• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT) [MERGED]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Se7eN
  • Start date Start date
*edited to comply with "Tone and Content" standards*

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

Further, my apologies for my part in furthering a meaningless debate.

;)
 
squeezboks said:
And as stated, what the does grade 10 math entail?

I can't remember what I did in Grade 10, I could go look up the curriculum and spend a bunch of time looking through it, or I could come here and ask a simple question.

That answer varies depending on curriculum and when you took it.
There's no hard & fast answer.
Or here....

http://www.curriculum.org/csc/library/profiles/10/mathematics_p.shtml

Let me introduce you to my little friend, Google...
(If any can guess what accent I'm thinking of  :hearts: to you!)

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=grade+10+math+curriculum+canada&meta=cr%3DcountryCA


And what I used personally to brush up:
http://www.aestudyguides.com/orders.html
My old trusty high school study guides that helped me do fine in high school.


Questions aren't a bad thing, lack of initiative to research yourself is going to lead to a big helping of sarcasm. :) Not unwarranted either, IMO, but I'm in the peanut gallery.
 
squeezboks said:
......... could have been answered simply but apparently thats too hard to do around here.

I guess you missed the point.......It was answered simply.......dozens of times.
 
See split topic here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/84033.0.html

This thread will be reopened in due course.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
CFAT is a common enrollment test (it basically will tell you what trades you can go into) and I highly doubt that there is a waiver for not doing it.

I think the recruiter is misleading you.
 
From kincanucks in the post above

CFAT results can only be requested to be waived if it is determined that the applicant possesses relevant education or experience to the occupation they are applying for (e.g. possesses electronics diploma and is applying for FCS Tech).
 
Why would you make this post Comedian and PM a cut and paste version to me?

Just curious.
 
The Comedian said:
My second reason why I sent you the above post is because as per your profile you are a Warrant officer,

I thought you needed 25 posts before being able to view profiles.  ???
 
Moe, we did have that rule in place to protect everyone's e-mail address. Under the old system you could show/hide your address, and since most didn't know the detailed I assumed a great number were showing their address without knowing it.

We've had spammers sign up just to harvest e-mail addresses, so the 25 post count was put in place as protection.

The new software never exposes your e-mail address... it just lets you allow users to contact you via a web form, or not. As a result, there was no need for the 25 post protection rule, so it was lifted.

Hopefully that makes sense...


Cheers
Mike
 
To be clear, The Comedian - sending mass PMs is not an appropriate alternative when you're not getting enough answers to a question posted on the board.

Army.ca Staff
 
The CFAT indicates what trades you are appropriate for. Perhaps if you failed as a Sig Op it would benefit you in the long run to see what trades you did qualify for... besides, I didn't realize that you could "fail" the CFAT... that's like failing common sense... and no one in the military has ever seen common sense fail!
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
The CFAT indicates what trades you are appropriate for. Perhaps if you failed as a Sig Op it would benefit you in the long run to see what trades you did qualify for... besides, I didn't realize that you could "fail" the CFAT... that's like failing common sense... and no one in the military has ever seen common sense fail!

You can fail ;) A friend of mine had to go twice. I guess there is a cut-off line of some sort.
 
I got the same PM from this person.  And as I said in my response to it.  Study they weak points and take the test again.  There are no free lunches.
 
Reference Reply #12. 

It may also be emphasized that this type of behavior will not be tolerated and could result in the application of the WARNING SYSTEM in the future.
 
I too recieved this mass mailing and fail to see why I would be sent this. I am not a recruiter, nor do I make CF policy. I am but a small wheel in a big machine and personally have no interest in "the comedians" plight.  ::)

I would suggest a more appropriate name for him/her would "the clown". :o
 
I will try to address the OP's question about waivers.  It has been some time since I served, but this is what I am sure still exists in the way of testing policy because the reasoning doesn't change...just the test as it is modified or entirely re-designed:

The CFAT measures one's aptitude as well as general "book" learning".  Each occupation has a minimum requirement (cut-off score) that is a "best predictor" of success.  We don't/can't predict success for reaching the rank of WO,  or of LCol...we can only use the test to predict who will have a sufficient amount of diffiulty in training that they constitute an unreasonable risk of wasting time, confidence, and a lot of money and other resources.  We want the surest bets we can get.

Sometimes, however, a person just doesn't do well on the test, or on written tests in general. At the same time, all sorts of evidence suggests that the test is going to be moot because the person has been doing the work all along, and doing it well.  If you were interested in hiring someone, would you have your nose firmly pointed at the test results, or would you be inclined to give serious credence to concrete evidence of efficacy in the work needing workers?  The reasoning, in that sense, is pretty straightforward...yes?

Test waivers are granted when an officer applicant fails the officer cut-off, but is granted access to training because of other compensating factors.  Apart from a hard and specific degree requirement in some Offr MOCs, others have none.  All we really want is some proof, just as with the NCMs, that the candidate has a modicum of "learning ability".  Anyone who has a degree, for example, has demonstrated to several successive competent raters at one or more universities that he/she has the ability to learn.  What we do in our recruiting screening is to select, from any one cohort of candidates, the best of the lot.  We want to hedge our bets that the people who ultimately warm the seats in the classrooms are going to be able to process and integrate the learning, not in a four year programme, but in the three and six month timespans over which the typical military occupation training takes place.

Does that make sense?

We may find, in some odd cases, that someone applying for Inf 31 can't seem to pass the CFAT.  Now what?  Well, wait a minute, the person has a BSc in Cartography.  Not half shabby.  A degree is a degree, and how imporant is a degree in Cargoraphic Science to an Infantry Officer?  Well, sort of, but not really...if you follow.  Then why impose on ourselves the impediment of declining this potential INF 31 candidate solely on the basis of an odd test result?  The lady/guy can learn, so let's assume that the test result is spurious, or not a valid predictor of success...in this case.

Without going long, that, in a nutshell, is some of the reasoning for granting waivers.
 
My friend failed the CFAT about a year ago (going into it blind). He wants to be a combat engineer, and is a super handy guy - can weld, lots of construction and machine experience, etc. - but for whatever reason tests shake him up. Is there any chance, were he to write it again and still fall a bit short, or short of the requirement for combat engineer (higher than for infantry?), that he might get a pass based on demonstrated experience?

He's not planning to fail by any means (will study hard for it this time), but apparently you only get a second try so he's understandably very worried.

p.s. I had a somewhat strange experience with the CFAT. I wrote it +6 years ago in high school with the reserves on my mind, but never followed through on it. The recruiters told me I crushed the test (perfect in two sections, extremely well in the 3rd, I think math), but at the time I figured that's what they told everyone to make them feel good about signing up. So anyway ~6 years later I apply for an officer position, having forgotten about the old test, and when I was about to write it again they pulled the old test up and told me I'd be crazy to write it again: there's almost no chance I'd do better and it almost certainly wouldn't matter anyway. I guess the moral is write it while you're young and sharp, to spare yourself the trouble when you're old and slow ;)
 
Back
Top