| From: VERGA::US4RMC::"[email protected]" "fred krebs
15-Apr-1994 1709" 17-APR-1994 09:40:44.23
To: [email protected]
CC:
Subj: The Parade article
The following is an article that appeared in Parade on 14 Feb 93, entitled
"So, you want to be an astronaut." It was authored by Michael Ryan.
----
Two weeks before she first went into space in 1983, I spoke with Sally Ride
about her experiences at NASA. The toughest part, she said - only half
joking - was the application process. Ride described a grueling series of
forms and tests, culminating in a tough cross-examination by a panel of
questioners who left most would-be astronauts quivering.
You could feel the sudden rise in tension, she recalled, when the chairman
of the panel solemnly asked one candidate: "Why do you want to be an
astronaut?" Most respondents gave answers that were sincere, sometimes
impassioned, occasionally turgid. But this applicant assessed the imposing
group of questioners before him, then replied: "My father was an astronaut.
My grandfather was an astronaut. It's a tradition in my family." The
panel dissolved in laughter, and he got the job.
Ever since I heard that story, I have wanted to know how astronauts are
selected. That is how I found myself recently at the Johnson Space Center
in Houston, talking to Duane Ross and Teresa Gomez, his chief assistant.
"It's a good job," said Ross, who fills up to 25 positions every two years.
"We get a lot of applications." Ross is the manager of NASA's Astronaut
Selection Office - and any American who wants to visit outer space must
visit his office first.
Most people would agree: the job _is_ good. It pays $46,210 to $83,502; it
carries civil-service protection and offers standard fringe benefits and
working conditions, stimulating colleagues and a chance to see the world.
Literally.
There have been 195 astronauts since the program began in 1959. The
current crew number is 89.
Joining that crew isn't easy. Applications - which are available from NASA
- go to Teresa Gomez first. "I receive them daily," she said. "About 10
percent are disqualified immediately because they don't meet the
qualifications - they aren't U.S. citizens, or they don't have a degree in
science or engineering."
Just filling out the application requires some determination: There are 13
pages of forms, asking everything from medical history and grade-point
averages to flying experience and community service. "Believe it or not,
we get a lot of letters from children - 12, 13, or 14 years old - who have
filled out all the forms," Gomez said. "We send them a letter that
explains why they can't apply, and we encourage them to apply later on."
There already are more than 1500 on file for the next biennial selection
process, which begins this July, and Ross and Gomez expect that number to
grow steadily until the last week, when they predict a deluge of 500
last-minute entries. "We don't have to beat the bushes to find people who
want to be astronauts," Ross told me. The Astronaut Selection Office is
especially eager to attract women and minority candidates.
Those thousands of applicants will yield only about two dozen new
astronauts. Naturally, I wanted to know what makes an application stand
out among so much competition. Ross and Gomez were happy to tell me some
dos and don'ts:
First of all, don't send videotapes. "I've never really looked at them,"
said Gomez. "We don't have the time, with the volume of applications we
have." And think twice about dropping in for an unannounced visit to the
Astronaut Selection Office: "A number of people make a trip down here,
thinking that if one of us connects a face with the name, it will make
their candidacy stronger," Ross told me. "That's possible, but it can
backfire."
Most obvious - and often overlooked - is making sure you have the right
stuff. Astronauts come in two categories: pilot astronauts and mission
specialists. As the title implies, pilot astronauts must have at least
1000 hours of jet flying time. Mission specialists must have at least a
bachelor's degree in science or engineering, plus three years of related
experience.
While these criteria are stringent, most applicants offer even more on
their resumes. It's common to see a pilot with a scientific degree, and a
scientist with a pilot's license.
"The competition is very strong," Ross said. "The person who's
accomplished a little more might have an advantage."
You must be a U.S. citizen to become a NASA astronaut, but age is
irrelevant. "We get octagenarians applying," Ross said. "Last time, we
selected people between 28 and 42. But older candidates may have some
trouble with the medical requirements."
People who are selected tend to have hands-on experience - a young
geologist used to field work might have a better chance than a dean who has
been confined to the office. The reason is simple: being an astronaut
requires manual dexterity and a willingness to do hard work in space. In
addition, since an astronaut must spend weeks in cramped quarters with five
or six colleagues, NASA looks for community and extracurricular activities.
"We want well-rounded people," Ross said. "Teamwork, the ability to get
along with groups, is important."
In July, a panel of NASA specialists - pilots, engineers and scientists,
among others - will begin looking at applications to rate them, picking the
top 10 percent to 15 percent of the applicant pool.
The Astronaut Selection Board - the jury that will make the final
recommendation - will then review these applicants and invite about 100 of
them to Houston for a week of physical exams, orientation, and interviews.
During this time, they will watch real astronauts doing the 95 percent of
the job that takes place on the ground - planning shuttle missions, helping
devise experiments, working on engineering and technical projects, and
making public appearances.
The centerpiece of the week, though, is the interview. The 12 member
board - made up of scientists, astronauts, personnel experts and an
equal-opportunity officer - terrifies some applicants. "I've never
had anybody faint, but I've had a couple who got rubber legs," Ross
said. "I've had to hold a couple up - and not just the scientists,
either. I've had a couple of hotshot test pilots turn to jello and
start talking like Don Knotts."
The board takes candidates through their entire lives - from high school to
the present - trying to get a feel for their personalities. Candidates are
asked about current events, their work and accomplishments. In the course
of these conversations, their distinctive traits emerge.
"One time, we were asking everyone a question about President Bush's drug
program, and we were getting pat answers," Ross remembered. "That group of
candidates was pretty tightly knit, and we figured that, after the first
one, everybody knew all the questions. So the chairman decided to change
the question. He asked the next guy who came in about Barbara Bush. The
guy turned white as a piece of paper and blurted out, 'You're not supposed
to ask that!'"
For that candidate, the ordeal turned out well. "He recovered nicely,"
Ross recalled. "We gave him brownie points for having a good sense of
humor about the whole thing."
One trait that impresses NASA is perseverance. "More than half the people
we have selected have been on interviews before," Ross said. "We selected
one on the fourth try. He had added to his qualifications every time he
applied."
The people Ross and the board select do not automatically become
astronauts. Instead, they spend a year as astronaut candidates, going
through a tough series of survival-training sessions and technical courses
before they graduate. Even then, they will wait at least two years on
average before they actually fly.
I asked Ross how many astronaut candidates had washed out since the
selection process began in 1978. "Zero," he said proudly. "The system
works."
After having a hand in selecting all those shuttle astronauts, doesn't Ross
ever think about becoming one himself? Yes, he admitted. "If they would
let me go, I'd be on the next flight. I'd be scared to death, by I would
go anyway."
So why doesn't he? Because of the strict qualifications he helped devise.
"I've got a bachelor of arts degree," he said woefully. "That means I've
got the wrong stuff."
----
The End. I hope you enjoyed it.!
Fred
=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=
--=Fred Krebs |
Department of Microbiology and Immunology | This space for rent
Hershey Medical Center College of Medicine | call 1-800-new-sigs
internet: [email protected] |
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 16:43:26 -0500
% To: [email protected]
% From: [email protected] (fred krebs)
% Subject: The Parade article
|
| From: US4RMC::"[email protected]" "DR JAMES J CULLEN IV" 27-MAY-1994
To: [email protected]
CC:
Subj: 1992 Selection Criteria
EVALUATION CRITERIA USED BY NASA'S ASTRONAUT SELECTION BOARD
(About half fact and half opinion, denoted accordingly...)
Good Morning, Group!
Warning: this article is rather long -- about 6 pages.
My purpose is to set out some of the criteria
used by NASA in the astronaut selection process. Information
regarding the selection process, as you are probably aware, is
rather difficult to obtain, so please feel free to distribute
this as widely as you care to. While some of the criteria that
I will describe are objective, most are subjective and, accordingly,
have solicited some speculation from me. I will denote my opinions
as such, so that you can separate them from the facts.
Criteria used by NASA in the selection process are weighted
mathematically to generate a score assigned to the applicant.
The score is used as an aid in reaching a final selection
decision. My personal belief is that the mathematical score
assigned to your application is used only as a decision-aiding tool --
not a decision-making tool. However, more on this later.
Persons interested in exploring this subject further should read
"The Real Stuff -- A History of NASA's Astronaut Recruitment Program"
by Joseph D. Atkinson, Jr. and Jay M. Shafritz, 1985, Praeger Publishers,
A Division of CBS, Inc., 521 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10175,
ISBN 0-03-005188-6. The book is of special interest to persons
of African-American or other non-European ethnic backgrounds, because
it describes some of the prejudices levied against certain races by NASA
under the Johnson Administration. Thankfully, racial equity in the
astronaut selection program has improved. By the way, Dr. Atkinson, of
African-American heritage himself, routinely sits on the
Selection Board as a non-voting member to ensure that Equal
Employment Opportunity regulations are followed. During my interview,
he impressed me as being extremely intellegent, passionate, compassionate,
and the kind of person I would want as a close personal
friend. Read his book before you are interviewed. The material
in the book regarding the selection process is, not unexpectedly,
a bit dated, so I will attempt to provide information that is
more current (1992). However, the book is still very much worth reading.
My own qualifications for providing this information are
straightforward. I was interviewed by NASA for a Mission
Specialist slot in the 4th group of interviewees during the
January, 1992 interview cycle. Scott Horowitz, Mary Weber,
Winston Scott (probably the best role model for anyone who wants
to be a true human being that I have ever met), Joe Tanner,
Keven Kregel, and Kent Rominger were chosen from the 21 applicants
in our group. My comments regarding the overall interview process
will be set down in a future memo but generally echo comments voiced by
other interviewees in our discussion group. It was the best week of my
life. Not being selected ranked right up there as the biggest
disappointment -- not because of the job but because of the other
interviewees. These were the people I have been looking for all my life.
Not getting the opportunity to work with them and to know them will be
really tough.
Sitting in front of me is my rating sheet -- the one generated
as a result of the interview. I also have copies of the sheets
from the other 69 Mission Specialist interviewees (but not
identified by name, which is fine for our purposes). The sheets
are identified by numbered Discipline Groups. I'm a geologist,
which puts me in Group 2 (perhaps Natural Sciences?). I'm not
sure what the structure of the groupings is, but the point is
that part of your rating is performed against other applicants
in your discipline group.
The rating sheet is divided into three sections. Section I is
titled "Application & References," Section II is called
"Interview," and Section III is your "Final Score," which is
simply a weighted average of your scores on the first two
sections. The "Application & References" section is weighted 40
percent in your total score and the results of the Board
interview are given a weight of 60 percent. That's worth noting.
Now for some guessing on my part: When an application is
received, it is given a once-over by the Astronaut Selection
Office (Duane Ross and his staff) to ensure that minimum
qualifications are met. Copies go to JSC's Kelsey clinic for
medical evaluation and if there is anything in your application that
sends up the smallest of red flags, then you get bounced -- more on
that later, too. As the selection date draws near,
application packages are distributed, by Discipline Group, to
NASA's technical evaluation committees. These committees, who,
I imagine, are composed of specialists in your particular
Discipline Group, evaluate the packages comparitively and fill out Section
I of the rating sheet. The top ten percent are passed on to
astronauts on the evaluation committee where selections for the
interviews are made. Section II of the rating sheet is filled
out after (not during -- more on this later) the Board
interview and your final score (Section III) is then calculated.
I do not know if the final score is used as an absolute
decision-making tool or is used as a more subjective
decision-aiding tool. The final score certainly could be used
as an absolute tool, because the Selection Board is free to
manipulate the subjective Interview scores any way it wishes
(and it does so -- I'll provide evidence of this later). On the
other hand, the final score may simply be used as a
decision-aiding tool, with the Board employing additional
subjective judgments before reaching the final decision. If I
were asked to make a bet, I would choose the latter. (By the
way, it appears to be relatively easy to determine if you have
made it into the top 10 percent of the applicants. If the
personal references that you list on your application form get
requests from the Astronaut Selection Office to submit a written
evaluation of your performance and character, then it would
appear that you've made it into the top 10 percent -- no minor
accomplishment. Pat yourself on the back!)
Section I of the rating sheet -- the section that I am assuming
is filled out by the technical evaluation committees, is divided
into six parts, as follows:
A. ACADEMICS 25 points
BS 5 points
MS 10 points
PhD, MD or equal 20 points
More than 1 field 5 points
Total x QAD Factor = total score.
B. RECENCY OF EDUCATION 5 points
Years since last degree
3 or less 5 points
3-4 4 points
4-5 3 points
5 or more 0 points
C. EXPERIENCE 30 points
4 points per year, maximum of 5 years
More than one field, 0-10 points additional
Total x QAD Factor = total score
D. OTHER 15 points
Other unique skills and experience
E. REFERENCES 25 points
F. TOTAL SCORE 100 points possible
In the 1992 interview cycle, the 70 Mission Specialist
applicants received Part I scores as shown below (I don't have data
for the Pilot Astronaut applicants). You can manipulate the
data to calculate averages and cutoffs as you see fit, and can
rank yourself to see how you might score. I seem to recall that
19 applicants were chosen; 25 slots were available, but 2 went
to the European Space Agency, 2 went to Canada and 2 went to
Japan? If we assume that one third went to Pilot Astronauts,
then the Mission Specialist cutoff score would have been
somewhere in the 75-76 range. However, the Section I score is
not significant by itself. It is the total (Section III) score
that counts. Here's the data -- each number represents the score
of an individual Mission Specialist interviewee:
82.0, 82.0, 81.8, 79.6, 79.2, 79.0, 79.0, 78.8, 77.8, 76.4,
76.4, 75.7, 75.0, 74.0, 73.0, 72.6, 72.6, 71.8, 71.6, 71.4,
71.2, 71.0, 70.4, 69.6, 69.6, 69.4, 69.2, 69.2, 68.6, 68.5,
68.4, 68.2, 68.2, 68.1, 68.0, 67.6, 67.5, 67.4, 67.2, 67.2,
67.0, 67.0, 66.5, 66.4, 66.4, 66.0, 66.0, 66.0, 65.6, 65.4,
64.8, 64.0, 63.9, 63.4, 63.0, 63.0, 62.8, 62.5, 61.6, 61.0,
60.0, 59.9, 59.0, 59.0, 56.8, 56.0, 55.6, 55.0, 53.4, and one withdrew.
Some comments on the individual parts are in order. In Part A,
you get 5 points for a BS degree, a total of 10 for an MS and a
total of 20 for a Ph.D., M.D. (or both!), or other advanced degree. If
your degrees are in more than one field (for example, mine are in
Chemical Engineering and Geology), they tack on an extra 5
points for a possible total of 25. This objective score is then
multiplied by what is referred to as a "QAD Factor" -- QAD
stands for Quality, Applicability & Diversity -- ranging from
0.0 to 1.0. This is a subjective weighting factor that allows
the technical review committee to evaluate the quality of your
education (degrees from MIT count more than degrees from Podunk
U.?), the applicability of your education (in 1992, Materials
Engineers and Aerospace Physicians were hot -- Geologists were
not. Sigh :-( But recently I heard that NASA's one Astronaut
Geologist -- Kathy Sullivan -- left to work for NOAA and,
currently, NASA is doing Earth Observation experiments without a
geologist. Hope springs eternal...), and the diversity of your
education (this seems redundant to me -- diversity was given a
5-point bonus already?). QAD factors in the 1992 selection were
as follows: 1.0: 1 person; 0.9: 27 people; 0.8: 30 people;
0.7: 10 people; 0.6: one person, and one withdrew.
In the part dealing with Recency of Education, you get 5 points
if it has been 3 years or less from the date you graduated with
your terminal degree, 4 points if its been between 3 and 4
years, 3 points for between 4 and 5 years, and nothing if your
education is more than 5 years out of date. However, the
Recency of Education score is only 5 points out of the 100
possible -- experience counts a lot more.
In the part dealing with Experience, you get 4 points for each
year of experience, up to a total of 20 points. (I don't know
if experience is counted starting from the date you graduated
with your most recent degree or if they count experience between
degrees). Up to 10 additional points is awarded if your
experience is in more that one field. This is a subjective
evaluation. A suggestion: if you have multiple-field
experience, be sure to stress that in your application. (Col.
Gregory: would the Board consider it tacky to use a yellow
highlighter to emphasize this in the application package? Just
kidding). The overall experience score is again weighted by a
QAD factor that ranges from 0.0 to 1.0. Experience QADs on the
1992 Mission Specialists ranged as follows: 10 people received
1.0, 26 people received 0.9, 21 people received 0.8, 11 received
0.7, one received 0.6 and one withdrew.
The evaluation committee can award up to 15 additional points
for "Other unique skills and experience." Presumably, this is
where you get a bonus for a pilot's license, SCUBA
certification, experience in hazardous or remote environments,
time you spent photographing penguins in Antarctica,
etc. The score is completely subjective. The 1992 Mission
Specialist scores ranged as follows: 5 people got all 15
points, 2 got 13 points, 8 got 12 points, 18 received 10 points,
two got 9 points, 12 got 8 points, 6 received 7 points, 2 got 6
points, 11 got 5 points, one got 4 points, two received 3
points, and one withdrew. (Suggestion: make sure that you
emphasize as many of your unique skills as possible -- especially
job-related skills. Our discussion group might consider developing an
active list of skills that would be thought to be of value to astronaut
applicants. For example, MDs: are you members of the Wilderness
Medical Society? (Non-MDs: consider becoming a Red Cross instructor or an
associate member of the WMS). Also, consider adding to these skills from
year to year as the points awarded directly add into your score; while
they are awarded subjectively, they are not diluted by a QAD Factor).
References are worth 25 points and are awarded subjectively.
Presumably, if General George Patton were one of your
references, the Board would look more favorably upon it than if
you list your good buddy down the street. Your buddy might give
you a better reference, but unless your buddy is General Patton,
it might not count for much. Make your references as strong as
possible. Everybody puts down their dissertation advisor. Try schmoozing
with the President of the University or an Admiral or two. Generals
and Admirals are as thick as thieves at JSC.
Section II of the rating sheet -- the "Interview" section -- is
completely subjective. Twenty points each are awarded for
"Experience/Potential," "Motivation," "Teamwork,"
"Communications," and "Adaptability." Scores for the 1992
Mission Specialist applicants were as follows:
100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 99, 98, 98, 98, 98, 97, 97, 97,
96, 96, 96, 96, 95, 95, 94, 94, 94, 93, 93, 92, 92, 91, 91, 91,
90, 90, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 85,
85, 84, 84, 84, 83, 83, 82, 82, 81, 80, 80, 79, 79, 79, 78, 78,
77, 72, 70, 70, 62, 60, 50, and one withdrew.
There are some lessons here that we need to examine. First,
as the "Interview" scores are completely subjective,
the members of the Board have complete freedom to accept or
reject anybody that they want. There is no way to challange
your subjective Board score. During my interview, none of the
questions asked of me by the Board directly related to any of these
categories and none of my answers would have given the Board any
more than a smattering of how I should be rated.
Still, the Board managed to come up with numerical
ratings for my performance -- reflecting, I believe, their desires
far more than my performance capabilities.
On the one hand, I can appreciate this.
If the life of an Astronaut (and the image of the Space
Program, for that matter) depends on whether or not you do some
dumb thing, those people with whom you will be working should
have the right to determine if they want to place their lives
in your hands.
That said, you should be advised that the Board interview either
makes or breaks you. Your academics, experience, and references
must be up to snuff to get you in the door. Without that, you don't
have a chance. The medical and psychiatric exams are "select
out" exams -- the physicians assume that you're qualified for
the job but are looking for something that will disqualify you.
They will bend over backwards not to disqualify you. If they
find something questionable in your medical history, they will
give you as many tests as are necessary to determine if the
problem is real. If it is real, they have no choice but to
disqualify you. But, they don't want to.
Suggestion: don't diagnose yourself. Most of you aren't medical doctors.
(Those of you who are medical doctors already know not to diagnose
yourself!) If you have something questionable in your medical records,
let it be up to NASA to prove that the
problem is real. I thought I might have had asthma and reported this
on my original application. The impression came from a faulty lung
vital capacity test that was performed in conjunction with a job-
required medical exam. I reported this to NASA and they disqualified
me for medical reasons. It took two years to clear up the mess. I
know of other candidates who can relate horror stories about NASA's medical
reviews. Hard to blame NASA; they do about 2000 of these reviews a
year. Bottom line: don't self-diagnose.
The Board exam, on the other hand, is a "select in" process.
The Board assumes that you are not good enough to join the team.
You have one hour to prove them wrong. If you don't, nothing
else that you have done in your entire life to prepare yourself
for this job matters.
The five parts of the Interview section are purposefully
subjective and of nebulous meaning so that the Board can assign
scores to you as it sees fit. The scores are assigned after the
interview -- not during. During the interview, individual
members of the Board take notes on a prepared form. The notes are
used to remind them of who you are so that, once they have made up
their collective mind as to who they want, the ratings can manipulated
to reflect their wishes. (An
interesting twist: I attempted to get copies of these notes
under the Freedom of Information Act so that I could look at the
individual comments used to assemble my score. The
purpose of this request was solely for self improvement, in the
event that I am ever re-interviewed, and not to embarass anyone.
I did not win points for creativity. Douglas K. Ward, Acting
Director of Public Affairs for NASA, determined
that my request was not subject to the Freedom of Information
Act and the notes would not be released. (Uncle Sam sometimes places
himself above his own laws -- big surprise). It might be interesting for a
lawyer to comment on the correctness of this decision. (Just what
we need -- lawyers in space). NASA
might be open to litigation under Equal Employment Opportunity Act
-- or age discrimination laws, for that matter -- a subject for a
later discussion.) In any event, if you make it to the
interview process, the Board's scores are final. No appeal, no
chance to review them to see if they were correct, and no chance
to review them to improve yourself for subsequent interviews. (There
actually is a formal appeal process but, without hard evidence, what
would you base your appeal on?) I
have a real problem with this and if I ever get selected, I would hope to
be appointed as a member of the Selection Committee, to fix what I percieve
as very large inequities in the Board Interview process.
More Opinion Follows. I believe that the Board does
not always know what it wants in a candidate and that no clear-cut
selection criteria -- other than those discussed above -- exist. Again,
under the Freedom of Information Act... (Are you getting the
feeling that I might have ticked off the Selection Board? I
don't like being told by Bureaufats that I'm not good enough for
something. They're here to serve us -- not the other way
around. Periodically, it seems necessary to remind them of this
fact) ..., I attempted to obtain a detailed statement of the
qualifications used by the Selection Board, so that I
could prepare myself in accordance with the criteria by which I
would be judged. (Preparing for astronaut selection is akin to
aiming at a fuzzy, moving target). JSC hemmed and
hawed. Apparently, the selection criteria were not written out; this
implies, to me, that the criteria are poorly (if at all) defined.
One of JSC's attorneys spoke with me on the phone and
told me that I was perfectly within my rights to ask for a copy
of the criteria. Interesting. JSC has some internal problems with
the selection process.
JSC's response was to invite me for an interview with the strong
suggestion that I drop my FOIA request. Astronauts have to be team
players, so I dropped the request. Learn from what may have been a
tactical error on my part. The Board, for the most part, has no
clear-cut criteria, nor do they always know what they want. But
they have absolute authority to pick and choose as they see fit.
Doesn't seem equitable, you say? I concur.
If you think about it, not having clear-cut selection criteria
makes what is, no doubt, a very difficult job for the Board a
bit easier. If the criteria were clear cut, 2500 applicants a
year would all go out and try to meet the same criteria. There
would be little to differentiate one candidate from another.
(Suggestion: make yourself stand out in some way that would be
exceptionally useful to NASA -- not the way I did by bugging
them with FOIA requests). In fact, distributing information through
our discussion group may, itself, make NASA's job a bit more difficult.
However, information distribution is the purpose of our group.
NASA doesn't make it easy for us, so why should we make it easy
for them? (There goes any hope of a second interview...)
The Board is also inconsistent. By way of example, I received a
"Motivation" score of 12 points (out of 20) -- one of the lowest
scores awarded. Yet, the cover report from my Psych. evaluation
reads "very intelligent and highly motivated." I guess that to get
more than 12 points, you would have to be evaluated as being
"fanatically motivated". Go figure.
Maybe I had an off day. My communications skills were rated at
12 points out of 20 -- the lowest score given. Yet my Psych.
evaluation rated my communications skills as excellent. (I
frequently get the highest scores from my students for
communications skills in my teaching and am often invited by the
EPA to teach parts of environmental short courses, specifically
because their managers seem to like my communications skills.
Beats me.)
Once the interviews have been scored, weighting factors are
applied, as discussed earlier, and a total score is generated.
For the 1992 group, the scores were as follows: 92.8, 92.8,
91.6, 90.6, 90.4, 89.0, 89.7, 89.4, 88.8, 88.5, 88.2, 87.4,
86.6, 86.2, 85.7, 85.4, 85.2, 84.9, 84.6, 84.2, 84.1, 83.3,
82.6, 82.4, 82.3, 82.2, 82.0, 81.5, 81.5, 81.4, 81.1, 80.8,
80.4, 80.2, 80.1, 80.0, 80.0, 79.6, 79.2, 79.2, 79.0, 78.8,
78.6, 78.2, 77.0, 77.0, 76.8, 76.2, 76.2, 76.0, 75.8, 75.4,
75.2, 74.7, 74.7, 74.2, 73.8, 73.7, 73.4, 73.4, 72.4, 70.7,
70.2, 70.1, 69.4, 68.4, 64.0, 60.6, 59.0 and one withdrawal.
The cutoff for the 1992 group would have been about 86-87.
I won't tell you where I fell. Ken Jenks' "ASCAN 10
COMMANDMENTS" number 3 prohibits me from doing that.
("Keep your weaknesses to yourself. If you don't point
them out to others, they will never see them.)
Enough for today. In a future article, I'll present some
thoughts on how you can improve your chance of being selected
and how to improve your performance on the Board interview. In
the meantime, if you want to discuss any of this, here's what
you need to know:
Jim Cullen
9456 Mast Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89117-0286
(702) 254-8815
[email protected]
"Don't worry if you don't know where you're going.
You'll probably wind up someplace."
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 16:39:27 EDT
% From: [email protected] (DR JAMES J CULLEN IV)
% X-Mailer: PRODIGY Services Company Internet mailer [PIM 3.2-143.62]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: [email protected]
% Subject: 1992 Selection Criteria
|