AND - DTIC · Major Callender graduated from the Personnel Officer's Course at Keesler AFB,...
90
AND DCf CDN MAORMAIO E ALENER J.86-6 MA 12 1986
Transcript of AND - DTIC · Major Callender graduated from the Personnel Officer's Course at Keesler AFB,...
AND
DCf
CDN
MAORMAIO E ALENER J.86-6 MA 12 1986
s . ir.- - -- -
DISCLAIMER
The views and conclusions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author. They arenot intended and should not be thought torepresent official ideas, attitudes, orpolicies of any agency of the United StatesGovernment. The author has not had specialaccess to official information or ideas andhas employed only open-source materialavailable to any writer on this subject.
This document is the property of the UnitedStates Government. It is available fordistribution to the general public. A loancopy of the document may be obtained from theAir University Interlibrary Loan Service(AUL/LDEX, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 36112) or theDefense Technical Information Center. Requestmust include the author's name and completetitle of the study.
This document may be reproduced for use inother research reports or educational pursuitscontingent upon the following stipulations:
-- Reproduction rights do not extend toany copyrighted material that may be containedin the research report.
-- All reproduced copies must contain thefollowing credit line: "Reprinted bypermission of the Air Command and StaffCollege."
-- All reproduced copies must contain thename(s) of the report's author(s).
-- If format modification is necessary tobetter serve the user's needs, adjustments maybe made to this report--this authorizationdoes not extend to copyrighted information ormaterial. The following statement mustaccompany the modified document: "Adaptedfrom Air Command and Staff Research Report
(number) entitled (title) by(author) ,
-- This notice must be included with any
reproduced or adapted portions of thisdocument.
REPORT NUMBER 86-460 .
TITLE WEIGHTED SCHOLARSHIP SELECTION MODEL
AUTHOR(S) MAJOR MARION E. CALLENDER, JR., USAF
FACULTY ADVISOR MAJOR JERRY 13. WARREN, ACSC/EDOWC
SPONSOR COLONEL NANCY H. BUZARDAIR FORCE RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS, AFROTC/RR
Sukmitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment ofrequirements for graduation. .
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
AIR UNIVERSITY D IDEC
MAXWELL AFB, AL 36112 MA_ 218
fcr r% .A.?
. 9 ~ 9 * ~ * # * 9 . * * 9~ 9 ' . ..-.
.-.-.. ~. V ' ~ - *%~ *.* -...
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE 16 i7
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEto REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
UNCLASSIFIED ___--
"a SI CIPRITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF RkPORT
STATI.ENT "A"b ODCLASSIF ICAT IONIDOWNGRADING SCHEDULE A A dfg. pubri ru
4 PE RFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBERS) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBERIS)
86-460 ----Go NAME Of PERFORMING ORGANIZATION b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONOIfappliale)
ACSC/FDCC I5I64. ADDRESS ICily. Stole and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City,. State and ZIP Code)
"axwell AFF, AL 36112-5542 *
ft. NAME OF FUNOING/SPONSORING Sb. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION (t appliable) p
AFROTC RRBe ADDRESS IcIly. State and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NOS. _ _ _ _.
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITHaxwell AFB AL 36112 ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. NO.
11 TITLF (nclude Securiy Cle rcatioa, nj
12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
Callender, lisrion E, ., Major, USNF 1.13o. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVEREtJ 14. DATE OF REPORT IYr.. Mo.. Dayl I11. PAWECOUNT
FROM TO _ 1q86 April -1S SUPPIL.MENTAnY NOTATION "
COSA I I CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS I(',.ntinue on ro Irs if necesar, and Idenlify by block numb.r l
FE t 0 sROUP SUB. GR.
19, ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necesaafry and Idenftfy by block number
The Air Force convenes selection boards to identify individuals to receiveAFROTC 4-Year Scholarships. Selections are made using selection boards ona national basis. This study reviews initial results of research designedto test the feasibility of using a weighted scholarship ulection model asa management tool to monitor and assist scholarship selection boards. Asurvey was developed to determine which items in the scholarship selectionfolder influenced the board members the most. The results of the surveywere compared with two separate groups. Predictive accuracy is most precise'[or those cases in the low and the high score areas and less accurate for anyfalling nenr the selection cut-off. Suggestions were made for refining the. csiol,-rship selection model to support future scholarship selection boards
ind im;rove selection reliability with a reduced net workload.--1
,0 01.%TIlIIIU IAVAILABILI I Y OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
ONC(LASSIF IE(U/UNLIMITEO [- SAME AS RPT. A OTIC USERS c UNCLASSIFL IiE)22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE NUMBER 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL
(include A ova Code)".'
ACSC/i%)CC Maxwell AFB AL 36112-5542 (205) 293-2483
DO FORM 1473. 83 APR EDITION OF I JAN 73 IS OBSOLETE. UNCLASI f I D
• r ::.. *- 2 ... *-" 2"_": "t" ": '/_2: :. .% " " *" ".:-. -L . ,. 1 *-" - ". - . ,""'"". . '
: ;.;-'..' ,..'._* ,' -:' _.,e ,...', 'r'. ",r' . z4 .- - -' - ¢- UNCLASS-L-L' - .'i - -- - -
4,
' _ __ __P R E F A C E 'N.Nk-
The weighted scholarship selection model was designed as a manage-ment tool to assist the Air Force Reserve Officer Training CorpsHeadquarters to mirror the 4-Year Scholarship Selection Boards.This process was not intended to replace the human element, butassist in reducing the time expended in the scoring of the appli-cants. In addition, this helps to ensure that the best qualified.individuals are awarded scholarships. This study reviews thedevelopment of a selection board survey and the application of thesurvey results to a selection hierarchy.
The author would like to thank the following people for theirassistance in this project:
Mr Charles Locklin of the Air University Computer ScienceDivision, for his patience and the processing of the computer datanecessary to develop the model and its analysis.
The staff of the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps4-Year Scholarship Branch, for their assistance with backgroundinformation and technical advice.
Last, but not least, Major Jerry B. Warren, ACSC faculty, forhis assistance and guidance throughout the project. Also, forsharing with me the philosophy . . . A is greater than B; however,in life B comes out on top.
Accession ForNTIS GRA&IDTIC TABUnannounced 0Justification
Distribut ion/
Availability Codes
A* .d/orDIst pecial
iii
A ,
(ak
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Major Marion E. Callender entered the Air Force in 1966, asan airman. After completing basic training at Lackland AFB,Texas, he was assigned to Pope AFB, North Carolina. In 1968 hewas reassigned to Tan Son Nhut AB, Republic of Vietnam, as anadvanced combat preparedness instructor. Upon returning to theUnited States, he was assigned to Laredo AFB, Texas, as atraining specialist.
In 1971, Major Callender was selected to be a member of theU.S. Air Force Aerial Demonstration Squadron; the "Thunderbirds".In August 1974, he entered Officer Training School at LacklandAFB, Texas, and was commissioned in November of that year. Hisfirst commissioned assignment was as a personnel officer, atNellis AFB, Nevada.
He was next assigned, as an Air Staff Officer, at the AirForce Manpower and Personnel Center (AFMPC), Randolph AFB, Texas.In 1980, he was reassigned as the Deputy Commander and Chief ofOperations of the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) inBoise, Idaho. After this assignment, Major Callender wasassigned as the Associate Professor of Aerospace Studies for theAir Force Reserve Officer Training Corps at Central WashingtonUniversity in Ellensburg, Washington.
During these last four assignments, Major Callender was in-volved in various parts of the Air Force selection process.First, as the recruiting liaison officer for Nellis AFB, andsecond, as an Officer Training School selection board memberwhile stationed at AFMPC. His next involvement was as an officerselections counselor while at MEPS Boise, and most recently as anAFROTC Detachment Recruiting Officer in Washington.
Major Callender graduated from the Personnel Officer's Courseat Keesler AFB, Mississippi, in December 1974. He Is a graduateof Squadron Officer School, and Academic Instructors School, bothat Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He holds an undergraduate degree inmanagement and a Masters of Business Administration from GoldenGate University of San Francisco, California.
Major Callender is married to the former Leslie Ann of Las Vegas, Nevada. They have one son: Michael Earnest.
IVViv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About the Author............................................. ivList of Illustrations ............................ . ... viiExecutive Summary. x
CHAPTER ONE -- INTRODUCTIONo ............ oo................... 1 i
CHAPTER TWO -- SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
Eligibilityo....... ............................ ... 3Obligations ............................................... 4
Selection Process ...................................... 4Selection Folder. ........ ....... ............... 5The Selection Board.................................... 6
Summa ry o................................................... 0 00 0 0 9 .0 00 0 0
CHAPTER THREE -- THE SELECTION BOARD SURVEY
Survey Development. ....e.................................... 9 ISurpose 9Purpose. ....oo... e0eeeegc cecee .. g0e. e geege oeec.0. 9Data Collection Plan................................... 9Data Reduction and ReformattingPlan................... 10DD Form 1893..geg .ee.... gee.. goe...... iege... 10USAFA/AFROTC Form ice.............eg... eeeeeeee.. 12AFROTC Form 102 . ...... ...... ...... 12Analysis Plan. ............. .......... 12Question Development................ .... 13Survey Administration ............... 14
Summary ...... c..............................15
CHAPTER FOUR -- BOARD RESULTS AND HIERARCHY DEVELOPMENTIntroduction .............................................. 17Boa rd Res ult s ..o.....o......00 00 ................0 0a 0 0. ............. 17Other Selection Programs... ...... ............ eec..... . 18
Ar y OT~o so oo o oooooooooooooooooooe..ooo ooo e1Army ROTC ..................... .... ................. 18Navy ROTC .c...... . ... .............. c........ 18Air Force Academy............................. 18
Hierarchy Breakdown....................................... 19Control Groups. .. ...... ee.. e .... ........ .. . 20
Vo'
VP J%- Po
Ai , -I
Ia S sY IL - -. I - - _ - |
____________CONT INUED
Control Groups.......... ........................The Success Group ..... .............................Applicant Sample Group............... .. ,.
Selection Hierarchy.... ............... ...........
Academic Hierarchy .................... 21Leadership Hierarchy............... 21
The Student Government Hierarchy........ ........ 23The District, State, or NationalOrganization Hierarchy.23The Boy/Girl Scouts of America Hierarchy ....... .... 23Publishing Experience Hierarchy...................... 23Other Organizations Hierarchy ............. * ....... 25
Evaluation ............................................. 25AFROTC Form 102 Evaluation Hierarchy............... 25USAFA/AFROTC Form 1 Evaluation Hierarchy........... 26
Extracurricular Activities 9.9.....927
Musical Achievem'ent Hierarchy .......... 000......0 27Individual Aw -ds Hierarchy... ...... 28Dramatic Expei t rce Hierarchy. ................. 29Public Appearance Hierarchy .......... 9.9.99.929Paid Work Hierarchy.............. *............ 30Pilot or Radio Operator License Hierarchy .......... 30
Athletic Profile ...................................... 30Participation on School Teams Hierarchy........... 33Varsity Letters Earned Hierarchy ......64660....0. 34Varsity Team Captain or Co-Captain foran Entire Season Hierarchy......................... 35 -;.
State or Conference Record Holder Hierarchy........ 36All-City, District or Conference 1st Team Jill
Only Hierarchy..................................... 37All-State or All-American High School 1stor 2nd Team Hierarchy.............................. 38Student Manager or Trainer of School Team-Hierarchy. .... 39Participation on Non-School Teams Hierarchy........ 40
Summary. ................................ 40
CHAPTER FIVE -- RESULTS COMPARISONIntrodction43 "
The Top Quarter ........................................... 43The Topto Quarter ................... 9........999............ 43The Bottom Quarter. ee.000 00000o oo999999999 44
vi
449
". * ~ t J . ~ ~ * .
°'. ', '. ,-. v '.':-". '." " "--.-." " .- ''.'. -. . -.* * -' .. .N .. *-9- . . '* - . -* t" '-" "." '-"- . .. . ." ": -
_____________CONTIlNUED________
The Middle Quarters....................... 44Recommendations/Uses. . *..... ..... *.*.....*.* ... 45
SAPaPENDICES................................. 46
Appendix A--Selection Folder Documents..................... 56Appendix B--Selection Board Survey..........*............ 67
4. .4r
vii
rrV ZfU XMW -A -A--. C19M 1 WR-VR - Wi -- .--..
____ ____ ___LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS _ _ _ _ _ _
FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1. Scoring Areas.................. 7FIGURE 2-2. Academic Majors.............. .. 0.....0...... 8FIGURE 4-1. Profile Hierarchy . ..... ........ ......... o... 18FIGURE 4-2. Hierarchy Breakdown.......................... 19FIGURE 4-3. Academic Hierarchy .... .... oo............... 21FIGURE 4-4o Leadership Profile 0.0................... 22FIGURE 4-5. Student Government Hierarchy...... ......000S.. 22FIGURE 4-6. District, State or National
organization Hierarchy ..................... 23FIGURE 4-7. Boy/Girl Scouts of America
FIGURE 4-8. Publishing Experience
FIGURE 4-9o Other Organizations Hierarchy. ........ 25FIGURE 4-10. Evaluation Profile .... .. *0*0............... 25FIGURE 4-11. AFROTC Form 102 Evaluation
FIGURE 4-12. USAFA/AFROTC Form 1 .
FIUR -1. Evaluation Hirrh.............26FIGUE 413.Extracurricular Profile ...................... 27
FIGURE 4-14. Musical Achievement*Hierarchy . ........... 000000000.............. 28
FIGURE 4-15. Individual Awards Hierarchyo*.*.............. 28*FIGURE 4-16. Dramatic Experience Hierarchy. ...... 29
FIGURE 4-17. Public Appearance Hierarchy.................. 29FIGURE 4-18. Paid Work Heacy............ 30
*FIGURE 4-19o Pilot or Radio OperatorLicense Hierarchy. ........... 0*0*00009600o. . 30
FIGURE 4-20. Athletic Profile... ... oo... .. *.o............ 31FIGURE 4-21. Sports Participation Value .......... 32FIGURE 4-22. Participation on School
Teams Hirrh.... ........... 33FIGURE 4-23. Varsity Letters Earned S
FIGURE 4-24. Varsity Team Captain orCo-Captain for Entire Season
FIGURE 4-25. State or Conference Record* H older Heacy...................... 36
viii
_____________ONTINUED
FIGURE 4-26. All-City, District or Conference1st Team Only Hierarchy.............. 37
FIGURE 4-27. All-State or All-American HighSchool 1st or 2nd Team Hierarchy ............. 38
FIGURE 4-28. Student Manager or Trainer ofSchool Team Hierarchy. ............ 39
FIGURE 4-29. Participation on Non-School
ix
-~~~~J - .1 -- -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Part of our College mission is distribution of the Astudents' problem solving products to DoDsponsors and other interested agencies toenhance insight into contemporary, defenserelated issues. While the College has accepted thisproduct as meeting academic requirements forgraduation, the views and opinions expressed or
4Dimplied are solely those of the author and should
not be construed as carrying official sanction.
"insights into tomorrow"
REPORT NUMBER 86-460
AUTHOR(S) MAJOR MARION E. CALLENDER, JR., USAF
TITLE WEIGHTED SCHOLARSHIP SELECTION MODEL
I. Purpose: Determine which items in the AFROTC 4-YearScholarship Selection Application that influence selection boardmembers the most. To develop weights for the data items and applythem to a selection hierarchy.
II. Problem: Presently, there is not a system that can be used toconfirm or verify the results of scholarship selection boards.While the selection boards identify individuals to receive AFROTC4-Year Scholarships, it is a labor intensive process resulting inless than 50% of the applicants actually receiving a scholarship.With additional reductions of monies in this area it is even moreimportant to ensure that only the best qualified individuals areselected.
III. Data: Research was conducted into the different types ofsurveys and a Scholarship Selection Board Survey was developed.This survey was administered to the November 1985 AFROTC 4-YearScholarship Selection Board. The results were computerized andcompared to the same data items of a success group and a sampleapplicant group. From this data, and background from otherselection programs, a selection hierarchy was developed. Weightswere applied to the selection hierarchies and the results werecompared with the results of the November 1985 board.
X~
FM :I
I~j, WT -. 1 -v w
i •
.- -,
____________CONTINUED_______
IV. Conclusions: Determination can be made regarding which "items in the selection folder have the most influence onAFROTC 4-Year Scholarship Selection Boards. In addition, whenweights are applied to a selection hierarchy, the boardresults can be tracked and verified. Predictive accuracy ismost precise for those cases in the low and in the highscoring areas.
V. Recommendations: The Scholarship Selection Board Surveyshould be administered to several successive selection boardsand a data base developed. When this is accomplished, a pol-icy panel should be convened to interpret the relativeimportance for the items selected. Weights could then beapplied for the activities of the individuals meeting aparticular board. When this is accomplished the scholarshipselection model (WSSM) may be used to assist in verifying theboard results. In addition, the WSSM could be used in theidentification of the top and bottom scholarship applicants.This information would be applicable in determining nationalorder of merit for individuals that receive the same boardscore,
14 .%.
x . .i
i .5
x i .**.
• %*.?
,',J,%'?,' l Ilr, ".l ".,'.t' - ",-". ". "," .' ," ", .'," .,.' " "','. .'', -', . . . .. -. . , '.-'. ',-' - -. - . '. " .• • • " • "• - .",," " -• • " • " " '
"" -- "- "• ""
N- -..
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
Today, with the ever increasing budgetary limitations imposedby Congress on military spending, more emphasis than ever is beingplaced on finding ways to maximize the return on training invest-ments (8:--). Over the years, a great deal of attention has beenfocused on decreasing training costs by developing techniques toselect individuals for training programs who are most likely tosucceed (12:5). The selection of personnel is a complex processwhich involves the matching of many factors such as abilities,aptitudes, motivation, interests, and personalities of the appli-cants against the requirements of the position. A prime objectiveof the selection process is to identify successful performersprior to their actual performance of the task.
This research study deals with one of the Air Force's trainingselection programs; the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps(AFROTC) 4-Year Scholarship selection process. The impetus is todetermine the feasibility of using a computer model to verify thescholarship selection board results.
The report is broken down into five additional areas. ChapterTwo is a look at the AFROTC 4-Year Scholarship program eligibilityand how selections are presently made. Chapter Three covers thedevelopment of the survey which was administered to the November85 Scholarship Selection Board. Chapter Four deals with the de-velopment of the selection hierarchy and application of weightsfor the selection folder documentation. The choice of an appli-cant sample group, application of the hierarchy, and three otherselection programs are also explained in Chapter Four. Theresults, comparisons, recommendations, and uses are provided inChapter Five.
If determined valid, the weighted scholarship selection model(WSSM) could potentially be used to aid in maximizing the scholar-ship budget. This could be accomplished by assisting selection V%boards with their decisions, potentially reducing the number ofboard members required, and assisting in the successful predictionof individuals applying for scholarship.
Chapter Two focuses in detail on the scholarship eligibilitycriteria, application process, and how selections are made today.
"" " " " "" " " "" .' " . "':..'...":.'. ". :;-L " .,'2 " "'. '" " . ." ." . .' ." .'" ".' ".' """". ." .:'"" '[-
Chapter Two
THE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
During my tenure as an AFROTC Detachment Recruiting Officer,I encountered individuals who believed AFROTC scholarships wereavailable to everyone who wanted one. They were surprised when Iinformed them of the eligibility criteria, selection process, andobligations of the 4-year scholarship recipients. The purpose ofthis chapter is to discuss each of these areas as well as theapplication process.
BACKGROUND
The AFROTC scholarship program was established by Congress in1964. Four-year scholarships are awarded to high school seniorswho will are attending college full-time for the first time.Each year approximately 15,000 individuals apply for the 1,2004-year rcholarships. Selections are made on a national level(21:--). For the most part, the 4-year program is intended forstudents pursuing engineering degrees. Approximately 80% of thescholar- ships awarded are in the engineering disciplines, 18% inscience, and 2% in other non-technical majors (7:4).
ELIGIBILITY
To receive a 4-year scholarship, an individual must met thebasic criteria listed below:
1. Be a U.S. citizen by October of their freshman yearof college.
2. Graduate from high school or hold a equivalentcertificate.
3. Be at least 17 years old by October llth of theircollege freshman year.
4. Be under 25 years of age on June 30th of theirgraduating year from college (can be adjusted forprior active-duty military personnel).
3
5. Not be (or have been) enrolled as a full-timestudent in a junior college or university (7:2).
In addition to the above eligibility criteria, applicants musthave three additional qualifications. The first is to haveachieved a high school grade point average (GPA) of 2.5 on a 4.0scale. Second, be ranked in the top 25% of their high schoolclass. Third, achieve a minimum of 1,000 on the ScholasticAptitude Test (SAT) with at least 500 for math and 450 for verbal.Equivalent scores are needed if the applicant has taken the Amer-ican College Test (ACT) in place of the SAT. The ACT minimumscores are a composite of 23 with a minimum score of 20 in mathand 19 in english (7:2). When ACT scores are provided they areconverted by AFROTC (22:--).
OBLIGATIONS
Individuals that receive 4-Year AFROTC Scholarships areobligated in the following seven areas:
1. To enroll in the academic area in which thescholarship was offered.
2. To enlist in the Air Force Reserve and enroll inAFROTC beginning with the fall term of theirfreshman year.
3. To complete one course of college instruction in amajor Indo-European or Asian language.
4. To satisfactorily complete a 4-week field trainingencampment.
5. To complete the 4-year AFROTC program.6. To accept a commission as an Air Force officer.7. To serve 4 years on active duty (7:3).
Exactly what sparks an individual to apply for an AFROTCScholarship is beyond the scope of this study. Regardless of thereason, when it is determined they meet the eligibility criteriaand are willing to accept the obligations, the next step is toprepare an application. This application becomes the basis oftheir selection as discussed in the next section.
SELECTION PROCESS
The selection process is multi-faceted and consists of foursteps. As stated, it begins with a desire to be an Air Forceofficer. The second step is to meet the academic standardsdescribed previously. The third step is the preparation of the
4
d Ps.%
documents for the selection folder. These documents are used inthe fourth step by a national selection board to evaluate appli-cants who may ultimately be awarded a scholarship. The selectionfolder and selection process are discussed in the next twosections.
Selection Folder
The selection folder is the documentation used by the selec-tion boards to evaluate and score the individual applicants. As a .minimum the selection folder contains the six primary documentsdescribed below.
One of the fundamental tools used in evaluating the applicantis the 4-year Scholarship Application (DD Form 1893). A copy ofthis form can be found in Appendix A. The most lengthy of theforms, the DD Form 1893, contains just under 1000 pieces ofinformation and is broken into four parts. These include theapplicant data, educational information, scholastic record,athletia and extra- curricular activities. The information on thestudent's activities is verified by a school official.
A second evaluation tool is the AFROTC Form 102 which is thehigh school Statement of Recommendation. On this form, schoolofficials rank the applicant in eight areas to include motivation,industry, initiative, influence and leadership, concern forothers, responsibility, integrity, and emotional stability. Wherepossible, it is requested that five to eight teachers rank the -!
individual in each of the categories. Also, the backside of thisform allows for comments in general and a recommendation about theapplicant's motivation. In addition, if the individual partici-pated in Junior ROTC, the instructor is asked to comment on theindividual's suitability for military service.
A third instrument which is used is the USAFA CandidateEvaluation/AFROTC 4-Year Scholarship Evaluation (USAFA/AFROTC Form1). A sample of this form can be found in Appendix A. This formdocuments a personal interview of the individual by a local AirForce representative. Also, the interviewer rates the applicanton a scale of 1 to 5 in the areas of self-confidence, human rela-tions, planning and organizing, communicative skills, leadership,and motivation towards the Air Force. The interviewer also makesan overall recommendation on the same scale. Each applicantprovides a paragraph as to why he or she wants to join the AirForce. In addition, the USAFA/AFROTC Form 1 is reviewed by theAFROTC detachment commander having administrative processingresponsibilities for the applicant.
A fourth document contained in the application folder is theAFROTC 4-Year Scholarship Data Entry (AFROTC Form 101). A copy ofthis form is located in Appendix A. This form is completed by the
5
AFROTC headquarters staff upon receipt of the composite ACT or SATscores. In addition, the individual's math and verbal scores areput into the AFROTC data bank. The AFROTC Form 101 also containsthe applicant's two academic major preferences.
In conjunction with the above forms, the selection foldercontains an official high school transcript. This lists thecourses taken by the individual and the grades received for eachcourse. Also, a class ranking often appears on the transcript.
The selection folder also contains three Standard AnswerSheets (AU Form 4) which are used by the selection board membersto document board scores given to each applicant. Upon completionof the board, these forms are used to enter the individual boardscores into the AFROTC computer data bank to facilitate thenational order of merit.
In addition to the preceding, it is not uncommon for AFROTC toreceive letters of recommendation, copies of awards, photographs,or other information pertaining to scholarship applicants. Theseitems are made a part of the selection folder and are given to theselection board which is discussed in the following section.
The Selection Board
Scholarship selections are made by special boards convened atAFROTC Headquarters. To assist in the understanding of the oper-ation of a selection board, the in-briefing and training processof the November 1985 board was observed. A detailed descriptionof the procedures followed by the selection board is not requiredhere, but a general description is given.
The AFROTC 4-year Scholarship Selection Boards consist of apresident, a recorder, and at least two three-member panels.These are made up of individuals in the position of Professor ofAerospace Studies (PAS). They are predominately colonels andlieutenant colonels, with a few majors. The recorder, who is theonly individual not a PAS, is detailed to the board from AFROTCHeadquarters staff (22:--).
Officers selected for the board may or may not have previousexperience in making evaluations of this nature, yet, they arefamiliar with some of the documentation. The board is briefed onits mission, operation, and documents available for making deci-4Isions. Following the briefing, the board evaluates a set ofsample records as a trial run. The purpose of the trial run is toassist board members in establishing a standard which they willevaluate the scholarship applicants against. The trial runrecords are carefully selected to cover the range of applicants.This training exercise allows the board members to become familiarwith the selection process, and most of the documents they may
6
v'
encounter in evaluating applicant records. Additionally, thetrial run allows the members to set standards for consistentselection (21:--).
During the training, consistency is stressed to each of theparticipants. The relative weight of any particular area is leftto the discretion of the individual board members. However, thebreakdown into the categories of Academic Ability, Whole PersonEvaluation, and Personal Appraisal in Figure 2-1 is suggested
Whole Person Evaluation Academic Ability Personal Appraisal
Athletics SAT/ACT Scores School Recommendations
School Organizations (Math Emphasized) Air Force InterviewCommunity Involvement Class Rank or GPA Other RecommendationsLeadership Math a Science -
Military Parent Difficulty ofWork History High School
JROTC/CAP Membership (Selective Admissions,Honors Courses)
Figure 2-1. Scoring Areas
The number of panels needed by a particular board is deter-mined by the number of records being screened. Historically, a ,,.panel can score approximately 700 to 750 records per week.Accordingly, the number of panels required is determined by theAFROTC Registrar prior to each board. Each panel evaluatesapplicants according to the whole person concept and officerpotential (22:--).
Records are distributed to the panels on a random basis. Therecords are rated by all three panel members, and the applicant'sscore is obtained by summing the three individual ratings. Themembers score records by secret ballot in five-point increments ona scale from 0 to 100, but for practical purposes, a range of 55to 100 is common. The sum of the scores of the three panelmembers becomes the individual's selection score. Whenever thereis more than a 10 point disagreement between two board members,the record is discussed between the members. When this signif;-cant disagreement can not be resolved, the board president has therecord scored by a different panel (21:--).
After all of the records have been scored, they are numeri-cally ranked according to each panel. These rankings are used todetermine a national order of merit for the board. The scholar-ships are awarded based on the number of scholarships available tothe respective board. The scholarships are distributed, on a
7
pro-rata share, to each panel based on the needs of the Air Forcefrom the academic majors in Figure 2-2. Boards are held in Nov-ember, January, and March of each year, and at the conclusion ofeach board, applicants who are not competitive are released fromfurther consideration. The individuals not selected by the Nov-ember and January boards are referred to the next board (22:--).
Engineering Majors Science Majors Nontechnical Majors
Aeronautical Architecture AccountingAerospace Computer Science BusinessArchitectural Mathematics EconomicsAstronautical Meteorology ManagementCivil PhysicsElectricalIndustrialMechanicalMetallurgicalNuclearSystems
Figure 2-2. Academic Majors
Summary
The scholarship program consists of evaluations based on theindividual's application which provides information pertaining toacademics, leadership experience, extracurricular activities, andwork experience. This information, combined with evaluations frompersonal interviews and high school officials, is used to deter-mine scholarship selection. Which of these items has the mostinfluence on the selection process is one of the main thrusts ofthis project. The items in the selection folder were developedinto a survey to determine which, if any, influenced the boardmembers. The development of the survey is the subject matter ofChapter Three.
.4o
8
% % %
Chapter Three
THE SELECTION BOARD SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
The most common method of obtaining data about attitudes,opinions, and behavior of individuals is the survey (6:4). Oneof the reasons for the survey's success is that it combines the .
age old method of obtaining information by asking questions withthe 20th century computerization capability which allows arandomly selected group to represent a much larger population(6:1). The first stop in developing a survey is to determine thepurpose (16:13). Once this is accomplished the actual survey canbe developed. The survey development process is broken down intothree plans: the Data Collection Plan, Data Reduction and Refor-matting Plan, and the Data Analysis Plan (16:13-16). Each ofthese plans, and question development, will be discussed underSurvey Development followed by the Survey Administration process.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
Purpose
The purpose of the selection board survey is to obtain opin-ions regarding which item or items about an applicant influencedthe ratings of the individual board members. A hypothesis of thesurvey was not to reject one item, or set of items, but to deter-mine relative weight. With the purpose determined, the next stepis to develop the survey plans. -
Data Collection Plan
The function of the data collection plan is to ensure that thedata collected supports the purpose, and is in the right amounts(16:13). It deals with the development of the survey, not theadministration itself. Each of the items in the selection folderwere separated and identified as potential survey question areas.
* 9
The next step was to review the information under the DataReduction and Reformatting Plan.
Data Reduction and Reformatting Plan
In survey development, the purpose of the data reduction andreformatting plan is to make sure only the pertinent informationis requested, and to design the flow of the survey questions(16:14). This process indicates the amount of reformatting thatwill be required in the analysis phase. It was projected that agreat deal of information was to be collected; therefore, themajority of the questions were designed to be used with automaticdata processing sheets. It was during this phase, that theinformation extracted from the applicant folder was reduced and "divided into major categories. These categories are listed below.
DD Form 1893:
I. Academicsa. Grade Point Averageb. Class rankingc. Honor rolld. National Honor Societye. National Merit Scholarship Semi-Finalist
II. Student Government Offices Helda. Student Councilb. Class Officerc. School Club
III. District, State or National Organizationa. National Conventionb. State Conventionc. District Convention
IV. Musical Achievementsa. Orchestrab. Bandc. Chorus
V. Individual Awardsa. Nationalb. Statec. District
VI. Boy/Girl Scouts of America
10
VII. Publishing Experiencea. School Paperb. Year Bookc. School Magazine
VIII. Dramatic Experiencea. Three Act Playb. One Act Playc. Dramatic Contest
IX. Public Appearances, Debates, Etc.a. Debating Teamb. Honorary Speechesc. Master of Ceremonies
X. Paid Work (Average Weekly)a. Noneb. 9 hours or lessc. 10-20 hoursd. 20-30 hourse. More than 30 hours
XI. Pilot or Radio Operator Experiencea. Private Pilotb. Commercial Pilotc. Radio Operator
XII. Athleticsa. Participation on School Teamsb. Varsity Letters Earnedc. Varsity Team Captain or Co-Captain for Entire
Seasond. State or Conference Record Holdere. All-City, District or Conference 1st Team Onlyf. All-State or All-American High School 1st or
2nd Teamg. Student Manager or Trainer of School Teamh. Participation on Non-School Teams
XIII. Junior ROTC Programa. Air Forceb. Armyc. Navyd. Marines
XIV. Other Organizationsa. CAPb. NACCC. Other
'.f..
11 '
'4.
USAFA/AFROTC Form 1:
I. Self-Confidence
II. Human Relations
III. Planning and Organizing
IV. Communicative Skills
V. Leadership
VI. Motivation Toward Air Force
VII. Overall Recommendation
VIII. Military Service of Parent or Guardian
ROTC Form 102:
I. Motivation
II. Industry
III. Initiative 4
IV. Influence and Leadership
V. Concern For Others
VI. Responsibility
VII. Integrity
VIII. Academic Profile
IX. Recommendation
With the information reduced and divided into categories thenext step is data analysis.
Analysis Plan
The purpose of the analysis plan is to ensure that the infor- o
mation produced either rejects or supports the hypothesis. Inthis plan, the type of statistics which will be used to evaluatethe data is determined. Each of these decisions has an effectupon the amount and type of data that is collected, and how it isreduced (16:16). Data analysis certifies that the correct anal-ysis procedure is used for the information collected. To analyze
12
"€.' ." : ".' -'.,' '2€; . ..? -..? b [. ...........?°.-.. .....? ¢ / . ...-........ ....... .... ....2 .. ... ... .; ..-. .. . ; . -'9 -i
the data from the selection board, one of the most popular andwidely used programs for statistical analysis, the StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences (SPSS), was chosen (3:1).
Question Development
With the information reduced and divided into categories, thedevelopment of the survey questions was the next step. A reviewof the four most common types of survey questions, the classifer .1.p %or background question; the multiple choice or closed-end ques-tion; the intensity question, and the free response or open-endquestion was conducted (13:57). The intensity and the freeresponse question styles were determined to be the most applicableto support the analysis plan (19:--). With the type of questiondetermined, the next step was the actual question development. F --
The majority of the guidelines for questionnaire constructionprovides relatively the same advice. The first, and perhaps mostparamount, is to analyze the audience and keep the language simple(5:201). Additionally, not only should the questions be short,but the number of questions should be as few as possible (16:31).Based on this advice the selection board survey was reduced from125 to 79 questions.
Wording of survey questions can be a major problem. If thewording is too simple it will insult respondents. If toocomplicated, the question is likely to be misunderstood. Accord-ingly, survey questions should be worded clearly without being toosimplified. It is frequently suggested that knowledgeablepersons, like those to be surveyed, be consulted about wording(16:22). The completed survey was reviewed by AFROTC and dataautomation personnel. The use of slang or technical jargon can beavoided by analyzing your audience. It is commonly assumed thata lack of clarity in an item will be reflected in a large numberof "don't know" or middle of the road esponses (6:162). The "--importance of clear, unambiguous, and self-explanatory questionsis stressed. Caution was used to ensure that the wording ofquestions or response categories did not suggest or imply aparticular answer to the respondent (16:31).
The first 64 questions on the survey consisted of two dis-tinctive five point Likert-type rating scales and commentsections. This type of scale is considered the most easy for the Arespondent to use (16:34). The remaining questions asked theboard members to numerically rank the personal characteristicitems listed from the AFROTC Form 102 and USAFA/AFROTC Form 1 on ascale from one to eight and one to five, respectively.
After the survey was developed, it was reviewed for undesir-able characteristics. These included the double barrelled
13
:. , .,. : : _ .. i t . : ' . h" "*' :-"."....-"-"...-..---.......'....-.-"-...-....'.'"-'-.--..."..."."-.-...•m
* at S .A. - -| at - * --I
question in which two separate objects or events are contained inone question. Another undesireable characteristic was the leadingquestion which suggests an answer. The third, was a loaded ques-tion which includes emotionally colored words or phrases. Lastly,the survey was reviewed to ascertain whether it contained anyambiguities (1:119-121). Adjustment was made wherever necessary.The survey questions encompassed the information presented on theDD 1893, AFROTC Form 102, and, except for the narrative paragraph,the USAFA/AFROTC Form 1.
It is recommended that extensive pretesting be conducted inthe development of survey questions (1:122). However, pretestingwas not possible in this case due to time constraints and theavailability of only one survey population, the November 1985Scholarship Selection Board. The AFROTC and data automationreviews were substituted for this step. Once the survey questionswere developed, they were arranged by grouping similar questions
" together with general questions preceding specific ones (16:33).With the survey complete, it was reproduced and ready to beadministered to the board.
Survey Administration
The standard task of determining the size and demographics ofthe survey group was not a matter of concern, since the entireNovember 1985 Selection Board was to be surveyed. The board con-sisted of two, three member panels and a president. Even thoughthe size of the population was small, their opinions were to bethe foundation of the WSSM. Due to the length of time since theirboards met, previous board members were not added to the survey.Also, the documents reviewed have not remained completely con-stant. The size of this group allowed administration without asurvey control number (15:17). Because this survey will be usedfor further updates to WSSM, the pretest validation technique wasemployed. This encompassed a post-survey interview conducted withboard members to review the clarity and understanding of questions(16:22).
Prior to the distribution of the surveys, the purpose and useof the information requested was conveyed to the board members.In order to receive the most correct responses, the survey wasadministered immediately after the board completed its selections.A reliability factor was established at a 95% confidence orprecision level (16:24). A copy of the survey is included inAppendix B.
14
SUMMARY
The selection board survey is the key to obtaining informationrelevant to which items influenced individual board members intheir scoring decisions. With this purpose established, the firststep is to determine what information is available for collection.The second step, is to mold this information into a workable formfor the third step, analysis. Taking into account the many guide-lines notated, and upon completion of these steps, the surveyquestions can be developed. As stated, the survey control groupconsisted of the November board. The results of the selectionboard survey are discussed in Chapter Four.
15 .- '
.%
W p
Chapter Four
BOARD RESULTS AND HIERARCHY DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is primarily concerned with the development ofthe WSSM selection hierarchy. In order for this to be developedthe results of the selection board survey were reviewed. Throughthis review, the necessity for two additional control groupsbecame evident. The first is a success group of scholarshipselectees, and the second is a sample selection of the applicantsthat met the November 1985 selection board. Several other selec-tion systems were examined as well. In the following sections theboard survey, three other selection programs, and the controlgroups will be addressed. The development of the WSSM selectionhierarchy and the point values will also be presented.
Board Results ]-"
The constant variables for selecting individuals for AFROTC4-Year Scholarships are represented in the selection board survey.The survey was administered to the November 1985 selection boardwith the results transferred to computer forms and a data base -
developed. Once again the SPSS program was used for this purpose(3:1).
Based on the survey results and a review of other programs,the 26 relative variables were operationally defined and combinedinto five major categories to serve as a framework for decisionmaking. These categories are: academics, leadership, extracur- K-.ricular activities, evaluation, and athletics.
A summary of single-variable descriptive statistics wasprovided by the SPSS subprogram CONDESCRIPTIVE which reports theoccurrence of each value detected for a variable in the responseto the questions (4:185). In addition, multiple regressions andPearson correlations were also applied to the data base todetermine the relationship of a single variable to the remainingvariables (4:286).
17 ,.
The results of the SPSS analysis were used to rank order theresponses from the scholarship selection board survey. First, aranking was made among the categories and then a ranking withinthe categories. The categories were ranked as follows:1-academics, 2-leadership, 3-extracurricular activities,4-evaluation, and 5-athletics. The Profile Hierarchy for thesecategories is shown in Figure 4-1.
ACADEMIC PROFILE (F-1 2150 pts.
LEADERSHIP PROFILE [F-2] 530 pts.
EVALUATION PROFILE (F-31 150 pts. APPLICANT'S SCORE
EXTRACURRICULAR PROFILE (F-41 325 pts.
ATHLETICS PROFILE [F-51 250 ptS.
Figure 4-1. Profile Hierarchy
Other Selection Programs
While the board survey results did show which items wereconsidered the most important by the board members, it did notprovide conclusive analysis as to the weight that should be givento the relative areas. Accordingly, five other selection programswere reviewed to assist in validating this area due to the size ofthe original population. Three of the five had information thatwas taken into consideration in the development of the model andare discussed below.
Army ROTC. Like the Air Force, the Army scholarship appli-cants meet a scholarship selection board. The Army selectionprogram is based on a whole person score (WPS), with the selectionboard points accounting for approximately 18% of the total score.Of the remaining 82%, grade point average/high school classstanding and SAT or ACT are worth 50%; extracurricular activities,
athletics, leadership and bonus points combined are worth 40%, andthe remaining 10% consists of the results of a physical aptitudeexamination (11:8). The Army program awards set numbers of pointsfor an activity which are broken down as stated above.
Navy ROTC. Like the Army and Air Force, the Navy scholarshipapplicants also meet a selection board. However, the Navy boardmembers have available to them a somewhat different index. The
.* Naval Personnel Research and Development Center has designed aquality index that is provided to board members. In addition, theboard members are provided a precise breakdown that is suggestedfor the evaluation of applicants. This breakdown consists of:
18
56% for high school class ranking, 20% for SAT or ACT scores, 10%for the officer interview, 9% for the Strong-Campbell InterestInventory, and 5% for the background questionnaire (10:7).
Air Force AcademX. For over 20 years, the Air Force Academyhas refined a selection data base which stresses the whole personconcept. Its hierarchy is based on a series of studies involvedwith predicting first year achievement of academy cadets. Uponadmission to the academy, cadets are administered a battery oftests. These are not used in decision making affecting cadets,but are used to validate cadet selection criteria. The academyselection process ends with a weighted composite score of which70% is derived from the academic composite. The academic compos-ite consists of GPA and SAT or ACT scores. The remaining 30% isthe leadership composite which encompasses the Physical AptitudeExamination, athletic, and nonathletic activities. These threevariables are all weighted evenly (18:--). The weighted compositescore and its components are given to the selection board.
All of these different programs were taken into considerationin the proportioning of the total points among the hierarchy shownin Figure 4-1.
Hierarchy Breakdown
As demonstrated, the total possible score and value of each ofthe major elements of the selection process varies depending onthe service. However, the major share in all of the programsrests with academics or academic achievement areas. The boardsurvey also placed academics as the single most important factor.This is also the largest factor in the development of the pointvalue system. With a total possible score of 3380, the academicarea represents 63% with the remaining 37% represented by:leadership - 16%, extracurricular activities - 10%, athletics -7%, and evaluation - 4%. This breakdown is shown in Figure 4-2.
Leadership Extracurricular-Activities 10%
Athletics - 7%
AEvaluation - 4%
Academics -63% .
Figure 4-2. Hierarchy Breakdown
19
. . . . :> :Q Q . . . . . ;-.. : ... ... | I: .* .. .. . .... :* - . . .I
Control Groups
The challenge to any selection board is to choose the indi-viduals that will most likely succeed. In solving probabilityproblems, the first and most important step is to fully understandand define success (14:7). In the case of an AFROTC 4-Year Schol-arship applicant, success is defined as being selected for ascholarship. With success defined, the next step was to comparethe data from the control group to the same information of a suc-cess group. A historical data bank did not exist with which tocompare survey results. Accordingly, it was necessary to create ahistorical data base on a success group.
The Success Group. During a meeting with the project sponsor,success was defined as those individuals who had been selected for4-year scholarships and were nearing completion of the program.At the time of the survey, the population of this group was 535people. In order to determine a 95% reliability rate a samplingof 224 was needed (16:24).
In order to collect background information from the successgroup, a second survey was developed. To obtain the compatibledata base, 629 questions were required. This survey was 130 pagesin length. Upon additional review, using the information in Chap-ter Three, it was determined the majority of the same informationcould be obtained by having the success group complete pertinentportions of the DD Form 1893. Names and locations of the successpopulation were identified using the AFROTC data file. To gainthe largest data base possible, the information was requested fromthe total population. A total of 374 individuals completed andreturned the forms, exceeding the 95% reliability factor. Uponreceipt, the 950 data items per individual were manually trans-ferred to computer scan sheets and used to establish a historicaldata base. SPSS programs were also used to evaluate theinformation.
Applicant Sample Group. This control group was obtained fromthe AFROTC 4-Year Scholarship applicants that met the November1985 selection board. It was decided that a population size of15% was needed for the purpose of validating the board results.To compensate for parity and administrative errors, an additional1% of the applicants was to be identified. The selection foldersare maintained in an alphabetical order and every sixth folder was
Sneeded as a member of the control group. A single die was rolledto determine the starting point, and every sixth record was chosenthereafter. The total alphabet was used to obtain the sample of250 records. The information from the three constant documents ineach folder was also manually transferred to computer scan sheetsto form a data base. SPSS programs were again applied to theinformation for statistical data. The analysis of both controlgroups was used in the development of the WSSM hierarchy.
20
Selection Hierarchy
With the completion of the third data base, the distributionof the points within the five categories was determined based onthree factors. The first was the relative ranking of each item onthe board survey. The second was a comparison of the frequency ofthe items from the success group. The last factor was a compari-son between the success group and the sample group. Once therankings were determined within each of the areas values wereassessed. The hierarchy for each area is listed below.
Academic Hierarchy. The academics portion of the selectionmodel is valued at a maximum of 2150 points; this represents justover 63% of the total possible score. The Academic Hierarchy,F-l, and elements of the Academic Profile are shown in Figure 4-3.For the academic area value, the individual scores are applied tothe following formula: (SAT Verbal + SAT Math X .6645) + (highschool percentile X .482) + (high school rank X .482) + the honorsscore. tp
If the individual has ACT versus SAT scores, equivalent scoresare used. GPA (multiplied by 2.4975) is substituted when highschool class percentile is not provided. The honors score isdetermined by dividing the top number of affirmative responsesfrom the applicant sample group into 30. This product is multi-plied by the individuals' actual number of affirmative responses.For the test group, the top number was determined by the actualnumber plus 10%. This was done to compensate for any individualsthat may have had more responses than the control group. Thisfigure was compared against the success group. If the successgroup revealed a larger number, the average between the two wasused. When the entire application is computer read, a distinctioncould be made to compensate for class size.
GRADE POINT AVERAGE (A-1]
CLASS RANKING (A-2]
HONOR ROLL [A-3]
NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY [A-4] ACADEMIC PROFILE (F-I1NATL. MERIT SCHOLARSHIP (A-5]
OTHER ACADEMIC AWARDS [A-61
SAT/ACT SCORES [A-71
Figure 4-3. Academic Hierarchy
Leadership Hierarchy. The leadership portion of the selectionmodel is valued at a maximum of 530 points; this represents just
21
-% % %
under 16% of the total possible score. The Leadership Profile,F-2, is shown in Figure 4-4. The process for determining relativeweight for these areas was the same as that for the honorscategory discussed in the Academic Profile. The number of pointswas determined for each profile, LL-1 through LL-7. The totalnumber of responses in the control group plus 10% were dividedinto the maximum points possible. If the success group had ahigher figure, the average of the two was once again used.Relative importance of each of the subsets of the hierarchy wasdetermined by the scholarship board survey and the Army and AirForce Academy programs. The total for this area, F-2, is the sumof LL-1 through LL-5 as shown in Figure 4-4. Each of these stemsare further broken down into their respective hierarchies with thetotal possible points shown by each activity.
STUDENT GOVERNMENT HIERARCHY ILL-I]
DISTRICT, STATE OR NATIONALORGANIZATION HIERARCHY [LL-21 LEADERSHIP PROFILE [F-21
BOY/GIRL SCOUTS HIERARCHY [LL-31
PUBLISHING HIERARCHY ILL-41
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HIERARCHY (LL-5]
Figure 4-4. Leadership Profile
PRESIDENT [L-l] 18.75 pts.
VICE-PRESIDENT (L-21 16.25 pts.
SECRETARY [L-31 13.75 pts. SCHOOL COUNCIL-
TREASURER [L-41 11.25 pts.- 4OTHER IL-51 8.75 pts. I
PRESIDENT (L-61 16.25 pts.
VICE-PRESIDENT [L-7] 13.25 pts.SECRETARY (L-81 11.25 pts. CLASS OFFICER- ILL-l
TREASURER [L-91 8.75 pts.
OTHER (L-10] 6.25 pts.
PRESIDENT IL-ill 13.75 pts.VICE-PRESIDENT (L-12] 11.25 ptS. S L
SECRETARY (L-13) 8.75 pts. SCHOOL CLUB-
TREASURER (L-141 6.25 pts.
OTHER [L-15] 3.75 pts.
Figure 4-5. Student Government Hierarchy
.0.
e, ',~~~~~~~~~~~.,...,..........-.......,... .. -........ ....... .,. .,............ . ........... ,..... ,- ......... *...... *.* ." ,•,,,.
The Student Government Hierarchy. This area consists ofthe leadership items L-1 through L-15, shown in Figure 4-5 on theprevious page. Points are awarded based on the office heldregardless of the year in which it was held. The line items L-1through L-15 when added together form LL-1 which is represented inFigure 4-4.
The District, State, or National OrganizationHierarchy. This area consists of items L-16 through L-27 as shownin Figure 4-6. Like the leadership area, points are awarded forthe office(s) held regardless of the year held.
PRESIDENT [L-161 13.75 pts.
VICE-PRESIDENT rL-17] 11.25 pts. NATIONAL CONVENTION-
DELEGATE [L-181 8.75 pts. 1REPRESENTATIVE [L-19] 6.25 ptS.
PRESIDENT [L-20] 13.75 pts.
VICE PRESIDENT [L-211 11.25 pt. STATE CONVENTION -4 LL-2
DELEGATE [L-221 8.75 pta.
REPRESENTATIVE [L-23] 6.25 pts.
PRESIDENT [L-241 11.25 pts.
VICE-PRESIDENT [L-251 8.75 pta. DISTRICT CONVENTION
DELEGATE (L-26] 6.25 pts.
REPRESENTATIVE [L-27] 2.50 ptS.
Figure 4-6. District, State or National Organization Hierarchy
The line items when added together form LL-2 which isrepresented in Figure 4-4.
The Boy/Girl Scouts of America Hierarchy. This areaconsists of items L-28 through L-38 shown in Figure 4-7 presentedon the following page. Points are awarded for the highest rankheld. The line items, of this area, when added together representLL-3 in Figure 4-4.
Publishing Experience Hierarchy. This area consists ofthe items L-39 through L-62 and is shown in Figure 4-8 presentedon the next page. Points are awarded for the position for eachyear held. The line items from this area, when added together,form LL-3 which is represented in Figure 4-4.
23
S . . . . . . .. , .. . ..2..,., ,... ... .
.4
MEMBER [L-281 3.75 pts.
EAGLE (L-291 16.25 pts.
FIRST CLASS [S-30] 8.75 pts.
ACE [L-31) 8.75 pts.
QUARTERMASTER [L-321 8.25 pts. SCOUTS ILL-31ASSOCIATE ADVISOR [L-331 3.75 pts. SL
SENIOR PATROL LEADER [L-341 6.25 pts.
JR. ASST. SCOUTMASTER IL-351 3.75 pts.
ASST. SCOUTMASTER (L-361 6.25 pts.
POST PRESIDENT IL-37] 13.75 pts.
CABINET OFFICER [L-381 11.25 pts.
Figure 4-7. Boy/Girl Scouts of America Hierarchy
EDITOR [L-391 9.16 pts.
BUSINESS MANAGER [L-401 7.50 pts.
CIRCULATION MANAGER (L-411 5.83 pts.
ADVERTISING MANAGER [L-42] 5.83 pts.
FEATURE EDITOR [L-431 4.16 pts. SCHOOL PAPER
SPORTS EDITOR [L-44] 4.16 pts.
PHOTO EDITOR [L-45] 4.16 pts.
NEWS EDITOR [L-461 4.16 pts.
EDITOR [L-47] 16.25 pts.
BUSINESS MANAGER (L-481 13.75 pts.
CIRCULATION MANAGER [L-491 11.25 pts.
ADVERTISING MANAGER (L-501 8.75 pts. YEARBOOK - LL-4
FEATURE EDITOR [L-51] 6.25 pts.
SPORTS EDITOR [L-521 6.25 pts.
PHOTO EDITOR IL-533 6.25 pts.
NEWS EDITOR [L-541 6.25 pts.
EDITOR [L-551 9.16 pta.
BUSINESS MANAGER [L-561 5.70 pta.
CIRCULATION MANAGER [L-57] 5.83 pts.
ADVERTISING MANAGER [L-581 5.83 pts. SCHOOL MAGAZINE
FEATURE EDITOR [L-59] 4.16 pts.
SPORTS EDITOR (L-601 4.16 pts.
PHOTO EDITOR [L-61] 4.16 pts.
NEWS EDITOR (L-621 4.16 pts.
Figure 4-8. Publishing Experience Hierarchy
24
- o
j.~'~f .-...
Other Organizations Hierarchy. This is the catch-allfor the leadership organization area. It includes leadershipareas L-63 through L-66 with the hierarchy shown in Figure 4-9.Points were awarded for participation in the organizations.
CAP [L-631 2.5 pts.
NACC [L-64) 2.5 ptso OTHER ORGANIZATIONS [LL-51JUNIOR ROTC [L-651 2.5 pts.
OTHER [L-661 2.5 pts.
Figure 4-9. Other Organizations Hierarchy
When added together the items form LL-5 as shown in Figure4-4.
Evaluation. The evaluation portion of the selection model isvalued at a maximum of 150 points; this represents just over 4% ofthe total score. While this area may appear small in value, it isnot uncommon for an applicant to receive the maximum number ofpoints. The Evaluation Profile, F-3, Figure 4-1, is furtherbroken down in Figure 4-10. The computation for this area isdetermined by the evaluation from the AFROTC Form 102 and theUSAFA/AFROTC Form 1 which are further illustrated in theirrespective hierarchies.
USAFA/AFROTC FORM 1 [EEV-11 1 EVALUATION [F-3]AFROTC FORM 102 [EEV-21
Figure 4-10. Evaluation Profile
AFROTC Form 102 Evaluation Hierarchy. This areaconsists of items EV-I through EV-8 as shown in Figure 4-11. r..Points are awarded based on the ratings received from the eval-uator. The stem EEV-l is valued at a maximum of 30 points whichis determined by three points for each top rating in the tenareas. A second place rating receives a value of 2.5. Markingsin place three or less receives no points. When an individualreceives multiple rankings on the AFROTC Form 102, the average ofthe rankings were used. A copy of the form is shown in Appendix A.This averaging situation will be alleviated with the computer-ization of the form (22:--).
25
% '
MOTIVATION fEV-1]
INDUSTRY (EV-21
INITIATIVE [EV-3]
INFLUENCE & LEADERSHIP [EV-41
CONCERN FOR OTHERS [EV-51FORM 102 [EEV-1jRESPONSIBILITY [EV-6]
INTEGRITY [EV-7]
EMOTIONAL STABILITY [EV-]
ACADEMIC POTENTIAL [EV-9,
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS [EV-10]
Figure 4-11. AFROTC Form 102 Evaluation Hierarchy
When totaled together, the items in this area comprise EVV-l,which is the top stem of Figure 4-10.
USAFA/AFROTC Form 1 Evaluation Hierarchy. The secondevaluation tool, the USAFA/AFROTC Form 1, consists of items EV-9through EV-15, shown in Figure 4-12. This area is valued at amaximum of 120 points. Like the AFROTC Form 102, points areawarded based on the ratings of the evaluator. A copy of the formis contained in Appendix A. The first six evaluations, EV-9through EV-14, are weighted 3.32 points for an average rating (3),6 points for a superior rating (4), and 10 points for an out-
standing rating (5). Ratings of below standard and far belowstandard are awarded no points. The final area, OverallRecommendation, F-15, is given no points for the bottom threeratings (1-3). Those with a rating of superior (4) receive 30points and an outstanding (5) receives 60 points.
SELF-CONFIDENCE [EV-9] 10 pts.HUMAN RELATIONS [EV-1Ol 10 pta.
PLANNING & ORGANIZING [EV-i1] 10 pts.
COMMUNICATIVE SKILLS [EV-121 10 pts. FORM I [EEV-21
LEADERSHIP [EV-131 10 pts.
MOTIVATION TOWARDS AIR FORCE [EV-141 10 pts.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION [EV-151 60 pts.
Figure 4-12. USAFA/AFROTC Form 1 Evaluation Hierarchy
P..
26
aa
The points for this area are determined by totaling the itemsEV-9 through EV-15. When totaled, they comprise the bottom stem,EVV-2, of Figure 4-10.
Extracurricular Activities. The extracurricular portion ofthe selection model is valued at a maximum of 325 points; thisrepresents just under 9% of the total score. The ExtracurricularProfile, F-4, is further broken down in Figure 4-13.
MUSICAL ACHIEVEMENTS HIERARCHY (EXX-I]
INDIVIDUAL AWARDS HIERARCHY [EXX-21
DRAMATIC EXPERIENCE HIERARCHY [EXX-3]
PUBLIC APPEARANCES HIERARCHY [EXX-41 EXTRACURRICULAR [F-41
PAID WORK HIERARCHY [EXX-5]
PILOT/RADIO LICENSE HIERARCHY [EXX-6]
MILITARY DEPENDENT [EXX-71
Figure 4-13. Extracurricular Profile
The total number of points possible was determined for eachstem, EXX-I through EXX-7. As with the leadership and honorsprofiles, the total number of responses in the control groups plus10% were divided into the maximum points. A check with the suc-cess group was once again accomplished and this was the first areawhere adjustment had to be made. The relative importance for eachof the subsets of the hierarchy was determined by using theinformation from the board survey and the Army and Air ForceAcademy programs. Adjustment was necessary for the militarydependent category. The total for this area, F-4, is the sum ofEXX-I through EXX-7. Each of these items were further broken intotheir respective hierarchies with the maximum possible pointsshown by each activity.
Musical Achievement Hierarchy. This area consists ofextracurricular items EX-I through EX-15 as shown in Figure 4-14presented on the next page. Points are awarded for each occur-rence regardless of the year of participation. The line items,EX-l through EX-15, when totaled are represented by EXX-I.
27
_________ ." "'"" "." ".
A..
4 ALL STATE RECOGNITION [EX-1] 6.25 pta.
DIRECTOR [EX-2] 5 pta.
LEADER EEX-31 3.75 pts. ORCHESTRr
MEMBER [EX-41 2.50 pta.%
DRUM MAJOR (EX-51 3.75 pta.
ALL STATE RECOGNITION EX-6] 6.25 pta.
DIRECTOR [EX-71 5 pta.BAD -EX1LEADER [EX-BI 3.75 pta.BND EX1
MEMBER (EX-91 2.50 pta. -.
DRUM MAJOR CEX-10l 3.75 pta.
ALL STATE RECOGNITION [EX-ill 6.25 pta.
DIRECTOR [EX-12] 5 Pta.
LEADER [EX-131 3.75 pts. CHORUS
MEMBER [EX-141 2.50 pta.
DRUM MAJOR [EX-151 3.75 pta.
Figure 4-14. Musical Achievements Hierarchy
Individual Awards Hierarchy. This area consists ofextracurricular items EX-16 through EX-24 which are shown inFigure 4-15 presented below. Points are awarded for eachoccurrence regardless of the year of achievement.
FIRST PLACE (EX-16] 8.75 pta.
SECOND PLACE CEX-17] 7.50 pta.s f...... NATIONAL-
THIRD PLACE [EX-iSI 6.25 pta.
FIRST PLACE [EX-19] 6.25 pta.%
SECOND PLACE (EX-201 5 pta. - : -] STATE- [EXX-2]
THIRD PLACE [EX-Zi] 3.75 pta.
FIRST PLACE [EX-22) 5 pta.
SECOND PLACE [EX-22 3.75 pta. . .. DSRC
THIRD PLACE [EX-241 2.50 pta.
Figure 4-15. individual Awards Hierarchy
28
When the line items EX-16 through EX-24 are totaled they arerepresented by EXX-2 in Figure 4-13.
Dramatic Experience Hierarchy. This area consists ofthe extracurricular items EX-25 through EX-36, shown in Figure4-16. Points are based on each occurrence.
DIRECTOR [EX-25] 6.25 pta.ACTOR [EX-261 3.75 pts.
ACTO [EX26]3.75pta ACT PLAYWRITER [EX-27] 3.75 pts. %
STAGE HAND (EX-28] 3.75 pts.
DIRECTOR [EX-29] 5 pts.
ACTOR [EX-30] 3.75 pts.____________ 1ACT PLAY -EXX-3
WRITER [EX-31] 3.75 pts.
STAGE HAND [EX-32] 3.75 pts.
DIRECTOR [EX-33] 5 pts.
ACTOR [EX-341 3.75 pts.
WRITER [EX-35] 3.75 pts. _ DRAMATIC CONTEST
STAGE HAND (EX-361 3.75 pts.
Figure 4-16. Dramatic Experience Hierarchy
The sum of the extracurricular items, EX-25 through EX-36, isrepresented by EXX-3 in Figure 4-13.
Public Appearance Hierarchy. This area consists of theextracurricular items EX-37 through EX-39, which are shown inFigure 4-17. Points are awarded based on each occurrence ormembership.
DEBATING TEAM [EX-37] 4 pta. '''
HONORARY SPEECHES [EX-38] 4 pts. APPEARANCES [EXX-4]MASTER OF CEREMONIES [EX-39] 4 pts .
Figure 4-17. Public Appearances Hierarchy
29%%,'
%,.-
The sum of EX-37 through EX-39 equals EXX-4 which isrepresented in Figure 4-13.
Paid Work Hierarchy. This area consists of extracur-ricular items EX-40 through EX-44 as shown in Figure 4-18. Pointsare awarded based on the number of hours work per week no matterwhich year the work occurred.
NONE (EX-40] 3.4 pts.
9 HOURS OR LESS [EX-41] 4.5 pts.
10-20 HOURS [EX-42] 6.7 ptS. PAID WORK [EXX-5]
20-30 HOURS (EX-43] 8.9 pts. kMORE THAN 30 HOURS [EX-44] 9.9 pts.
Figure 4-18. Paid Work Hierarchy
The EXX-5 profile in Figure 4-13 is derived by totaling EX-40through EX-44 represented above.
Pilot or Radio Operator License Hierarchy. This areaconsists of the extracurricular items EX-45 through EX-47, whichare shown in Figure 4-19. Points are awarded based on eachlicense obtained.
PRIVATE PILOT (EX-45] 10 pts.
COMMERCIAL PILOT (EX-461 15 pts° LICENSES [EXX-6%RADIO OPERATOR [EX-47] 5 pts.
Figure 4-19. Pilot or Radio Operator License Hierarchy
The sum of EX-45 through EX-47 equals EXX-6 which isrepresented in Figure 4-13.
Athletic Profile. The athletic portion of the selection modelis valued at a maximum of 250 points which represents just over 7%of the total possible score. The points were distributed amongthe eight stems of the Athletic Profile, F-5, as represented inFigure 4-20. This area was dealt with in the same manner as theprevious profiles. The results of the board survey determined therelative weight for each of the eight stems, SP-l through SP-8.However, this area was further broken down within each of theeight areas as different weights were proportioned for the various
30
a . . . . . . . .
i?sports. The 20 sports were broken down into three areas: high
activity team sports, other team sports, and individual sports. A
point value was given for each of the three types of sports.Figure 4-21 exhibits which category contains each sport.
PARTICIPATION ONSCHOOL TEAMSHIERARCHY ESP-1]
VARSITY LETTERSEARNED HIERARCHY [SP-21
VARSITY TEAM CAPTAIN ORCO-CAPTAIN FOR ENTIRESEASON HIERARCHY [SP-31
STATE OR CONFERENCERECORD HOLDER HIERARCHY [SP-4] ATHLETIC PROFILE IF-51
ALL-CITY, DISTRICT ORCONFERENCE 1ST TEAMONLY HIERARCHY [SP-5J
ALL-STATE OR ALL-AMERICANHIGH SCHOOL 1ST OR 2NDTEAM HIERARCHY [SP-6]
STUDENT MANAGER OR TRAINEROF SCHOOL TEAM HIERARCHY [SP-71
PARTICIPATION ON NON-SCHOOL
TEAM HIERARCHY [SP-Ar
Figure 4-20. Athletic Profile
31
Except where noted, the point value for an affirmative answerin the athletic hierarchies was determined by dividing the numberof responses from the control group into the total possible pointsfor each of the eight stems. This was cross referenced with thesuccess group. Then this was multiplied by the participationvalue for each of the sports from Figure 4-21. Each of the Ath-letic Profile stems, SP-l through SP-8, are further broken downinto individual hierarchies. The building block approach wasutilized throughout the hierarchies. For example, a state orconference record holder would receive points for the achievementas well as points for being a member of the team. When the entireapplication is computer read, a distinction could be made tocompensate for class size.
BOXING
WRESTLING
OTHER
SWIMMING/DIVING
TENNIS- INDIVIDUALSKIING
RIFLE/PISTOL
GYMNASTICS
GOLF
FENCING
BASEBALL
CROSS COUNTRY" HIGH ACTIVITY
LACROSSE
TRACK
SOCCER
HOCKEY
FOOTBALL LOW ACTIVITY
BASKETBALL
RUGBY
ArFigure 4-21. Sports Participation Value
32
.. .. , .. .. . . 2 ....... .,, *% -,' *. ,'. . . . . . . . . . . . ".." - , "€ e , e .,.
Participation on School Teams Hierarchy. This areaconsists of thEe athletic items S-1 through S-19 shown in Figure4-22. Points are awarded for participation in the three levels ofsports regardless of the year of occurrence.
BASEBALL [S-lI 1.3 pta.
BASKETBALL [S-21 2.29 pts.
BOXING [S-31 .91 pta.
CROSS COUNTRY [S-41 1.37 pta.
FENCING [S-5] .91 pts.
FOOTBALL [S-61 2.28 pta.
GOLF [S-71 .91 pta.
GYMNASTICS [S-81 .91 Pt.
HOCKEY [S-91 1.3 pta.
LACROSSE (S-101 2.28 pta. - PARTICIPATION [SP-11
RIFLE/PISTOL [S-11l .91 pta.
RUGBY [S-121 2.28 pta.
SKIING (S-13] .91 pta.
SOCCER [S-141 2.28 pta.
SWIMMING/DIVING (S-151 .91 pta.
TENNIS [S-161 .91 pta.
TRACK (S-17) 1.37 pta.
WRESTLING [S-18J .91 pta.
OTHER (S-191 .91 pts.
V,~Figure 4-22. Participation on School Teams Hierarchy
The sum of S-i through S-19 equals SP-l which is representedin Figure 4-20.
33
N'.
Varsity Letters Earned Hierarchy. This area consistsof the athletic items S-20 throug9h S-38 as shown in Figure 4-23.Points are awarded based on the letters earned regardless of theyear of occurrence.
-71
BASEBALL (S-201 .76 pta.
BASKETBALL [S-211 2.58 pta.
BOXING [S-221 .76 pta.
CROSS COUNTRY [S-231 1.27 pta.
FENCING [S-241 .76 pta.
FOOTBALL (S-251 2.54 pta. S
GOLF (S-261 .76 pts.
GYMNASTICS (S-271 .76 pta.
HOCKEY ES-281 2.54 pta.
LACROSSE [S-291 .76 pta. - LETTERS EARNED [SP-21
RIFLE/PISTOL [S-301 .76 pta.
RUGBY [S-311 2.54 pta.
SKIING IS-321 .76 pta.
SOCCER IS-331 2.54 pta.
SWIMMING/DIVING [S-341 .76 pta.
TENNIS [S-351 .76 pta.
TRACK (S-361 1.27 pta.
WRESTLING [S-371 .76 pta.
OTHER [S-381 .76 Pts.
Figure 4-23. Varsity Letters earned Hierarchy '
The sum of S-20 through S-38 equals SP-2 which is represented in* Figure 4-20.
34 .'.
Varsity Team Cagtain or Co-Captain for Entire SeasonHierachy. This area consists of the athletic items S-39 through
S-5 sown in Figure 4-23. Points are awarded based on eachoccurrence, regardless of the year earned.
BASEBALL [S-39] 11 pts.
BASKETBALL [S-401 11 pts.
BOXING [S-411 11 pta.
CROSS COUNTRY [S-421 11. pts.
FENCING [5-43] 11 pta.
FOOTBALL [S-441 11 pta.
GOLF [S-451 11 pts.
GYMNASTICS [S-461 11 pta.
HOCKEY [S-47) 11 pta.
LACROSSE [S-481 11 pta. - TEAM CAPTAIN (SP-31
RIFLE/PISTOL [S-491 11 pta.
RUGBY [S-501 11 pta.
SKIING [S-51] 11 pta.
SOCCER [S-521 11 pts.
SWIMMING/DIVING [S-531 11 pts.
TENNIS [s-54] 11 pta.
TRACK [S-551 11 pts.
WRESTLING [S-561 11 pta.
OTHER [S-571 11 pta.
Figure 4-24. Varsity Team Captain or Co-Captain for Entire SeasonHierarchy
The sum of S-39 through S-57 equals SP-3 which is representedin Figure 20.
35
State or Conference Record Holder Hierarchy. This areaconsists of the athletic items S-5B through S-76 shown in Figure4-25. Points are awarded based on each occurrence# regardless ofthe year earned.
BASEBALL (S-581 4.8 pta.
BASKETBALL ES-591 8 pts.
BOXING IS-601 3.2 pta.
CROSS COUNTRY (S-611 4.8 pta.
FENCING IS-62J 3.2 pta.
FOOTBALL (S-631 8 pta.
GOLF (S-64] 3.2 pta.
GYMNASTICS (5-651 3.2 pta.
HOCKEY (5-661 8 pta.
LACROSSE (S-671 4.8 pta. - RECORD HOLDER ISP-41]
RIFLE/PISTOL [S-681 3.2 pta.
RUGBY [S-691 8 pta.
SKIING (S-701 3.2 pta.
SOCCER (8-711 8 pta.
SWIMMING/DIVING (S-721 3.2 pta.TENNIS (8-73] 3.2 pta.
* TRACK (S-74) 4.8 pts.
WRESTLING IS-751 3.2 pta.
OTHER [S-761 3.2 pta.
Figure 4-25. State or Conference Record Holder Hierarchy
The sum of S-58 through S-76 equals SP-4 which is represented* in Figure 4-20.
36t.
%
All-City, District or Conference 1st Team OnlyHierarchy This area consists of the athletic items S-77 through
S-95, h h are shown in Figure 4-26. Points are awarded based oneach occurrence, regardless of the year earned.
BASEBALL [S-771 11 pts.
BASKETBALL (S-78] 11 pts.
BOXING [S-79J 11 pts.
CROSS COUNTRY [S-80] 11 pts.
FENCING [S-811 11 pts.
FOOTBALL [S-82] 11 pts.
GOLF [S-831 11 pts.GYMNASTICS [S-84] 11 pts.
HOCKEY [S-85] 11 pts.LACROSSE (S-86] 11 pts. DISTRICT TEAM [SP-5] 1.'.
RIFLE/PISTOL [S-87] 11 ptS.
RUGBY [S-88] 11 pts.
SKIING [S-89] 11 pts.SOCCER [s-90] 11 pts.
SWIMMING/DIVING [S-91] 11 pta.
TENNIS [S-92] 11 pts.TRACK [S-931 11 pts.
WRESTLING IS-94] 11 pts.
OTHER [S-95] 11 pts.
Figure 4-26. All-City, District or Conference Ist Team Only Hierarchy W
The sum of S-77 through S-95 equals SP-5 which is representedin Figure 20.
3.
'.9.
37 "',
-A- - --AJ
All-State or All-American High School 1st or 2nd TeamHierarch This area consists of the athletic items S-96 through
S-114 Ki';ch are shown in Figure 4-27. Points are awarded based onthe occurrence, regardless of the year earned.
BASEBALL (S-961 16.66 pta.
BASKETBALL (S-971 16.66 pta.
BOXING [S-981 16.66 pta.
CROSS COUNTRY (S-991 16.66 Pts.
FENCING [S-1001 16.66 pta.
FOOTBALL [S-10l1 16.66 pta.
GOLF [S-1021 16.66 pts.
GYMNASTICS (S-1031 16.66 pta.
HOCKEY [S-1041 16.66 pta.
LACROSSE [S-1051 16.66 pta. - ALL-STATE TEAM ISP-61
RIFLE/PISTOL (S-1061 16.66 pta.
RUGBY [S-1071 16.66 pta.
SKIING (S-1081 16.66 pta.
SOCCER (S-1091 16.66 pta.
SWIMMING/DIVING [S-l10] 16.66 pta.
TENNIS [S-1111 16.66 pta.
TRACK (S-1121 16.66 pta.
A WRESTLING (s-1131 16.66 pta.
OTHER IS-1141 16.66 pts.
Figure 4-27. All-State or All-American High School lit or 2nd TeamHierarchy
The sum of S-96 through S-114 equals SP-6 which is representedin Figure 20.
.4 38
..7
Student Manager or Trainer of School Team Hierarchy.This area consists of the athletic items S-115 through S-133 whichare shown in Figure 4-28. Points are awarded based on the numberof occurrences regardless of the year the position was held. TheArmy program credits student manager or trainer to the leadershiparea. The selection board survey was not designed to encompassthis type of transfer. Accordingly, its value remained in theathletic area (11:7).
BASEBALL [S-1151 5.5 pts.
BASKETBALL (S-116] 5.5 pts.
BOXING [S-117] 5.5 pts. .
CROSS COUNTRY (S-1181 5.5 ptS.
FENCING [S-119] 5.5 pts.
FOOTBALL (S-120] 5.5 pts.
GOLF [S-121] 5.5 pts.
GYMNASTICS (S-1221 5.5 pta. %
HOCKEY [S-1231 5.5 pts.
LACROSSE IS-124] 5.5 pts. MANAGER/TRAINER [SP-71
RIFLE/PISTOL [S-1251 5.5 pts.
RUGBY [S-126J 5.5 pta.
SKIING [S-127] 5.5 pts.
SOCCER [S-128] 5.5 pts.
SWIMMING/DIVING [S-129] 5.5 pts.
TENNIS [S-1301 5.5 pts.
TRACK [S-131] 5.5 pts.
WRESTLING (S-1321 5.5 pts.
OTHER [S-1331 5.5 pts.
Figure 4-28. Student Manager or Trainer of School Team Hierarchy .
The sum of S-115 through S-133 equals SP-7 which isrepresented in Figure 20.
'..p..!
39
%-..
Participation on Non-School Teams Hierarchy. Thisarea consists of the athletic items S-134 through S-152, and areshown in Figure 4-29.
BASEBALL [S-1341 .727 pts.
BASKETBALL IS-135] 1.21 pts.
BOXING IS-1361 .484 ptso
CROSS COUNTRY (S-1371 .727 pts.
FENCING [S-138) .484 pts.
FOOTBALL (S-139] 1.21 pts.
GOLF [S-140] .484 pts.
GYMNASTICS (S-141] .484 pts.
HOCKEY (S-1421 1.21 ptS
LACROSSE [S-1431 .727 pts. NON-SCHOOL TEAMS ISP-81
RIFLE/PISTOL fS-144] .484 pts.
RUGBY [s-145] 1.21 pts.
SKIING [S-146] .484 pts.
SOCCER (S-147] 1.21 pts
SWIMMING/DIVING [S-1481 .484 pts.
TENNIS [S-1491 .484 pta.
TRACK (S-1501 .727 pts.
WRESTLING [S-151] .484 pts.
OTHER [S-152] .484 pts.
Figure 4-29. Participation on Non-School Teams Hierarchy
Points are awarded based on the involvements, regardless ofthe year of occurrence.
Summary
As stated in the Introduction, the primary concern of thischapter is to present the development of the WSSM hierarchy. Increating the hierarchy it was necessary to evaluate the results ofthe selection board survey and other selection models. Addition-ally, the success group was identified and a data base constructedutilizing their demographic information. By taking the results ofthe board survey and comparing them with other programs the found-ation for the selection hierarchy was developed. These componentswere then verified, adjusted based on the success control group,and the results were applied to the Profile Hierarchy and each ofits components.
40
pm
Once the selection hierarchy was developed, the values wereplaced into the data base and applied to the records in the appli-cant control group. It should be noted, this process will begreatly enhanced with the computerization of the applicationdocuments. As applications for an AFROTC Scholarship arereceived, the data from the standard documents will be placed inthe data base for that particular selection board. This way thevalues can be appropriately adjusted to give a fair basis ofcompetition for each board. Accordingly, the individual(s) withthe top affirmative responses from each of the profiles willreceive the maximum score. The WSSM score is derived fromtotaling F-1 through F-5. A board order of merit will be createdbased on descending scores.
With the value weights determined, they were applied to theapproximately 950 data items in the data base of the applicantsample group. The results of this application are discussed inChapter Five.
1..-
I. .- ,
41 '
.':::
- A ...-. J
'P 0
Chapter Five
RESULTS COMPARISON
INTRODUCTION
After the hierarchy was developed and their values determined,the results were loaded into the computer. When this was accom-plished, the scores were applied to the applicant sample groupdiscussed in Chapter Four. This enabled the development of anorder of merit for the WSSM, like the one that AFROTC establishedafter the November 1985 selection board. The same individualswere listed on a separate list in the order that they appeared onthe national order of merit from the November selection board.Both lists were broken into quarters and the results were com-pared. The results of these comparisons are discussed in thefollowing sections. Also presented are conclusions and recommen-dations for the use of the selection model.
The Top Quarter
The comparison of the top quarter of both lists revealed thatAFROTC had ranked nine individuals in the top 25% that did notappear in the top 25% of the WSSM list. These 18 records werereviewed to see if a determination could be made for thedisparity.
Of the nine records on the AFROTC list that were not in thetop quarter of the WSSM list, all but one individual had receivedthe maximum evaluation points and a strong subjective write-up onthe USAFA/AFROTC Form 1. This satisfactorily explained the non-quantitative difference in all but this one case. The lastindividual had not received a "firewalled" USAFA/AFROTC Form 1,but did receive a top rating on the overall evaluation also with astrong supportive narrative. When these factors were taken intoconsideration, it was noted that these records, if removed fromthe AFROTC list, would have allowed for an additional nine recordsto increase in ranking. This AFROTC adjusted list more closelymatched the WSSM quantitative list. However, there were threerecords in the WSSM top quarter that appeared on the bottom of the
43 "
.................................................................................
AFROTC list. In reviewing these records, it was determined thatthese individuals had been categorized unqualified by the AFROTCboard due to receiving a rating of three or less in the overallrecommendation section of the USAFA/AFROTC Form 1.
When adjustments were made for these records the overall top20% of both lists agreed. The remaining records of the top 25% ofboth lists ranked within the next 10% of the total records. Thus,providing a ranking that was within the reliability factor asdetermined in Chapter Three.
The top record on the AFROTC list was an individual who hadnot participated in any extracurricular, leadership, or athleticactivities. At first glance, the impression would be that such anindividual would not fare well on a quantitative based system.Upon looking further though, it was noted that she had strongacademic credentials and top ratings in both the evaluation areas.She was ranked number two on the WSSM list. Others who ranked inthe upper 20% of the two lists had more of a balance between aca-demics and the other categories. This demonstrates there issomewhat of a balance in the whole person concept, but an individ-ual who is extremely strong in academics and evaluations would beselected. On the other hand, if an individual does not have at ..least average academics and a good evaluation, they will not, inall probability, be ranked in the top 50%. 5"
The Bottom Quarter
The same process of comparison was conducted for the bottom25% of both lists. In this case, 13 records ranked by the boardwere missing from the WSSM bottom 25%. Three of these recordshave already been explained. A review of the remaining tenrecords clearly showed why the board scores were low. Again, thelow ratings were based on the rankings and narratives in theselection folder. To compensate for this, an adjustment to the
.1 WSSM system will be suggested in the recommendations section.With the adjustment for these ten records, the bottom 19% of bothlists agreed. The remaining 6% were scattered among the lowerthird of both lists. In general, these individuals were low per-formers or had mediocre evaluations resulting in low rankings onboth lists.
The Middle Quarters
Those records not ranked in either the top or bottom sectors. could not be distinguished as easily. Based on the results of the*" November 1985 board, just over one-half of the applicants received
scholarships. Several other factors are utilized in the actualscholarship selection, i.e. academic major, race, and sex. These
" 44
"I -6.
issues are beyond the scope of this study. However, a comparisonwas made between the scholarship winners and the top 50% of theWSSM. The results showed a 78% match with 12 of the 27 anomaliesalready explained. The remaining 15 applicants all fell withinthe third quarter of the WSSM order of merit.
Several other statistical computations were made matchingdifferent single variables on the two lists. When compared, thetwo most significant variables from the AFROTC list that matchedthe WSSM were the SAT or ACT and the quantitative evaluationscores. This indicates that there are similarities in the processbeing used by AFROTC and the WSSM program. This fact is notsurprising as both programs are based on the same information, butwith different approaches. Based on this information, evaluationof the uses of the WSSM and recommendations is considered.
RECOMMENDATIONS/USES
As discussed in the Top Quarter area, a disparity existedinvolving those individuals that received an average or less ratingon the USAFA/AFROTC Form 1. It is recommended that an adjustment "":be made to the WSSM program to identify these individuals on aseparate listing. This listing could be used to either administra-tively disqualify the applicant or have a one member panel scoreand verify the disqualification. This use could potentially savethe time of two board members.
After the WSSM has been validated, a similar procedure could beapplied to the top 10% of the applicants. These records could alsomeet a panel consisting of one member. When this panel concurswith the WSSM ranking, those individuals would be awarded a schol-arship. Two qualifiers are suggested. First, the individual musthave received the maximum score of 120 points on the USAFA/AFROTCForm 1. Second, the individual must be rated at least 10% abovethe total applicants' mean in the five major areas. Likewise, thebottom 20% could be reviewed in the same manner. Those of thebottom 20% who received less than 100 points on the USAFA/AFROTCForm 1 could be administratively disqualified.
Another use of the WSSM, could be to prioritize the ranking ofindividuals who receive the same board score. The WSSM provides amore detailed scoring breakdown of the applicants. For example, onthe November 1985 board 130 applicants received the same relativeboard score. In these cases, the national order of merit is deter-mined by totaling the individuals' SAT or ACT scores and the highschool ranking. These accounted for some of the gray areas in theMiddle Quarters as discussed above. The "adjusted" scores arereviewed for ties. In this case, if any of the tied applicants
45
-7 -
V
90,,
4 eq44 go uorpeucwlura 84 20 s~ueOTTdde ioTiadns ATleaTO 9q4 Aojsse.ao2d aq4 go 6uxutiwee9uis aqq eq P~loa s4*Tjaueq Teuol4TPPV
-4T18W JO 29PIO 12UOt~eU aAT~zalqo* ue pue se~oos paeoq uaamqeq saiauedezosip AjTIuapT oi pasn eq Tie~~av* pinoz wssM4 aq4 'eAoqe pa~sa66ns se paeeP~EeA ueU4 -eTqTssod eq o4
puno; si we~sAs e tqpns 'dnozb eidwes 4ueDTTdde WSSt4 aq4 JO s4Tnsaieq4 4Tmt p~eos uox43e1es d~qsxeloIqps 29qwa~oN aq; go sjInsej
e41 6uT~edwoo Aq pautuueqep sy .4Tew go 2apzo TSuot~eu aAt~oaCqoue 04 peiedwoo p~eoq uoT109ieS aq4 go 6utzoas eq4 6uiXpeiz; ui 'Teu
-uosized siaeaenbpeeH Dlosav pue '4uepTsezd p~eoq eq4 Is~sse o-4 T00-e se WSSM e BuTdoleAeP go A4TITq~sea; aqq auTuueqep oq peu6TsepSem 41 *P.eOg uoT;Deles dtIqs~eToqOS leea-t Z.LOHIAV 9q4 aeldi
oq weqsAs e doleAeP 04 ;ou sem Aprnis szq4 go asodind eqIL
eA16uipzxooae* pa~sn~pe eq pIQoo wSSM eq4 io; Aqo2e.ieT4 eq4 ';es seim uoTJ9eT9s Ioj
AOTTod ecu4 e3uo 0(OE:LI) 9ssxe 4uaweezft mol ue4m poq~eui qaxeesex VAlewrd aq4 se pesn eq pinoqs enbzuqpe; 6uzA;!Deds A31TOd *46T4
e:1e se-[qetaeA iojaTpe~d eq4 ueqm aeiavdoidde eq p~nom sxsAleuequewbpnr *(8:LT) 6uTRjToads AOTIod zo sisAleue jueinbpn[ !sseod4uewdoleAep AOTTod dno2b stq4 UT pesn eq P~noqs senbxuqoe; 0m4 Jo
aeuo *Sal4vzoiid uOc;3eTes go 4uewdoleAep aq4 20j Teued AotTod e o4pe~uesezd s~lnsea ecq; pue paeaeo eq PTnoqs aseq eqep e 'peuTeqqosr uolisellojuT sp.q; uaLIJ -spaeoq uoT;Deles dTqsaeloqos TeiaAes o4
p82e4stuTwpe eq*AeAins paeoq eq4 4eq4 pepueuzuooeaa iaq;.zn; 1
*AT6uxpiooae pa~sn~peeq seioas eq4 pue Txsed 4sitj ueqm paqsTTdwoaae eq paeoq
flnj e uo un2 Tezi4 e 4eq4 popueumiooa ST 41 -6uTueAuoo pzeoq ea; 4o4 aoTid pesseoozd ATe~eldwoa eq o4 aAeq p'Tnom paeoq IeTnaT;ied Aue
6uT.eeuz s2eploj uQT;Deles I:e15 'eojeze4q *aeq e~ep eq4 6uT&ue4D;floqqTm peppe eq 4ou p~floo s~ueoTldde leuozTTppe 's~aPTO; uoT40elas
* 6uTmaTAOZ suzbeq p~eoq eq4 eouo 4eq4 eq p~flom 3(D5qmep euo opaeoqeuwes eqq 6uz~eew s;uexTdde aeq;o eq4 o4 paesdwoo 4uROTldde cea
* go UOTqeTAep piepue~s pus 'epow luew eq4 4Tm saeqwew pzeoq epTA-o.7d pIniom stqL eAqozeieiq WSS4 eq4 6uTz'TTC1 pedoleAep eq Ieeals
UoztISuUojUT e42p e ;sIeq pepuewuiooei st 4T 'elqeTTeAR ST squewn-30P IePTO; uoT;Deles eq4 ue~s ie~ndwoo o4' A4;I~qedeo eq4 uaq4
-sio~oe; go qes euo eq4 4snl.ueq4 2eq~ea ;deouo, uosied ejoqm eq4 buTsrl peuTw2eqep eq ITTm eioa5pavoq aAT~eIe2 ewes et; OATe093 42q4 slenfpTATPUZ log 4Tzew J0 leploTeuoT~eu eq4 'uoTjTppe ui -inDoa 04 ATeXTT sseT t ~TuoTqef;Ts t4'WSSM qq 6uTsf As edTqs~eI~Ops e pepieime eze eioos ew"s eq4 q4;TM
s;ueoT~dde eqq go Ile e~ueaz ;;o-4no dtqs'eToqos 8q4 Ulq4Tm ITRI
.. .-.4. -I - ,~ i.-.2 .- L-a ;-W 112A& I 0 -- ;. - ZWT- - . 7W -7
marginally qualified. Thus saving valuable resources andmanpower by reducing the number of board members required andassisting in the selection process to help identify successfulperformers prior to the actual performance of the task.
47 '
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. REFERENCES CITED
Books
1. Bradburn, Norman M. and Seymour Sudman. Asking Questions.San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982.
2. Dijkstra, W. and J. van der Zouwen. Response Behaviour inthe Survey-interview. London: Academic Press, 1982.
3. Hull, C. Hadlai, William R. Klecka, and Norman H. Nie.Statistical Package for the Sciences Primer. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.
4. ---- , et al, Statistical Package for the Sciences , 3d ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.
5. Parten, M. Surveys, Polls, and Samples: PracticalProcedures. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950.
6. Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser. Questions and Answersin Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Official Documents
7. US Department of the Air Force: Air Force Reserve OfficerTraining Corps. Four-Year College ScholarshipApplication Booklet School Year 1985-1986. MaxwellAir Force Base, Alabama, 1985.
8. US Department of the Air Force: Air Force Reserve OfficerTraining Corps (CV). "FY 86 Scholarship Reductions,"letter. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 31 January1986.
9. US Department of the Air Force. The Air Force Sample SurveyProgram. AF Regulation 30-23. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 1976.
J'..
49 ' * . .*
-7 7 - -7727 7_ 77 N-- '- -- , .- - - -
CONTINUED
10. US Department of the Navy: Navy Recruiting Command (CC)."Precept for the Early SelecLion Board for the 1986Four-Year NROTC Scholarship Program," letter.Arlington, Virginia, 11 October 1985. .4
11. US Department of the Army: Army Recruiting Command. "4-YearScholarship Program Scoring Table of Values - SchoolYear 1985-86," fact sheet. June 1985.
Unpublished Materials
12. Alley, William E. and Terry A. Gibson, AiC, USAF."Predicting Success in the AFROTC Scholarship Program."Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Air Force SystemsCommand, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, April 1977.
13. Cantelou, Louis W., ". "Opinion Research as a ManagerialTool for Internal Public Relations: The USAF SampleSurvey and Internal Information Program." UnpublishedMasters Thesis, School of Public Relations andCommunications, Boston, Massachusetts: Boston UniversityPress, 1964.
14. Kiehle, James H., Major, USAF. "ACSC Handbook of StatisticalAnalytical Techniques." Research study, 1300-77, AirCommand and Staff College, Air University, Maxwell AirForce Base, Alabama, 1977.
15. Research: Practical Staff Problem Solving Concepts. ACSC/EDCC, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 1986.
16. Ross, Keith C., Major, USAF. "Sampling and SurveyingHandbook." Research study prepared at Air Command andStaff College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base,Alabama, 1977.
17. Ward, Joe H., Jr. "Creating Mathematical Models of JudgmentProcesses: From Policy Capturing to Policy-Specifying."Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Air Force Systemscommand, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, August 1977.
50
-. / ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTINUED
Other Sources
18. Air Force Academy. Applicant sample documentation workingpaper. Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1 November 1981.
19. Barron, Jesse. Chief, Air University Computer ScienceDivision. Interview with author. Maxwell Air ForceBase, Alabama, 23 October 1985.
20. Dansby, Mickey, Major, USAF. Director, Research andAnalysis,
Air University, Leadership, Management, and DevelopmentCenter. Interview with author. Maxwell Air Force Base,Alabama, 9 October 1985.
21. November 1985 4-Year Scholarship Selection Board. Observedat Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 11 November 1985.
22. Weaver, Steven L., Captain, USAF. Chief, 4-Year ScholarshipBranch, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps.Interview with author. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 1-,..
30 October 1985.
B. RELATED SOURCES
Books
23. Hyman, Herbert. Survey Design and Analysis. Glencoe,Illinois: The Free Press, Publishers, 1955.
24. Selltiz, Claire, Lawrence S. Wrightsman, and Stuart W. Cook.Research Methods in Social Relations, 3d ed. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.
,.- -,
51
INT
-. . . . . . . . . . . .-I. m I~ . - 7
____________CONTINUED________
Official Documents
25. US Department of the Air Force: Administration of SeniorAir Force Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets.Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps Regulation45-10. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 15 June 1985.
26. US Department of the Air Force: Evaluating United StatesAir Force Academy Candidates and Air Force ReserveOfficer Training Cores 4-Year Scholarship Applicants.Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps Regulation53-3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1 August 1985.
27. US Department of the Air Force: Receiving and ProcessingScholarship Applications. Air Force Reserve OfficerTraining Corps Regulation 45-1. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, 2 January 1986.
28. US Department of the Army: Army Recruiting Command.Army Scholarship Application Academic Year 1986-87.Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1985.
29. US Department of the Navy: Navy Recruiting Command.1986 Navy-Marine Corps NROTC College ScholarshipsBulletin. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice, 1 September 1984.
Unpublished Materials
30. US Department of the Air Force: Air Force HumanResource Laboratory. "Improved SelectionProcedures for Air Force Physicians," backgroundpaper. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, undated.
52
*s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s W-I~ n. L r X- -.- r,. - -.T " ~m 1.--. - 4 - - - - - ,_- -- -. [ ' f r'w( - . Ir I - ! rt",'- .- ".-" J-
I_________________I__I
_CONTINUED
31. Ward, Joe J., Jr. "Hierarchial Grouping to MaximizePayoff." Wright Air Development Division. AirResearch and Development Command. Lackland AirForce Base, Texas, March 1961.
32. ----. "Use of a Decision Index in Assigning Air ForcePersonnel." Wright Air Development Center. AirResearch and Development Command. Lackland AirForce Base, Texas, April 1959.
33. and Kathleen Davis. "Teaching a Digital Computerto Assist in Making Decisions." 6570th PersonnelResearch Laboratory, Aerospace Medical Division.Air Force Systems Command. Lackland Air ForceBase, Texas, June 1963.
Other Sources
34. US Department of the Army: Army Recruiting Command. "FactSheets" relating to US Army ROTC programs, June 1985.
'.
% %
53 "
" " " "'% " %' C*.F* "* ".'' '-$" %.
"' 4 ' .*-- , .' -.. ." x .' .-" : - ".'',''.'': . - •" ' -''- "•• . ",
_____________APPENDICES _
APPENDIX A............................... 56
AFROTC Form 102 ............... ........... 62USAFA/AFROTC Form 1 ...................... ...... ....... 64
APPENDIX B.......................................0 67
Scholarship Selection Board Survey ................ 68
.1o
4 55
SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION DOCUMENTS
N N
~ 0- C3 ' MOTC FOUR-YEAR SC24OLARIHeP APPLICATION P- All.. - Off- Cf
3*4N*4 . AO 22.~
I..P a~U~ O.~40A7P:
n.C.4.PAR IW. -aM A24..2A DATA
i.3 m.. s. 0o M2 b 4 012. 3
v--I@.. C...p . t1C pT.C. .- 2C . * kU3TM. F .g.MdNT3~~h
25. VI. .. e M ."V)'. - IeY, OC..4 ..W- .I
C:) Y. 0 f
.s.IreVI- 21W 0 v-12. 0 w..I. 1
I- . ff2 ' 11k 22w42.S. ,m4.. I. - S mfvl A,. Cmy I5CI..kdC ( 0 .. 0m
xwvj C..~ 0 -C.
PASTA- 02 CCCA.OA 0COUT
* ~ ~~~~~~~~~ v. ON.0 2il'0 S(N.. ICC *
PARTL. It-IUAHI NOMTO
3-A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G Ca..-ULpf 1 IC I.2. s.etph.yI-Is~ . -~t Cent Aad.0
D O ~~ ~ 1 *-2 1 6 1 3A ICI
C
SCHOOL OFFICIAL: COMPLETE PART IIIPART all - 8COLB1C 14140614
ommipalo.. 44...,.daldal 444.4 in.~t. does 0d43 b.. toieadial w sothe mbo d amm .9Mbsofstook 0444.440.414 .14 k*~4.a
4~10 11044. ItIa. 0.~. 0,g 00.4 0'.i
0 as-' i- 0 0 0 _____3______ 0 0 00 ao,444. 14140 &b414g*d4p ra40 0 0 0 01
PART IV - ATI4LITIC 3.4.0 E14TRAUC4JL44. ACIVIVIII
READ CAREFLLY - kle441ty may 444141 Ke4m~4..m 4.44414 arm .4wmd dO.4rq .414.04 pode 1(1-12. NOWC to Pitaeo1IY lailfteolr in Wdntfyins
.04y4If44.4 invlve44 44.14444404444 astivaimamb144 of 401.4,
a-gv .ow .. 4l off- l- *1, - t'' k-''k4n "
44 E] 02 44 43 44 0 44 44m 44 43 44 40 04 41 40 44 4
7-4 0 030 000 0 00 Id. 00 0000 00 0R14.14 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 0000 00 0
C 1.1414,.W C=- b 110.10 Fl&0.. i.~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 it~ 0 Is ~ to 3 I t 1is m-0 000000CIO004044 0 4 44 0 44 40 0.i 0 0 0 0
DAIII 0 0 0 0l 0 0 0 0 0 01 D .414a0 ______ 0a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1- 1 0 V.0.0
0.p.ftOOO OO A.. I 0 0 0i0 00
'4le3040.. W.0.. 0h 0: 1 03 0 0 0 0 0 0:
0~~ OnO0 00 000
Do-0 0 4404 4a 0 0 0 0 0 40
40a 44 4 0 44 3 0 44 01
lda 0 0 0 0 0 0 d.4p1444.4.441
D- O.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -. A 4OMN (*R-- o -14 0 11 -4E.~.V.0-k J-1 I.
06,11-4. 0 0 0 0i 0 0 CI 03 03 13 0 3
4. P..I. 0 0 00 00 0 0 000 0 000
0 00 0 0 01a000 Idw444id1414
0 ft4... 0 la. 0 - a-- 0 A-. 0 0.14.1o o44.
0 Q...u 0 0.41 A*-.44 0 4.41440.4- 4. Rad4 0...ab.a 41-. -d W.Sir
[1 4144440 0 Cot.. 040.gap
.
AND VALIDATE/CERTIFY PART IV.
.r o44..W 7 4.14441" 1114. P. 44..doI..... -i..4 = P h. ith. A..,.w..r Legi.., Pony L.q.., c,.
4-Ia.... I 3 4kbI 2Geefeewe A*.OCk. A& A" * M f= T -K "w'
Mba- 7.w ~ ,~ - 7*- (9.)
ie0 i I s I*£ It 1 to 10 12 1* It It 1S is It to at is 1 It is 10 11 is0 0000E30 0 0 00000 0 0 00 300000 0 0
0__ 00E 0 000001 30 00C0C Q00 000000 00____
c-c..w, 00010 000 0010 0000 01000 0 000 00 ___
P.4d 0 000 000 00 30 00 000 0 0 0000 00 __
owlt 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00000 000a0 00 0 0 __
0~A 0 00 00 000300 0 00 0 0E30003000 0 0 _
1.- 0 0000 00KH0003 300300130 000 000000 _____
MINIM"w 0 00,00300 00001300 0 30 000 00 010 0 0
01"e, 00 00 00 0 0010 0 0003000C30 0000 0 0 ___
a., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0000 00 000_0rj ____
0 0 0 0000 000 000 000 30 00000 00
h4wo0h4 0 00 0000 000 00 0 000 00 0 000 0 0 _
T- 11 11.. ca.., 000031300 0 0030 0 0 00003000 0 0 _ _
11O01w.On.l 0 00000 000 300 000 0 00E000 001
0..l4..l 0 0 0 0 0 0l 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0000 0030 0003000030 0 00 00 00 001
1-S 0A4 00d*pAAo A- 00.. 0 CIO.4 44.A-.0 a A- .441 4 i1(: [ 10 0 30
NOTE TO SCHIOOL OFFICIAL t cd m.o..4. . w40.t..4WI o1pla4,lwo int Col43 5.khola I~p
tice.4.,o.pro,01el P101. "4W YO... 4.o.tor below me ~ ve_ 4a ..kho.I 4.4.. sthirlic sK44.0... .4 .U . l.h .UA,1alrponecl hm by~ the spplou4. inh. f04. m.~ be receivd by 19'044., a orer fo, .44.440to be-oadee of .. of44 .AW. mlwi-O)
x
g..u. .0~.I 04.41 Ao. .004.4ItO
J, w41
M..1*e
e %
.N....................-
0 Amy t It s u 0 1 0 _ 10"'* 0 000 0 o
0 Is- 0 0.
o. 0 0~p 0-- 0.. 0M
a-l it Ab a-mi. a-Pl ft-d-ul .a- U
600
dO
.1 . 6W-c . 4u.1om.. .Mf"
;R ATRRSOS. UMTI OITE AAETYFRYU
RI.
PATI -PERSONAL IDENTIFICATIONINO ATN(Ctiud
11.3 11 LAS NAE IRTNM. IDE NTA
PAR 11111 -HIGHFF SCHOO INOMT.
59-73 CITY OR AP ki CDEonAP
PART 11 - ACE MICAL O RENT F ERETINC .NOMTON (ontin uedI A~kf~obolt1.1P913.11 SOCILSECURIT NUMEj~j 17 ~!~II
*~LL JJLIILin]iAFROTC ORAF07 E IO TOS AY6
.12F M3-.T MF NJ
"mefila
43-4447-5 924
SAT ACT :
AFROTC 4-..- SCHOLARSH- PRGA -. STTEEN OFw- RECOMMENDATION-~ w. ~ -k
AFOTC4-YEARSCHOL RIAC PRGAM STATEMENTOFECM NATN
AUTHORITY. 10USC 2101. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: To proide. Statemetof'Reco endation hytherohsgschool pruci p.1orguidante counselor-. ond a4vearAFRlTCcoarship pogram applian. The Statement of Recommnd~tion is musd bythe 4-year AlROTCCentral Scholarship Selection Boar'd in the evaluation ol an applicant for a 4-year Scholarship. ROUTINE USES: Informnation maybhe disclosedfor anyof tbe blakee eoadie uses pehlsbed by the Air For"t. DISCLOSURE: Ditdotsur o stvai ry. The effect of treceswforiftbefonmnight be detrimentcal to the applicant whben his records are reineesed by the 4-year Central Scholarship Select ion Board for scholarship consid,krlion-
NOTE TO SCHOOL OFFICIAL; Please complete and return this form directly to the address listed. DO NOT RETURN TO STUDENT.
_______________IDENTIFICATION SECTIONNAME (Lst. First, and Middle) SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
AFROTCSCHOLARSHIP MAILING ADDRESS (Nivmbers. Street, City. Star.. ZIP Code) DT
APPLICANT
IAIIORTAT MAL TO AFROTC/4-YEAR SCHOLARSHIP BRANCHLIPRTAr AML M MAXWELL AF8 AL 36112-6663
1. INSTRUCTIONS* 1. To be completed by the high school principal or guidance counselor.
2. Please print sr type.3. Personal characteristics - please circulate this form among the student'sl preSst teachers and have them indicate, by using checks, the student'spersonal characteristics in Part 11.4. Comments sod Recsommendations - Provide a specific Statement in Part III, regarding the applicant's character, leadership ability, effectiveness inworking with others, judgemmnt, adoptability, physical fitness, writing ability, oral espression, and bearisg aod behavior.
* II. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTCS aTHES FOLLOWING CHARACTERIZATIONS ARE DESCRIPTIONS Or BEHIAVIOR. WHERE POSSIBLE INCLUDE THE JUDGME1NTS OF A NUMBEROF THE PUPIL*S PRESENT TEACHERS BY USING CHECKS. AS IN THE EXAMPLE BELOW: h
Exarmple- MOTIVATION I I I -IPurposeless vacillating Usually Purposeul Effectively Molnted Highly Motivated
The roample Indicate. the moat frequaent o, modal behavir of the pupil a uhaac by She agreement of M ti.1 the ehrht teahr sots.Teltloof th-ebb. to the left and rltht lndicate,. that one teacher considrs the papal VACILLATING and that tcwo teather.sotdr111 IIIL 11 ' TED.If prrf ersrd. Academic subjec ts may be entered In plate of the thee hmart..
0 ~MOTIVATIONI IPu~rpseess Vacillatling usually Pposeful Efflelnly mIotivated Highly Moivated
INDUSTRY______1 .'uSeldom Wiirk., Needs conhtsnI Need$ ocsia~l tPlateI usgied Seeks aditionalevenf under pressure pesi."ufn were valaly waore
INITIATIVE P..sI IIIIMetel, conforms Seldomn Initiates Frequently inlitiates Censl9tvensly sell- Activl -ts-lv
INFLUENCE AND IIIILEADERSHIP Neaie Cooperative but Somal.I.i tI",w Contibutaing In roe enIspectie
retiring attain Imporairit tti ellnr mkes tikngs a
CONCERN FOR OTHERS IIIIndifferent Self-centeed Sismirwlst noIally Generally oeered Deeply alnd actively
ccerneCfd enntensed
Unreeliable Smewbil depend- Usually dependable Conscientious A.Sunin ~tINTEGRITY al *0f5bll
Hot dependable Questionable SO Generally honest Reliable. Cosstently
vp EMOTIONAL STABILITY tim I I Ieeeal lsmeIH~ypse moional Excitableo O visually Well-balanced Ecetionallyof apathetle unresponsive Well.balanced t~able
COMMUNICATIVE SKILL __________________________________ _________
Ramblinge Lack% ch8illy Understandable Articulate P ... It. v
AFROTC 102 PREIVIOUS EDITION WILL on USED.
()2
5---
Its. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONSIAilacti * parae xheet if necesury.)
Iv. MOTIVATIONfiASEO UPON YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE STUDENT. STATE THE REASON YOU FEEL. THE STUDENT IS APPLYING FOR AN AIR FORCE SLROTC 4-YEAR SCHOLARSHIP.
V. __ _____AAEI POTENTIALBiASF O ON YOUR EXPERIENCE AND THlE SrUDENT'S ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS. INDICATE THE STUDIENT'S POTENTIAL TO SUCCESSFULLY
COPEECOLLG..C LITTLE CHANCE (1 MAY ENCOUNTER 0 AVERAGE CABOVE AVERAGE C SUPERIOR
or SUCCESS DIFFICULTY I
511. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONBAS.. ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE. HOW 00 YOU RECOMMEND THIS STUDEN4TI %
0 PREFER NOT TO MAKE A CNOT RECOMMENDED FOR COLLEGEleWRECOMMEHOAYION OR AIR FORCE OFFICER T RAINING 0 RECOMMENDED
VII. EVALUATING OFFICIALNAME AND TITLE SIGNATURE * 5
NAME OF HIGH SCHIOOL NUMBER. STREET. CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE
VII. _JUNIOA ROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION: DOES THE SCHOOL HAVE JUNIOR ROTC? 0 YES C NOCURRENTLY ENROLLED IN JROTC PROGRAM C AIR FORC JROTC UNIT DESIGNAON YRSPTCITE
C YES C NO C ARMY C3 NAVY CMRNSC5CI ICs
COMNS TTEJUNIOR ROTC INSTRUCTOR PERTAINING TO THE STUDENT'S _PERFORMANCE AND SUITABILIT OMITAYLRVICI A- AN AIR FORCE OFFICER. LIST AWARDS RECEIVVO AND CORPS POSITIONS HELD. IF YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OFTESTUUNT IS LIMITED. PLEASE STATE SO. ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY.TE
AUTHORIZATION FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT ANDREtLEASE ON STATEMENT OF RECOMMEND0ATION
TO WHOPI IT MAY CONCE RN I authorizea acolhmnn and release of all paris of the confidential statement of recommendation e ltalninq to lmyqualifications as a candidate for a 4.year scholarshsip an d as a future officer in the USAF. I understand this information will be considered discreet informa-tIon and ito he used only by thle AF ROTC Scholarshlip Selectian Board. This farm is subject to lthe provisions of the Privacy Act and lbe Freedom ofI nformallon Act.
DATE SIGNTUR OF0 APPLICANT
AFROTC FORM I02. REVERSE, FE11 Is
Wi
%I
% -E-
UAACANDIDATE EVALUATIONIAFROTC 4-YEAR SCHOLARSHIP EVALUATION
C=)(= rOE C1X 1MC Cz_ CID m co CD=CaDCM CX C3XM CE)CE aCD C3DQD CDC-&: CDC3 A CiD
Cncz) C:MaD coC C= Irz GDCZD ICDciD CrDcD o D
(AFROTC Only: Fill In appllcant's SSAN abowe. Use No.2I peancil)A=asi Casadus Assirgoed Liaison Officei (USAFA U.)lyl
Address
Telephone
The individual identified above is &nnI (mark 59M I USA.AIDtly The A9&gned Liaison Officer idenhtfed above Should submit tSCM AFROTC 4-Year Scholarship Applican evlato by evaluation on tIs coded form If the assignmentis5 inco~i-I foll0ow
C=D USAF Academy Candidate the ins~tructions on the back Of this termEVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS: MARP ONE C=) IN EACH SECTION (A-H). Use NO- 2 pencil.'
A SELF-CONFIDENCE CM CO CZ.)
INervous and ill-al-sass; must be prodded for information; completely negative soll miagw
2is apologatic; volunteers ltte information. Shows d*Sife to scap@ interview as00 soo aspossible3 Appears at ease: reasf Adequately With interviewer. ShoWs Moderate sense 0f "ilt-worth4 Mature and Comfortable. aegiuts interviewer by voiunteering Information: is Assertive.5 Extremely iulre. fuliy at ease. fuily aware ot what is expected in An interview,
19. HUMAN RELATIONS 10 co co D C C=)
IEntremety passive personality; a loner; lowe sati-itnage. hostile; Shows no concern Ior others2Passive parsility. lack$ tact, inconsistent in working with OtheiS
*3 Appears concevna with others; wilt probably facilitate attainnment 01t group goalstriong, engaging personality. encouragus and Supports Others,
5 Eagerly participates with others extremely effective in a group. Charismatic
C. PLANNING AND ORGANIZING cm a::)CD CD C
OrSO ganized. no short/long-term priorluts. no attempt to correct tints management probtems2Sats no priorities but manages to gel0 by". tittle etfort to correcl flimanaemn or organization problems A
3 Geneally welt organized. asually plans a daily Schedule law tong term prioritis4 Very eleclive organizer and planner. Sets priorities and genteraty stats objectives5 Outstanding manager and organizer. Got, ;,iorities, end meal otbjectives consiktently. corrects potential problems
0. COMMUNICATIVE SXILLS 111 co CID 0D CD
1 . Inafrculate; does not understand questions, cannot Provide clars Answers; gross misuse of grammar, no eye contectd' 2. GrOMe for tne correct word, responses disorganized, Poor grammar lack 0f confidence. avoids eye contact
3 Speaks correctly and clearly. expresses ideas eccuratly; low problems with grammar, good aye contact4 Articul8a. eacntioni grammar tsagse. effective delivery, good organization of thoughts. excellenti rye coaisr5 Very articulate, partect grammar. oustanding gestures and aye Contact. expressive and connificing
E. LEADERSHIP -11 CD: CD co CD C0
IShows no iiatrne. does not accept responsibility; reluctant to mlake decisions. no attemipt to influenice others21 Little initiative. tolnds to puI att necessary decisions hesitates 10 become involved in ditlicoll Situations.3. Displays insiraive; accepts responsibility; sometimes influensces others needs help in difficult situations
4 Demonstrates a high degree ol initiatise. accepts responsibility bry voluntearing. opinion sought by othersI Deinonstrales outstanding initatve and influence. eagerl Oaeka out resonsibiity. advice fllowed by others
F. MOTIVATION TOWARD AIR FORCE No CD CD C3D CO CID
I No motivation toward flie Air Force. uninterestad. no real desire to be interviewed2 Lukewarm. noncommitta, very little knowledge Of the Air Force/AFROTC/AF Academy3 interested in : schaiarsirip/alportmeni and willing to accept active duty commitments int return for sameit Enthuesiasti c abrur hocnongan Air Force officer. drisires 10 malts a good impressionS Highly niolinaltivl iii-11d the Air Fmo and ottrceiship. pizpaivd lor the iniuvri. eaglir to make a good iniyrissioir
0. 8CTICADET LIFE PREPARATION (USAFA Only) CD CD- CD3 CD- C_'D
I N oruiliursty with tHi USAF Achdnmy or what is esmpacied nt a cadet2 A vague idea about the Acadumy/cadet lite, has nut iMat a cadet not been t0 thu Academy
r amila with the genseral contents of the catalog. ties not mel a cadet nor been to the Academy4t Familiar With Specifics of the Catalog contents. has met a cadet Or been to the Academy
SVary tarmitar with the specifics 0f the catalog knows Cadets, has been to the Academy
H M rcomedation for seeto CD DczD 0D C3Dtaron D Use back lor Comments)I Nat recommended With reservation Moderate High Very High
USAFA/AFROTC FOr"M I USAFA (COMIL) USAF ACADEMY COn Continued an Reverse Side
%-5
64
z::
* 0. - - .- -sr- 7.2 r-
STATEMENTS OF UNDERSTANDING (AFROTC Only Yes NofI. niu'.-mutsuuirinfds thi obliiition inlcurred by .ic,,oyris an AFflOTC SChfllniShip
The appiiC.Ant unlderstands A Chot caee eldliacadentic major restrictions of the tou-yri schocaoship) program
3 T
he applicant unfdertlnfdi the foreignl language requiremtent
4 The itpicasl understands theimpications of later pursuing a fated career fil era legal. medical. denist. or other professionali,on,uurieo ca, ~fr,
5 ticp antrn has applied lot admission to a military academy or other scholarship priograim If so. indicate Which ones
6 Itse applicant understandS h*/she Must meet Ai Force weiyht standards Prior to ictinating a scholaiship
IIu, appticjot undetsl50ds AF drug abuse civil involvement policies. A
8 A sianerf IS retfuied t(jif Iiyil~ in/i,' I iiii AF2OTZ Iliiiiil.itrihe Aeinidi..,4 , le* t Ni Il/i.fii.ii/:i, ,I ,,, .1 -i rIiii i if Wiii ii t I- iikli ?)(10 1.... tls A~kf IIQT( fi...r...l. .u)tuA lTT .... i lIts ... io jui I s,i
MILITARY SERVICE OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN -
C=: Art Force marine$s Z Coast ICURRENT STATUS ~ JActie Doty.. YEARS OF SERVICE HIGHEST 6AMCM Army, Navy Gaard (=: aur- Retired Miary%
REMARKS By IN TER VIEWER
DESCRIBE YOUR OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE APPLICANT USIN4G SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OBTAINED DURING THE INTERVIEW.
i11.LCltANT U-,AfA lo,il "osOnly. n/ r~ I tC l.VIfwYou are hereby (ranted an e~press promise of contidentislity 11 / - ii T~
riA.I tUiiAUt AND IlTL.E OF INTERVIEWER AFROTC UNI r AND INSTITUTION NAMI, IAFRISC Oniy)
(.ATE SIGATRE OF INTERVIEWER
(USAFA Only) NAMF AND ADDRESS OF THE NEW
* T T 7 T T T LIAISON OF FICER IDEN/TIFIEDCZDC=)TO LEFT
C=) Nombere tf imes I Z_-
C-D= cunseled the candidate
L-)C.co To chinic iht assignlment ot this Cstnd~dale - . .tio, [herL 0 dwiid on the tfie, 1 hicDO tem you muist enter si. digits, our 0
CDC.-t)ialu.ir, iimop, in thsI oel~.Ie i No 2 pencil. mark the appropri~ate i i ,
1u he, 1,//iiiiii hieloi each d~ o Kr:DCTD C nrie ID. l 1 No end assion this
'oda u/u r., f t.%*
*Ni.
(I sr
C M * .:~* **~M7's'2-~2 2.* u05
~ %is
____ ___ ____ ___APPENDIX _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
SCHOLARSHIP SELECTION BOARD SURVEY k.1
67r
INTRODUCTION e ,
In this questionnaire you will be asked to answer questions aboutthe ROTC Four-Year Scholarship Application folder based on yourexperience as a selection board member.
For questions one through five please indicate how much you agreeor disagree with each statement by indicating the letter whichmost appropriately reflects your feeling on the response lineunder each question. Select only one response to each question.For your convenience, the scale will appear at the top of eachpage in this section. Additionally, you will find room forwritten comments after each question should you have any.
:7
.- .. o.
%", %
68
%- .. %
NEITHERSTRONGLY AGREE NOR STRONGLYDISAGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE AGREE AGREE
A B C D E
1. The applicant's state of legal residence should be consideredin the selection process.
Response
Comments:
2. The applicant's sex should be considered in the selection
process.
Response_ _
Comments.
3. The applicant's age should be considered in the selectionprocess (not to include the maximum and minimum requirements).
Response: _
Comments:
4. Applicants with prior service experience were generally rankedhigher.
Response:_______ !.NComments: ,. ,'
5. An applicant's planned academic major should be used in "determining scholarship selection.
Response: -
Comments:
Questions six through sixty-four pertains to how much an iteminfluenced your ratings of a particular item. please selectthe single best response for each question.
69
,- ,***., * a *._ .'. % ** % ' ,.~~~. "%. *". . .- , . ---.-. *,'-" ".. ...
.4
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
6. The score an applicant received on an SAT/ACT influenced myrating.
Response:_
Comments:
7. An applicant's GPA influenced my rating.
Response:____
Comments:
4 "4
8. An applicant's choice of college or university influenced myrating. (.
Response:_
Comments:
9. Numerical ranking in class influenced my rating.
Response:_
Comments:
10. The number of students in an applicant's class influenced my
rating.
Response: ___,_
Comments:
2
70 .
W%; ,i ltk llli i~hl~illl i lii~li4. -
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little Noinfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
11. The fact that an applicant worked 15 hours or less per weekinfluenced my rating.
Response: %
Comments:
12. The fact that an applicant worked 15-25 hours per week
influenced my rating.
Response:__
Comments:
13. The fact that an applicant worked more than 25 hours per week
influenced my rating. V:Response:______
Comments:
14. The fact that an applicant had a private pilot's licenseinfluenced my rating.
Response: ___
Comments:
15. The fact that an applicant had a commercial pilot's license
influenced my rating.
Response:_____
Comments:
:..3
,k71
' 4%-
,% '%
.... ,_
--- - -- - w .. - ,. - --.- d ' -. - 4 T-v - -- -7 , - '
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little Noinfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
16. The fact that an applicant had a radio operator's licenseinfluenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
17. The fact that an applicant was the President of: the studentcouncil, his/her class and/or a school club during theSophomore year influenced my rating.
Response:_____
Comments:a .
18. The fact that an applicant was the President of: the studentcouncil, his/her class and/or a school club during the Junioryear influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
I."
19. The fact that an applicant was the President of: the studentcouncil, his/her class and/or a school club during the Senioryear influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
% .
20. The fact that an applicant was the Vice President of: thestudent council, his/her class and/or a school club during theSophomore year influenced my rating.
Response:-
Comments: "
72
% J
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
21. The fact that an applicant was the Vice President of: thestudent council, his/her class and/or a school club during theJunior year influenced my rating.
Response:______
Comments:
22. The fact that an applicant was the Vice President of: thestudent council, his/her class and/or a school club during theSenior year influenced my rating.
Response:____
Comments:
23. The fact that an applicant was the Secretary/Treasurer of: thestudent council, his/her class and/or a school club during the,_Sophomore year influenced my rating.
Response: ___
Comments:
24. The fact that an applicant was the Secretary/Treasurer of: thestudent council, his/her class and/or a school club during theJunior year influenced my rating.
Response:____
Comments:
25. The fact that an applicant was the Secretary/Treasurer of: thestudent council, his/her class and/or a school club during theSenior year influenced my rating.
Response:_______
Comment:
5
73
a-
'..
.7.. .- 3 ' '**. ... ,.'a.
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
26. The fact that an applicant was President or Vice President for 1an organization's national, state or district conventioninfluenced my rating.
Response:____
Comments:
27. The fact that an applicant was a delegate/representative for anorganization's national, state or district conventioninfluenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
28. The fact that an applicant placed first, second or third for anational, state or district award influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
29. The fact that an applicant was a member of the Boy or Girl
Scouts of America influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
30. The fact that an applicant held a rank or position above member
in the BOy or Girl Scouts of America influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
6
74
o.L a "o . .- - .,- . . -... o. .-. •., . . . ° . .. . , , . . . " -
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
31. The fact that an applicant held an editor's position on theschool paper, year book or school magazine influenced myrating.
Response:
Comments:
32. The fact that an applicant held a manager's position on theschool paper, year book or school magazine influenced myrating.
Response:_ _
Comments:
33. The fact that an applicant was a director or writer for a 3-actplay, 1-act play or for a dramatic contest influenced myrating.
Response:
Comments:
34. The fact that an applicant was an actor or stagehand for a3-act play, 1-act play or for a dramatic contest influenced myrating.
Response:______
Comments:
35. That fact that an applicant was involved in public appearancesfor a debating team, as Master of Ceremonies or to givehonorary speeches influenced my rating.
Response:_ _
Comments:
., 7
75
* .~ 2.
m
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D
36. An applicant's participation on any school team(s) influenced
my rating.
Response:
Comments:
37. An applicant's participation on particular school team(s)influenced my rating. (If so, which sport(s).)
Response:__
Comments:
38. An applicant earning varsity letter(s) influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
39. An applicant earni1,- varsity letter(s) in any particular sports
influet.ced my rating. (If so, which sport(s).)
Response:______
Comments:
40. An applicant being a varsity team captain or co-captain for anentire season influenced my rating.
Response:_ _
Comments:
76
".
. . . . . . . . . . .. .. - - - - - -- . - - - - - - - -
..S .
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A BC D E
41. An applicant being a varsity team captain or co-captain for anentire season for a particular sport(s) influenced my rating.(If so, which sport(s).)
Response:__
Comments:
42. An applicant being a state or conference record holder in asport(s) influenced my rating.
Response:_______
Comments:
43. An applicant being a state or conference record holder in aparticular sport(s) influenced my rating. (If so, whichsport(s).)
Response:______
Comments:
44. An applicant being a member of an All-City, District or
Conference 1st team in any sport influenced my rating.
Response:___
Comments:
45. An applicant being a member of an All-City, District orConference ist team in a particular sport(s) influenced myrating. (If so, which sport(s).)
Response: ____"___-
Comments:
9
77
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
46. An applicant being a member of an All-State or All-American
High School 1st or 2nd team influenced my rating.
Response:_
Comments:
47. An applicant being a member of an All-State or All-AmericanHigh School 1st or 2nd team in a particular sport(s) influencedmy rating. (If so, which sport(s).)
Response:_____
"4 Comments:
48. An applicant being the student manager or trainer of a schoolteam(s) influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
49. An applicant being the student manager or trainer of aparticular school team(s) influenced my rating. (If so, whichsport(s).)
Response:___
Comments:
50. An applicant's participation on a particular non-school team(s)
influenced my rating. (If so, which sport(s).)
Response:_
Comments:
10
78
-L,,!J,
b
Totally Greatly Somewhat. Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
51. An applicant's participation in a Junior ROTC influenced my
rating.
Response:
Comments:
52. An applicant's length of time in a Junior ROTC influenced my
rating. (If so, how long?)
Response:____
Comments:
53. An applicant's position(s) held in Junior ROTC influenced my
rating. (If so, which position(s).)
Response: ___
Comments:
54. An applicant's participation in CAP, NACC, or a similar
organization influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
55. An applicant's position(s) held in a CAP, NACC, or a similar
organization influenced my rating. (If so, which position(s).)
Response:____-
Comments:
79's
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NoInfluenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A B C D E
56. The number of high schools that an applicant attended
influenced my opinion.
Response:
Comments:
Questions number 57 through 64 pertain to the AFROTC 4-Year
Scholarship Program Statement of Recommendation (AFROTC Form
102).
57. The rating given an applicant in Section IV (Motivation) on the
AFROTC Form 102 influenced my rating.
Response:
Comments:
58. The rating given an applicant in Section V (Academic Potential)on the AFROTC Form 102 influenced my rating.
Response:___
Co .ents:
59. The rating given an applicant in Section VI (SpecificRecommendation) on the AFROTC Form 102 influenced my rating.
Response:___
Comments:
12
- 80 E
Ory " % %.I
Totally Greatly Somewhat Little NO
Influenced Influenced Influenced Influence Influence
A C D E
60. The evaluation given an applicant in Section VIII (Junior ROTCInstructor Evaluation) on AFROTC Form 102 influenced my rating.
Response:___
Comments:
61. I was able to differentiate between applicants based on the N.,:
information contained in their Statement of Recommendation(AFROTC Form 102).
Response:____
Comments:
62. Most Statements of Recommendation were useful to me in the
selection process.
Response:___
Comments:
63. Statements of Recommendation took on added importance when
there was a borderline applicant.
Response:____
Comments:4.,.
64. An applicant's rating that was "firewalled" in Section II(Personal Characteristics) on AFROTC Form 102 influenced myrating.
Response:______
Comffents:
:.1 3
.I .i * M
The items in questions 65 through 72 were extracted from theAFROTC Form 102 in the order they appear. Please rank-orderthese categories from one through eight based on the relativeimportance you gave them in determining the scoring of anapplicant (number eight being the most important; number onebeing the least important; no ties please).
65. Motivation
66. Industry______
67. Initiative______
68. Influence &Leadership____
69. Concern for
Others_______
70. Responsibility______
71. Integrity "
72. EmotionalStability_ _
14
82
0 .1,1 ..,..% . . 0
The items in questions 73 through 79 were taken from theUSAFA/AFROTC Form 1 in the order in which they appear. Pleaserank-order these categories from one through seven based on therelative importance you gave them in determining the scoring of anapplicant (number seven being the most important; number one beingthe least important; no ties please).
73. Self-Confidence__________
74. Human Relations
75. Planning and Organizing_ __
76. Communicative Skills
77. Leadership
78. Motivation Towardsthe Air Force
79. Overall Recommendation
K.
15
83
2. _N, L
,mS -
