<p>It doesn’t appear gpa is one of the factors (I had heard it wasn’t). If you read the rest of the paper, gpa wasn’t even part of the study—It’s class rank. GPA can be a very mis-leading figure when you factor in weighted/unweighted grades and the perception of inflated grading these days. Where a candidate stands relative to their peers in a class is a better indicator, esp when they factor in the competitiveness of the school and the size of the class. Someone with a 4.1 gpa but is ranked 7/350 is going to get a higher score than a 4.6 ranked 3/100. GPA is getting so muddled —my daughters transcript now reports SIX different numbers for GPA! (Weighted acad gpa 9-12, unweighted same, Weighted acad gpa 10-12, non-weighted same, weighted total gpa 9-12, unweighted same)—its ridiculous. Class rank is the great “equalizer”.</p>
<p>The thing the above paper leaves out is the actual “formula” to compute the points. Relative weights to an unknown max total are fine, but we still have no way of knowing for example how many points a 650 math score gives you (just that the score-whatever it is- is weighted to 31% of the total.</p>
<p>The paper also indicates that the 9000 point possible adjustments to the score by the admissions board are ususally given out to candidates who’s parents are military, ex-military, or former cadets/graduates of the academy in order to “boost” the WPM to an acceptable level or to recruited athletes to get them “over the top”. The stated reason in the paper for this was that there was a 1-3% less of a chance that recruited athletes and children of military parents would drop out during plebe summer. The admissions process isn’t just about finding qualified candidates, it’s about finding qualified candidates who are most likely to make it through the academy (particularly that first summer!).</p>