, 81-015.'1

S' L-UNITED

STATESMILITARYACADEMY

WEST POINT, NEW YJRC.

3 , I

VARIABLES THROUGH THE

CLASS OF 1%9y

OFFICE OF THE

DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH

DUTY- HONOR -COUNTRY DECEMBER 1981

82 01 0 (135

TRENDS IN ADMISSION VARIABLES THROUGH THE CLASS OF 1984

Report No.: 81-015Project No.: 415Prepared by: Mr. John W. HoustonProgrammer: Mrs. Jackie PittardTypist: Miss Shirley SabelDecember 1981

ABSTRACT

The United States Military the Whole Candidate concept in the selection

of candidates for admission. , .cept encompasses three broad areas: academic,leadership potential, and physical condition and aptitude. This report compares thepre-college performance of members of the Class of 1985 jith previous classes in these

three areas.

ACOeSSSOfl 7or

UT_ • "•' "1 "S CDTICT

Da l. . .

NOTE: Any conclusions in this report are not to be construed as officialU.S. Military Academy or Departmsit of the Army positions unless so desig-nated by other authorized documents.

OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH

UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMYWEST POINT, NEW YORK 10996

S.i

Index to Tables and Figures

Page Number Title

Figure 1 5 Comparison of number of Cadets andCandidate6 at each CEER score level--Class of 1985.

Figure 2 6 Comparison of number of Cadets andCandidates at each ACEER score level--Class of 1985.

Table 1 7 Distribution of scores on Whole Candi-date Score Components--Class of 1985.

Table 2 8 Mean and standard deviations for alladmission variables for Candidates and

Cadets--Class of 1985.

Figure 3 9 Comparison of number of Cadets and

Candidates at each LPS level--Classof 1985.

Figure 4 10 Comparison of number of Cadets andCandidates at each Whole CandidateScore level--Class of 1985.

Figure 5 11 Trends of CEER Scores for Candidates andCadets--Classes of 1976-1985.

Figure 6 12 Trends of SAT-Verbal Scores for Candi-dates and Cadets--Classes of 1976-1985.

Figure 7 13 Trends of SAT-Math Scores for Candidates"and Cadets--Classes of 1976-1985.

Figure 8 14 Trends of Leadership Potential Scoresfor Candidates and Cadets--Classes of1976-1985.

Figure 9 15 Trends of Physical Aptitude Exam Scoresfor Candidates and Cadets--Classes of1976-1985.

Figure 10 16 Trends of High School Rank Scores ofCandidates and Cadets--Classes of 1976-1985.

Figure 11 17 Trends of Whole Candidate Scores forCandidates and Cadets--Classes of 1976-1985.

Table 3 18 Selected High School Activities andAwards of Cadets--Classes of 1977-1985.

Table 3a 19 Selected characteristics of Cadets--Classes of 1977-1985.

ii

'.........i..

Executive Summary

I. PURPOSE. This report contains information, for rapid reference, comparing thepre-college performance of members of the Class of 1985 with previous classes in theareas of academics, leadership potential, and physical performance.

II. METHODOLOGY. Data displayed in this report were obtained from the foilowingsources:

A. Academic Performance: High School Transcripts, American CollegeTests and College Entrance Examination Board Tests.

B. Physical Performance: Physical Aptitude Exam.

C. Leadership Potential: An index developed from combining extra-curricular and athletic activities with high school facultyevaluation.

III. RESULTS.

A. The mean SAT-Verbal score (549) for cadets in the Class of 1985 is fourpoints lower than the average mean score of the last nine years and the mean SAT-Mathscore (623) is nine points lower.

B. The Class of 1985 Physical Aptitude Exam score for men (560) is six pointshigher than the average mean fur the last nine years and the mean PAE score for women(517) is within one point of the mean for the last four years.

C. The Leadership Potential Score mean (597) is seven points lower than the nineyear average mean.

U. The mean Whole Candidate Score f,,r cadets in the Class of 1985 0i875) is 24points lower than the mean score of the last nine years.

IV. CONCLUSIONS.

A. Academic Qualifications: The academic qualifications of cadets have re-mained approximately the same while the mean College Board scores of all collegebound high school seniors throughout the United States has shown a steady declineover the past ten years.

B. Physical Qualifications: The Physical Aptitude Exam scores of male cadetshave shown a slight rise over the last ten years while the scores of female cadetshas been stable over the last five years.

C. Leadership Qualifications: The qualities of leadership as measured by theLeadership Potential Score have remained stable over the ten year period.

D. overall Qualifications: The Military Academy is continuing to attract out-standing candidates.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

1. This report, along with the reports, Characteristics of the Class of 1985(September 1981) and New Cadets and Other College Freshmen, Class of 1985 (due spring,1982), comprise the three general reports prepared by the Office of InstitutionalResearch to describe the Class of 1985 at the time the class entered the MilitaryAcademy.

2. The same reports were prepared for the Classes of 1971 through 1984 andsimilar reports are planned for each future class when it enters the MilitaryAcademy.

B. Purpose

This report compares the pre-college performance of members of the Class of 1985with previous classes in the areas of academics, leadership, physical performance andathletic participation.

II. METHODOLOGY

A. Data Collection

Data displayed in this report was obtained from the following sources:

1. Academic performance: High School Transcripts,American Co'lege Tests, and College EntranceExamination Board Tests.

2. Physical performance: Physical Aptitude Exam.

3. School Activities and Awards: Seif-reported by cadetson questionnaires administered during Cadet BasicTraining.

4. Leadership Potential: An index developed from combining extracurricular and athletic activities withhigh school faculty evaluations,

B. Definitions

I. CEER College Entrance Examination Board scores and HighSchool Rank scores combined statistically.

2. HSR High School Rank Score.3. LPS Leadership Potential Score.4. PAE Physical Aptitude Examination.5. SAT-V Scholastic Aptitude Test - Verbal.6. SAT-M Scholastic Aptitude Test - Mathematics.7. ACT-EN American College Test - English. I8. ACT-MA American College Test - Mathematics.9. ACT-NA American College Test - Natural Science.

10. ACEER A composite score of 3 ACT tests and HSR(the ACT Social Science test is not used incalculating the ACEER).

I. WCS Whole Candidate Score. A combination of CEER(or ACEER), LPS and PAE.

Ill. RESULTS

A. Academic Characteristics

1. The mean College Entrance Examination Board and American College Test scoresfor the Classes of 1980 through 1985 for admitted cadets are:

'85 '84 '83 '82 '81 '80

SAT-V 549 552 560 560 548 550SAT-M 620 623 626 637 629 638

ACT-EN 23.3 23.2 23.2 23.2 22.4 2.2.6rACT-MA 28.6 28.9 28.9 29.0 28.4 28.7ACT-NS 28.7 28.7 29.1 29.0 29.0 29.2

HSR 570 556 565 569 563 572I2. The mean cadet score for the Class of '85 on SAT-V is higher than that of86% of secondary school seniors who comprise the national norm for college boundyouths; and the mean SAT-M of cadets is higher than 89% of the national norm. Themeans of cadets on the American College Test scores were well above the national samplefor students at 1103 colleges. The mean cadet score for the Class of '85 on ACT-English is higher than 85% of the students in the national norm; the mean cadet ACT-Math is higher than 93% of those students; and the mean cadet ACT-Natural 5r ±encescore is higher than 85%.

3. The mean scores of the Scholastic Aptitude Tests of all college-bound highschool seniors, nationwide, have shown a steady decline over the past sixteen years;

II f or USMA the decline has been much less:

SAT-V SAT-M1965 1981 % Decline 1965 1981 % Decline

USMA 569 549 4% 637 620 3%Nationwide 473 424 10% 496 466 6%

4. Each candidate is evaluated either on College Board scores (CEER) or AmericanCollege Test Program scores (ACEER). If both are available, the higher of the two isused. Figure 1 provides a graphic comparison of the number of cadets within eachCEER range with the number of completely examined candidates within the same ranges.Figure 2 shows a similar comparison of candidates and cadets evaluated using ACEERscores. Table 1 shows the distribution, at 50 point intervals, of whole candidatescore components for cadets in the Class of 1985.

B. Physical Aptitude. The average Physical Aptitude Examination score of 560 formen in the USMA Class of 1985 is the same as the score for the Classes of '82, '83and '84. The women in the Class of 1985 had a mean PAE score of 517 compared to 534for women i~n the Class of '84 and 506 for the Class of '83. It should be noted thatthe PAE tests for me~n and women are not identical. The mean PAE for all candidatesis shown in Table 2.

C. Leadership Potential. The Leadership Potential Scores are derived from theratings of the candidate by his secondary school teachers and evaluations by admis-sions officials of his quality of participation in athletic and other school and com-munity activities. The mean LPS for this class (597) is within five points of themean of classes for the past four years. A graphic comparison of the distribuitionscores in this class with that in the candidate populations Is provided in Figure 3.

2

,- =!

D. Overall Characteristics.

1. The Whole Candidate Score is a weighted score consisting of 60 percent CEER(or ACEER), 10 percent PAE, and 30 percent LPS. The distribution of the WCS for theClass of 1985 is shown below:

SoeRange FeunyPercent

7 500-8000 0 071000-7499 1 0.1650C-6999 79 5.16000-6499 463 30.15500-5999 748 48.65000-5499 226 14.74500-4999 21 1.4

1538

Mean -5875 Standard Deviation - 382

2. A graphic comparison of the number of cadets whose scores fall in each WCSrange with the number of candidates whose scores fall within the samp' ranges is shownin Figure 4.

E. Trends in Admissions Variables.

Figures 5-11 show trend data for the classes of 1976 through 1985. Figure 5shows that academic scores dropped off somewhat to the Class of 1977 and, after asharp rise for the Class of 1978, have remained fairly constant. Other trends for

admitted cadets reflect the following:

1. SAT-V and SAT-M scores shiow a similar pattern, with little deviation over theI

past five years (Figures 607).

2. The LPS has remained fairly constant with a deviation of no more than tenpoints from the mean of the ten year period (Figure 8).

3. The PAE scores for men have shown a slight rise over the last ten years(Figure 9).

4. The HSR has been fairly constant for the last ten years, with the mean forthe Class of '85 being the highest for that period (Figure 10).

5. The WCS declined through the Class of 1977, increasing for the Class of 1978- through the Class of 1982 and declined slightly for the last three classes (Figure

11).

F. Selected Activities and Awards.

1. Tables 3 and 3a give information on the background, activities and awards ofentering cadets of the Classes of 1977 through 1985.

2. The Class of 1985 displays a diversity of involvement in extracurricular andathletic activities similar to previous classes. Over 26 percent of the Class of1985 held an elective high school class office; over 83 percent earned varsityletters and 45 percent were team captains. over 48 percent were scouts, 10 percent

making the rank of Eagle Scout. Twenty percent were Boys/Girls State Representatives.

3 iAh--

IV. CONCLUSIONS

1. Academic Qualifications: The academic qualifications of cadets have remained&pproximately the same while the mean College Board scores of all college bound high

* school seniors have shown a steady decline over the past ten years.

2. Physical Qualifications: The Physical Aptitude Exam scores of male cadets haveshown a slight rise over the past ten years and the PAE scores of female cadets hasbeen stable over the last five years.

3. Leadership Qualifications: The qualities of leadership as measured by theLeadership Potential Score have remained stable over the ten year period.

4. Overall Qualifications: The Class of 1985 h.as a mean Whole Candidate Scorewithin twenty-four poincs of the average mean score of the last ten years, indicatingthat the Military Academy is continuing to attract outstanding candidates.

A

4

Number Mean SD

Candidates Candidates 2542 575 73

Cadets Cadets 1077 587 61

200 - 1j

100 ----

700

200~~ 250 300 35I0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0

600CEE Scores I

No. -anid-e 0-- 6 9 29 58 65 55 9 2 1

%Entred 0 U 0 15 21 4 49 1 45 37 1

400dt 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 3 22 10 3

FIUE1CMAIO3O0H0UBRO AET EAUTDUiGCER iHTENMEOF FLLYEXAINEDCANIDAES EALUTEDUSIN CER) T EAH CER COR

LEVE FORTHECLAS OF 985

200 Ifj

4-5

Number Mean SD

Candidates ~JCandidates 1079 580 65

Cadets Cadets 41587 55

1000 V TI

II700

600

500

/400

300

100

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

ACEER Scores

No. Candidates 0 0 0 7 18 87 223 345 252 113 34 0

% Entered 0 0 0 0 22 22 39 48 53 36 29 0

No. Cadets 0 0 0 0 4 19 87 167 133 11 10 0

FIGURE 2 COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF CADETS (EVALUATED USING ACEER) WITH THlE NUMBER

OF FULLY EXAMINED CANDIDATES (EVALUATED USING ACEER) AT EACH ACEER SCORE

LEVEL FOR THE CLASS OF 1985.

6

For~

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON WHOLE CANDIDATE SCORE COMPONENTSFOR THE CLASS OF 1985

Male FemaleAcademic Physical Physical Leadership

Score Aptitude Aptitude PotentialRanges CEER ACEER (PAE) (PAE) (LPS)

No. % No. % No. % No. No. %

750-800 1 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 3 0

700-749 30 3 10 2 46 3 3 2 100 7

650-699 130 12 41 9 106 8 8 4 270 18

600-649 282 26 133 29 231 17 23 12 403 26

550-599 338 31 167 36 308 23 22 12 374 24

500-549 229 21 87 19 333 25 48 25 252 17

450-499 53 5 19 4 235 18 54 29 94 6

400-499 14 1 4 1 64 5 19 10 36 2

350-399 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 5 0

300-349 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0

250-299 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

200-249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1077 461 1338 189 1538

Mean 587 587 560 517 597

S.D. 61 55 76 82 72

7 _ _ _ _ _ _ j

TABLE 2

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR CEER, LPS, PAEAND WCS, CLASS OF 1985

CEER LPS PAE WCSN Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

A 6250 541 85 9637 550 84 5082 522 102 8502 5397 618T 2542 575 73 3626 579 80 3660 533 94 3603 5730 485M 2376 576 72 3397 581 79 3423 536 92 3376 5743 479C 1077 587 61 1538 597 72 1338* 560 76 1538 5875 382

*PAE for Male Cadets: Means and Standard Deviations of PAE for candidates isfor male and female combined.

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ACEER, ACT-EN,

ACT-MA, AND ACT-NS, CLASS OF 1985

ACEER ACT-EN ACT-MA ACT-NS

N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

A 2491 544 87 2491 21.9 4.1 2491 26.1 5.3 2491 27.1 4.9T 1079 580 65 1079 23.1 3.4 1079 28.2 3.6 1079 28.6 3.8M 1013 581 65 1013 23.2 3.4 1013 28.3 3.5 1013 28.7 3.6C 461 587 55 461 23.3 2.9 461 28.6 3.3 461 28.7 3.6

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SAT-V, SAT-M, ANDHSR, CLASS OF 1985

SAT-V SAT-M HSRN Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

A 5719 517 93 5718 578 93 9200 532 113T 2542 547 82 2542 613 75 3619 558 109M 2376 548 82 2376 613 75 3387 558 109C 1077 549 74 1077 620 74 1538 570 98

NOTE: A = All Candidates Tested on VariablesT - All Candidates Fully Tested on CEER (ACEER), LPS, PAE and WCS

- All Candidates Fully Tested and Medically QualifiedC - Admitted Candidates Who Became Cadets

8

Number Mean SD

Candidates Candidates 3626 579 80

Cadets i Cadets 1538 597 62

1000

900

t i 11 1800

700

600

500 ______

400

300

200

100

0

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

LP Scores

No. Candidates 0 0 4 40 188 368 685 797 827 533 176 8

% Entered 0 0 0 15 19 26 37 47 49 51 57 37

No. Cadets 0 0 0 6 36 94 252 374 403 270 100 3

FIGURE 3 COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF CADETS WITH THE NUMBER OF FULLY EXAMINEDCANDIDATES AT EACH LEADERSHIP POTENTIAL LEVEL FOR THE CLASS OF 1985.

9

Number Mean SD

Candidates L Candidates 3603 573 49

Cadets I Cadets 1538 588 38

15001T'FTI- I I ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1

1400

1 /.n n l ;l I I I1 I.1 1 I ] ! [ f i l l l I i l t] '-i ;

±•vv , " I ~~ ~~ ~~~I I1 ItI 1, I I| i I ,'"

1n 0 1 1 11 It 0 0 0 0 10 2b 5 5 46 1 I .-""It 0 I 0 0 1 21 11 11 2 17 4b 79 1 1U

900 : i i . i :

80 0 ! !I ~ ~ : t:

~I . . . i liii

; ~~~~600"-'-""•''

500 --

400

300 •

2 0 0 'it--4

1010

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 b50 700 750 800

Whole Candidate Scores (xlO)

No. Candidates 0 0 0 3 27 217 870 1462 848 170 6 0

% Entered 0 0 0 0 0 10 26 51 55 46 17 0

No. Cadets 0 0 0 0 0 21 226 748 463 79 1 0

FIGURE 4 C0OMPARISON OF THE NUABER OF CADETS WITH THE NUMBER OF FULLY EXAMINEDCANDIDATES AT EACH WHOLE CANDIDATE SCORE LEVEL FOR THE CLASS OF 1985.

10

. ..

LM 3f

-&4

en 0

0*M 0 W

0

t - -

U.' - I

_ _ - -- ca w

-- n -- -

0

00 0- -- CW

4 .--- - -

4jU

of- t-

lid

*D -. 0-- --.--

- ~ ~ I -.-- w---.

41

1-4

4 43

n co.

Cad

000

@1w W

E00

U 0 0

44

L IA-

- -I~-- o

- - - -~--~ - D12

-r k0-

'.0 0

'.00

zh.4

Odd

co od wI.

Cll W.1-

u (n

bO-~ * - -- - ~ - ~ c

to C :

0%0'.0 '.0 0'Ci

-- ~ ~ L -- - - -' n. ~ )-

130

T-4-1

0

con

- '0 GU, 1 1-

cn w~~0~ - -- - - -

'0 I-E-4CH'o0

- - - - - n C.

- -. ~ d, Uco ~ -

I _ - -I -

141

-E-4

I-to4

F2

wn w~ t*

¢ r-.

1i "4 I -4 4

I

... ... .. - --~----- . ..--- i- 2

-- - -- x--------

I T1

S - -,) O JJ

61-

If

4-

- - i- P

.., , ..a

10 0%

0 0 U, 0

L ~15

I '0

E%-4

-- 1

0% 0- - - - - -- cU

c)

E-

U,) U, t-0- - - - - - 4 C,.

16

~---- -- - --- --- swu m

000464

cors

-----------------------------

* *- - *LM

-- - -- - - - - - - -W - - -

UN0 0% '0 C10

177

"4AM

L n Ln~ -4 M% 4f OD0 m 0'S H - -4 -1 4 00 11 'Sr H4"4

ON N- N1 '0 0 ~NU kn 0% 'ý0 Itr, 10 m M~N m.0 ~' m -4 CI u%

C1 rA (N '0N-, N N1 H4

0% - r-4 M 0 c r~Nc0 en a, m - 4

't - 1 0 C) t 0 -'0 N V) N 0%'S 4 'S 0 IT'% n H4 C14 r4

00H o c 0 cn It m m 0) \0

Co '0 "~ '0Bi r~- ý4 m C '4 1-1

M- N N NH N N N N I.,-4 'fl 4l r- O 4 M -4O N 0 % 0 00

N- N 7000 0 H 00%i 'ff CCB1 UH N iCBID N4 4 N en-S 4 DS rf% N4 N -4

N- li LQ C! N.0 0: 0ý Ni O C~iC1 LO H q H n H.N. Cn -4 O N N 0

H H- 'fn Nl m B0 r m00~ C14 V Ln 0 00

'0 N 1N-0 \0 m 4T4 N- rH fni N1

NJCN - D" H '0H I - CiI-N 4 N '0 M%

H- '. 4~B 'O 4 H ; 4 N 0co 'S I H 4 'SH -4U% Nr H- (4 -

m H N4 N-C'4 0%n0 aN ~ It cr L% O 0 InZ V) 0 0% as' \ADiO H- n00 - 0 cnB 'I4

wa -4 4 C 4 H 0 N 00N C4 C' N H

L- . .. . .

00 'fB 0N M0 O n- N 04 N N

CO H 0 4* e r y C'B4N % 0 Lfi -4 enB 00 0

- OD 00 r-N OMCD-4 0%0%C - en N

'0 4 '00 -40% - Hn 1% N- enH

0% '0 H% \DO 0 04-4 4 H4 N ON

Hn Mf~ 10B '0 - 0 CO%'0'0 'D 0 'fn m% -4H m% '0 '0N cnBiN 'f 0 %T '0 m~B M*

r-4 Hn Hý fn~i- -4B H

40 -4 m It * -4

CO4 '00 H % 0%N 0%40N H 0% N -\0% 'D 'S 'S en CT% 'S 'S0 L m -

4 -%T 1-, -4 r% r-.-

0%44fi 4'i-Oý CýB C B

-- - r-4 I0 CO.n-cB Hn H4 H0% ~ ~ c 'S 'S ' S'S' S '

H4 H - 4* 0 m 00 O0 (n Li CLI 0 co '0~IDm r Vm C\PI 0 m% 'f) N N

H4 H 0 N-.TH,- N H H4-4 Z

0

W~ 0 0i ~~w4J to i~ A4. -4 O~ b44 1- d

0%1 -40UW,-IJJCHW .ý r-4J 0.1 0 -C-) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .c U0H 4 w (U41CQ

cu w w t~ sco - 4 d d ý18 C

00 D N r-4 M It (

LA C~ 4 LA 4%''H -: 4

00 00 HD L'4 IH~..,

H 4 0 PI H LA) NO I Ln -

-4 r- N0 N. N"1O ~

'0UlA 40 HD '0u 0 -4AO Ln '0 '0

,4 14 4 N O(1

Lr%~~~' cne 14 V -

00 NNN NR

0%~~0 '04 -4O0% HO *H .. 4 . *rH Ln

q 0 4 4n 004PCO-'-"'

'04 C44 00 0 r, 00A

NN NH ON Ha

-N 0 ON N. Nf N4 N NCf4 H N 4 0A CAN *

H~' a,4 HSIP A40

'I))U)~Ul .Nl 0 ' N N N

NN Nr LN N'ANA0H H

co N0 00 N- N0 0%A *

HX r- 4f H4 OD 04 10%

0 l '0t -4 '0 L7%ICO'0% a% 0 LA) C4 N n'

1-4 U) 1) N 0 CO4 0P0% N% '0

N N N NM

00 -4 N 00 C) U .~ .-.- s-

HLr en NC) cc'O C, LA L

0n Nn ID I- 0r. H00

(n Hn Nn H H H-e1C)LA

14 1- 0% HA '0' *' H '

00 LA -A 4 mH--'- m- co-

C. H4 HM a n 0 H ND - 70%H c 0 Ln 00C'H 0 H C') 00 HH14

N N N N4 0C-) H

'0 LA oo 00N NCh 4 *0 71 -40 LA C') c

C)r- N- H c rn

C1')

-R LA -.1 HT 0

Ný 0 0 -4 N) NNPLA C'

'0 r- H4 0 0 D

0%~~~0 -'' ' '0 H M N 14 '

H- Hn m 4 0%N I r N LA LA '

0 '0 0% N 4ONHHN H H WN 0C14C'

"r-4 1 -4

*~.,4t Cý 04 04 0 H 44 n

T 'TJ- 00 )-0 l) -

4~~IcH 0O4 m~~ OJ C) -d l.4 ,4

4.JO t-. 0C~ cq OLCn-~. ' n 1

w~~~C)~r a) N)- ~ W~ O ,0

~~~~~~~~ r'4-4JO 4aC ~ C)H .

C)O0~t AlJJ A~-il = W C)~

19j 9"

.....................................................

C:: 4 p r4 b t .44- 4 -

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOS ("Ren D•te Rntered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSREFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2, GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG HUMmER

81-015 J -14. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

TRENDS IN ADMISSION VARIABLES THROUGH THECLASS OF 1985

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPOPT NUMBER

"7. AUTHOR(a) 0. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMUER(&)

Mr. John W. Houston

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK

Office of the Director of Institutional Research AREA WORKUHITNUMBERS

United States Military AcademyWest Point, NY 10996

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

December 1981Se8ie as #9 above. IS. NUMBER OF PAGES

i+ii+iii+1914. MONITORING AGENCY NAME II ADDRESS(I different front Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

United States Military Academy UnclassifiedWest Point, New York 10996 IBe. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

i1. DISTRISUTION STATEMENT (of thle Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

I1. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1S. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide It necoessay and identify by block nwmber)

Admission Class of 1985

Analysis Freshmen

Characteristics

1IL ABSTRACT (Ceadni u m ers se A naeemy ad Identwy by block numbet)

*The United States Military Academy uses the Whole Candidate concept in the

selection of candidates for admission. This concept encompasses threebroad areas: Academic, leadership potential, and physical condition andaptitude. This report compares the pre-college performance of members ofthe Class of 1985 with previous classes in these three areas.,

DO I , 1473 EoDToN oF t NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wheu flti Entered)