Canadian Forces Aptitude Test (CFAT) [MERGED]

[xtreme]

Once a person has attained higher education, particularly graduate-level degrees, there is no doubt it would influence their subjective experience.  A person who becomes accustomed to solving half-page questions in Thermodynamics for years, will perceive a one-liner math question in a different light, than students that dropped out of school - that may have dropped out because of those one-liners.

Students may benefit significantly with a bit of preparation so that he/she would be on a somewhat 'equal' playing field with another person that had opportunities/privileges in life to study for - years - the "hard" math/sciences and that as a result acquired amazing test-taking skills.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

Furthermore, the CFAT -does- assess previous knowledge/experience, evidenced by the verbal reasoning section.  This implies that some people will have an advantage over others based on their exposure and experience - sourced easily from education.  Segregating educated members and creating the inability to empathize with drop-outs with their perceptions of the CFAT.  i.e. Impossible to know.

I don't object to the importance of verbal reasoning, language is an important skill, but it is a section on a test where experience/education can have a huge impact. 

i.e. I did not always sound like Sheldon.

If that still doesn't convince you.  Ask yourself whether preparation would hurt a person's outcome?

Anyways, I'm not such a bad person and the tone of articulation has been incorrectly perceived, realized if you got to know me in person.  The internet is devoid of important non-verbal communication.

If anybody is down, a round or three of beers on me.  Just to shoot the sh!t.

 

[Remius]

You know, when I was a recruiter we used to tell people not to fret too much about the aptitude test.  But that they could prepare by taking similar tests online.  We also told people that it was pretty much at the grade ten level for math and language. 

The thing is, is that it purports to be an aptitude test but it is also a screening tool as well.  We had plenty of university level types fail or not qualify for officer but by virtue of having a degree they were granted CFAT waivers if they failed.  Some trades wouldn't write the CFAT at all because really it was dumb in some cases.  Like a Med O.  When we really needed them.  We also had fully qualified Sgts not achieve the mark they needed for their own trade.

On the old CFAT, for those that remember that one, with the engine parts?  If you answered C on everything you were in. 

So yes, I've seen a master's educated guy walk away in tears because he thought he was stupid for not achieving the score he needed to be a Sig Op in the reserves.  It is not all about IQ because it is not really an IQ test.  While IQ or basic knowledge of math and language play a part of it is also about stress and time management (30 questions in 30 mins for example) and how about making the right decision in the time alloted.  Plenty of people circle a bunch of answers in the last few seconds because they ran out of time.  Others don't because they are too focused on getting the right answer and don't complete the test.  Guess who has the better chance?

So some minor research on how to write these kinds of tests does not hurt.

Funny, when I left the Recruiting system, Cook was the trade with the lowest score required for aptitude.  Yet it required more education and advanced math than most other NCM trades.

Anyway, it's been a while and things may have changed but CFAT does not mean IQ test.  And I doubt there is any correlation worth looking at between them since your IQ isn't what we are looking at when we are recruiting.  If it was, well maybe, just maybe, we'd be making people take an IQ test?  But we don't and frankly we don't care what your IQ is.

 

[skyhigh10]

You know, when I was a recruiter we used to tell people not to fret too much about the aptitude test.  But that they could prepare by taking similar tests online.  We also told people that it was pretty much at the grade ten level for math and language. 

The thing is, is that it purports to be an aptitude test but it is also a screening tool as well.  We had plenty of university level types fail or not qualify for officer but by virtuie of having a degree they were granted CFAT waivers if the failed.  Some trades wouldn't write the CFAT at all because really it was dumb in some cases.  Like a Med O.  When we really needed them.  We also had fully qualified Sgts not achieve the mark they needed for their own trade.

On the old CFAT, for those that remember that one, with the engine parts?  If you answered C on everything you were in. 

So yes, I've seen a master's educated guy walk away in tears because he thought he was stupid for not achieving the score he needed to be a Sig Op in the reserves.  It is not all about IQ because it is not really an IQ test.  While IQ or basic knowledge of math and language play a part of it is also about stress and time management (30 questions in 30 mins for example) and how about making the right decision in the time alloted.  Plenty of people circle a bunch of answers in the last few seconds because they ran out of time.  Others don't because they are too focused on getting the right answer and don't complete the test.  Guess who has the better chance?

So some minor research on how to write these kinds of tests does not hurt.

Funny, when I left the Recruiting system, Cook was the trade with the lowest score required for aptitude.  Yet it required more education and advanced math than most other NCM trades.

Anyway, it's been a while and things may have changed but CFAT does mean IQ test.  And I doubt there is any correlation worth looking at between them since your IQ isn't what we are looking at when we are recruiting.  If it was, well maybe, just maybe, we'd be making people take an IQ test?  But we don't and frankly we don't care what your IQ is.

:goodpost:

 

[Nostix]

The thing is, is that it purports to be an aptitude test but it is also a screening tool as well.  We had plenty of university level types fail or not qualify for officer but by virtue of having a degree they were granted CFAT waivers if they failed. 

Out of curiosity, when was this policy in effect? Or is it still ongoing?

 

[Remius]

Out of curiosity, when was this policy in effect? Or is it still ongoing?

Can't say if it is or not.  It was case by case back then when I was there.  I've been out of that business for over 5 years now and things there changed on a daily basis.

 

[xtreme]

Thanks Crantor for your experiential insight.

You are right.  When I was young kid (a long time ago), the recruiters told me exactly what you did, except online-IQ tests and forums/topics like these were not as prevalent then.  He said the CFAT was nothing to worry about, here's a pamphlet with 5 questions, if you can solve it, you're good to go.  I did just that.  Well those 5 questions were hardly representative of the test.  The pamphlet was dangerous, opposed to being helpful because it instilled a false sense of confidence.  Without the misleading pamphlet I would have been more diligent in basic preparation (like sleeping on time) had I known I was going into the unknown.

I was offered a possible waiver too, but I refused that route.  I did not want favours due to being educated.  I knew that I would never be happy with myself if I used a loophole in and would always have lingering doubts about my abilities, that I know were not accurately represented that day.  I wanted to qualify for my trade purely on my merit - fairly represented by my maximum potential.  Which I did later and aced it.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you on what constitutes an IQ or Aptitude test.  They are fundamentally the same, except that an Aptitude test does not give you a singular score on your overall intelligence but assesses a score(s) on different types of test elements to determine the strongest intelligence type - under the theory of 'multiple intelligences.'

If you look at the type of questions on the CFAT practice and the type on an IQ test, they are almost identical.  Moreover, an IQ test does measures speed/stress and even logical guessing/deduction.  The only difference between an IQ test and an Aptitude test is how the results are used to determine trades.  In both cases, there will be a numerical score that 'defines you' that would be used for comparison.

Therefore a correlation can be made possible.

The point of my original post was to highlight the importance of preparation, nothing that is harmful or dangerous to anybody's health.  I figured by sharing my story, it would open some eyes so that I can prevent the disappointment, discouragement and embarrassment that I first experienced (very successful at the Officer interview and now I had to explain why I'm suddenly changing my mind.) 

Those who have been successful underestimate how those who were not successful feel.  Notice that many people who have said the CFAT is easy have also stated they were successful.  You won't (obviously) see them say "the CFAT is easy, oh but I failed it." 

I'm sure there is a large silent group out there that totally understands where I am coming from, but for obvious reasons, not everybody is brave enough to admit they failed to qualify for their trade - let alone failed the test altogether.  Particularly if they feel they were conned by that unrepresentative pamphlet.

 

[SeR]

I'm sure there is a large silent group out there that totally understands where I am coming from, but for obvious reasons, not everybody is brave enough to admit they failed to qualify for a trade - let alone failed the test altogether.  Particularly if they feel they were conned by that unrepresentative pamphlet.

It's an anonymous internet forum. I wouldn't say they have a lack of bravery, seeing that no one would know them. I'd say it's more likely a lack of interest.

On another note, the CFAT is more of a tool to test whether or not one is capable of completing (sub) grade 10 math and language without the use of a calculator and a dictionary, not the intellectual potential of an applicant - simple as that.

 

[Remius]

Thanks Crantor for your experiential insight.


Unfortunately I have to disagree with you on what constitutes an IQ or Aptitude test.  They are fundamentally the same, except that an Aptitude test does not give you a singular score on your overall intelligence but assesses a score(s) on different types of test elements to determine the strongest intelligence type - under the theory of 'multiple intelligences.'

You can disagree if you want to but your are not correct.

Here, simple google search will explain the difference in very common language. 

http://www.ehow.com/about_7231315_intelligence-tests-vs_-aptitude-tests.html

And in regards to the waiver thing.  It has nothing to do with giving you a pass or doing you afavour.  It has everything to do with the fact that the CFAT isn't perfect and that sometimes the CF tries to be more efficient.

Why would we turn away a Doctor when the CFAT says he doesn't have the aptitude when he's been practising for 5 years?  Or the liscensed mechanic who fails to meet the V-tech score even though he's journeyman qualified.  It isn't about doing you, the applicant the favour.  It's about doing ourselves (the CF)the favour by modifying our practices to not turn away talent based on the stupidity that the system can sometimes be.

 

[kevincanada]

Xtreme:

You are just one view, I sadly feel I must disagree with you on a couple points.  If anyone wants information I suggest they ask their recruiter.  There is sworn confidentiality by everyone on this forum who has written the test.  Even if they want to talk about it to help others out they can't.  By making public associations regarding test you are probably pushing the envelope for breaking the confidentially agreement you have sworn to uphold when you took the test yourself.

I don't think you should be discussing the CFAT at all.  At best if anyone asks, you should point them to the Forces.ca website where they can look up recruiter information themselves and have their questions answered that way.  That way you are in the clear and test takers still get the relevant answers they need.

Second point
"Those who have been successful underestimate how those who were not successful feel."

How do you know this?  How do you know how the current serving members feel about others feelings?  Or I do? or some other test taker does?  I can safely say that is you own personal opinion and does not reflect the opinions of others.

Please stop discussing CFAT and instead point potential canidates in the proper direction namely.  www.forces.ca website.

Edit: change a couple words to be intentionally vague.

 

[xtreme]

SER,

Anonymous or not.  Some anonymous members who frequent and participate here regularly, may value the integrity of their handle, that they may have been using for years, that it becomes their name/identity.

You don't understand the relationship between the word Aptitude and Potential Ability?

Cranton,

Did you actually read the link you provided?  It describes the exact differences I -just- mentioned.  It may be helpful when conducting a brute-force search into Google that returns any result, to cross-check that result with the point you are trying to make.  (No offense).

As for your second point.  I agree completely and I'm sure in previous posts, the various issues with the CFAT were discussed, particularly it being an excellent tool to grossly misrepresent a candidate.

KevinCanada,

If you read carefully in the last message, I compared the -CFAT Practice- (publicly available) to an IQ test.  No crime done.

Jeez!

Lets hope Canada never gets into a war with China.

 

[PMedMoe]

Let's hope Canada never gets into a war with China.

  (FTFY)

Why, because they do an IQ test for military entry?

 

[Remius]

To be honest you are making way to much about the CFAT than it deserves.  You are over analysing something that just does not need it.  The best advice is for people to just go talk to people that actually work in recruiting about the CFAT.  They've all taken it, know how to administer it and likely know how it is interpreted. 

I realise you are offering your opinion and really there's nothing wrong with that but.  You screwed up by your own admission. You were over confident (something you have shown us here) and botched it the first time you went in.  You have subtly tried to blame that on the info you were given, ie the example test (which ironically people complained and asked for that sort of thing).  Ultimately in most cases the applicant does it to him or herself.  The CFAT is no big deal, it's a grade ten level test.  Nerves, poor planning the night before or poor assumptions is what leads to failure.  I had one guy with a degree no less, request to write the test in French because for some odd reason he thought that gave him a better chance at getting a spot.  He failed, miserably.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you probably over analysed the test the first time and that's why you failed.  You also over analysed the waiver being offered to you and you are over analysing this now.

I'll give you one piece of advice about the CF.  Short, to the point and get er'done.  At least for the first few years of your career.  When you've practiced that for a bit then you can go up the chain and start dissecting policy, tests and put your brain to work on those things.

And for the record I don't think you are being out of line for bringing all of this up, but you are actually getting the benefit of experience from a lot of people here but you don't seem to have your radio set to receive.

 

[JM2345]

Lets hope Canada never gets into a war with China.

Would you hope Canada gets into a war with China under some other circumstances related to CFAT or IQ testing? Or was this just a random "thought of the day" you decided to leave us with?

 

[Jarnhamar]

An empty mind is a loyal mind but a questioning servant is more dangerous than an ignorant enemy.

 

[xtreme]

  (FTFY)

Why?  They do an IQ test for military entry?

(FTFY) 

Well for starters, they have nukes.

I did not get a positive impression I expected from valiant 'representatives' of our Armed Services on this forum.

I've prepared to sign my life so I can do my part to protect what I consider home by going Reg Force.

I have real world -military- and engineering accomplishments & experience.  I am prepared to show you proof - if you want to get to know me.

I did not come here to 'troll' but came here to state what I believe is a valid problem in recruiting, also acknowledged by Cranton (i.e. why turn away experienced Doctors etc.) 

I offered a round or three of beers as a sincere friendly gesture (and the offer is still open).  Would a 'troll' do that?

I've been assured by friends already in the Reg Force, that some 'representatives' on this forum are just big-talkers.

Crantor,

You're correct, I am over-analyzing it.  Correlating the CFAT to an IQ psychometric is well beyond the scope of what is required for the average person to pass the CFAT.  No doubt.  I brought up this topic for the purpose of stimulating an interesting discussion, creating an academic exercise in how psychometric testing works, why/how it is used and because quite frankly - I was bored.  Some people may be generally curious and would be interested in knowing the nuts & bolts behind these types of tests.  Some of us can agree the CFAT is not rocket-science.

JM,

Calm down.  It was a subtle suggestion regarding the Chinese and their higher standards/values on meritocracy and 'smarts.'  I was born and raised in Canada.  Chill out.

 

[Teager]

Xtreme whats with the China thing? If you read the news you would be aware that Canada is actualy warming up to them and is the first western country to do so militarily.

I think the question has been asked multiple times are you in the CF or just write the CFAT for your own personal reasons? I'd love to hear about your real world military experience though so please share.

 

[Remius]

Well for starters, they have nukes.

I'm not sure where you are going with this now.

I did not get a positive impression I expected from valiant 'representatives' of our Armed Services on this forum.

I'm not sure what to make of that comment.  What were you expecting?  And why the "representatives" in quotation?  Sarcasm? Insult?  Humour?  I can tell you what I think you mean but maybe internet speak is getting in the way.

I've prepared to sign my life so I can do my part to protect what I consider home by going Reg Force.

Commendable. I didn't join to sign my life away though.  But motivations can vary.

I have real world -military- and engineering accomplishments & experience.  I am prepared to show you proof - if you want to get to know me.

Providing some would go a long way to providing context and legitimacy to what you are saying on a forum where actions speak louder than words. (Friendly advice)

I did not come here to 'troll' but came here to state what I believe is a valid problem in recruiting, also acknowledged by Cranton (i.e. why turn away experienced Doctors etc.)

I don't think you are trolling but you may be rubbing some people the wrong way

I've been assured by friends already in the Reg Force, that some 'representatives' on this forum are just big-talkers.

Maybe.  I really hope you can back that up.  Some of these big talkers have been some big do-ers.  Comments like that are not going to get you far.

Calm down.  It was a subtle suggestion regarding the Chinese and their higher standards/values on meritocracy and 'smarts.'  I was born and raised in Canada.  Chill out.

This should be interesting.  the Chinese also don't exactly place a higher value on the value of the individual soldier like we do either.  All that meritocracy and all those smarts are not going to count when your military doctrine is about overwhelming your enemy with numbers to absorb more damage than them and trying to drown your foe with your own blood by having your troops thrown into the meat grinder.  I exaggerate to make a point but I think you get that.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

(FTFY) 

I did not get a positive impression I expected from valiant 'representatives' of our Armed Services on this forum.

Sorry I didn't meet your expectations, my patience for dealing with pompous jackanapes must have been lost somewhere in the Panjwai.

I've prepared to sign my life so I can do my part to protect what I consider home by going Reg Force.

Thanks for coming out. Some of us signed that dotted line a long time ago, and actually put our money where our mouth is and went into danger.

I have real world -military- and engineering accomplishments & experience.  I am prepared to show you proof - if you want to get to know me.

Trust me, you have a captive audience. Please enlighten us with your greatness.

I've been assured by friends already in the Reg Force, that some 'representatives' on this forum are just big-talkers.

Like crantor said, big do-ers too.

 

[SeR]

I've prepared to sign my life so I can do my part to protect what I consider home by going Reg Force.

Being prepared to and actually doing so are two different things.

A lot of people are prepared to work out and lose weight. Not so many people actually follow through with it.

Edited to through in the analogy - just because ;D

 

[skyhigh10]

:trainwreck:

Only emoticon that seems appropriate in this thread .


Xtreme,  just join, do awesome heroic things, write a book,  ....  etc etc.  No doubt you have done your research and want to serve. So now, walk the walk.