evaluation. That is comprised, again, of points determined by the 17 dimensional scores.

As Jcleppe referenced, each dimensional E does indeed count for points. At camp, they finally specified the point numbers, and each dimensional E you get boosts you .21 points on the total OMS. To make that number significant, you can look at RECONDO which gives you .5. So, in other words, getting 3 more dimensional Es on your overall eval will net you more points than getting RECONDO.

From the example above, a person with a 3.2 GPA and 12 dimensional Es would get 32 + ~6.6 points = 38.6 points from those two categories. A person who had a 3.6 but only 2 dimensional E would get 36 + .42 = 36.42 points.

Obviously there are a lot more factors (PT, extracurriculars, PMS eval, CULP, etc), but the bottom line is that dimensional Es at LDAC do matter, and they do translate into points which can directly affect your accession score and therefore your career.

 

[dunninla]

thanks for explaining how the LDAC 17 Dimension scoring is done.

So, on that 11.25 point component of the OMS of 100 total, all E is 11.25, Half E Half S is 10.41, and All S is 9.56

Like this:

11.25 All E
9.56 All S
10.41 Half E Half S
7.88 All N
8.72 Half S Half N

So the difference between all E and all S is 1.7 points, or the same as a cumulative GPA difference between 3.0 and 3.17.

The bottom line is that when a cadet is finishing up MSIII year in school, the cumulative GPA is basically done, set, finished as far as OMS scoring is concerned. The only place a cadet can move up the OML, or down the OML, at that point is to nail or fail Land Nav, score highly or not in the 17 dimensional scores, etc. There is a multiplier though, that makes the LDAC even more heavily weighted: when the PMS sees the LDAC scores, this will affect the PMS' subjective opinion of the cadet. This will cause the PMS to upgrade, or downgrade, the PMS score portion of the OMS. So in reality, LDAC performance counts even more than the 11.25 Dimensional scoring, the 4.5 Land Nav score, and the other LDAC score which I think is 4.5 points. It will also cause the PMS to add or subtract up to 2 PMS points.

So the true effect of LDAC performance is:

1.7 points difference b/w all E and all S
2 points PMS reaction to LDAC scores
3.7 total points.