Two Vacancies, Three Candidates: Ranking at the Cadet Selection Board
The board has two cadet officer vacancies left in a competitive cycle. Twelve candidates were interviewed; three are being compared. Candidate A scored 88/100 on the written paper, 62/100 on the physical battery (pass mark 60), and 18/25 at interview. She has strong mathematics results but stammered when asked to explain a leadership failure. Candidate B scored 71 written, 88 physical, and 22 interview. His school record includes a written warning two years ago for a fight, which he disclosed and described as a misunderstanding; his referees praise teamwork. Candidate C scored 79 written, 91 physical, and 16 interview. His English is weak and he gave short answers, but he was a school prefect and his father is a retired senior officer known to one board member. The board must rank the three and decide whether any issue disqualifies a candidate or requires further checks.
1. Rank the three candidates for the two vacancies and justify the ranking against the selection criteria.
Read the worked answer
The ranking should not be a simple sum of marks, because the written and physical tests serve different purposes and the interview measures communication and judgement under observation.
- Candidate B - first. He is the most balanced: written 71 is comfortably above a reasonable academic threshold, physical 88 is strong, and interview 22 shows the communication and leadership potential the board needs. The disciplinary warning is a flag, not an automatic bar, because he disclosed it and referees support his teamwork. The board should verify the record, but his candour weighs in his favour.
- Candidate A - second. Her written score is excellent and shows academic strength for technical training. However, physical 62 is only two marks above the pass mark, which creates a training-risk question, and the interview shows a communication weakness under stress. If selected, she should receive a conditional physical development plan. If the board has strong evidence that physical performance can be remediated in the first term, she is selectable; otherwise she is the first reserve.
- Candidate C - third. Physical 91 is excellent, but written 79 and interview 16 raise a serious communication concern for officer training, which relies on English-language instruction and clear orders. The family connection also creates an appearance problem. He should not be ranked above A unless the board documents a specific, tested English-language remediation pathway and manages the conflict of interest.
The defensible outcome is B first, A second, C as reserve.
2. What should the board do about Candidate C's father's connection and Candidate B's disciplinary warning?
Read the worked answer
Both issues require process, not gut feeling.
For Candidate C, the board member who knows the father should declare the connection and withdraw from any discussion or vote on C. The remaining members should assess C only on evidence: written score, physical score, interview record, references, and any English-language test. The father's rank is irrelevant to merit and must not be treated as either a disqualification or an advantage. The declaration should be minuted.
For Candidate B, the board should request the school's written disciplinary record and the candidate's own account, then ask a structured question about what he learned. A two-year-old fight is not automatically disqualifying, but a pattern of aggression, an undisclosed record, or a minimising explanation would be. The board should distinguish candour from excuse-making and record its reasoning.
If either issue cannot be resolved before the vacancy list closes, the board should place the candidate on a held list rather than make an unrecorded informal decision.
3. If only one vacancy remained, what additional evidence would you request before choosing between the top two candidates?
Read the worked answer
With one vacancy, the board needs evidence that predicts success in officer training rather than evidence that merely repeats the interview.
- A structured physical retest for Candidate A, ideally the same battery under comparable conditions, to see whether 62 was a bad day or a stable limit.
- A short oral communication exercise for both candidates, recorded and scored against fixed criteria, because the interview already suggested a difference in clarity under pressure.
- Verified references from a teacher or coach who has seen the candidate lead a group, not only character references.
- A medical and training-risk review for A, and a disciplinary record check for B.
- A written board rationale setting out which criterion is decisive: if the course cannot remediate physical weakness quickly, B is safer; if academic attrition is the larger risk and A's physical score is remediable, A may be preferred.
The board should also decide in advance whether the reserve candidate is appointable if the first choice declines.