Whole Person Score

<p>Thought some of you might find this interesting. I read a research paper entitled : Predictors of Plebe Summer Attrition at USNA by Michael Hollenbach in June 2003.</p>

<p>In his paper he describes the USNA admissions board evaluation process using a metric know as the Whole Person Multiple (WPM). This "score" is calculated based on a candidate's application information. It is designed to be a predictor for successful completion of freshman year at USNA. Qualifying candidate multiples fall between the ranges of 58,000 to greater than 80,000. The paper set forth the components of the WPM and their weighting:</p>

<p>Highest SAT verbal score - 15 %
Highest SAT math score - 31 %
High School Class rank - 21 %
Teacher Recommendation - 8 %
X-curr. activities/athletics - 10%
strong interest inventory technical interest score - 12 %
strong interest inventory career interest score - 3 %</p>

<p>The admissions board can subjectly adjust the WPM by up to 9,000 points.</p>

<p>Can't verify the accuracy of this information. If you want to see the entire report go to USNA site and search for "attrition rates". Candidate evaluation is presented on page 12 of the paper.</p>

<p>Aspen~This is very interesting and not what I would have thought. I would have placed a much higher value on the xc activities since it appears to be such a focus during the admission process. Thanks for sharing! JM</p>

<p>Bingo. I've been looking for the formula - nice job, Aspen. I'm also surprised that the leadership component is relatively small...although the subjective 9000 points is a big swing factor.</p>

<p>aspen, Although my BGO didn't give me a detailed formula of components that are factored in when applying in my first interview, he did in fact tell me on our second meeting that academics took priority over ec's and sports. He said that a lot of students think that if they have great ec's or they have many letters in sports, Admissions will give them more looks and this is not the case. He said that it still takes a well-rounded student to receive an appointment, but if the gpa/sat isn't up to par, then multiple looks (if application is in very early) at the board are doubtful. If a student has a great record of ec's and/or sports, but may be lacking in the academics, then Admissions has the option of holding the student's record for further review at a later date. So, those of you who may be lacking in a few sports or ec's, but have a superb GPA AND SAT, I think you have a great chance! This, of course, is just my opinion.</p>

<p>Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I'm off to Louisiana for some great Cajun food! Hope to hear some great news from all of you when I return!</p>

<p>It doesn't appear gpa is one of the factors (I had heard it wasn't). If you read the rest of the paper, gpa wasn't even part of the study---It's class rank. GPA can be a very mis-leading figure when you factor in weighted/unweighted grades and the perception of inflated grading these days. Where a candidate stands relative to their peers in a class is a better indicator, esp when they factor in the competitiveness of the school and the size of the class. Someone with a 4.1 gpa but is ranked 7/350 is going to get a higher score than a 4.6 ranked 3/100. GPA is getting so muddled ---my daughters transcript now reports SIX different numbers for GPA! (Weighted acad gpa 9-12, unweighted same, Weighted acad gpa 10-12, non-weighted same, weighted total gpa 9-12, unweighted same)---its ridiculous. Class rank is the great "equalizer".</p>

<p>The thing the above paper leaves out is the actual "formula" to compute the points. Relative weights to an unknown max total are fine, but we still have no way of knowing for example how many points a 650 math score gives you (just that the score-whatever it is- is weighted to 31% of the total.</p>

<p>The paper also indicates that the 9000 point possible adjustments to the score by the admissions board are ususally given out to candidates who's parents are military, ex-military, or former cadets/graduates of the academy in order to "boost" the WPM to an acceptable level or to recruited athletes to get them "over the top". The stated reason in the paper for this was that there was a 1-3% less of a chance that recruited athletes and children of military parents would drop out during plebe summer. The admissions process isn't just about finding qualified candidates, it's about finding qualified candidates who are most likely to make it through the academy (particularly that first summer!).</p>

<p>Do many people's schools still rank? I have gone to two high schools, and both did not rank.</p>

<p>Seems to be quite a bit of interest in this topic. Found another discussion of the Whole Person Score for the academies in a September 2003 GAO paper ( GAO-03-1000 ) evaluating the admissions and retention experience of the three academies. The link to the paper is:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031000.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031000.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Some of the budget information is pretty interesting. For FY 2002 the cost per graduate at USNA was $275,000 , USMA was $349,000 and USAFA was $322,000.</p>

<p>Regarding the USNA WPS, the GAO report( page 19 -20) stated that academics were 75%, leadership potential 19%, physical aptitude 5% and technical interest 1%. The biggest difference from my previous post is the weight put on the Strong Interest Inventory scores ( 15% versus 1 %). Big difference. I personally think that a 12% weight on the technical strong interest inventory seems high. For comparison, the GAO paper stated that the West Point weights were 60% academics, 30 % leadership and 10% physical.</p>

<p>Have a great Thanksgiving !!</p>

<p>One of the main reasons for the difference in cost per graduate is the difference in cost to maintain the facility. WP has more acreage, thus a higher cost per student to maintain it.
CM.</p>

<p>Is this what determines the QQQ'd status?</p>

<p>As I understand it, the Strong Interest survey does 2 things - checks for factors that indicate a likelihood of career interest, rather than 5-and-out, and tests for leaning towards a technical career. USNA is having a hard time getting a sufficient number of mids to choose the technical majors viewed necessary to manage the technology they'll be responsible for.</p>

<p>juniormom:</p>

<p>Triple qualified status means that you are academically qualified, physically qualified (DOBMERB) and have received a congressional nomination. The whole person score is used to rank all the triple qualified candidates. </p>

<p>My understanding is that these rankings are used in a couple different ways. If a member of congress does not rank his/her nomination candidates, USNA admissions must use the WPS to rank the 10 nominated candidates and must extend offers based on those WPS's. Also, all qualified candidates on the USNA waiting list are ranked by WPS and offers are extended based on those rankings.</p>

<p>Although the WPS may not be perfect, it does take out a lot of the subjectively, and political influence, that could otherwise creep into the appointment process.</p>

<p>aspen:</p>

<p>Triple qualified means that a candidate is qualified academically, medically, and physically. Being determined triple qualified is 1/2 of the "ticket" needed to be considered for an appointment. The other 1/2 is a nomination. Once a candidate is determiend to be triple qualified and has a nomination, the Academy can then offer an appointment.</p>

<p>So...if I understand it correctly...our son has the qualified to compete for appointment letter and has an interview with our congressman in Dec. (Who does not rank candidates). If he were to get a nomination he would only be offered an appointment if his WPS was the highest in our area??? or go on a waiting list under the same situation. Since he also needs a vision waiver, I am assuming that pool is smaller and would work the same way? Is ths correct?</p>

<p>What really surprises me is the emphasis placed on sports in all the discussions and what appears to be a small factor in the WPS. It's confusing.</p>

<p>JM - </p>

<p>Your summary is correct, as far as I've read. I'm also surprised by the small factor sports and leadership play in the WPS.</p>

<p>jm:</p>

<p>From what I have read, you are almost entirely correct. If a Congressman or Senator names a candidate as a primary nominee, that candidate is guaranteed an appointment as long as they were triple qualified. So in this case, they could have a lower ranking than other candidates but would receive the appointment because of that primary nominee designation. I have read, though, that this doesn't happen that often. The majority of Congressman and Senators just nominate 10 candidates for each spot and let the Academy pick from these ten nominees.</p>

<p>The link indicated below, provided by someone else in another thread details the process.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.west-point.org/academy/m...ators/noms.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.west-point.org/academy/m...ators/noms.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Once a candidate is appointed from a MOC's list, the rest of the candidates are rank ordered by their whole person score and placed on a second list. Then the candidates are selected in order until the class is filled. Do the math, 100 appointees possible from Senatorial nominations, and 435 from Congressional nominations for a total of 535. They appointed over 1400 to the class of 08!
Best of Luck to all Candidates.
CM</p>

<p>amdandrew:
My school doesn't rank either. But my councilor ranked me anyway because in the past USNA has FORCED him to rank applicants. So I don't know what the deal is.</p>

<p>Amdandrew - </p>

<p>My daughter's school doesn't rank, either. But given the high % of the admissions evaluation based on class rank, we'll be estimating. Her school (like many) publishes a class profile each year - % going to college, average SAT score, etc. Usually those include a breakdown by GPA - eg, 3.9-4.1 - top 4%; 3.5-3.9, next 22%.... We'll use that as a yardstick.</p>

<p>This thread is particularly disturbing, because it is filled with incorrect information. The calculations listed for computing a Whole Person Multiple are outdated and have been changed substantially. The figures listed are even incorrect for the period of time during which the cited paper was published. Also, the referenced subjective adjustment of the multiple is not reserved for athletes or military legacies. In fact, being a service academy or military legacy has very little overall impact on a candidate's admissions status. What has not been mentioned is that the multiple is only a part of a candidate's admissions package, and its significance should not be over-stated.</p>