# Grade average for RMC?



## rmchopeful271 (1 May 2012)

Hi I haven't really been able to find a realistic average to strive for. My marks are from the mid 70's to low 80's, are these good enough for addmission?


----------



## aesop081 (1 May 2012)

rmchopeful271 said:
			
		

> Hi I haven't really been able to find a realistic average to strive for. My marks are from the mid 70's to low 80's, are these good enough for addmission?



The answer goes like this :

"You need a better average than the other guy"

If all other applicants have a lower average than you, you have a better chance. If all the other applicants have a higher average than you, you have a lesser chance.

The realistic average you should strive for is the absolute best you can.


----------



## rmchopeful271 (1 May 2012)

I know it chnahes from year to year but is there a realistic range?


----------



## Phoebe (1 May 2012)

I had a friend who had a 90% average, on the dot. 

Guess what, he didn't get in. You know why? Your average isn't everything. Do some extracurriculars, get a job, develop leadership traits etc.

-Phobos


----------



## jwtg (1 May 2012)

rmchopeful271 said:
			
		

> I know it chnahes from year to year but is there a realistic range?



The answer has already been spelled out for you: better than the other guys.  Your entire application will be weighed against all the other applicants.  You will be placed on a list where you are ranked by a 'military potential' score which is calculated using the results from your CFAT, interview, application package, academics, work experience, etc.  It's all packaged into one number that puts you on the list.

If your academic average was low and you managed to have EXTRAORDINARY extra-curriculars, leadership, interview, etc. etc. and managed to field a pretty competitive application, you might get in.

Nobody can give you a number, unless they have inside info and if they do I doubt they'll be posting it here.  Nobody on here is going to tell you what the average level of academic success is.  A previous poster has a friend with a 90% average who didn't get in.  I got in with an 80.0% average in high school, during a year which my interviewing officer said was one of the strongest academic years in his memory.  I had a lot of other things going for me in my application.

You want a number? Probably somewhere above 80 (intentionally vague).    Getting 80 will not land you a spot though- you need a competitive application.  So do as CDN Aviator said and get the highest marks you possibly can, as well as making yourself as competitive as possible everywhere else so that your 'MP' score will be higher than other peoples'.


----------



## rmchopeful271 (1 May 2012)

Thanks, that info actually helped a lot. I was thinking that 80 was a decent area. I talked to a recruiter breifly and he said because I was pretty active in sports and have two jobs that I would probably have a good shot. I just wanted a target to shoot for.

Thanks


----------



## aesop081 (1 May 2012)

rmchopeful271 said:
			
		

> I just wanted a target to shoot for.



100%

Shoot for that.


----------



## jwtg (1 May 2012)

rmchopeful271 said:
			
		

> Thanks, that info actually helped a lot. I was thinking that 80 was a decent area. I talked to a recruiter breifly and he said because I was pretty active in sports and have two jobs that I would probably have a good shot. I just wanted a target to shoot for.
> 
> Thanks


80% shouldn't be your target.  95-100 should be your target.  Don't settle for less than your capable of.  Should you ever serve in the CF, your co-workers and taxpayers deserve a better attitude.


----------



## Lumber (11 May 2012)

jwtg said:
			
		

> 80% shouldn't be your target.  95-100 should be your target. _* Don't settle for less than your capable of*_.  Should you ever serve in the CF, your co-workers and taxpayers deserve a better attitude.



IMO, a candidate who has 80s with lots of extra curriculars is a much better candidate than someone who had no extra curriculars because he spent all his time trying to get 95-100 (and didn't because most people quite simply can't get grades that high no matter how hard they try). At least _*I*_ would rather serve next to someone like that.. maybe YOU'd like to have an introvert leading you... just saying.

TDV


----------



## jwtg (12 May 2012)

Lumber said:
			
		

> IMO, a candidate who has 80s with lots of extra curriculars is a much better candidate than someone who had no extra curriculars because he spent all his time trying to get 95-100 (and didn't because most people quite simply can't get grades that high no matter how hard they try).


Your opinion is nice.  Do you happen to know what the opinion of the recruiters is?  Because I believe that is what the OP was looking for, based on the title of this thread.  He wanted to know what grade average to strive for.

Also you assume that you have to sacrifice extra-curriculars in order to achieve high marks.  That's certainly not the case- unless maybe you lack the time management skills required of an officer.  I went to high school with a student who captained every sports team he was on and graduated with 95% high school average, free ride through university based on academics.  It is certainly possible.

I will concede that most people don't achieve 95-100%, but I think that's irrelevant when you're looking at what to strive for.  Ask around at RMC- I think the resounding answer from the staff here will be to strive for 'Excellence.'  There is nothing to be gained by undershooting on your grades.

My opinion is that applicants should be well-balanced, and strive for high 'marks' in all of their endeavors- be they academic, extra curricular, work-related, etc.  

Aim high in case you shoot low.


> At least _*I*_ would rather serve next to someone like that.. maybe YOU'd like to have an introvert leading you... just saying.
> 
> TDV


I barely even know where to start here.  First of all, you're post seems to be a response to mine, as indicated by the italicized/bolded line you took from my post: *Don't settle for less than your (you're) capable of.*  Based one what you wrote though, I have to assume you're actually not responding to anything I said.

Where did I say that getting high marks = being an introvert?  Also, what expertise of yours tells you that extroverts make better leaders than introverts?  The terms introvert and extrovert apply to how people socialize, relax and re-energize: not how they lead.  Some of the top cadets in my year at RMC are introverts; it doesn't mean they're poorly adjusted or lack for leadership ability: it means that they don't mind spending some downtime alone and sometimes prefer small groups to large parties/events.  It means a couple beers at the mess over a night out in town.

I think you misunderstand what extrovert and introvert mean- and while you may conjure up a mental image of an extrovert being a better leader because they're 'outgoing,' I insist this connecting doesn't exist outside of your head.

To sum it up- did you even read what I wrote and what you responded to?


----------



## Lumber (12 May 2012)

jwtg said:
			
		

> To sum it up- did you even read what I wrote and what you responded to?



You're reading way too much into this...



			
				rmchopeful271 said:
			
		

> Thanks, that info actually helped a lot. I was thinking that 80 was a decent area. I talked to a recruiter breifly and he said because I was pretty active in sports and have two jobs that I would probably have a good shot. I just wanted a target to shoot for.
> 
> Thanks



Your taarget should be to do your absolute best. If that means an 85 average then so be it. If people on here tell you that you need a 95-100 average to get in, they don't know shit. Maybe they had 95-100 averages, but that certainly wasn't the case of the majority. I know many a cadet who had 70s and 80s as their application averages and it was the strength of their extra curriculars and their interviews that got them in.

The recruiter was right. Play sports (try and be a team captain if you can), work jobs, have a social life, play an instrument, and try hard at school. But this isn't like civilian university, they look at a lot more than you application average. 

Good Luck!

P.S.



			
				jwtg said:
			
		

> That's certainly not the case- _*unless maybe you lack the time management skills required of an officer*_.



Do you (did you?) even go to RMC? Do you not see how many cadets have ZERO time management skills? Do you see how many are either failing classes or barely squeezing by? How many have no second language proficiency and won't get any until 2 weeks before grad? Just think, most of those people are going to graduate and become officers. Some of them will be damn good ones to.


----------



## jwtg (13 May 2012)

Lumber said:
			
		

> *Do you* (did you?) even go to RMC?


Yes.


> Do you not see how many cadets have ZERO time management skills? Do you see how many are either failing classes or barely squeezing by? How many have no second language proficiency and won't get any until 2 weeks before grad?


This is hardly in line with the Commandant's intent, or the ideal we should be presenting to future cadets.  People *should* come here ready and willing to work hard and excel in every area.


> Just think, most of those people are going to graduate and become officers. Some of them will be damn good ones to.


Correct.  Others will not graduate in Scarlets because they will not complete the requirements in the 4 pillars of RMC education.  Others will not graduate at all because they won't make it through 4 years at RMC.  

Maybe you need to come back and look around and see that, while some cadets fit your description, others are more like what I aim for: bilingual (or well on their way), fit, succeeding in academics and well-organized, skilled managers of their time.

Time will tell which ones make better officers.


----------



## Scott (13 May 2012)

You guys done with your measuring contest yet?


----------



## Lumber (13 May 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> You guys done with your measuring contest yet?



I am.  eace: :UNAPC: :sorry:


----------



## MKos (16 May 2012)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I am.  eace: :UNAPC: :sorry:



 :surrender: :bigfight:


----------

