West Point WCS Scores Data Show Racial Preferences In Admissions

A reader was able to get a data update on West Point Whole Candidate Scores (WCS) through a FOIA request. Here we use this data to demonstrate that West Point admissions used racial preferences to admit candidates.

We gathered that West Point was not very helpful in the request, but eventually and begrudgingly complied and supplied the data. The reader shared the data with us and said we could use it in a post.

This was exciting because the reader’s data had something we did not ask for or receive in our first dataset: The Whole Candidate Score (WCS), which is West Point’s unifying metric for assessing candidate strength for admissions across academic, physical, and leadership dimensions. It is calculated as: 60% Academic score (test scores, high school rank & difficulty), 30% Community Leader Score ( sports, extracurriculars, recommendations), and 10% Physical score (Candidate fitness assessment). The maximum WCS score is 8000. WCS is ostensibly used to rank candidates for admissions.

We did not have this metric in our first dataset, though we did have the underlying components and were able to make good guesses.

This data shows racial preferences in admissions even according to West Point’s measure of merit.

West Point Was Not Helpful Or Transparent

The data was supplied. It was supplied not in a .csv or Excel file or other useful tabular format which you might expect data to be shared in, but in a PDF which we had to figure out how to scrape and collate for analysis. Not helpful!

17,192 records were provided after what we understand were multiple request submissions. Here’s an example of the fields and format that West Point provided (keep in mind this is PDF):

Plus a sizeable number of redactions per FOIA rules ( according to West Point ) but which we think is needlessly picky/restrictive:

And then this gem, in which we’re not even allowed to know the super-secret column headers:

Further, West Point opted to make analysis quite difficult by not supplying candidate IDs, class years, race, or sex, as was shared by it in our (USMADATA’s) original data files. We can only speculate about what makes them so hesitant to share data that should be easily accessible to the public. The SFFA lawsuit which alleges exactly what the real data shows, provides a likely culprit for the reluctance to share.

It’s disappointing that getting this information is so hard. It should be publicly posted. The data records can easily be anonymized while allowing enough detail for analysis. We hope that new Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth can effect an attitude change in this department.

Making Sense Of The Data

Fortunately, we had some tools to make sense of the provided records.

We extracted the tabular data into a flat file using programmatic methods.

Then we created primary keys between like fields in the reader’s data and our own data files. We concatenated the values of multiple shared fields to create a resulting key with low likelihood of duplication between candidates. This let us create links between individual candidates with known attributes in our data and new attributes in the reader’s data. Then we could do the analysis on the new fields.

When we reviewed the resulting data, we found that we could identify approximately 6,500 of the 17,192 records that West Point supplied.

This means that we can’t analyze the differences between the applicant pool and attendees. We have to focus the analysis only on attendees: that is, cadets who actually attended West Point.

Results in WCS

We collected WCS percentile attainment by race for the whole sample and put it in a chart. The key shows the number of members of each category. So, for example, the sample size included 4426 White cadets. The Y-axis is scaled to visually emphasize the sample differences.

While this is nowhere near as thorough as Zach Goldberg’s analysis of the USNA data, it strongly supports our earlier findings.

1. Our earlier findings focused on test scores. Some commenters would point out that “academics aren’t everything, admissions focuses on more than just test scores in deciding who gets in.” Well, here it is: the “more than just test scores” you asked for.
2. Blacks were admitted at much lower WCS scores than other races. The 75th percentile of Black cadets had WCS scores at approximately (just over) the 25th percentile of White and Asian cadets. The 99th percentile of Black cadets had WCS at approximately the 75th+ percentile for White / Asian cadets.
3. Blacks are admitted over other candidates with higher WCS scores. It is impossible for West Point, which–remember–reports admissions rates of 10-15% (sometimes lower), to have no qualified candidates of other races with higher WCS scores than the 25th percentile Black candidates. Why are they there?
4. If Admissions were truly WCS and Merit-based, then classes would look very different. There is only one plausible explanation for the shown outcomes. And that explanation is preferential racial admissions practices which exclude qualified White and Asian candidates in favor of Black candidates.

As we found in On Diversity As Strength and On Admissions Excellence the lower entry qualifications lead to worse outcomes across the spectrum of West Point performance dimensions. Test scores, graduation rates, separation reasons… all have worse outcomes which can be predicted from this admissions regime. And if West Point’s measurements and methods are at all valid to performance in the Army, then the Army gets worse outcomes as well

All of this can be avoided.

If, that is, leadership would disregard the preferential racial discrimination it seems so bent on carrying on.

Factual corrections and reasoned criticism are welcome.