Branch Selection

She got Field Artillery



I would like to see the numbers on this. It seems to me that regardless of major, smart people get better grades than not-so smart people. A smart mech major will have a higher class rank than a dumb management major. Regardless, I don't see how the new system is an improvement if highly ranked engineers are getting force branched FA - that seems to be the opposite of matching branch to skills

Your mistake is in skewing the sample to fit your desired outcome by not holding the variables constant. Will a smart guy in a tough major get better grades than a not-so-smart guy in an easier major? Maybe. It depends how wide the spread in their intellect is. The question, correctly asked, is "would the same cadet, with the same effort, get better grades as a management major than as a nuclear engineering major?" Yes, he would. That's a system of perverse incentives.
 
I would like to see the numbers on this. It seems to me that regardless of major, smart people get better grades than not-so smart people. A smart mech major will have a higher class rank than a dumb management major. Regardless, I don't see how the new system is an improvement if highly ranked engineers are getting force branched FA - that seems to be the opposite of matching branch to skills


Not really, my Soph year in college, I had one roommate who was in my opinion an OK student pulling a 4.0 as a CJ (or history can't remember) major with little to no work and on the other spectrum had a Chemistry roommate who was a very smart guy putting in tons of hours and pulling a 3.1-3.2. Base intelligence, studying habits and major difficulty are not perfectly synergistic and vary across a wide margin. It's a fact that some majors will be more taxing on intelligence and time than others no matter how smart a student is. A student of average intelligence/academic strength could easily pull a 4.0 in comm but be maxed out at a 3.0 even with loads of studying hours in a electrical engineering degree. Should the average student be penalized for gunning towards the engineering degree or rewarded for that comm 4.0?

Too many variables to just say a smart student should excel at the same rate in any area.
 
Per the AOG website - Class of 2014 branch breakdown

Infantry - 210
Field Artillery - 151
Engineering - 143
Aviation - 130
Military Intelligence - 81
Armor- 69
Air Defense - 54
Signal Corps - 49
Ordnance - 42
Adjutant -35
Quartermaster - 32
Transportation - 30
Military Police - 23
Medical Corps -20
Finance - 11
Chemical - 10
Total - 1090
 
Your mistake is in skewing the sample to fit your desired outcome by not holding the variables constant. Will a smart guy in a tough major get better grades than a not-so-smart guy in an easier major? Maybe. It depends how wide the spread in their intellect is. The question, correctly asked, is "would the same cadet, with the same effort, get better grades as a management major than as a nuclear engineering major?" Yes, he would. That's a system of perverse incentives.

So the solution is? A system that rewards neither high performance nor alignment of major to branch? That seems worse than a system where at least everyone knows the rules to the game
 
She got Field Artillery



I would like to see the numbers on this. It seems to me that regardless of major, smart people get better grades than not-so smart people. A smart mech major will have a higher class rank than a dumb management major. Regardless, I don't see how the new system is an improvement if highly ranked engineers are getting force branched FA - that seems to be the opposite of matching branch to skills

There hasn't really been enough time to see the results of the new system and I'm sure, like anything, new it could do with some adjustments but I believe it's a step in the right direction.

Compare it to admissions. Does West Point weigh every high school GPA the same? No, because some are harder than others and they understand that. Does admissions publish a point system (football captain? 10 points!) And make an OML out of it giving appointments to the top ranks? No.

They give general guidance on what they are looking for and select candidates they want on an individual basis sometimes even conducting interviews when they deem fit. Do you find this system unfair because you "don't know the rules"?

The new system may not be perfect, but it's not necessarily worse.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
So the solution is? A system that rewards neither high performance nor alignment of major to branch? That seems worse than a system where at least everyone knows the rules to the game

I love this concept of "alignment of major to branch." I've said it a thousand times, so here goes 1,001: your major does not matter. Period. Everyone wants to believe that a guy who was an aeronautical engineering major will be a great fit for aviation. There's no sense in that. That's like thinking someone who's hairy will be a great barber. Gunsmiths aren't necessarily the best marksmen. The difference between designing a rocket or airplane and being an aviator is huge. The same goes for this notion that you engineering students should branch engineers. Mechanical engineering and route clearance operations have ZERO to do with one another.

The old system rewarded high performance, but only ONE kind of high performance and it did that in a way that was neither smart nor equitable. So you have great grades. And? If you're a shrinking violet Casper Milqtoast or you stink at PT, I don't care if you got an A+ in environmental engineering...you don't need to be in the infantry.

It's about time we put more thought into this.
 
The old system rewarded high performance, but only ONE kind of high performance and it did that in a way that was neither smart nor equitable. So you have great grades. And? If you're a shrinking violet Casper Milqtoast or you stink at PT, I don't care if you got an A+ in environmental engineering...you don't need to be in the infantry.

It's about time we put more thought into this.

Scout if you never made another post this one puts you in the hall of fame!!!
:thumb:
 
I love this concept of "alignment of major to branch." I've said it a thousand times, so here goes 1,001: your major does not matter. Period. Everyone wants to believe that a guy who was an aeronautical engineering major will be a great fit for aviation. There's no sense in that. That's like thinking someone who's hairy will be a great barber. Gunsmiths aren't necessarily the best marksmen. The difference between designing a rocket or airplane and being an aviator is huge. The same goes for this notion that you engineering students should branch engineers. Mechanical engineering and route clearance operations have ZERO to do with one another.

The old system rewarded high performance, but only ONE kind of high performance and it did that in a way that was neither smart nor equitable. So you have great grades. And? If you're a shrinking violet Casper Milqtoast or you stink at PT, I don't care if you got an A+ in environmental engineering...you don't need to be in the infantry.

It's about time we put more thought into this.

Finally! Someone said what needed to be said

I don't know enough about the new branching system to make an intelligent opinion but I know that if there is anything else that needs to change, it is the infantry-biased culture that still exists here. It seems to be waning though
 
Finally! Someone said what needed to be said

I don't know enough about the new branching system to make an intelligent opinion but I know that if there is anything else that needs to change, it is the infantry-biased culture that still exists here. It seems to be waning though

Yes I agree- we need USMA to spend four years training officers for the Medical Service Corps or maybe Finance, because right now the Army spends far too much time myopically focusing on fighting and winning wars - those Infantry guys are so limited. :rolleyes:
 
Yes I agree- we need USMA to spend four years training officers for the Medical Service Corps or maybe Finance, because right now the Army spends far too much time myopically focusing on fighting and winning wars - those Infantry guys are so limited. :rolleyes:

What else should the Army focus on?

If the Army shouldn't be focused on fighting and winning wars, I am glad I am close to the end of my career.

I know I am in the minority as many applicants I work with talk about joining the military to "help" others.
 
The old system rewarded high performance, but only ONE kind of high performance and it did that in a way that was neither smart nor equitable. So you have great grades. And? If you're a shrinking violet Casper Milqtoast or you stink at PT, I don't care if you got an A+ in environmental engineering...you don't need to be in the infantry.

It's about time we put more thought into this.

Not sure if there is a better way. A good friend of mine became infantry because his class rank wasn't high enough to get first 7 or 8 choices. His heart wasn't in it, but he was a good infantry officer until he got out, recycled two phases of Ranger school but didn't quit, got his tab Had a decent number of physical studs that turned out to be bad Infantry officers. One of my roommate that was a stud didn't got Infantry because he was too smart to be an Infantry officer. Probably I was closer to Casper Milqtoast, okay with PT, but my heart was in it to be an Infantry officer. I did okay.
 
One of my roommate that was a stud didn't got Infantry because he was too smart to be an Infantry officer.

Haha! That's funny and not funny at the same time. I'm sure we need smart people, if not smarter people, to be infantrymen.
 
Haha! That's funny and not funny at the same time. I'm sure we need smart people, if not smarter people, to be infantrymen.

If won't be so funny if someone else decides what branch you should be in.

Don't over or under estimate the interview process. If I was sitting on the interview board, I would have given infantry to my roommate regardless of what he wanted
 
If won't be so funny if someone else decides what branch you should be in.

Don't over or under estimate the interview process. If I was sitting on the interview board, I would have given infantry to my roommate regardless of what he wanted

Yeah, someone else here mentioned that - I did not hear of any of my classmates being interviewed for branches. I was told that the essay portion on the online branch app would be akin to your one and only chance to make a compelling statement to the branch board why you should be assigned such.

In regards to your old roommate - wouldn't you say that even if he was perhaps less than perfect for the job, eventually his enthusiasm and passion would make him a great officer in that branch the way it did for you?
 
In regards to your old roommate - wouldn't you say that even if he was perhaps less than perfect for the job, eventually his enthusiasm and passion would make him a great officer in that branch the way it did for you?

Not enthusiasm and passion - his professionalism.

The challenge to the branching system is how do we reconcile individual desire (i.e. 140 lbs Infantry wannabe), individual abilities (i.e. 300 on APFT), and the needs of the Army?
 
So, does the option still exist to extend your service commitment to guarantee being placed in the branch of your choice? An an incoming Class of 2018 member who is definitely not the smarted guy ever(since it seems like class rank still has something to do with selection) this will be an option that I will heavily consider.
 
So, does the option still exist to extend your service commitment to guarantee being placed in the branch of your choice? An an incoming Class of 2018 member who is definitely not the smarted guy ever(since it seems like class rank still has something to do with selection) this will be an option that I will heavily consider.

The BRADSO (Branch additional service option or something along those lines) is still around, but it isn't a guarantee. Basically the bottom 25% of each branch is up for grabs for BRADSO.

So if 100 people go infantry, and you are #101, you could get infantry with BRADSO and number 100 would get bumped out of the running. Now if #75-100 all BRADSO, you are out
 
Back
Top