Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT) [MERGED]

[JM2345]

Let me clarify the things I can't do.
1.  I can't be the guy who can lift two soldiers on each shoulder and carry them out of a battlefield.

Unless you have some sort of underlying medical condition which would likely preclude you from CF employment, I don't see why you can't be the guy who can lift two soldiers on each shoulder and carry them out of a battlefield. If you bulked up to around 340 pounds with a proper diet and training regimen specifically designed around lifting and carrying soldiers on your shoulders, and disregarded any need for proper form, while also accounting for the adrenaline which would be coursing through your body, I think you could do it. Granted they wouldn't be the biggest soldiers, but I still hate to see you sell yourself short with such a definitive and absolute statement like that.

 

[dapaterson]

But did the 'bell curve means I'm outnumbered in this conversation' not strike you as a little arrogant? ;D

Depends which side of the curve he's on - it could be humility...

(Also depends which distribution we're talking about - IQ or social graces).

 

[SeR]

Some of you guys are actually funny - seriously.

What's funny is that some troll by the pretentious name of xtreme has come to this site, essentially claiming that they have discovered THE secret of studying for the dreaded CFAT, when in reality, the recruiters will generally tell you what to expect prior to the date of the test.

Journeyman - I'm just glad I could add to this already humorous thread. 


*For the record, anybody can sit behind a keyboard with a thesaurus on their lap.

 

[X2012]

Not to get too much back on the original topic, but the conclusions are logically flawed.

xtreme, all you have is one data point for IQ and two test results under different testing conditions, so you really don't have enough to say anything at all. But let's just continue with the available data. In theory, your age-matched IQ score shouldn't change greatly over time/education (to a point, I know, but still from 21 up it should be relatively stable unless something really abnormal happens). So what you've actually shown is that the CFAT is not strongly correlated to IQ, but may correlate to familiarity of the type of testing and test preparation. This is a much more supportable conclusion from the anecdotal evidence on this site. You don't even have enough to say that IQ may be linked to your highest possible score, because you only have your information. Your attempt at correlation is really useless because you simply don't have the data, this is bad science/analytics. You'd need way more information and a good statistical analysis to draw any conclusions.

The use and usefulness of IQ testing and what it is actually testing are a whole other can of worms, as you said.

Really, the only thing that can be concluded from the data you present is that practice is important in performance, and this fact has already been established by others.

 

[xtreme]

Well done X2012,

As stated in my original post, there are plenty of random variables - but these could be resolved.

I did not draw a conclusion but instead demonstrated an example that shows a possible methodology for how a raw IQ score could be correlated to the CFAT. 

No doubt - Accuracy, resolution, variance & extrapolation of a conclusion would be refined using more data-points/samples (people).

The first step would be for volunteers (the more the better) who have written the CFAT that know if they have aced it, near-aced it or feel as though they made less than 2% error (i.e. 98%) to complete another psychometric.  An online psychometric (to aid practicality) would be sufficient provided all participants complete the same test under the same conditions and if participants adhere to an honesty principle.  They don't need to take it at the same time, just follow typical test rules i.e. no cheating.

The averaging of results of these participants can be used to establish the lowest IQ on that "online psychometric" that correlates to a maximum/perfect score on the CFAT.  This would then calibrate and establish a maximum boundary - on the CFAT and the online test.  (Assuming the IQ test has a higher ceiling than the CFAT.  If not, it is easy to reverse it.)

Using the nature of the bell-curve and this data, other people who take that online psychometric, their IQ scores could be interpolated backwards to yield a 'predicted' score/performance on the CFAT - by literally overlapping both distributions.  The methodology would become increasingly accurate as the number of participants increase, to an extent that the particular online psychometric test could become a reliable measure.

As the number of participants increase, it is also possible that the maximum boundary could shift higher (or lower) - shifting all scores. 

For example. Maybe I am an outlier.  Perhaps, 145 is not required to ace the CFAT.  If other participants that have aced the CFAT receive lower scores on the online psychometric, this will shift the boundaries lower.  Thereby also yielding a different threshold for minimum Officer requirements than what I previously stated.  This is why its' absolutely essential to have more than one data point.

Before this method could be used for reliable success a large sample of participants should be collected (i.e. normalizing) before anybody should use (or at least become dependent on) their 'predicted' score.

This is not as hard as it sounds, it's as simple as - anybody - who has written the CFAT already to write another designated online IQ test and volunteer their CFAT score (or all the trades qualified for), whether it be a guesstimate or not to the best of their honest ability.  All anonymous of course. 

The analysis could be further improved if the online test -requires- all participants who have written the CFAT to list the trades they qualified for.  This may then yield an added benefit of determining what occupations require aptitude in what particular sections, by examining their performance on the various sections of the IQ test.

As for the age concern, it is said that, IQ and age-dependency is less of a factor after 16.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

But you have yet to answer the one pertinent question.


What is the point? And please, in 100 words or less.

 

[xtreme]

- To understand what abilities are required to do X-trade.

- To determine, in advance, the type of subjects a student should focus on in high-school if they wish to do X-trade.

- To determine, in advance, the type of subjects/programs a student should pursue in College and/or University (if they are consider the DEO route) and understand what they are capable of.  Acquiring relevant academic knowledge/experience useful in the desired trade alongside natural aptitude .  Thereby creating the most effective application for that trade (if it is competitive).

i.e.  A student doing poorly in Grade 11 Math may assume, he sucks at Math and be led to believe he has no aptitude in Math.  He may never pursue this route.  However, there is the possibility that his teacher was just incompetent/crap and a jack-***. 

Not all teachers are equal.

- To aid in preparation and maximizing potential.

- For fun and understanding how & why the Military tests us.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

So you think the recruiting system does a poor job of this already? I'd say it's pretty well laid out on the website and in the careers brochures what you need to be proficient at in order to join a certain trade. 90% of what we do in the forces is hardly rocket science.

 

[hambley92]

I can't believe I just read this whole thread, but I'm sure glad I did. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But you have yet to answer the one pertinent question.


What is the point? And please, in 100 words or less.

;D

 

[Journeyman]

OK, OK, going through your spam I see that you posted an almost identical "hey, lets all do an IQ test and compare it with the trade selected" post back in 2007.  Scrolling back a bit further it turns out you started attempting CFATs in 2002 -- wow, that's an awful lot of time for such a simple test.

I'm guessing that, in your scientific self-congratulations, you've hoped that in the intervening six years....or perhaps eleven.....humanity will have evolved sufficiently to see your brilliance.  Instead, what we have is many years of simple, repetitive trolling.

:boring:

I suppose we can look forward to this dragging on for another day or two of people mocking you beyond your comprehension, then you posting the same drivel in another half-decade or so. 

  <ignore>

 

[Sadukar09]

- To understand what abilities are required to do X-trade.

- To determine, in advance, the type of subjects a student should focus on in high-school if they wish to do X-trade.

- To determine, in advance, the type of subjects/programs a student should pursue in College and/or University (if they are consider the DEO route) and understand what they are capable of.  Acquiring relevant academic knowledge/experience useful in the desired trade alongside natural aptitude .  Thereby creating the most effective application for that trade (if it is competitive).

i.e.  A student doing poorly in Grade 11 Math may assume, he sucks at Math and be led to believe he has no aptitude in Math.  He may never pursue this route.  However, there is the possibility that his teacher was just incompetent/crap and a jack-***. 

Not all teachers are equal.

- To aid in preparation and maximizing potential.

- For fun and understanding how & why the Military tests us.

160 words.

Failure to follow instructions.

 

[dimsum]

Forget the CF; he should be in DRDC. 

Staff or subject, I'll let you guys decide.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Staff or subject

Is there a difference?

But yes, this man belongs in Suffield no doubt.

 

[Loachman]

Long before Al Gore invented the Interweb, which encourages kids to worry themselves halfway to death about such things as CFATs, I wandered into the Recruiting Centre in London and wrote the CFAT. No worrying, no questions to dozens/hundreds of strangers, no practising, nothing - I just wrote the damned thing.

I have no idea what my score was, not do or did I care.

I just wrote it, as did thousands before me and thousands since.

And I's a Pilot.

Big deal.

We had a really bright guy on one of my Squadrons a few years ago. He was (and probably still is) a nice, decent, friendly fellow, with an amazing intellect. He was a Reserve Pilot, a wheat farmer, and a research scientist specializing in aviation simulation.

He would write pages and pages of notes after each and every flight for later review.

He was a fine enough Pilot, but never seemed to have any real feeling for flying or for the tactical application of the machine. Everything was over-analyzed and over-calculated.

Trying to figure out what subjects kids should take in high school just to pass a test is foolishness. Just get a well-rounded education, put maximum effort into everything, develop some decent situational awareness and an ability to relax, and go and see a recruiter.

 

[Sadukar09]

:goodpost:

MP inbound.

 

[skyhigh10]

Pretty sure I have vertigo after reading through this thread.

I think this topic could have seen its end long ago if the OP stated something like .... "  Kids, if you don't  qualify for your trade the first time around,  it's not over!  Study the three main areas and just give it your best shot and don't make the same mistake twice"

On a serious note, I once upon a time viewed this test as the apocalypse.. Being given a final shot at the CFAT after graduating from two post sec programs, I went into study /over kill mode. I studied similar questions found on each section of the CFAT 4 hours a day for months leading up to the rewrite. I reviewed hundreds upon hundreds of common GRE words and their respective synonyms. I bough spatial books and worked very hard on my arithmetic.

I qualified. Not that big of a deal butttttttttttttt, it's just one of many hurtles.  (insert maverick on motorcycle +  fist pump in air here) 

At which venue will we be proceeding with my knighting ceremony?   


Xtreme, surely you can "intellectually" understand why many seem to have a morsel of hostility towards your posts.

 

[xtreme]

It amazes me to see how many intelligent people here understand very little about subjective experience/reality.

What may seem easy to - you - may not seem easy to somebody else.

I've been informed that some people here have phD's, MSc's and MA's.  Intriguing, they somehow believe their perception of the CFAT would be identical to an 18 year old high-school dropout. 

Members with -advanced degrees- are suggesting to some possible drop-outs that "the CFAT's  so easy, just walk in, it will be a piece of cake."  Neglecting the influence of background/academic/life experience on subjective perception.

Analogy:  Would a Surgeon -see- the CFAT the same way as an 18 year-old drop-out? 

I respect the opinions of some members on this forum, i.e. Loachman who I have followed around here and is a source of valuable insight with the maturity not to berate to make his point.

I've written the CFAT - twice.  Messed up the first time.  Abandoned the idea.  Got curious, re-written the test - 9 years later.  Whilst, in the mean-time, obtained further qualifications in general, capital, experience & maturity.  The only steps I took to improve my score drastically was to -speed- up my basic arithmetic - just stopped using calculators at work in general.  Aced the CFAT.

For the record - I do not think I am better than anybody and I think I've made this clear in several posts.  Likewise, admitting failures & imperfections would be a bad approach to portray superiority.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

It amazes me to see how many intelligent people here understand very little about subjective experience/reality.

What may seem easy to - you - may not seem easy to somebody else.

Do you really think none of us here realise this?

I've been informed that some people here have phD's, MSc's and MA's.  Intriguing, they somehow believe their perception of the CFAT would be identical to an 18 year old high-school dropout. 

Likewise, there are people here who ARE high school drop outs, who passed the CFAT with flying colours.

Members with -advanced degrees- are suggesting to some possible drop-outs that "the CFAT's  so easy, just walk in, it will be a piece of cake."  Neglecting the influence of background/academic/life experience on subjective perception.

Analogy:  Would a Surgeon -see- the CFAT the same way as an 18 year-old drop-out? 

Of course not, and yet both have an equal chance of passing it

I respect the opinions of some members on this forum, i.e. Loachman who I have followed around here and is a source of valuable insight with the maturity not to berate to make his point.

I've written the CFAT - twice.  Messed up the first time.  Abandoned the idea.  Got curious, re-written the test - 9 years later.  Whilst, in the mean-time, obtained further qualifications in general, capital, experience & maturity.  The only steps I took to improve my score drastically was to -speed- up my basic arithmetic - just stopped using calculators at work in general.  Aced the CFAT.
So when do you start BMQ then?


For the record - I do not think I am better than anybody and I think I've made this clear in several posts.  Likewise, admitting failures & imperfections would be a bad approach to portray superiority.

But then again, posting your IQ score, and commenting on other threads about your physics/engineering degrees, is equally not the best way to portray humility

 

[PMedMoe]

What may seem easy to - you - may not seem easy to somebody else.

I always thought that's why it's called an aptitude test.....silly me.  :dunno:


Oh, and for the record, I qualified for all trades, including officer, both times I did the test*.  Without studying. 

*The second time I wrote was an "update" at the request of the BPSO, since I had done the "old" CFAT.