AT-SAT Scores

[ATC Hopeful]

How were you able to catch every plane flying outside of the given range on the scan portion? And if you didn't, how would you know?:whatever:

i caught myself waiting alot on planes that were outside the range, and there aren,t any that i know that i missed, but i can't not be 100% sure that i got all of them. If you feel that you done well, then i am sure you did.

 

[K-Dog]

i caught myself waiting alot on planes that were outside the range, and there aren,t any that i know that i missed, but i can't not be 100% sure that i got all of them. If you feel that you done well, then i am sure you did.

I was just curious. I remember that they gave us efficiency scores on the scenarios, but I didn't remember seeing anything on the scan portion. I actually didn't feel like I didn't doal that well on the letter factory, scenarios or the scan test. I felt like there was a lot of room for improvement for myself, but as I said before, I think they must be weighted so they don't count all that much toward your total score.:drool:

 

[IrishGuy]

i caught myself waiting alot on planes that were outside the range, and there aren,t any that i know that i missed, but i can't not be 100% sure that i got all of them. If you feel that you done well, then i am sure you did.

The same happened to me. Before the end of the scan test, I was just waiting watching 2-3 planes flying around (all inside the range). I thought to myself that surely I must be missing something but checking the range again showed that they were indeed OK. I wonder if it's done that way on purpose to try and catch people who second-guess themselves by entering in one of the flight numbers.

I really wish I knew how the test was weighted. Has anyone ever found an answer to this?

 

[ATC Hopeful]

I was just curious. I remember that they gave us efficiency scores on the scenarios, but I didn't remember seeing anything on the scan portion. I actually didn't feel like I didn't doal that well on the letter factory, scenarios or the scan test. I felt like there was a lot of room for improvement for myself, but as I said before, I think they must be weighted so they don't count all that much toward your total score.:drool:

I believe my efficiency ratings were always between 80%-85% on the AT scenarios.

 

[Guire]

Uh, hi guys. First post.

Imagine my delight when I click over that space in my FAA ASAP spot to find the following:

Man, I didn't think I'd do that well (of course, this thought is common among test takers, innit?). I sometimes go to that said site to make sure it didn't change or that new details weren't added.

Then imagine that fall back to earth when I saw this might be true:

This is my new favorite thing to quote.

"To further address the potential problem of adverse impact, FAA officials decided to abandon a strict “top-down” approach to hiring and, instead, use a category ranking method. This approach is a form of “score banding”that can be justified on the basis of ignoring score differences that are due to an estimate of the applicant’s true ability.
Score banding, although somewhat controversial among selection scientists, “will almost always produce less adverse impact than strict rank ordering as it ignores score differences likely to be statistically insignificant. Applicants who achieve a qualifying minimum score are divided into two groups: those scoring 85 and above(termed “well qualified”) and those scoring from 70 to 84.9 (termed “qualified”). Those in the “well-qualified” group will be offered employment before anyone in the “qualified” group. "

Seems like people who get 100's are getting a raw deal because of this.

Say, MrBucket, can you please provide a source for the quote? I'm interested to know where it came from because after the test I spoke with one of the test administrators, and his words were contrary to these (if you score in the upper 90s, your odds of moving to the next step were greatly enhanced, though not 100% assured to you would). Granted, the test administrator works for Robinson, not the FAA, so he isn't likely to be as in the loop as somebody who is actually selecting candidates, but I figure his word is something.

Thanks for reading and I promise to reduce the visual pollution in my future posts.

 

[ATC Hopeful]

Congrats on the score and welcome to the boards!

 

[Barty]

Such is why they use they use 3 categories instead of going by score.
F, Q and WQ. The difference between a 93 and a 95 is probably very insignificant.

If you think of it in terms of any other job that requires a degree, etc., very few managers are going to worry about the difference between someone with a 3.7 GPA and a 4.0 unless the job is highly competitive and they're having to use that as a way to decide between two equally qualified candidates who both interviewed well. I don't think you'd see any manager hesitate to choose the person with the 3.7 vs the 4.0 if they thought he was a better fit for the job. Remember that in college, a 4.0 is all As, which could mean you made a ton of 90.0s, or even an 89.5 or two that the prof rounded up. That doesn't automatically mean that the guy who made 3-4 Bs with 89.0s is somehow less qualified.

Basically, the AT-SAT is designed (as best I can tell) to weed out those who went to the FAA website and applied for everything they were qualified on paper for and/or people who just truly can't hack it. Yesterday in my test I heard a ton of people getting pissed off, frustrated, etc., during the ATC sim, scan and letter factory repeatedly. I'm going to venture a guess that those probably aren't in the "well qualified" group if they passed at all.

In addition, the score ranges make the selection panels look other parts of someone's application and not just a test score for making a selection. There may be some people who are exceedingly good test takers and can master the simulations but whose work experience is limited to driving a tow truck for the past 4 years or have gotten a degree in underwater basket-weaving.

 

[MrBucket]

Uh, hi guys. First post.

Imagine my delight when I click over that space in my FAA ASAP spot to find the following:

Man, I didn't think I'd do that well (of course, this thought is common among test takers, innit?). I sometimes go to that said site to make sure it didn't change or that new details weren't added.

Then imagine that fall back to earth when I saw this might be true:


Say, MrBucket, can you please provide a source for the quote? I'm interested to know where it came from because after the test I spoke with one of the test administrators, and his words were contrary to these (if you score in the upper 90s, your odds of moving to the next step were greatly enhanced, though not 100% assured to you would). Granted, the test administrator works for Robinson, not the FAA, so he isn't likely to be as in the loop as somebody who is actually selecting candidates, but I figure his word is something.

Thanks for reading and I promise to reduce the visual pollution in my future posts.

Hey. This is the thread I started with the link to the report.http://forums.jetcareers.com/air-traffic-control/69241-faa-at-sat-report.html
The first link I believe is the one it comes from. The general consensus around here is that they do not see your score when making selections. The report says they take from one of the 2 groups as we know.(briefly).
Personally, I think they do SEE your scores, but don't rely heavily on it to make their decision, if at all. They may need to use the scores if they are in a pinch and need to select one person out of a group of applicants or for a highly competitive area. But, this is all my speculation of course.

I just don't think there would even be a numbered score if no one ever at least SAW it. I think if that was the case, the results would either be F, Q or WQ, with no numbered score ever produced. The number has to account for something... but what, I have no idea.
The way they are hiring right now, it seems like the numbered scores are insignificant anyways. A LOT of people in the WQ group were selected with scores from 85s, all the way to 100. Maybe this was different at a time when they weren't hiring as many people at once and needed to look closer at the numbers, but right now it doesn't look like they are doing that.
I know this board is only a fraction of the overall applicants, but there aren't an overwhelming amount of WQ people on here who weren't invited to a pepc. (correct me if I'm wrong, but be nice. We're all friends here)
I do remember reading someone who had scored around a 96 and wasn't invited, but later found out his/her work experience was miscalculated. So, that person got screwed.
I know there are others not selected as well, but the percentage on this site anyways, seems to weigh in favor of those invited.

 

[dru]

I took the test yesterday and my score has already been posted on ASAP, I got an 89. I am happy with that but I definitely felt I could have done better. I am hoping that is good enough to move on to the next step.

Mr Bucket, OT? Haha

 

[chichi]

I took the test yesterday and my score has already been posted on ASAP, I got an 89. I am happy with that but I definitely felt I could have done better. I am hoping that is good enough to move on to the next step.

Mr Bucket, OT? Haha

89 is well qualified... you should be just fine with it

 

[BoomerSooner77]

DANG, you all are on a posting rampage today! I am going to have to quit my job to keep up.

 

[MrBucket]

I took the test yesterday and my score has already been posted on ASAP, I got an 89. I am happy with that but I definitely felt I could have done better. I am hoping that is good enough to move on to the next step.

Mr Bucket, OT? Haha

Huh?