RAND Study Accuracy?

[GCarter]

I was wondering if anyone knew how accurate Rand's study was on the WCS. I attached a copy of the study and the part that I am referring to on WCS in on pages 9-12.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR723/RAND_RR723.pdf

 

[FCH76]

It's pretty accurate. One of my client's was on the admissions board at USMA and sent the study to me a few months ago. He was helping me try to add up my DS's score so far as a junior.

 

[tug_boat]

The Rand Report has appeared numerous times on SAF. Its dated material. As an example, during that time period, US had been actively engaged in war in the Middle East. At this time, we have deescalated our profile in many the Middle East issues. Currently, this present administration has not dragged us into a war. Thus, today needs for officers is "maintained". The stats can be used as a generalization of ones competitiveness and how the process may work (things have changed).

I would continue to encourage your DS to be the best "well rounded" applicant. Again, always have a "Plan B." If your DS is a strong applicant and is not selected for WP. He will be able to chose many top shelf colleges because of his drive and academic success.

Push Hard, Press Forward

 

[GCarter]

I would continue to encourage your DS to be the best "well rounded" applicant. Again, always have a "Plan B." If your DS is a strong applicant and is not selected for WP. He will be able to chose many top shelf colleges because of his drive and academic success.

Thanks for the help. I'm actually in the Class of 2025 right now but ya I'm keeping all that in mind.

 

[time2]

The stats can be used as a generalization of ones competitiveness and how the process may work (things have changed).

^^ I agree. The Rand study is often mis-quoted and taken out of context on here. The study was done several years ago and the WCS may have been modified since then.

 

[Fotouman]

It's pretty accurate. One of my client's was on the admissions board at USMA and sent the study to me a few months ago. He was helping me try to add up my DS's score so far as a junior.

Did he give any insight on how the CFA and ACT are weighted/ scored? It is hard to estimate WCS without knowing how ACT scores factor in.

 

[buff81]

I wish the Rand report would disappear from appearing on this forum.
Two reasons:
1) It is dated, dated, dated.
2) Some folks over analyze the report and then try to game the system.

You can get all of the information that you need about getting an appointment to WP from the admissions department, your RC, and FFR (if you have one).
Spend your time submitting your best application instead of parsing the Rand report.

 

[emwvmi01]

I would disagree with two of the above posters on small points

1. Any study released within the past decade is probably not as "dated" as some claim. The WCS may have slight adjustments but the overall concept and proportional weight remain in the ballpark for utilization.

I think for a candidate there is some utility in validation of one self so if you see that you really need to work on the physical, academic or leadership components this may help you determine amount of effort vs reward.

2. The discussion about not being in a war so end strengths are lower is also inaccurate.
a. The Army is developing officers for the candidate classes now assuming a greater end strength than is currently in the force.

b. USMA numbers whether in 2007, 2015 or 2025 remain fixed at around 4400. The levers for growth are ROTC and OCS. So candidate interest may rise and fall but slots remain relatively constant.

 

[Objective]

I would disagree with two of the above posters on small points

1. Any study released within the past decade is probably not as "dated" as some claim. The WCS may have slight adjustments but the overall concept and proportional weight remain in the ballpark for utilization..

The RAND report analyzes data from graduation years 1992 to 2001.

 

[emwvmi01]

I would disagree with two of the above posters on small points

1. Any study released within the past decade is probably not as "dated" as some claim. The WCS may have slight adjustments but the overall concept and proportional weight remain in the ballpark for utilization..

The RAND report analyzes data from graduation years 1992 to 2001.

I would again say having applied to programs in that period that the overall metrics really are not that different.
Academics- Definitely still would say there is a band of excellence focused in order on test scores, course intensity (weight of APs/IB) and GPA
Athletics- Keys being 1. Participation and receiving a letter 2. Superlatives (state/district/regional champion),
Physical capability- DODMERB, CFA/PFT scores
Leadership- Extracurricular, Boys/Girls state, volunteer, work experience

I don't and haven't seen in over 20 years of being a part of this process significant changes in what is sought or what is produced. A successful candidate in 1999 probably looks a lot like a candidate in 2019.

 

[USMAROTCFamily]

I would disagree with two of the above posters on small points

1. Any study released within the past decade is probably not as "dated" as some claim. The WCS may have slight adjustments but the overall concept and proportional weight remain in the ballpark for utilization..

The RAND report analyzes data from graduation years 1992 to 2001.

I would again say having applied to programs in that period that the overall metrics really are not that different.
Academics- Definitely still would say there is a band of excellence focused in order on test scores, course intensity (weight of APs/IB) and GPA
Athletics- Keys being 1. Participation and receiving a letter 2. Superlatives (state/district/regional champion),
Physical capability- DODMERB, CFA/PFT scores
Leadership- Extracurricular, Boys/Girls state, volunteer, work experience

I don't and haven't seen in over 20 years of being a part of this process significant changes in what is sought or what is produced. A successful candidate in 1999 probably looks a lot like a candidate in 2019.

I agree with what you are saying about all of this.

 

[MemberLG]

Keep in mind that many things in WCS are beyond one’s control. You don’t pick your SAT/ACT score. You can pick courses you take, but don’t decide what grades you will get. You can train for it, but if you are not a good runner it might take a while to train to run 6 minute mile.

You can set goals using WCS formula, but your goals need to be reasonable and obtainable as you only have 24 hours in a day.

 

[shock-n-awe]

Keep in mind that many things in WCS are beyond one’s control. You don’t pick your SAT/ACT score. You can pick courses you take, but don’t decide what grades you will get. You can train for it, but if you are not a good runner it might take a while to train to run 6 minute mile.
You can set goals using WCS formula, but your goals need to be reasonable and obtainable as you only have 24 hours in a day.

Actually the results of everything you mentioned are in ones control. If you study, seek extra instruction, and do the work, you will get better grades. If you take practice tests, seek free or paid ACT/SAT test training, and retake those tests, your scores will improve. Not all people will be able to be an honor student regardless of the amount of honest effort, and they may not max their standardized tests, but they control the ability to improve their results. The same of course holds true with the CFA. Train hard and properly, and realize improved scores. These are some of the things people on SAF preach for candidates to do. Control what you can control and don’t worry about the rest (ie: how competitive is my district? My school doesn’t have Varsity athletics or team captains. My school doesn’t offer AP classes.). Obviously many great candidates have done all of these things and still do not receive an appointment.
The Rand report, class profiles, and “chance me” threads are all used by candidates seeking to learn how they stack up in this thing called an SA appointment competition. It is a very daunting and seemingly impossible undertaking for someone completely oblivious to the application process. I’m certain many candidates with zero exposure to the process may not even get past opening the application because of the class metrics they see published, and feel they are unworthy of those “standard” profiles. Hopefully future candidates can see past the numbers and realize that the SA Cadets and Mids are actually humans and not perfect. Not all of them are jocks, and not all are eggheads. For every average score posted, there are people with a score below that. It is a whole Candidate score for a reason, the SA wants a well rounded person.
So for the lurkers, use all the numbers you find published on class profiles and appointed candidate profiles posted here and set those as your target. Push yourself to be at or above in every area you can while realizing you may be under in some cases. That’s ok too!

Seek leadership, write good essays, train hard, and study hard. Submit your best application possible with zero regrets, and then let the chips fall where they may.
This you can control and must if you wish to receive an SA appointment.
Good luck!

 

[parentalunit2]

Sure....go ahead and figure out your exact WCS based on a 20-year old study. What does that get you? Absolutely nothing when you have no idea where your competitors for that year group are on the scale. It's an interesting exercise, but rather pointless. Rather, spend the time studying so that you can add more points to your ACT score.