us CSL1l/4'. 7 /:,-IS" BfSON N·ormative Data for the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE): FY 1975 United States mCivil Service Commission Bureau of Policies and Standards Technical Memorandum 76-15 NORMATIVE DATA FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ANDADMINISTRATIVE CAREER EXAMINATION (PACE) : FY 1975 Hilda Wing Test Services Section Personnel Research and Development Center United States Civil Service Commission Washington, D. C. 20415 December 1976 ABSTRACT The Professional and Administrative Career Examination {PACE) was introduced by theUnited States Civil Service Commission during the fall of 1974. Tables and figures are presented which describe the ratings obtained by various groups of competitors on this examination: by series of written test, by Veteran Preference status, by Outstanding Scholarstatus, by sex of competitor, by current Federal employment, by geographic region, and bycollege major. A second set of tables shows the interaction of Veteran Preference, Outstanding Scholar, sex of competitor, and written test performance on the probability of consideration for Federal employment. The final tables indicate the proportions of competitors at or above certain ratings--hence the probabilities that such groups will begiven employment consideration--as a function of current Federal employment, geographicregion, and college major. This report is part of the planned documentation of the PACE, describing characteristics of the PACE competitor population in terms of this employment program and its writtentest. The report should also be helpful to Commission personnel concerned with staffingpatterns in PACE occupations, and to college recruiting officials. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Performance of PACE FY 1975 Competitors Performance on the Written Test and the Likelihood of Federal Employment The Likelihood of Federal Employment--Other Variables Reference Notes FiguresFigure 1. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by seriesacross occupational categoryFigure 2. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by seriesand Outstanding Scholar status across occupational categoryFigure 3. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by seriesand Veteran Preference across occupationalcategoryFigure 4. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by seriesand sex of competitor across occupationalcategoryFigure 5. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by OutstandingScholar status and sex of competitor acrossoccupational categoryFigure 6. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by sex ofcompetitor and Veteran Preference acrossoccupational categoryFigure 7. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by sex ofcompetitor and Outstanding Scholar statusacross occupational categoryFigure 8. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by currentFederal employment across occupational categoryFigure 9. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by regionacross occupational categoryFigure 10. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by collegemajor across occupational category Tables Table 1. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Percentile equivalents of ratingsSeries 110, 120, 130, 140 and totalOccupational category ATable 2. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Percentile equivalents of ratingsSeries 110, 120, 130, 140 and totalOccupational category BTable 3. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Percentile equivalents of ratingsSeries 110, 120, 130, 140 and totalOccupational category CTable 4. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Percentile equivalents of ratingsSeries 110, 120, 130, 140 and totalOccupational category 0 iii 3 11 14 17 18 19 20 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 35 37 39 Table 5. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Percentile equivalents of ratings Series 110, 120, 130, 140 and total Occupational category E Table 6, PACE FY 1975 competitors.Percentile equivalents of ratings Series 110, 120, 130, 140 and total Occupational category F Table 7. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category A Table 8, PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category B Table 9. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Outstanding Scholar statusOccupational category C Table 10. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category D Table 11. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category E Table 12. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category F Table 13. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Veteran PreferenceOccupational category A Table 14. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Veteran PreferenceOccupational category B Table 15. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Veteran PreferenceOccupational category C Table 16. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain perce~tiles Series by Veteran PreferenceOccupational category D Table 17. PACE FY 1975 competitors,Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Veteran PreferenceOccupational category E Table 18. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by Veteran PreferenceOccupational category F Table 19. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by sex of competitorOccupational category A iv 41 43 45 46 47 48 49 so 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 Table 20. Table 21. Table 22. Table 23. Table 24. Table 25. Table 26. Table 27. Table 28. Table 29. Table 30. Table 31. Table 32. Table 33. Table 34. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by sex of competitor Occupational category B 64 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles 1 Series by sex of competitor Occupational category C 65 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain per~~ntiles Series by sex of competitor Occupational category D 66 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain, percentiles Series by sex of competitor Occupational category E 67 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Series by sex of competitor Occupational category F 68 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category A 69 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteren Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category B 70 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational ~ategory C 71 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category D 72 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category E 73 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain-percentiles Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Occupational category F 74 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentilesVeteran Preference by sex of competitor , Occupational category A 75 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Occupational category B 76 PACE FY 1975 competitors.. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Occupational category C 77 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Occupational category D 78 v Table 35. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Occupational category E Table 36. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Occupational category F Table 37. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Table 38. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles Current Federal employment Table 39. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles RegionsOccupational category A Table 40. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles RegionsOccupational category B Table 41. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles RegionsOccupational category c Table 42. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles RegionsOccupational category D Table 43. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles RegionsOccupational category E Table 44. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles RegionsOccupational category F Table 45. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles College majorOccupational category A Table 46. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles College majorOccupational category B Table 47. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles College majorOccupational category c Table 48. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles College majorOccupational category D Table 49. PACE FY 1975 competitors.Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles College majorOccupational category E vi ,j 79 80 81 84 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 94 96 98 100 Table SO. Table 51. Table 52. Table 53. Table 54. Table 55. Table 56. Table 57. Table 58. Table 59. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Ratings equivalent to certain percentiles College major Occupational category F 102 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category A 104 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category B 105 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category C 106 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category D 107 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of . competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference bi Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category E 108 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category F 109 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category A 110 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category B 111 PACE FY 1975 competito~s. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category C 112 vii Table 60. Table 61. Table 62. Table 63. Table 64. Table 65. Table 66. Table 67. Table 68. Table 69. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions. of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category D 113 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings· Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category E 114 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by Outstanding Scholar status Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category F 115 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category A 116 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different· groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selection order as according-to regulations Occupational category B 117 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competito.r 1 Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category C 118 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groupsof competitors at or above certain ratings· Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category D 119 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selection order as accordin'g to regulations Occupational category E 120 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of, different_ groups of competitors at or aboye certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category F 121 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference lf>y sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category A 122 viii Table 70. Table 71. Table 72. Table 73. Table 74. Table 75. Table 76. Table 77. Table 78. Table 79. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category B 123 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category C 124 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category D 125 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of competitor Selectibn order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category E 126 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of' competitors at or above certain ratings Veteran Preference by sex of'competitor Selection order as according to estimated test ' scores Occupational category F 127 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain rating's Outstanding Scholar status by s1ex of competitor Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category A 128 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according :to regulations Occupational category B 129 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as accbrding to regulations Occupational category C 130 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category D 131 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitorSelection order as according to regulations Occupational category E 132 ix Table 80. Table 81. Table 82. Table 83. Table 84. Table 85. Table 86. Table 87. Table 88. Table 89. Table 90. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according to regulations Occupational category F 133 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category A 134 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of ·competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category B 135 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category C 136 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category D 137 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category E 138 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Outstanding Scholar status by sex of competitor Selection order as according to estimated test scores Occupational category F 139 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Current Federal employees 140 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings Not employed by Federal government 141 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative percentages at or above certain ratings Regions Occupational category A 142 PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative percentages at or above certa]n ratings Regions Occupational category B 144 X Table 91. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative percentages at or above certain ratingsRegions Table 92. Occupational category C PACE FY 1975 competitors. 146 Cumulative percentages at or above certain ratingsRegions Table 93. Occupational category D PACE FY 1975 competitors. 148 Cumulative percentages at or above certain ratings Regions Occupational category E 150 Table 94. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative percentages Regions at or above certain ratings Occupational category F 152 Table 95. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at College major or above certain ratings Occupational category A 154 Table 96. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings College major Occupational category B 15·8 Table 97. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings College major Occupational category C 162 Table 98. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors College major at or above certain ratings Occupational category D 166 Table 99. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings College major Occupational category E 170 Table 100. PACE FY 1975 competitors. Cumulative proportions of different groups of competitors at or above certain ratings College major Occupational category F 174 xi NORMATIVE DATA FOR THE PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAREER EXAMINATION (PACE) 1975 The Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE) was introduced by the United States Civil Service Commission (USCSC) during the fall of 1974. It is the successor to the Federal Service Entrance Examination (FSEE). PACE is used to select individuals for entry-level positions in a variety of occupations which are administrative, technical, or professional in nature, have entry levels of GS-5 or GS-7, and have a normal progression for successful employees to a full performance level of GS-9 or above. Occupations such as scientists or engineers are currently filled through other examinations. There are two basic requirements in the PACE: appropriate experience or a baccalaureate degree, and adequate levels of abilities to deal with the complexity or difficulty of the journeyman level of the occupation, as indexed by performance on a written test. The written test of the PACE measures five abilities that have been determined by extensive job analyses to be important for superior performance at the journeyman level of the occupations filled through PACE. These abilities are: Ability I. Ability to understand and interpret complex reading material and to use language where precise correspondence of words and concepts makes effective oral and written communication possible. Ability II. Ability to make decisions or take action in the absence of complete information and to solve problems by inferring missing facts or events to arrive at the most logical conclusion. Ability III. Ability to discover underlying relations or analogies among specific data where solving problems involves formation and testing of hypotheses. Ability IV. Ability to discover implications of facts and to reason from general principles to specific situations as in developing plans and procedures. Ability V. Ability to perform arith metic operations and to solve quantitative problems where the proper approach is not specified. Scores on the test parts measuring these five abilities are combined in six different ways to yield ratings in six occupational categories. The weighting combinations, also based on extensive job analyses (McKillip, Corts, Trattner, and Wing, Note 1), are: Ability Occupational Category I II III IV v A 2 2 2 2 1 B 2 2 2 2 2 c 1 2 2 2 2 D 2 2 1 2 1 E 3 2 1 2 1 F 2 2 1 2 2 Position types included in each occupational category are: Category A. Personnel Management, Social Insurance Claims Examining, General Investigating, Criminal Investigating, Immigration Inspection, Passport and Visa Examining, Customs Inspection, Social Insurance Administration, Social Services, Management Analysis, Public Health Program Specialist, Veterans Claim Examining, Public Information Specialist. Category B. Economist, Psychologist, Tax Technician, Budget Administration, Financial Institution Examining, Control and Procurement, Internal Revenue Officer, General Supply. 1 Category C. Computer Specialist. test of the PACE incorporated many item types. The psychometric literature contains Category D. Contact Representative. little mention of the change in test per formance as a function of experience with the test and what mention is made suggests Cate9or,y E. Writing and Editing. that changes are minimal. The construction Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireof the written test of the PACE permitted Category F. arms Inspection. the collection of data to illuminate such practice effects. Preliminary analyses show During the first year of operation well that these effects exist in the written over 200,000 persons applied for employment test; the effects are not large--well within under PACE and took the written test. Over the standard error of measurement--but they ninety percent of these people had (or were are consistent and replicable. They are about to receive) the baccalaureate or most pronounced in Ability III but are also higher degree; over seventy percent of these evident in Abilities IV and V. competitors were under thirty years of.age. Four different versions of the written test The following tables present informa Series 110 in November, tion about the ratings earned by competitors were administered: 1974; Series 120 in January, 1975; Series in the six occupational categories. Performance on the written test determines the 130 in March, 1975; and Series 140 in May, 1975. Equivalent versions were constructed values of preliminary ratings, which can vary between 40 and 100. These preliminary and then statistically equated. The equat ing is based on Series 110 as administered ratings are augmented, if appropriate, for to the November, 1974 population.. Virtually Outstanding Scholar status and Veteran Pref all the data presented here represent raterence. If a competitor claims Outstanding ings earned at one of these four adminisScholar status (a 3.50 grade point average trations. The few remaining cases are from or a class standing in the upper 10% of the versions of the written test prepared for graduating class) the preliminary rating is deaf and visually handicapped competitors averaged with 100 to produce a final rating. which were also equated to the November, Thus, a preliminary rating of 40 produces a 1974, administration. Given the high (0.93) final rating of 70; a preliminary rating of reliability of the written test (Martin, 70 produces a final rating of 85; a prelimNotes 2, 3, and 4) a person's test scores inary rating of 85 produces a final rating would remain stable regardless of which of 93. Competitors claiming Veteran Preference also have their preliminary ratings test series were used. augmented: 5 points for Tentative PrefAlthough the data described 219,947 erence (TP) and 10 points for either Comcases, there were not 219,947 different pensable Preference (CP) or Other Preference individuals taking the written test of the (XP). PACE during FY 1975. Preliminary analyses of recompetition indicate that approximately Final ratings below 70 are not used in 10,000 individuals took the written test placing persons on competitive registers and more than once. About ninety percent of are reported only to those competitors who these recompetitors took the written test specifically request them. All competitors only twice. In the data presented here, claiming Outstanding Scholar status receive it was not possible to identify recompetifinal ratings of 70 or above and can be tors; therefore, generalizations about test placed on competitive registers. While all performance will require appropriate qualithose claiming Veteran Preference have had fication. With a reliability of 0.93 the their preliminary ratings augmented by the standard error of measurement for the final appropriate 5 or 10 points, only those whose. ratings is approximately four points. A preliminary ratings were 70 or above or who more complete study of the score changes in claim Outstanding Scholar status have their recompetition is in progress by the author. names placed on competitive registers. An additional aspect of recompetition concerns practice effects. The written 2 Performance of PACE FY 19'75 ·competitors The data describing the performance of the 'PACE 'FY 75 competitors are presented here in a number of ways. Data are pre~ sented separately for the occupational categories A, B, C, D, E, and F. Tables 1 through 6 present the percentile equivalents for all ratings from 40 to 110, for Series 110, 120, 130, 140, and the total group, separately for each occupational category. These tables also include the mean, standard deviation, and number of cases for each group. Figure 1 displays the mean ratings by occupational category for each test series. There are differences in mean ratings for the four series which represent real differences in measured abilities, as the series ate equated. Hence, the ob~ tained differences indicate that the competitors· who take these series of the written test differ from each other. Those taking the first series in November, 1974, included many individuals who wished to regain eligibility for the occupations previously covered by the FSEE; such FSEE eligibility ended in the spring of 1974. This first administration did not include recompetitors, this is not true of the remaining administrations. The preliminary recompetition data suggest that the most popular sequencewas Series 110 followed by Series 130, although the other pairs of these four series included many cases of recompetition. The differences in performance among the four series are most pronounced in the comparison of mean ratings in Occupational Category C (Computer Specialist) and Category E. (Writer and Editor). That is, although all three later series show increases relative to the first series in each occupational category, this increase is largest for Category C and least for Category E. (These two categories are also most different in the weighting patterns, with Abilities III and V more important in Category C and Ability I more important in ·category E. Recall that Ability III and to some extent Abilities V and IV are most subject to practice effects, and that these Abilities III and V are heavily weighted in Category C.) There is a maximum difference of 2.67 rating points in the mean ratings of Cate gory C over the four series but a maximun difference of only 1.21 rating points in in Category E. For the large number of cases included a test of statistical sig nificance would be meaningless. These changes could be due to the practice effects of recompetition but other possible explanations exist. All competitors for all series were provided a booklet of sample questions to use in preparation for the written test. However, competitors who· took later series might have had more time to study these sample questions and might · have learned from their friends who had already taken the written test that it contained many item types." Also, there is quite a sizable industry devoted to selling the service of helping people score higher in large-scale testing programs. Products of this industry include publications as well as training courses. · Members of the staff developing the written test of the PACE frequently received requests· for information from a number of authors of such publications. Accurate, commerciallyprepared study guides for PACE did not become widely available until· the spring of 1975. These hypotheses--recompetition, more effective use of sample questions, commercially available study guides--are all possible reasons for the difference in scores. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. However, only recompetition can be systematically analyzed. Tables 7 through 50 list, for various subgroups of the PACE FY 7 5 competitors, the •· ratings equivalent to a range of percentiles. Again, these are separate for each occupational category and include means, standard deviations, and numbers of cases. Tables 7 through 12 present the data separated by Outstanding Scholar status and series. Approximately fourteen percent of these competitors claimed Outstanding Scholar status. Figure 2 displays the mean ratings by Outstanding Scholar statL:S · and b:; series, for each category. The mean used in drawing Figure 2 are not t1~o:.;e in Tables 7 through 12 but were obtained by 3 "unaugmenting" the actual means to reverse Category E. CP veterans perform at a the averaging procedure discussed above. slightly higher level than XP veterans. Thus, Figure 2 shows the differences in written test performance between these two groups using the same rating scale. Clearly, Outstanding Scholars perform better on the written test. The difference in ratings would be larger if the augmented ratings for Outstanding Scholars were to be used. The data for non-Outstanding Scholars are very similar to those of the total group as displayed in Figure 1 although they are lower. This is hardly surprising as they comprise 86% of this total group. Of more interest are the advanced elevations and different shapes of the curves for Outstanding Scholars. These persons perform at a higher level on the written test, and in a different fashion. Again, Series 110 is the lowest, but the means in Series 140 overlap those of Series 110. · Series 120 and 130 are still the higher but there is no distinctive profile for any of these four curves. Perhaps Outstanding Scholars are less likely to recompete. Perhaps their performance is already at such a high level that practice or extra study can provide little additional improvement. Tables 13 through 18 present the data separated by Veteran Preference and series. The mean ratings are displayed in Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d. Again, the graphs are based on unaugmented ratings: the mean ratings for nonveterans were not changed; the mean ratings for 5-point TP veterans were reduced by 5 points; the means for the 10-point CP and XP veterans were reduced by 10 points. Thus, these graphs reflect written test performance. The majority of competitors (77%) do not claim Veteran Preference but a sizable minority (almost 20%) claim 5-point TP. Of the remaining three-plus percent, about 3 out of 4 claim CP; the others claim XP. The functions for the nonveterans and the 5-point TP are similar to those for the total group, with the veterans scoring consistently about four rating points lower. The performance of the two 10-point veteran groups is much lower and the patterns of the four series are not the same. For Series 110, performance in Category C is lower than that in Category E, but by Series 140 performance in Category C is higher than in Tables 19 through 24 present the data separately for male and female competitors by seriee. Slightly over 40% of these competitors are .women. Figures 4a and 4b dis~ play the mean (augmented) ratings for occupational categories by test series, separately for men and women. For men, the profiles are similar to those of the total group: flat for Series 110, an improved level of performance in later series with a marked difference between Categories C and E. The data for women show a performance level which is not as high as that for men, and the difference between Categories C and E is less. Indeed, for Series 110 performance in Category E, Writing and Editing, is superior to that in Category C, Computer Specialist. The difference in overall level between men and women is not totally, or perhaps even primarily, a difference in test performance. It will be shown below that female competitors in PACE are far less likely to claim Veteran Preference than men, hence much less likely to have 5 (or 10) points added to their ratings. The profiles displayed in Figures 4a and 4b are based on data which include points for Veteran Preference. Tables 25 though 30 present data separated by Outstanding Scholar status and Veteran Preference, for each occupational category. Figure 5 displays the mean ratings across occupational categories for these groups, unaugmented first for Veteran Preference and then for Outstanding Scholar status. These two variables are not independent: while the majority of PACE com petitors are neither veterans nor Outstanding Scholars, those who are Outstanding Scholars are less likely to claim Veteran Preference. This point will be discussed in more detail below. Figure 5 shows that the Outstanding Scholar groups perform at a higher level than do non-Outstanding Scholars, regardless of veteran status. Nonveterans, as a group, perform at a higher level than do TP veterans, who in turn perform at a higher level than the 10-point CP and XP veterans. There are differences in the shapes of the profiles: the non-Outstanding Scholars show the performance shift between Categories C 4 and E, particularly for those nonOutstanding Scholars who are also either nonveterans or TP veterans• On the other hand, the profiles for the Outstanding Scholars are ·again fairly flat. While the profiles for the 10-point veterans groups are interesting it is not clear what they might mean. These profiles, particularly for the Outstanding Scholar groups, are probably much ·less stable than those of the former groups as the group sizes here are fairly small. Tables 31 through 36 present the .data separated by sex of competitor and Veteran Preference. Over one-third of all male competitors claim Veteran Preference; virtually no women do. Thus the twenty percent of competitors who claim Veteran Preference are almost entirely men. Figure 6 displays the mean ratings for the subgroups, with the means for. the veteran groups being unaugmented as appropriate. As before, the performance level is highest for nonveterans,_ next highest for TP veterans, and lowest for the 10-point CP and XP veterans. Within each veteran status group, men show slightly higher levels of performance than. women. (The· profiles for the female 10-point veterans are based on far fewer cases .than those for other profiles.) For all veteran groups male competitors show higher performance in Category C than in Category E. The performance of female competitors·is either level, or higher in Category. E than in Category c. Figure 6, and the Tables, show that among the 10-point veterans, women perform at a higher level in Categories A, D, and E. Overall, however,. the performance of women is slightly below that of men, for all occupational categories. These differences are not large--about a rating point or two for nonveterans and somewhat more for 5point veterans-~but they are consistent. Recall that these ratings have been corrected for Veteran Preference but not for Outstanding Scholarship. It will be shown below that women are somewhat more likely to be Outstanding Scholars than men. Hence, the actual difference in test performance is sl·ightly .greater than than indicated by Figure 6. Table 37 shows the data broken out by the variables Outstanding Scholar status and sex of competitors. As suggested above, twenty percent of all female competitors claim Outstanding Scholar status while only ten percent of all male competitors do. Figure 7 displays the profiles of the mean ratings across occupational categories. These profiles reflect data corrected for Outstanding Scholar status but not for Veteran Preference. The actual difference in test performance between the sexes is less than that indicated, as men are more likely to have the extra rating points from Veteran Preference. There are two items of interest here: men perform at a slightly higher level than women; there is little difference in performance across occupational categories. Table 38 and Figure 8 show the rating data as a function of whether competitors are currently employed by the Federal gov• ernment. About eleven percent of these FY 75 competitors are Federal employees, and ~their performance is below that of the other competitors. Both profiles show some differences between Categories C and E. Many positions covered by PACE are filled by Federal employees who are not necessarily required to take the written test on a competitive basis. Each Federal agency can establish its own noncompetitive programs for its own employees. Additional series of the written test, constructed and equated to be parallel to the November, 1974 series, are used in the noncompetitive programs. The author did not collect information concerning these Federal employees who take the competitive versions of the written test. Therefore, a tentative hypothesis is that they may have less education but more experience than the competitors who are not presently employed by the Federal government. They may be taking the written test for upward mobility and other jobchange reasons. Tables 39 through 44 present the ratings of competitors according to the geographic region of the United States where they applied for, and took, the written test of the PACE. These regions include all areas of the United States, as follows: Atlanta Region: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee. Boston Region: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont. 5 Chicago Region: Illinois, Indiana, an independence other area offices do not Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin. have. Washington, D. C. is also an area office, not a region--it is part of the Dallas Region: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. San Francisco Region: Arizona, California, Nevada. Seattle Region: Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska. Philadelphia Region: Delaware, Maryland (excluding suburbs of Washington, D. C.), West Virginia. Denver Region: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. New York Region: New Jersey, New York. Honolulu Area Office: Hawaii. San Juan Area Office: Puerto Rico. St. Louis Region: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska. Washington Area Office: District of Columbia, suburbs in southern Maryland and northern Virginia. While these regions are predominantly composed of their associated states, urban areas on a regional border may be incorporated into the adjacent region for adminis trative convenience. For example, Moorhead, Minnesota should be in the Chicago region but is included in the Denver region as it is across the Red River from Fargo, North Dakota, the North Dakota area office. As might be expected, different regions test different numbers of competitors with the Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia arid New York regions having the highest volumes; Boston, Dallas, St. Louis and Washington, D. C. have a moderate number while Seattle and Denver show the lowest numbers of competitors. Honolulu technically belongs to the San Francisco region, and San Juan is part of the New York region, but their distances from the regional offices can give them Philadelphia region. But, for administrative reasons it can be .. considered a separate unit. There are regional differences in written test performance. As shown in Figure 9, Seattle and Denver competitors have the highest levels of performance among the regions while competitors from Atlant~ and Dallas have the lowest. It should be stressed that the profiles shown include points for Outstanding Scholar status and Veteran Preference. It may be that different regions have different rates of recompetition as well. Some of the profiles show the shift in performance between Categories C and E; some do not. The flatness of the profile does not appear to be related to the number of competitors in a region: Seattle and Denver are comparable in terms of numbers of competitors but not in shapes of profiles; Atlanta and Dallas have different numbers of competitors but the same shapes of profiles. The performance in Washington, D. C. is somewhat above the national average. Closer inspection of the tables reveals that variability in ratings also varies from region to region. Denver and Seattle have low variability which Washington, D. C., Dallas and Atlanta have high variability. The amount of this variability is not directly related to either level of performance or number of competitors: Washington, D. C., performance is higher than that of Atlanta or Dallas; there are about the same number of competitors in the New York region as in Atlanta, in the Boston region as in Dallas. The remaining way of categorizing PACE FY 75 competitors is by college major, as shown in Tables 45 through 60 and Figure 10. Competitors are asked to indicate which one of 107 fields represents the "major field of study at the undergraduate or graduate level." These 107 fields are combined into twenty-two more general groups,as follows. Agriculture and Natural Resources: Agriculture, general; Fish, game, and wildlife management; Forestry; Natural re~ sources management; Agricultural economics. 6 Architectvye and EnvironmentaZ Design: Library Science: Library science, Environmental design, general; Architecture; general. City, community, and regional planning. Mathematics: Mathematics, general; BioZogical Sciences: Biology; Botany; Statistics, mathematical and theoretical.Zoology; Ecology. Physical Sciences: Physical sciences, Business and Management: Business and general; Physics; Chemistry; Geology; Earthcommerce, general; Accounting; Business Sciences; Cartography. statistics; Banking and finance; Business management and administration; Hotel and Psychology: Psychology. restaurant management; Marketing and pur chasing; Transportation and public utili Public Affairs and Services: Communityties; Real estate; Insurance; International and social services; Public adm~nistration; business; Business education; Personnel Park management; Law enforcement and correcmanagement; Labor and industrial relations; tion; Environmental protection; InvestigaSupply; Claims examining; Bank exam1n1ng; tions, intelligence security; Recreation;Production control; Industrial management; Industrial safety.Quality controL Social Sciences: Social sciences, Communications: Communications, general; Anthropology; Archaeology; Economgeneral; Journalism; Radio/television; ics; History; Geography; Political scienceAdvertising; Printing management. and government; Sociology; Internationalrelations; Afro-American (black culture)Computer and Information Sciences: studies; American Indian cultural studies;Computer and information sciences, general; Latin-American cultural studies; UrbanData processing; Computer programming; studies/planning; Demography.Systems analysis. Theology: Religious studies. Education: Education, general; Elementary education; Secondary education;. Other fields: Other.Junior high school education; Adult andcontinuing education; Special education; As can be seen from Tables 45 through Counseling, vocational training. 50, the largest numbers of competitors arefrom the study fields of Business and Man Engineering: Engineering, other; agement, Education, and Social Sciences.Industrial engineering. Intermediate in size are the fields ofLetters, Psychology, and Public Affairs andFine and Applied Arts: Fine and applied Services. Smaller groups include Biologiarts; Husic and drama; Dramatic arts. cal Sciences, Communications, Fine andApplied Arts, Foreign Languages, MathematForeign languages; Foreign languages. ics, Agriculture and Natural Resources,Computer and Information Sciences, EngineerHealth Professions: Health professions, ing, Health Professions, Home Economics,general; Hospital and health care adminisLaw, and Physical Sciences. Very small numtration; Pharmacy; Therapy; Public Health. bers of competitors are from the fields ofArchitecture and Environmental Design, Home Economics: Home economics; Home Library Science, and Theology. Not alldecoration; Consumer economics; Food and competitors claim a major education field:nutrition. about one percent of this group of competitors state that their major fields of edu Lah.J: Law, generaL cation are other than those cited in the PACE application form while about ten perLetteT's: English, general; Literature, cent of all PACE FY 75 competitors stateEnglish; Speech, debate, and forensic science no major field of education at all. Re(rhetoric and public address); Creative call that about ten percent of PACE comv..'Titing; Teaching of English as a foreign petitors do not claim to have the bacca language; Philosophy. laureate degree--this may be the same 7 ten percent. They have not comgleted a major field of study. Figures lOa and lOb display the mean rat~ ings for each college major across occupational categories. Interesting differences in both shape and level of profile can be observed. Figure lOa displays the profiles for the non-scientific areas: Letters, Foreign Languages, Law, Theology, Library Science, Psychology, Social Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts, Business and Management, Public Affairs and Services, and Education. While there is a range in level of performance, most profiles are either flat or show an increase in performance from Category C to Category E. The major exception to this is the profile for Business and Management, and this, also, is likely the only major field displayed which does not include a sizable number of women. Figure lOb displays the profiles for the more scientific or "harder" areas: Mathematics, Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences, Architecture and Environmental Design, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Engineering, Communications, Computer and Information Sciences, Home Economics, Health Professions and Other. Nearly all of these show profiles with a drop from Category C to Category E. The only exception is Communications, a major field more similar in content coverage to many of the fields displayed in Figure lOa. The fields in Figure lOb emphasize the sciencesand tend to be predominantly male with the exception of Home Economics. In terms of level of performance it appears that competitors claiming liberal arts as a major field (Mathematics, Physical Sciences, Letters) show the highest performance across all occupational categories. For all but Category E the majors in Mathematics and the Physical Sciences show superior performance; individuals majoring in Letters are on top, by a slight margin, only in. Category E, Writing and Editing. The largest gap in performance levels occurs for Category C, Computer Specialist, where Mathematics majors show exceptionally high performance. Majors in other traditional liberal arts fields perform at a lower but still above average level: Foreign Languages, Biological Sciences. Majors in Fine and Applied Arts may or may not have an extensive liberal arts background--their performance is below average. The fields of Law, Theology, Library Science and Architecture and Environmental Design are professional rather than liberal arts fields, but individuals in these fields are likely to have the liberal arts in their educational backgrounds. Next in overall level qf performance are the Social Science fields: Psychology, Social Sciences, Communications. The numbers of competitors in these fields are far larger than the numbers in the traditional liberal arts. Showing slightly lower performance are the applied fields of Engineering, Agriculture and Natural Resources. The lowest level of performance is by competitors in the most applied fields: Business and Management, Public Affairs and Services, Education, Computer Science and Information, Home Economics, Health Professions. Three of these fields--Business and Management, Education, Public Affairs and Services--include among them over one-third of all PACE FY 75 competitors. These data should not be interpreted as saying that candidates who major in the traditional liberal arts are the top performers in written tests such as those required in PACE. Recall that these data include additional rating points for Veteran Preference or Outstanding Scholar status. Further, it should be noted that competitors are self-selected and they may not represent the total U. S. collegiate population. For comparison purposes, data from the Office of Civil Rights, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which periodically collects information from colleges and universities concerning the composition of their student bodies, were analyzed. The most recent publication of these data is Racial a:nd ethnic enrollment data for institutions of higher education: Fall 1972 (Note 5). To be asked to supply data for this compendium an institution had to be "receiving or expecting to receive some form of Federal financial aid or assistance." Given the distribution of Federal support to higher education it is a safe aGsumption that nearly all college students in the United States are enrolled in institutions meeting this requirement. Of interest here is the report (hereinafter referred to as "HEW") categorization of students by state and by "strata", or 8 type of educational program (for example, Liberal Arts, Engineering, etc.). The PACE data can be compared to the HEW data for total undergraduate enrollment, where HEW defines undergraduates as "full-time under graduate students...at least 75% of normal work load..• (includes progransin) vocational and technical education requiring a high school diploma." Thus, HEW undergraduates include students working for certificates or diplomas in addition to working for baccalaureate degrees while PACE competi tors typically are college graduates. Ho~vever, it is likely that geographic1 re gions do not differ widely in the propor tions of such non-degree students among their undergraduate populations. And, the "strata" categorization of HEW will differentiate such students. To look first at the geographic distribution, the composition of the HEW regions must be compared with those of USCSC and used in PACE. USCSC regions encompassapproximately the same groups of states as the HEW regions with the exceptions of the urban areas on borders of USCSC regions, noted above. The USCSC Washington area office, encompassing the District of Columbia as weii as the adjacent suburban counties in Maryland and Virginia, is separate from the USCSC Philadelphia region. However, the District of Columbia is incorporated in the HEW Philadelphia region, so PACE data for these two groups were combined to match the HEW groups. The relative proportions are as follows: Proportion of Population per Region uscsc -FY 75 HEW -1972 PACE Region Undergraduates Competitors Atlanta 13.9 13:6 Boston 6.6 7.6 Chicago 21.5 13.0 Dallas 10.4 8.7 Denver 3.6 3.4 New York 10.8 14.8 Philadelphia'" 10.8 18.5 St. Louis 6.4 4.8 San Francisco 12.2 12.5 Seattle 3.8 3.1 *Includes metropolitan Hashington, D. C. 9 The proportion of the total number of undergraduates' attending universities and colleges within the geographic boundaries of a region may be approximately the same as the proportion of the total number of PACE FY is compe-titors taking the test in an examining office under its jurisdiction. Such equ'ality appears to be present for the Boston, Atlanta, Denver, San Francisco and Seattle regions. 'Three regions have proportionately more students than competitors: Chicago, Dallas, St. Louis. Two.regions have.~roportionately more competitors than students: Philadelphia and New York. There are several plausible explanations for both the equivalences and dis'crepartcies. First, PACE is not limited to college students and recent college graduates, although the tendency for a college senior to apply to PACE may vary from region to region. Second, the number of competitors per region is not known and a region oste~sibly "in balance" may actually have fewer competitors, but those fewer . competitors take the written test more frequently. Third, th~ tate of application· for Federal employment is related to the labor market which is not uniform over the continental United States. For example, Dallas has fewer PACE competitors than HE\.] has college students but· it may also have lower unemployment rates than other regions. Fourth, students may be attending a college or university in one region Khire applying for Federal employment in their home region. Two regions showing fewer PACE competitors than HEW undergraduates are Chicago and St. Louis, and they may also have more colleges and students, than the regions of New York and Philadelphia. It may be that there are many students from the Northeastern United States who are educated in the Hidwest but apply for permanent employment closer to home. Fifth,· the region showing the most discrepancy is Philadelphia, which includes Hashington, D. C. The large number of PACE competitors here can:be explained by noting that the Federal government is the major employer in this area, and there may.be many young people who move here in hopes of finding Federal employment, or any employment in this particular city. Comparing PACE college majors with HEW "strata" is more problematical. PACE categories are based on competitor self-report, indicating the major field of study at the undergraduate or graduate level. The HEW report notes that " ...educational programs of all institutional components have been stratified into (fourteen) discrete categories." Three of the HEW "strata" refer to professional education and have no counterpart in PACE major fields of study: Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and Dentistry. Another three HEW "strata" refer to insti tutional groupings of major fields of study which probably do not correspond to the major fields of study indicated by PACE competitors: Liberal Arts/Arts and Sciences, Physical Sciences/Engineering/ Applied Technology, Social Sciences and Behavior. It is plausible that few American universities have administrative or institutional units such as Colleges of Social Sciences and Behavior or Colleges of Physical Sciences/Engineering/Applied Technology, although there are many under graduate students majoring in the social and physical sciences. Most of these students would be found in an institutional unit encompassing all the liberal arts and sciences. Thus, HEW "strata" were combined to match the combinations of PACE college majors in order to compare the relative proportions in each population, as follows: Proportion of Population HEW Undergraduates 1972 Stratum Liberal Arts/Arts and Sciences; Social Sciences and Behavior 77.5 Physical Sciences/ Engineering/Applied Technology 3.9 Agriculture 1.3 Business 4.9 Professional: Law 1.3 Professional: Theology 0.4 Other Professional/ Semi-Professional 0.5 Fine Arts, Architecture 1.9 Nursing and Health Services/Sciences 1.1 Education 5.8 Competitors FY 1975 PACE Major Field 50.4 Biological Sciences; Letters; Communications; Mathematics; Foreign Languages; Physical Sciences; Psychology; Social Sciences. 1.5 Computer and Information Sciences; Engineering 1.5 Agriculture and Natural Resources 22.4 Business and Management 1.0 Law 0.3 Theology 8.5 Home Economics; Library Science; Public Affairs and Services; Other 2.6 Architecture and Environmental Design, Fine and Applied Arts 0.8 Health Professions 11.1 Education 10 Although there are similarities, the Whatever may be the explanation forpopulation of PACE competitors is not identhe difference between the PACE and HEWtical proportionally to the population of populations--and they may just be differentHEW undergraduates in terms of major field populations--such explanation should inof study. Some of the larger discrepancies clude the differential performance on themay be more apparent than reaL PACE comwritten test of these various groups ofpetitors are over~represented, comparatively, PACE competitors. Majors in the liberalin the fields of Business and Other Profesarts may be better performers, or thesions, but these two areas may represent better perf.ormers in the liberal arts aregraduate training for individuals whose undermore likely to apply for Federal employgraduate background is liberal arts and ment under PACE. How likely it is for asciences. Recall that over 10% of PACE competitor with a given college major tocompetitors-have some graduate training. be selected for a PACE occupation will be Also, the liberal arts and sciences are discussed below. under-represented among PACE competitors while education is over-represented. The Performance on the Written Test and the professional groups, with the exception of Likelihood of Federal Employment Engineering and Applied Technology, areroughly equivalent in the two populations. A different way of looking at thesedata is to determine the proportions of dif The Federal occupations filed through ferent groups of PACE competitors at orPACE generally do not require extensive above certain ratings. Individuals applypreparation in specific educational fields. for PACE in order to be considered forIt is not surprising that few engineers Federal employment. In general, ratingscompete in PACE as there is a separate examare based on the performance on the writtenination program for the entry level positions test, and the higher the written testin scientific and technical occupations scores, the higher the rating. The standwithin the Federal government. What remains ards of merit system employment, as elaboto be explained is the under-representation rated in Federal regulations, require thatin PACE of liberal arts and science majors offers of employment be given in order of and the over-representation of business, rating--an individual with the highest ratpublic affairs, and education. Recall that ing is the first to whom employment considthe under-represented group has a high pereration is given. During FY 75 there wereformance level on the written test while the approximately 220,000 test takers. Overover-represented groups have_performance half of these earned an eligible rating (70levels below average. Obviously, majors in or above) in one or more occupational catePublic Affairs and Services have less latigory. However, approximately 11,000 positude in choice of employer than do majors tions were available, or about one job forin Business, and would focus on Federal every twenty applicants. Since not every and other public employers rather than person who can be offered a position actuprivate industry. Business majors may be ally accepts, consideration for employment making application for employment in the is extended to more than the top five perbiggest business in the United States--the cent. Current estimates are that competiFederal government with close to three tors in the top eleven to thirteen percent million employees. The abundance of educan have a realistic expection of beingcation majors is plausibly explained by offered Federal employment. The percentagenoting that the opportunities for teaching of competitors actually certified (considpositions have been drastically curtailed ered for employment) varies across occupain the past few years and that majors in tional categories, and occasionally a education, as majors in the liberal arts, specific position has unusual requirements. have the necessary general background reIn general, however, a rating of 90 orquired for PACE occupations but not the above is necessary for job consideration. specific training required for other positions open to recent college gradu-To complicate matters, ratings can re ates. flect more thtm written test performance.By law (Veteran Preference) or by policy 11 (Outstanding Scholar) certain individuals can have their ratings augmented by certain amounts. Veteran Preference points are used only if the individual is eligible-in PACE,eligibility requires the achievement of a certain minimum based on the weighted sum of the scores on the test parts of the five abilities. Most individuals claiming Veteran Preference claim the 5point Tentative Preference, but a few individuals claim 10 points, either for Compensable Preference or for Other Preference. CP's have service-incurred disabilities while XP's are relatives of veterans who were killed or totally disabled ddring military servicei For occupations and entry-levels covered by PACE not only do eligible veterans have their ratings augmented 'by ·the appropriate number of points but qualified CP eligibles must be extended offers of emploiroent before all other·individuals. Persons.claiming Outstanding Scholar status have their ratings· augmented by a varying amount, as described above. 1The transformation serves to give the lower-scoring Outstanding Scholars more of a rating increase than the higher scoring. That is, an Outstanding Scholar whose original rating is 70 will have a final rating of 85; an original rating of 85 will have a final rating of 93; an original rating of 93 will have a final rating of 97. Of all PACE competitors, 14% claim Outstanding Scholar status and 23% claim Veteran Preference; but 59% of all PACE competitors are men.· Therefore, men and women do not benefit from the two augmen tation provisions in equivalent ways. Of the 23% of PACE competitors who claim Veteran Preference, virtually all (96%) of these competitors are male: they make up 37% of all male competitors. The female veteran claimants make up 2% of all female competitors. Of the non veterans 48% are · men. This relationship is statistl.cally significant cx2 = 36439.65, df = 1, p< .01) and sizable (C = 0.38). ·outstandingScholars, on the other hand, tend to be women. Outstanding Scholar status is claimed by 20% of the female PACE competi tors but by only 10% of the.. ma:).e competitors. There are, however, more male PACE competitors than female so the proportions of men and women among the Outstanding Scholar group are less different than for Veteran ·Preference. (Forty-two percent of the Outstanding Scholars are male; 62% of the nonOutstanding Scholars are male.) This relationship, too, is statistically significant (X2 = 4145.05, df = 1, p< .01) but is less than (C = 0.14) the relationship between Veteran Preference and sex (C = 0.38). There is also a slight relationship between Outstanding Scholar status and Veteran Preference. Nonveterans are twice as likely to be Outstanding Scholars (16 out of every 100) as are veterans (8 out of 100). Of those PACE competitors who claim Outstanding Scholar status, 13% are also veterans, compared with the 24% of all nonOutstanding Scholars who are veterans. With the numbers of cases here the relationship between Veteran Preference and Outstanding Scholar status is statistically significant cx2 = 1937.66, df = 1, p< .01) but it is small (C = 0.09). It may also be an artifact of the two other relationships: ~en are much more likely to be veterans than women; women are much more likely to be Outstanding Scholars than men; hence veterans are less likely to be Outstanding Scholars. Thus, Tables 51 through 86 were devel oped to show the impact of Veteran Prefer ence, Outstanding Scholar and sex of comp.et itor on potential hiring, as indicated by the proportions of these various groups of competitors at or above certain ratings. Half of these tables (51-56, 63-68, 75-80) were prepared using the ratings as given but moving all the eligible CP.competitois to a level equivalent to a rating of 110. while these competitors actually have ratings of from 80 to 110, they must be given prefer ence over all other groups, hence their effective rating is 110. Those claiming TP or XP are placed at the lev.els of their aug mented ratings. In the remaining tables (57-62, 69-74, 81-86) the ratings are unaugmented by first 'correcting for Veteran Preference, then Outstanding Scholar status, as appropriate. This latter step required further estimation as each augmented rating could result from two different original ratings. For example, a final rating of 100 would result from original ratings of 99 and 100; a final rating of 96 would result from original ratings of 92 and 91. Cumulating frequencies from the high scores on down, the unaugmentation . 12 process produces inaccurate values for theeven-valued ratings. A procedure was deshows that Outstanding Scholars are more likely to pass the written test, and veter veloped to smooth the frequencies. For the ans less so. unaugmented ratings of 100 and 99, frequency However, the point augmentaof competitors earning the augmented rating tion does improve their representation inthe higher rating groups. of 100 was split so that 75% of these compet itors were assigned unaugmented ratings of These comparisons can be made for the100 and 25% were assigned to 99. (The orig other occupational categories by the use of inal scoring was truncated at 100 and thedistributionsof original ratings follow this Tables 52 through 56 and Tables 58 through 3:1 split.) For all other pairs of unaug62. While the percentages vary slightly from category to category, the trend is mented ratings, the frequency of competitors consistent.earning the appropriate augmented ratingwas split such that five-elevenths of thescores were assigned to the higher and sixTables 63 through 74 present the .sameelevenths of the scores to the lower. data but here separated by the variables ofVeteran Preference and sex of competitor. To illustrate the use of these tables Again the first six tables (63 :t.hrough 68)consider first Tables 51 through 62. Prepresent ratings as actually earned whilethe second six tables (99 through 74) pre sented here are the cumulative proportions of competitors at or above certain ratings sent the data based on estimated test scores alone. as differentiated by levels of Veteran In this set corrections were .applied for Veteran Preference only, since OutstandPreference and by Outstanding Scholar status. ing Scho~ar status was not identifiable. The first six tables include theeffects of these two variables on final Since women are more likely to be Outstand ratings, hence possible hiring, while the ing Scholars than men, the proportion, ofwomen at or above certain ratings, based on second six tables show what the proportions estimated test scores, is somewhat i~flated. would be, were the ratings not augmented. For Category A, again a final iating of The data for Occupational Category A 90 or above includes the top 13% of competi are found in Tables 51 and 57. In Tabl~ 51 tors. Over one-quarter of these high scores almost 13% of all PACE competitors earn,ratare veterans, over 60% are male. ings of 90 or above.. These are about Both vet erans and men are over-represented in terms equally divided between Outstanding Scholars and non_:.Outstanding Scholars, although the of their numbers in the total population. However, an unaugmented rating of 89 or proportion of PACE competitors who are Out standing Scholars is small. above includes about half as many veterans Slightly over as the augmented rating of 90 or above, as one quarter of these high-rated competitors well as more women--from 38% to 45%. claim._ Veteran Preference while slightly less In the unaugmented groupings women and non than one-quarter of all PACE competitors are veterans. veterans are over-represented, but these twogroups pass the written test at a higherrate than do men and veterans. (These two Using Table 57, one can estimate what these proportions would be were there no groups also include more Outstanding Scholaugmentation for Veteran Preference or Outars who all "pass" the written test.) standing Scholar. status. To be in the top The careful reader will note that this 13% of competitors requires an unaugmented rating of 85. The proportion of this group comparison utilizes an unaugmented rating of89 to obtain the top 13% while tbe prior who are Outstanding Scholars would be recomparison utilized one of 85 or above. duced from one-half to one-quarter while discrepancy is due mainly to the inclusionThethe proportion of veterans would be reduced of Outstanding Scholar increments in this from about 30% to about 20%. Outstanding second comparison. The remaining occupaScholars are still over-represented but tional categories (Tables 64-68, Tables 70veterans are now under-represented, relative 74) show approximately the same results. to their proportions in the total populationof PACE FY 75 competitors. Table 57 also 13 A third comparison, Outstanding Scholar status and sex of competitor, is displayed in Tables 75 through 86. For Category A, again an augmented rating of 90 or above shows approximately an even split between Outstanding Scholars and non-Outstanding Scholars; a 60-40 split between men and women. (The proportions differ somewhat from the first comparison to the second and this third as not all competitors coded the sex variable indicator properly.) An unaugmented rating here shows that removal of the Outstanding Scholar provision would cut the numbers of Outstanding Scholars in this top group by half. This removal would also increase the number of male competitors from 60% to 67%. To summarize, the Outstanding Scholar and Veteran Preference provisions greatly influence the composition of the toprated--and potential PACE work force-group. Without these provisions Outstanding Scholars would still be overrepresented. On the basis of written test performance alone, the proportion of Outstanding Scholars among the top performers is twice their proportion in the total PACE FY 75 competitor population. The augmentation of ratings by the Outstanding Scholar provision further increases the ratings so that the final proportion is over three times that in the total population. On the other hand, veterans are less likely to be in the top group based on their written test performance alone. The addition of Veteran Preference points reverses this. On written test performance alone the proportion of veterans in the high level rated group is about three-fourths of the proportion of veterans in the total group. With Veteran Preference, however, the proportion of veterans in the high group is 120% of the proportion in the total. The impact of the Outstanding Scholar provision appears to be greater than that of Veteran Preference. Since both Outstanding Scholar status and Veteran Preference are related to sex of competitor, these tables show that removal of either provision would have a disproportionate impact on one sex. The data do not tell us about the relationship between written test performance and sex of competitor. What is unavailable is the joint effect of Outstanding Scholar status, Veteran Preference, and sex of competitor on written test performance. Recall Figure 7 showing the mean ratings across occupational categories separated by Outstanding Scholar status and sex of competitor. The average written test performance of female PACE competitors is less than that of men. On the basis of written test performance alone, women would be slightly less likely to receive employment consideration than men. Veteran Preference would reduce this possibility greatly, while the Outstanding Scholar provision almost but not quite balances out the impact of Veteran Prefer ence and the slight superiority in written test performance shown by male competitors. The Likelihood of Federal Employment- Other Variables The remaining tables (87 through 100) display the ratings data of the PACE FY 75 competitors as divided by levels of other variables--current Federal employment, Civil Service region, and college major. All data are in the form of cumulative percentages or proportions at or above certain ratings; these ratings always vary from 85 to 106. Since it is not possible to isolate either Outstanding Scholars or Veterans in these data, the ratings are not changed to reflect these provisions. Nor does any table reflect the preference given to eligible CP competitors. The first two tables compare ratings for two groups of competitors: those currently employed by the Federal government (Table 87) and those not so employed (Table 88). Of interest is the composition of the groups with ratings of 101 and above compared to the groups at or above lower ratings. At the higher level current Federal employees are over-represented relative to their proportion in the total group while at lower levels this group is under~epresented. As only veterans can have ratings over 100, one possible explanation is that the competitors who are current Federal employees are also more likely to be veterans. Another explanation, for which supporting data are unavailable, includes the hypothesis that the current Federal employees are less well educated than the others. 14 Tables 89 through 94 present the perThis final set of data permits thecentages of competitors at or above certain comparison of the relative proportion of ratings for the thirteen regions and area the different groups of college majors at offices of USCSC. The construction of this various levels of performance for the difset of tables differs from those discussed ferent occupational categories. This per before in that the percentages displayed spective on the data leads to conclusions refer to the percentage of competitors at similar to those from the display of mean or above certain ratings within the desig ratings across occupational categories for nated region. For example, in Table 89 the different majors, displayed in Figure one may compare the percentages of competi 10. First, the level of performance varies tors in different regions earning ratings with the type of college major, in that com of 100 or above. In Boston, 3.0% of all competitors are in this group and in petitors in the liberal arts and sciences, the less applied disciplines, perform at the Philadelphia, 1.5% of all competitors are. highest levels and are over-represented at Suppose that within a certain region the top the high ratings; competitors in semiten percent of competitors could be certiapplied fields perform at a middle level and fied for employment. In Chicago, competi are presented proportionally at high rattors with ratings of 92 or above would be ings; competitors in applied fields perform certified while in Seattle a rating of 94 or at a lower level and are under-represented above would be required. Although PACE is at high ratings. Second, the pattern of nationwide in scope, examining is done on a performance varies with the type of collegeregional basis. Competitors must indicate major, with the more scientific, more male that one region where they wish employment consideration, although all competitors can oriented fields showing over-representationin Category C relative to Category E; thealso indicate that they wish consideration more humanities, female-oriented fields in Washington, D. C. These tables show that showing under-representation in Category C a competitor's likelihood of consideration relative to Category E; the fields in the can vary from region to region. A competi~ middle showing about the same representationtor would also need to know which regions in all occupational categories. were hiring greater proportions of PACEcompetitors, an event necessitating consid What Tables 95 through 100 provide in eration of lower-rated competitors. information is not available here. Such addition is information about various levelsof performance other than the mean. Hence, one can compare the pattern of performanceThe final set of tables (Tables 95 at various levels for the different college through 100) displays the composition of majors. Consider three levels: various groups of competitors scoring at or that of ratings of 101 and above, by definition in above certain ratings according to college cluding only those claiming Veteran Preferor field of major study. These data are ence; of ratings 90 and above, includingbased on the 90% of the total competitor most of the competitors with realistic op group that indicated a major field of study. portunities for Federal employment; and of It is plausible that those not providingthis information were not college graduates, ratings 95 and above as a point in between. and that they performed at a lower level onthe written test. To illustrate, compare For most college majors the pattern of the rightmost column of Table 51 with that performance across occupational categoriesis the same for the three levels. A few of Table 95, both columns indicating the fields show shifts: Education, Psychology, proportion of the total group of competit~rs Public Affairs and Service, and Theologyscoring at or above certain ratings in Occushow one kind of shift while Public Affairspational Category A. In Table 51, less than and Services shows another. Two fields, 13% of the total group had ratings of 90 or Fine and Applied Arts, and Health Profes above in this category, but Table 95'shows sions show inconsistent shifts. that well over 13% of those indicating amajor field of collegiate study had ratingsof 90 or abbve. The first group of four majors includes about one-quarter of all PACE FY 75 competitors. At the 101 level and above, 15 Education, Psychology and Theology have Again, a few fields show shifts in relgreater proportions of competitors in Cateative representation from level to level. gory C than in Category E, while at the two Four of these increase, from an under-or lower levels the proportions are larger for equal representation at the highest level to Category E. This is also the case for those an equal or over-representation at the lower A plausible levels: Fine and Applied Arts, Pshchology, few competitors in Other fields. explanation is that these fields, not among Theology, Biological Sciences. Within the the natural or physical sciences, include range of test scores represented by these more equal numbers of men and women. At the levels, the increase in numbers of competi highest rating level the competitors are tors reflects more the diminishing impact of necessarily claiming Veteran Preference, Veteran Preference than a change in written hence are predominantly men. At the two test performance. Two fields show de lower rating levels women, and nonveteran creases in representation, probably for the men, are included, and the pattern shifts. same reasons. At the highest level majors in Business and Management are present in This explanation breaks down for majors numbers equivalent to their numbers in the in Public Affairs and Services,, who at the total population. At the two lower levels highest level show an increase from Catethe proportion of Business and Management gory C to Category E but no shifts at the majors decreases. Majors in Computer two lower levels. Competitors in this field, Science and Information also show a deas in Fine and Applied Arts and Health Procrease from the highest to lowest level-fessions, may simply be more heterogenous from an over-representation to a proporthan those in other fields which show contionate representation. Since both of sistent patterns. these fields show below average mean rat ings for each occupational category, it is Another perspective is gained by complausible that both groups have high proparing the proportion of competitors indiportions of veterans, and lower test cating certain college majors across the scorers. three rating levels. Again, for most groups there is no change. Certain groups are conOther comparisons are, of course, sistently over-represented: Architecture possible. If such comparisons are made with any of these data, the impact of Vet and Environmental Design, Law, Letters, Library Science, Mathematics, Physical eran Preference and Outstanding Scholar Sciences, Engineering, and Foreign Lanstatus should be evaluated. Both of these guage. Social Science is proportionally variables interact with sex of competitor represented at the highest level but is but in different ways. They may also inover-represented at the two lower levels teract with the variables of practice where the effect of Veteran Preference is effects, region, current Federal employless profound. Communication, Agriculture ment, and college major, which in turn may and Natural Resources, and Other majors are interact with each other within this about evenly represented at all three levels population. Hence, conclusions and generalwhile four fields--Education, Health Profesizations should be qualified accordingly. sions, Home Economics, and Public Affairs and Services--are under-represented at all three levels. 16 Reference Notes 1. McKillip, R. H., Corts, D. B, Trattner, M. H., & Wing, H. The Professional and Administrative Career Examination: Research and Development (TS 76-1). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Civil Service Commission, 1976. 2. Martin, C. G. A procedure for estimating the reliability of a weighted linear composite test: The reliability of Test 500~ Series 110 (TM 75-4). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Civil Service Commission, 1975. 3. Martin, c. G. A procedure for estimating the reliability of a weighted linear composite test: The reliability of Test 500~ Series 120 (TM 76-1). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Civil Service Commission, 1976. 4. Martin, c. G. A procedure for estimating the reliability of a weighted linear composite test: The reliability of Test 500~ Series 130 (TM 76-2). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Civil Service Commission, 1976. 5. Martin C. G. A procedure for estimating the reliability of a weighted linear composite test: The reliability of Test 500~ Series 140 (TM 76-3). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Civil Service Commission, 1976. 6. Racial and ethnic enrollment data from institutions of highereducation: Fall~ l972 (OCR 74-13). Washington, D. C.: Office for Civil Rights, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1974. 17 74 73 72 71 130 70 120 0z H t-< r2 ~ 69 s. 140 ,. • .. • -JC f. 110 II 68 67 66 65 L-L -I ----'----~--~L--·-·-'E F A B c D OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by series across occupational category. (Series Figure 1. 110: November, 1974; Series 120: January, 1975; Series 130: March, 1975; Series 140: May, 1975.) 18 78 OUTSTANDING scapLAR I I •ac:::::::::: ::==: s. 120 76 s. 130 s. 140 I= ~4 !=::===---=t s. 110 74 72 0::::: H H ~ ~ea 70 NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR 68 ~ s. 130 s. 12066 s. 140 I ! s. 110 64 __..____--4.-------·--·------..&-----_j____--4______J A B C D E F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 2. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by series and Outstanding Scholar status acrossoccupational category. (The mean ratings reflect written test performance: the addi tional rating points for Outstanding Scholar status are not included.) 19 (a) SERIES 110: NOVEMBER, 1974 ·~--------*·--------~Mr-------~·~------~• ._-------4K N.V. 67 66 -----*M--------~---------~~ T.P . .--------~•r-----~-~-- 63 62 C.P. 61 60 X.P. 59 A B c D E F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 3. · PACE. FY 1975 competitors separated by series and Veteran Preference across occupa~ (The mean ratings reflect written test performance: the additional ·tional·category. rating points for Veteran Preference are not included.) 20 71 70 69 68 67 66 (.!) Hz E-< 65 ~ ..,.. ~ 64 63 62 61 60 59 Figure 3. (b) SERIES 120: JANUARY, 1975 N.V. T.P. ,. M " C.P. ,.... M • X.P. _._______1--____t______J A B c D E F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by series and Veteran Preference across occupational category. (The mean ratings reflect written test performance: the additionalrating points for Veteran Preference are~ included.) 21 (c) SERIES 130: MARCH, 1975 N.V. 69 68 67 T.P. 66 0z H 65 ~ ~ ~ 64 ~ ' ' C.P. X.P. B c D E F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 3. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by series and Veteran Preference across occupa (The mean ratings reflect written test performance: the additional tional category. rating points for Veteran Preference are ~included.) 22 (d) SERIES 140: MAY 1975 71 70 69 N.V. 68 67 66 T.P. '-' H:z: !'-< 65 ;:J ·~ ,.,_, 64 63 62 C.P. 61 X.P. 60 59 A B c D E F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 3. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by series and Veteran Preference across occupa tional category. (The mean ratings reflect written test performance: the additionalrating points for Veteran Preference are not included.) 23 (a) MEN s. 130 71 s. 120 s. 140 70 (.!) zH ~ ~ 69 s. 110 -~ 65 A B C D E F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY PACE FY,l975 competitors separated by series and sex of competitor across occupational Figure 4. category. 24 (b) WOMEN 74 73 72 "\ ... . ·'i 71 .. . ·.: ·-:· J (·· . ' -.,ol .. "' .. .. () ~ H H c:i r. s. 130 ~ ~ [':] f s. 1,20 ,;c. l Ji s. 140 ~-s. ],10 67 ~ 66 65 ·--L-----~~---.:...L..-·_.---·_.-L.:..:.::_ .· ,. ·-·-·--"-·1'" --4----· J A B C D E F · ·accuPAriciNAL cATEGORY Figure 4. PACE FY 1975. competitors separated by series and sth of competitor across occupational category. '25 Jt)f-----:MM-----!MII------tMt-----tM~----iCM o. s./N.V. 74 72 --~~if--___;---ilt------ilt~--.....;;_.~Mit-"___.... 0. S ./T.P. ,Jt=... M Jl 70 68 !:>= <:::::::::; 0 • s./c . p • ·. O.S./X.P. 66 N.S./N.V. 64 N.S./T.P. 62 60 N.S./C.P. -----+-----it-----1Mit-----tiJII-------ilMN. S ./X.P. )f • • 58 A B C D E F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 5. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by Outstanding Scholar status and Veteran Preference across occupational category. (The mean ratings reflect written test performance: additional rating points for Outstanding Scholar status and Veteran Preference are not included.) 26 70 M./N.V. 69 .______~*~----~.~~~...·~~--~------~ . Jf I( F. /N.V. M./T.P. F./T.P • 62 M./C.P. F./C.P. 61 M./X.P. F./X.P. 60 ~------~------~------~~------+-------~------_._______J A B c D E -F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 6. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by sex of competitor and Veteran Preference across occupational categorr. (The mean ratings reflect written test performance: the addi tional rating points· for Veteran Preference are not i.ncluded.) 27 80 M./O.S. 78 ------~Jir-----•11----~Mr-----~~ Jt= 76 74 ,... ~-M~----~~~~----~ Jl iC F./O.S. '• '··· .:: "' 72 t!l z H ~ ~ e3 70 «'-> 68 M./N.S. 66 64 62 A '1f· c D OCC.UPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 7 .. PACE .F'( 1975 c,omp.etitors separated by sex of competitor and Outstanding Scholar s.tatus across occupatiomi.l. category. (The mean ratings reflect written tes-t performance: the additional rating points for Outstanding Scholar status are not included.) 28 73 72 71 70 Non. Fed.Emp, 69 t.!l 1-1z ~ ~ 68 67 66 65 Fed. Emp. 64 A B C D E F OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 8. PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by current Federal employment across occupational c~tegory. 29 74 73 72 71 ·. ··WASHINGTON D.C. 66 65 F A B c D E OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY Figure 9, PACE FY 1975 competitors separated by region across occupational category 30 (a) 80 78 76 Letters For. Lang. Law Theology 0 Lib. Sci. 74 ~~ H Psych. H ~ z lean $7.54 88.26 88.00 $7.48 $7.81 8.22 7o9l St. Dev. 7.00 ?.76 7.90 5,65) 30,863 Number 9,S91 6,428 8,834 NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLARS Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series lhO Total Percentile 100 100 100 100 99 98 9295 91 92 92 92 S7 S7 90 86 sa S7 00 00 S2 so 81 81 70 75 76 75 76 76 6o 71 72 71 71 71 5) 66 67 66 67 67 6240 61 63 62 62 57 57 30 56 57 57 20 5) 51 51 51 51 10 43 45 44 45 45 40 5 40 40 40 40 1 40 40 40 40 40 66.01 Mean 65.21 66.38 66.77 65.92 St. Dev. 15.56 15.84 15.40 15.64 15.6o 35,665 1S9,084Number 62,517 39,170 51,437 48 TABLE 11 PACE FY 75 CONPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS ., Series 110 Percentile 99 102 95 99 90 97 80 95 70 93 6o 91 5J 89 4D 87 30 85 20 82 10 76 . 5. 71 1 70 He an 87.6o st. Dev. 7.81 Number 9,891 Series 110 Percentile 99 98 95 91 90 86 80 80 70 75 6o 71 5J 66 4D 61 30 56 2J 50 10 43 5 4D 1 hO Hepn 65.15 st. rev. 15.62 Number 62,517 OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E OUTSTANDING SCHOLARS Series 120 Series 130 103 104 100 100 98 98 96 95 93 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 85 85 82 82 78 77 73 72 70 70 88.25 87.89 7·79 7.91 6,428 8,834 NON-<:>UTSTAHDING SCHOLARS Series 120 Series 130 100 99 92 91 88 86 81 80 76 74 71 70 67 66 62 61 57 56 51 5J 44 43 4D 4D 4D 4D 66.06 66.26 15.89 15.h3 39,170 5l,h37 Series 140 Total 103 103 100 100 98 98 95 95 93 93 91 91 89 89 87 87 84 85 81 82 76 77 71 72 70 70 f?f7·43 87.79 8.20 7.91 5,650 30,e63 Series 140 Total 100 99 92 92 87 87 80 80 75 75' 71 71 66 66 61 62 56 57 51 51 45 44 40 4D 40 l!J 65.51 65.71 15.6o 15.63 35,665 189,084 49 TABLE 12 PACE FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERI'AIN PERCElfflLES SE:!UES BY OUTSTANillNG SCHOLAR STATUS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F OUTSTANillNG SCHOLARS Series llO Series 120 Series 130 series 140 Total Percentile 99 102 103 104 104 103 100 95 100 100 100 100 98 99. 99 . 98 90 97 95 00 95 96 96 95 93 94 93 93 70 93 91 916o 91 92 91 89 8950 89 90 89 86 87 87 88 87 40 85 84 85 8530 85 82 81 8120 81 82 77 76 7610 76 78 5 71 73 73 71 72 l 70 70 70 70 70 ,88.27 <.\8.03 87-47 'Jl-79 l·1ean 87.43 8.32 8.01St. Dev. 7.87 7.87 8.04 5,650 30,863 Number 9'!391 6,428 8,834 NON-oUTSTANDING SCHOL!Jl.S Total Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Percentile 99 100 100 10J 100 99 92 93 9295 91 93 87 88 8890 86 88 81 81 81 82 00 00 70 75 77 76 76 76 6o 71 72 71 71 71 66 67 67 67 67 5040 61 63 62 62 62 57 57 57 30 56 57 20 50 51 51 51 51 45 44 45 45 10 43 l!) 5 40 40 40 40 40 1 40 l,D 40 40 66.06 66.15 l•lean 65.20 66.6o 67.00 15.82 15.75 St. Dev. 15.61 15.99 15.62 35,665 189,084Number 62,517 39,170 51,437 so TABLE 13 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RA'riNGS EQUIVALE~ TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A TENTATIVE 5-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 14011/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 Percentile 99 103 104 105 104 95 96 98 99 97 90 92 93 94 92 80 85 87 87 86 70 79 81 82 80 6o 75 76 76 7650 70 71 72 71 40 65 66 67 66 30 59 6o 62 6o20 52 10 54 56 54 45 45 48 45 5 !+5 45 45 45 1 45 45 45 45 Mean 69.02 70.25 71.25 70.14 St. Dev. 16.23 16.53 16.20 16.22 Number 14,115 9,260 11,324 8,425 C®ENSABLE 10-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 14011/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 Percentile 99 106 105 108 108 95 99 99 99 99 90 93 94 94 9380 86 . 86 87 70 81 80 87 81 81 6o 76 75 76 76 50 71 70 71 71 40 65 66 66 65 30 59 61 61 6o 20 53 54 54 10 50 53 50 50 50 5 50 50 50 50 1 50 50 50 50 Mean 70.61 70.79 71.23 70.91St. Dev. 15.84 15o76 15o91 16.05 Number 1,86o 1,117 1,336 1,028 51 Total 10497938680757166 6o 54454545 70.09 16.31 43,133 Total 1069994868176;7165 6o 53505050 70.86 15.88 5,352 TABLE 13 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A arHER 10-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 Percentile 99 104 106 lOB 108 107 99 100 98 98 95 97 93 93 9490 93 93 87 87 BO 86 87 87 8170 81 83 BO 81 7560 74 78 74 76 71 7050 69 72 70 63 65 65 40 63 67 30 57 62 59 58 59 50 5220 50 54 5450 50 5010 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 5 50 1 50 50 50 50 70.63 70.59 70.57 Mean 69.58 71.97 16.09 St. Dev. 16.00 15.93 16.08 16.31 510 355 1,943 Number 649 429 .NON VETERAN Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 5/75 11/74 1/75 3/75 Percentile 100 100 99 100 ;1.00 100 9595 96 95 95 94 91 91 90 90 92 9286 85 85 BO 85 ~6 BO 81 81 BO 70 79 75 60 74 76 76 74 71 70 70 50 69 71 6540 64 66 67 65 6030 59 60 61 59 53 5320 52 53 5546 43 43 10 42 44 40 5 40 40 40 4040 401 40 40 40 69.91 68.55 68.86 Mean 67.86 69.33 16.66 16.41 16.66 St. Dev. 16.67 16.84 47,101 31,507 169'519 Number 55,784 34,792 52 TABLE 14 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENl' TO CERTAIN PERCENl'ILES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B TENl'ATIVE 5-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75Percentile 99 103 105 105 105 10595 96 99 99 98 90 92 98 94 94 93 93 80 85 87 88 86 8670 80 81 82 81 81 60 75 76 77 76 50 70 76 71 72 71 7140 65 66 67 66 66 30 59 60 62 61 20 6o 53 54 56 55 10 54 45 45 48 45 455 45 45 45 45 451 45 45 45 45 45Mean 69.20 70.66 71.64 70.48 70.41 St. Dev. 16.28 16.64 16.38 16.37 16.43Number 14,115 9,26o 11,324 8,425 43,133 COMPENSABLE 10-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 Percentile 99 107 106 109 109 107 95 99 100 99 100 99 90 94 95 95 94 94 80 86 87 88 87 70 81 81 87 81 81 81 60 76 75 76 76 7650 71 70 71 71 40 65 71 66 66 65 6630 6o 61 61 6o 6o20 54 55 55 10 53 54 50 50 50 50. 50 5 50 50 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50Mean 70.78 71.18 71.56 71.17 71.14st. Dev. 15.89 15.89 16.12 16.19 16.01 Number 1,86o 1,117 1,336 1,028 5t352 53 TABLE 14(CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENI'IIES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B OTHER lQ...FOINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 11/74 1/75 3/?5 5/75Percentile 99 104 108 108 109 107 95 98 99 100 99 99 90 93 94 94 94 93 80 86 87 87 87 87 70 81 83 80 81 81 6o 74 78 74 76 75 68 72 69 71 70 5040 63 68 63 65 65 30 57 61 59 59 59 20 51 55 54 50 52 5010 50 50 50 50 5 50 50 50 50 50 1 50 50 50 50 50 Mean 69.48 72.03 70.68 70.83 70.6o St. Dev. 15.95 15.99 16.21 ' 16.43 16.14 1,943 Number 649 429 510 355 NON VETERAN Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75Percentile 99 100 100 100 100 100 95 94 96 96 95 95 90 90 92 92 91 91 80 84 86 86 85 85 80 80 70 79 81 81 6o ?l; 76 76 75 75 50 69 71 71 70 70 65 40 64 66 67 65 61 59 6o30 58 6o 20 52 53 55 53 53 10 42 44 46 43 44 5 40 40 40 40 40 1 40 40 40 40 40 68.91 Mean 67.79 69.44 70.01 68.59 St. Dev. 16.70 16.91 16.53 16.76 16.74 34,792 47,101 31,507 169,519 Number 55,784 54 Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 6o 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Number Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Number Series 110 11/74 104 96 92 85 80 75 70 65 59 53 45 45 45 69.18 16.26 14,115 Series 110 11/74 107 99 93 86 81 76 70 65 59 53 50 50 50 70.63 15.87 1,860 TABlE 15 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY 1JETEiRAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C TENTATIVE .5-POINT PREFERENCE Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 1/75 3/75 5/75 105 105 105 105 99 94 87 82 99 95 88 83 98 94 87 81 98 93 87 81 76 72 67 61 77 73 68 63 77 72 67 61 76 71 66 61 55 46 57 48 55 46 55 46 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 70.99 16.6o 72.15 16.36 70.96 16.43 70.70 16.43 9,26o 11,324 8,425 43,133 COMPENSABLE 10-POINT PREFERENCE Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 1/75 3/75 5/75 106 99 95 87 81 109 100 95 88 82 109 100 94 88 82 107 99 94 87 81 76 71 66 61 77 72 67 61 77 71 66 60 76 71 66 60 54 50 50 50 55 50 50 50 54 50 50 50 54 50 50 50 71.46 15.89 72.08 16.24 71.55 16~28 71.36 16.06 1,117 1,336 1,028 5,352 55 TABLE 15 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERI'AIN PERCENI.'ILES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C ' CJrHER lO..POINT PREFERENCE Series,l10 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total Percentile 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 99 95 104 98 109 99 lOS 100 107 100 107 99 90 00 70 92 85 so 94 as 83 95 87 Sl 94 87 81 93 S6 81 6o 74 78 75 77 75 50 6S 73 70 72 70 40 62 67 65 65 65 30 20 57 51 62 54 60 54 59 50 59 52 10 5 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 1 50 50 50 50 50 He an St. Dev. 69.15 15.90 72.13 16.05 70.92, 16.25 71.07 16.52 70.92 16.18 Number 649 429 510 355 1,943 NON VETERAN Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total Percentile 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 99 95 90 00 100 94 90 84 100 96 92 86 100 96 92 B7 100 96 92 86 100 95 92 S6 70 79 81 81 80 00 60 50 40 30 74 69 64 59 76 71 66 61 77 72 67 62 75 70 65 6o 75 71 66 60 20 52 54 55 53 53 10 5 1 42 40 40 44 40 40 46 40 40 44 40 40 44 hO 40 Mean 67.83 69.72 70.47 68.92; 69.17 St. Dev. 16.65 16.83 16.50 16.77 16.71 Number 55,784 34,792 47,101 31,507 169,519 56 TABLE 16 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CEID'AIN ~ PERCENI'ILES . . ~BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D TENI'ATIVE ~OINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 Percentile ' 99 103 104 105 104 10495 96 98 98 97 97 90 92 94 94 93 9380 85 87 87 86 8670 80 81 82 81 8160 75 76 77 76 7650 70 71 72 71 7140 65 66 67 66 66 30 59 60 62 61 {:jJ 20 53 54 56 55 5410 45 45 48 46 45 5 45 .45 .45 45 45 1 45 45 45 45 45 Mean 69.36 70.33 71.29 70.38 70.27St. Dev. 16.27 16.56 16.17 16.19 16.31 Number 14,115 9,260 11,324 8,425 43,133 COMPENSABLE 10-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 11/74 1/75 3/75. 5/75Percentile 99 106 105 108 107 10695 99 100 99 99 99 90 94 94 94 94 94 80 87 87 87 87 87 70 . 81 80 81 81 81 60 76 75 76 76 76 50 71 70 71 71 7140 66 66 \ 66 66 66 ~0 60 6o 61 60 6020 53 54 ; 54 54 10 50 54 50 50 50 50 5 50 50 50 50 50 1 50 50 50 50 50 Mean 71.10 70.98 . 71.38. 71.27 71.18 St•. Dev. 1~.91 15.81 15~90 16.05 15.91 Number 1,860 1,117 1,336 1,028 5,352 57 TABLE 16 (CONTINUED) PACE Fi 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQ'OIVAIENT TO CERI'AIN PERCENI'IIES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D CYI'HER 10-PoiNT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Serle& 140 Total Percentile 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 99 95 90 ·so 70 60 50 40 '30 20 10 5 1 104 9S 93 En Sl 75 69 64 5S 50 50 50 50 109 100 94 gg S3 7S 72 67 62 54 50 50 50 109 101 93 S6 80 75 70 65 59 54 50 50 50 lOS 99 93 S6 Sl 76 72 66 5S 51 50 50 50 107 99 93 En S1 76 71 65 59 53 50 50 50 Mean St. Dev. 70.02 16.0S 72.20 16.05 70.73 .16.03 70.94 16.30 70.S5 16.12 Number 649 429 510 355 1,943 NON VETERAN Percen~e Series 110 11/74 Series 120 1/75 Series 130 3/75 Series 140 5/75 . ' Total 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 99 94 90 S5 79 74 70 64 59 52 41 40 40 100 95 92 S6 S1 76 71 65 60 53 43 40 40 100 95 92 S6 80 75 71 66 61 51. 45 40 40 100 95 91 85 79 74 70 65 59 53 43 40 1,0 100 95 91 S5 80 75 70 65 60 53 43 hO 40 Mean St. Dev. 67.fr7 16.71 69.15 16.ss 69.49 16.41 6S.36 16.6S 6S.6S 16.67 Number 55,7S4 34,792 47,101 31,507 169,519 58 TABLE 17 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CER!AIN PERCENI'ILES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E TENI'ATIVE 5-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total11/74 1/75 3/75 J;'ercentile 5/75 99 103 104 105 104 104 95 96 98 9890 92 97 '97 93 94 92 80 85 '93 87 87 86 70 80 81 81 86 6o 80 80 75 76 76 50 70 75 .76 71 71 71 7140 65 65 66 65 30 65 59 60 61 20 6o 6o 52 53 55 54 10 54 45 45 47 45 4515 45 45 45 45 4545 45 45 45 45Mean 69:36 70.03 70.80 69.91 69.99st. Dev. 16o33 16.64 16.27 16.20 16.37Number 14,115 9,260 11,324 8,425 43,133 CG1PENSABLE 10-,pOINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 Percentile 99 106 105 108 95 107 106 99 100 99 99 99 90 94 9h 80 94 94 94 87 86 87 70 82 81 87 86 81 81 81 6o 76 50 75 75 76 76 71 70 40 66 70 70 71 65 65 66 66 30 60 6o 20 6o 6o 60 54 54 54 10 53 54 50 50 50 50 5 50 50 50 50 50 50 1 50 50 50 50 Mean 71.25 70.75 70.92 70.88 50 St. Devo 16.00 15.89 70o99 15.91 16.01 15.95Number 1,860 1,117 1,336 1,028 5,352 59 TABLE 17 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT To CERTAIN PERcENTILES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E arHER 10-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total Percentile 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 99 95 90 80 70 . 104 97 93 87 81 108 101 94 88 82 109 10i w. 86 80 108 99 93 86 8i 107 99 93 f?t7 81 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 76 69 64 58 52 50 50 50 78 72 67 61 54 50 50 50 75 70 64 58 54 50 50 50 76 71 65 58 51 50 50 50 76. 70 65 59 53 50 50 50 !1ean St. Dev. 70.33 16.16 72.10 16.09 70.52 16.11 ' 70.72 16.23 70.84 16~16 Number 649 429 510 355 '. 1,943 .NON vETERAN Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total Percentile 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 99 9h 90 95 79 74 69 64 100 95 92 86 81 75 70 65 100. 95 91 86 80 75 70 65 100 95 91 85 79 74 69 64 100 95 91 85 80 75 70 65 30 20 58 51 59 52 60 . 54 59 52 59 52 10 5 1 41 40 40 43 40 40 44 40 40 43 40 40 43 40 40 Mean St. Dev. 67.80 16.78• 68.f?t? 16.98 69.05 16.50 68.o4 16.72 68.42 16.74 Number 55,784 34,792 :. 47,10i 31,507 169,519 ·• 60 Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Hean St. Dev. Ntunber Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 6o 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Ntunber Series 110 11/74 103 97 92 86 80 75 70 65 59 53 45 45 45 69.51 16.32 14,115 Series 110 11/74 107. 99 94 87 81 77 71 65 60 54 50 50 50 71.23 15.96 1,860 TABLE 18 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENl' TO CERTAIN PERCENI'ILES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F TENl'ATIVE ~OINT PREFERENCE Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 1/75 3/75 5/75 105 98 94 87 81 76 71 66 60 105 99 94 88 82 77 72 67 62 105 98 93 87 81 76 72 66' 61 105 98 93 87 81 76 71 66 61 54 45 45 45 56 48 45 45 55 46 45 45 54 h5 45 45 70.75 16.69 71.70 16.36 70.72 16.36 70.59 16.44 9,260 11,324 8,425 43,133 CO!-!PENSABLE 10-POINT PREFERENCE Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 1/75 3/75 5/75 106 100 109 100 109 100 107 100 95 87 81 95 88 81 94 87 81 94 87 81 76 71 66 61 76 71 66 61 76 71 66 60 76 71 66 61 55 50 55 50 54 50 54 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 71.39 15.96 71.71 16.11 71.48 16.20 71.44 16.04 1,117 1,336 1,028 5,352 61 TABLE 18 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY VETERAN PREFERENCE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F OTHER 10-POINT PREFERENCE Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total Percentile 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 99 104 107 109 108 107 95 90 80 70 97 93 86 81 100 95 88 83 101 94 86 81 100 9h 86 81 99 94 87 81 60 50 40 30 20 10 7h 69 64 58 52 50 78 73 67 61 54 50 75 70 65 59 54 50 77 72 66 60 51 50 75 70 65 59 53 50 5 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Mean 69.83 72.21 70.77 71.08 70.83 St. Dev. 15.98 16.09 16.15 16.38 16.15 Number 649 429 510 355 1,943 NON VETERAN Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total Percentile 11/74 1/75 3/75 5/75 99 99 100 100 100 100 95 90 94 90 96 92 96 92 95 91 95 91 80 84 86 86 85 85 70 79 81 81 79 80 6o 74 76 76 74 75 50 69 71 71 70 70 40 64 66 66 65 65 30 20 10 58 52 42 6o 53 43 61 54 h5 59 52 l.J 59 53 h3 5 hO 40 40 40 hO 1 hO 40 40 40 40 Mean 67.79 69.28 69.64 68.42 68.74 St. Dev. 16.73 16.96 16.55 16.80 16~76 Number 55,784 34,792 h7,101 31,507 169,519 62 Series 110 Percentile 99 101 95 95 ~ 91 80 84 70 79 &J 74 50 70 40 65 30 59 20 53 10 46 5 41 1 40 Mean 68.59 St. Dev. 16.20 Number 41,792 Series 110 Percentile 99 99 95 94 ~ ~ 80 85 70 80 6o 74 50 70 40 64 30 58 20 51 10 40 5 40 1 40 Mean 67.81 St. Dev. 16.99 Number 29,785 TABLE 19 PACE FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY SEX OF COl·lPJ<.'TITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY !\. HEN Series 120 Series 130 101 101 97 97 93 93 86 86 81 81 76 76 71 72 66 67 61 62 55 56 47 49 44 45 40 40 70.16 70.78 16.40 15.96 27,045 35,413 \WHEN Series 120 Series 130 100 100 95 95 92 92 86 87 81 81 76 76 71 71 65 66 59 &J 52 54 42 44 40 40 40 40 68.98 69.64 17.14 16.81 17,975 24,130 Series 140 Total 101 101 96 96 92 92 85 86 80 80 75 75 71 71 66 66 61 61 54 54 47 46 44 44 40 40 69.71 69.74 16.15 16.19 23,917 128,382 Series 140 Total 100 100 95 95 91 91 85 86 80 80 74 75 70 70 64 65 58 59 52 52 42 42 40 40 1.0 40 68.24 68.63 16.98 16.99 16,817 88,839 63 Series 110 Percentile 99 101 95 95 90 91 80 85 70 79 60 74 50 70 40 65 30 59 20 53 10 h6 5 42 1 40 He an 68.76 St. Dev. 16.2h Number 41,792 Series 110 Percentile 99 99 95 94 90 90 80 85 70 79 60 74 50 69 40 64 30 58 2:J 51 10 40 5 40 1 40 !-lean 67.55 St. Dev. 17.00 Number 29,785 TABLE 20 PACE FY 75 CO!·ll'ETITORS RATTIJGS EQUIVALENT TO CER:I'AIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY SEX OF CO!·ll'ETITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B !·lEN Series 120 Series 130 102 102 97 98 93 93 87 87 81 81 76 77 72 72 67 67 61 62 55 56 47 49 44 45 40 40 70.56 71.15 16.50 16.12 27,045 35,413 ~lOHEN Series 120 Series 130 100 100 95 95 92 92 86 87 81 81 76 76 71 71 65 66 59 60 52 54 1;2 44 40 40 40 40 68.83 69.51 17.15 16.89 17,975 24,130 Series 140 Total 102 101 97 97 92 92 86 86 80 81 76 76 71 71 66 66 61 61 55 55 4-7 47 44 44 40 40 70.03 70.04 16.28 16.30 23,917 128,382 Series 140 Total 100 100 95 95 91 91 85 86 80 80 74 75 69 70 64 65 58 59 51 52 42 42 40 L{) 40 40 68.07 62.45 17.04 17.03 16,817 88,839 64 Percentile 99 95 91 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Number Percentile 99 95 9) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Numbe:t Series 110 101 95 91 85 79 75 70 65 60 53 46 42 40 68.85 16.21. 41,792 Series 110 99 94 9) 84 79 74 69 64 58 51 40 40 40 67-46 16.92 29,785 TABLE 21. PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN ~ENTILES SERIES BY SEX .OF COMPETITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C MEN Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 102 102 102 101 98 98 97 9'7 ·93 94 93 93 87 87 86 86 82 82 81 81 77 77 76 76 72 67 62 73 68 63 72 67 62 71 67 61 55 57 55 55 48 49 47 47 45 45 M M 40 40 .40 40 70-94 16.45 71-73 16.10 70-53 16.32. 70-41 16.30 27,045 35,413 23,917 128,382 WOMEN Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 Total 100 100 100 100 95 92 86 96 92 87 95 91 85 95 91 86 81 82 80 80 76 76 75 75 71 65 71 66 70 64 70 65 59 52 61 54 58 51 59 52 43 45 42 42 40 40 40 40 40.·40· 40 40 68.99 69.83 68.22 68.57 17.05 16.83 17.03 16.98 17,975 24,130 16,817 88,839 65 TABLE 22 PACE FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY SEX OF COHPETITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D MEN Percentile Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 1/~ 99 101 101 101 101 95 95 97 97 96 'X) 80 70 w 50 ~ 91 85 79 75 70 65 92 86 81 76 71 66 92 86 81 76 71 67 92 85 80 75 71 66 30 20 10 5 1 59 53 46 42 ~ 61 54 46 44 ~ 62 56 48 45 ~ 61 55 47 44 ~ Hean St. Dev. 68.80 16.22 70.12 16.41 70.59 15.94 69.76 16.14 Number 41,792 27,045 35,413 23,917 \VOHEN Percentile Series 110 Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 99 98 100 100 .100 95 94 95 95 95 'X) 80 'X) 85 92 86 92 86 91 85 70 80 81 81 80 w 50 74 70 76 71 76 71 71; 69 40 64 65 65 64 30 58 59 w 58 20 10 50 1..0 52 1.2 53 44 51 42 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Hean 67.74 68.76 69.13 67.96 St. Dev. 17.06 17.21 16.83 17.02 Number 29,785 17,975 24,130 16,817 Total 101 96 92 86 80 75 71 66 61 54 46 43 ~ 69.75 16.19 128,382 Total 99 94 91 86 80 75 70 65 59 52 42 ~ ~ 68.37 17.04 88,839 66 -Series 110 Percentile 99 101 95 95 ~ 91 so 85 70 79 6o 74 50 70 40 65 30 59 20 53 10 46 5 41 1 40 Mean 68.68 st. Dev. 16.28 Number 41,792 Series 110 Percentile 99 99 95 94 ~ 91 80 85 70 80 6o 75 50 70 40 64 30 58 20 50 10 40 5 40 1 40 Mean 67.79 ' St. Dev. 17.15 Number 29,785 TABLE 23 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY SEX OF COMPETITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E MEN Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 101 101 101 96 96 96 92 92 o/2. 86 86 85 81 80 80 76 75 75 71 71 70 66 66 65 6o 61 6o 54 55 54 46 48 46 43 44 44 40 40 40 69.75 70.03 69.26 16.50 16.04 16.17 27,045 35,413 23,917 I'I'OMEN Series 120 Series 130 Series 140 100 100 100 95 95 95 o/2. 91 91 86 86 85 81 81 79 76 75 74 70 70 69 65 65 64 59 59 58 51 52 51 41 43 42 40 40 40 40 40 40 68.59 68.83 67.80 17.32 16.93 17.07 17,fJ'/5 24,130 16,817 Total 101 96 92 85 80 75 70 65 6o 54 46 43 40 69.39 16.25 128,382 Total 99 94 91 86 80 75 70 64 58 51 41 40 40 68.24 17.12 88,839 67 Series llO Percentile 99 101 95 95 ~ 91 80 85 70 80 6o 75 50 70 40 65 30 6o 20 53 10 46 5 42 1 40 Mean 68.95 St. Dev. 16.26 Number 41,792 Series llO Percentile 99 99 95 94 ~ ~ 80 85 70 79 6o 74 50 69 40 63 30 57 20 50 10 40 5 40 1 40 Mean 67.4/l St. Dev. 17.06 Number 29,785 TABIE 24 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATTIJGS EQUIVALENT TO CERI'AIN PERCENTILES SERIES BY SEX OF COHPETITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F HEN Series 120 Series 130 102 102 97 97 93 93 87 87 81 81 76 76 72 72 67 67 61 62 55 56 47 49 44 45 40 40 70-54 71-00 16.54 16.12 27,045 35,413 HOMEN Series 120 Series 130 100 100 95 95 92 92 86 86 81 81 75 75 70 70 65 65 59 6o 52 53 42 44 40 40 40 40 68.91 69.04 17-23 16.92 17,975 24,130 Series 140 Total 102 101 97 97 92 92 86 86 80 81 76 76 71 71 66 66 61 61 55 55 47 47 44 44 40 40 70.09 70.07 16.29 16.31 23,917 128,382 Series 140 Total 100 100 95 95 91 91 85 85 79 80 74 75 69 70 64 64 58 58 51 51 42 42 40 40 40 40 6?.79 68.19 17.09 17.08 16,817 88,839 68 TABLE 25 PACE FY 75 CONPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR STATUS TP* Percentile 99 105 95 104 90 102 80 99 70 96 60 94 50 92 40 90 30 87 20 84 10 78 5 751 75 Hean 90.78 St. Dev. 8.22 Number 3,478 TP* Percentile 99 103 95 95 90 90 80 83 70 78 60 73 50 69 hO 64 30 59 20 53 10 45 5 45 1 l~5 Mean 68.27 St. Dev. 15.57 Number 39,655 * TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference XP: Other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR CP* 110 107 104 101 100 97 94 92 88 85 80 80 80 93-30 8.36 408 NON OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR CP* 104 95 90 83 78 73 69 61. 59 52 50 50 50 69.01 14.91 4,94l~ 69 XP* 110 108 105 102 99 97 94 92 89 85 81 00 00 93.41 8.32 176 XP* 103 9h 89 83 78 72 68 63 57 51 50 50 50 68.29 14.85 1,767 NON VET'<" 100 99 97 95 93 91 89 87 84 81 76 71 71 87.26 7·73 26,801 NON VET* 99 91 36 80 75 71 66 62 57 51 41 40 40 65.41 15.59 142,718 TABLE 26 PACE FY 75 CDr·lPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAI!l PERCENTILf...S VETZRAN PREFEilENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR STATUS TP* Percentile 99 105 95 10h 90 102 80 99 70 97 (jJ 94 50 92 40 90 30 87 20 8lf 10 78 5 75 1 75 !·lean 90.88 St. Dev. 8.30 Number 3,h78 TP* Percentile 99 lOh 95 95 90 90 80 84 70 78 60 73 50 69 40 6h 30 59 20 53 10 45 5 45 1 45 Nean 68.61 St. Dev. 15.74 Number 39,655 * TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference XP: Other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference OCCUPATIOIIAL CATEGORY B OUTSTANDING SCHOIJill CP* 110 108 105 102 99 97 94 92 88 35 80 80 80 93.43 8.1.2 408 NON OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR CP* 105 96 91 8h 78 74 69 61;. 59 53 50 50 50 69.31 15.07 4, 91+1+ 70 XP* NON VET* 110 100 108 99 105 97 102 95 99 92 96 91 94 89 91 en 89 84 85 81 81 76 80 71 80 70 93.34 87.22 8.1.1 7.82 176 26,801 XP* NON VET* 104 100 94 92 90 87 83 80 78 75 73 71 68 67 63 62 57 57 51 51 50 41 50 1;.0 50 40 68.31;. 65.47 14.93 15.?0 1,767 11.2,718 TABLE 27 PACE FY 75 COJ.lPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDIIJG SCHOLAR STATUS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percentile CP* XP-* NON VET* 99 105 110 110 10095 104 108 10890 102 105 105 99 80 97 99 102 101 70 96 97 99 99 926o 94 97 96 90 50 92 94 40 91. 89 90 92 91 8730 20 87 89 89 8484 85 85 81 10 78 80 81 5 ' 76 75 80 80 1 71 75 80 80 70 Hean 90.86 93.40 93.13 87.17 St. Dev. 8.30 8.40 8.43 7.85 Number 3,478 408 176 26,801 !JON OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR TP* CP* Percentile XP* NON VET* 99 105 106 104 100 95 96 96 90 95 92 80 91 91 90 87 84 84 83 70 80 79 79 78 60 76 74 7h 73 71 50 69 69 68 67 hO 65 64 30 59 59 63 6220 57 57 10 53 53 51 51 L,5 50 50 42 5 45 50 50 1 hO h5 50 50 40 !-'lean 68.93 69.54 68.38 ' 65.79 St. Dev. 15.78 15.16 15.01 15.74 Number 39,655 4,944 1,767 142,718* TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference XP: Other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference 71 TABLE 28 PACE FY 75 CO!-lPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHO!J\R STATUS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR TP* CP* XP* !JOlJ VET* Percentile 99 105 110 110 100 95 104 107 109 99 90 102 105 105 97 00 99 102 102 94 70 97 100 99 93 (:fJ 95 97 97 91 50 93 95 95 G9 40 90 92 92 87 30 f?:7 89 89 8h 20 84. 86 86 81 10 78 00 81 76 5 75 80 30 71 1 75 80 80 70 J:.lean 90.98 93.6h 93.70 87.27 St~ Dev. 8.21 8.39 8.38 7.71 Nwnber 3,478 408 176 '26,801 NON OUTSTAIIDIUG SCHOL\fl. TP* CP* XP·X· NON VI~T * Percentile 99 95 90 80 103 95 90 83 104 95 91 84 102 94 90 81:,. 98 91 86 80 70 78 78 78 75 60 74 74 73 71 50 40 69 64 69 61. 68 63 66 62 30 20 10 59 53 1.5 59 53 50 57 ,..)l. 50 57 50 41 5 '1 h5 h5 50 50 )C) 5J L;.O 1:.0 Mean 68.46 69.33 68.50 65619 St• ·oev. 15.57 1h.9h 1Lt.88 l5.56 number 39,655 h,9h4 1,767 142,718 * TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: XP: Compensable 10-Point Preference Other 10-Point Preference NON VET: Uo Veteran Preference 72 TABLE 29 PACE FY 75 -COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO cERrAIN PERCENTILES .. VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR STATUS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR TP* CP* XP* NON VET* Percentile 99 105 110 110 10095 104 107 109 9990 102 104 105 80 97 99 102 102 9570 97 100 99 9.3 (iJ 95 97 97 91 50 9.3 95 94 89 40 90 92 92 87.30 87 88 89 84 20 84 86 86 8110 78 80 81 . 5 76 1 75 80 80 .71 75 80 80 70Mean 90.94 9.3.&J 9.3.80 87·•25 ,-,.} .e, St. Dev. 8.2.3 8.44 8.46 7.71 Number .3,478 408 176 26,801 NON OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR TP* CP* XP* NON VET* Percentile 99 102 104 10.3 98 95 95 95 94 91 90 90 90 89 86 80 8.3 84 8.3 80 70 78 78 78 (iJ 75 7.3 7.3 7.3 70 50 69 69 68 66 40 64 64 6.3 61 .30 20 59 59 57 56, 53 52 10 51 .50 45 50 50 41 15 45 50 50 L.O 45 50 50 40 Mean 68.15 69e1.3 68.55 64.. 88 St. Dev. 15.61 14.96 14.91 15•.58 Number 39,655 4,944 1,767 1/+2,718 * TP: Tentative 5-Point PreferenceCP: Compensable 10-Point PreferencexP: other 10-Point PreferenceNON VET: No Veteran Preference ,"'t 73 TABLE 30 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR STATUS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR TP* CP* XP* NON VET* Percentile 99 105 110 110 100 95 104 108 108 99 90 102 105 106 97 80 qo• I 102 102 95 70 97 100 99 93 60 95 98 96 91 50 93 95 94 89 40 90 92 91 87 30 87 89 89 84 20 84 86 85 81 10 78 80 81 76 5 75 80 80 71 1 75 80 80 70 Bean 91.07 93.70 93.52 87.23 St. Dev. 8.31 8.44 8.47 7.80 Number 3,478 408 176 26,801 NON OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR TP* CP* XP* NON VET* Percentile 99 104 105 103 99 95 95 96 95 91 90 90 91 90 86 80 84 84 83 80 70 79 78 78 75 60 74 74 73 71 50 69 69 68 66 40 64 64 63 62 30 59 59 58 56 20 53 53 52 50 10 45 50 50 41 5 45 50 50 40 1 45 50 50 40 I·J1ean 68.79 69.60 68.57 65.26 St. Dev. 15.75 15.12 14.94 15.68 Number 39,655 L1,944 1,767 1h2,718 -l(- TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: XP: Compensable 10-Point Preference Other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference 74 TABLE 31 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERI'AIN PERCErmLES . ' VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR TP* Percentile 99 104 95 97 90 93 00 86 70 81 {;jJ 76 ~ 71 40 66 30 {;jJ 2D 54 10 45 5 45 1 45 Mean 70.2D st. nev. 16.29 Number 41,564 TP* Percentile 99 103 95 -96 90 91 00 85 70 78 6o 73 ~ 68 40 63 30 58 2D 52 10 45 5 45 1 45 Mean 68.12 St. Dev. 16.29 Number 1,22!> TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference * CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference XP: other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference OCCUPATIONAL CATI!XIDRY A MI!:N CP* 106 99 93 86 81 76 71 66 {;jJ 54 50 50 ~ 71.00 15.78 5,152 WOMEN CP* 109 105 101 89 82 75 71 63 58 ~ ~ 50 ~ 71·34 18.33 128 75 XP* NON VET* 107 100 98 95 93 91 ~ 85 81 00 76 75 71 70 65 66 59 61 51 55 50 46 50 40 50 40 70.70 69.41 16.13 16.16 1,224 oo,~ XP* NON VET* 106 100 99 95 94 91 &7 86 8l 00 75 75 70 70 65 65 60 59 54 52 50 42 ~ 40 50 40 70·77 68.62 / 15.96 17.01 679 86,812 TABLE 32 .. PACE FY 7 5 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CEID'AIN PERCENTilES VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF OONPETITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B HEN TP* CP* XP* NON VET* Percentile 99 105 107 108 100 96 95 98 99 99 92 90 93 94 93 85 00 86 87 87 81 8J. 00 70 81 (iJ 76 76 76 76 71 71 71 !n 71 66 66 65 66 40 30 -61 (iJ 59 61 20 55 54 52 55 10 46 !n !n 46 5 45 50 !n 40 1 45 !n 50 40 Hean 70.54 71.30 70.91 69.69 St. Dev. 16.42 15.91 16.2.3 16.26 1,224 00,442 Number 41,564 5,152 . \'10!'-lEN NON VET* TP* CP* XP* Percentile 99 10.3 109 106 100 105 99 95 95 96 91 100 94 91 90 87 86 00 84 89 70 78 82 81 00 60 72 76 74 75 67 70 69 70 !n 65 40 62 61 65 59 .30 57 57 59 52 20 52 50 54 42 10 45 50 !n 40 5 45 50 !n 1 45 !n 50 40 Mean 67.85 71.01 70.48 68.44 st. Dev. 16•.35 18.48 15.92 17.05 1,220 128 679 86,812 Number * TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference XP: other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference 76. TABLE 33 PACE FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF CONPETITOR TP* Percentile 99 105 95 98 90 94 80 87 70 81 &J 76 50 72 40 67 30 61 20 55 10 46 5 1,5 1 45 Mean 70.85 St. Dev. 16.42 N'umber 41,564 TP* Percentile 99 104 95 96 90 91 80 84 70 78 60 72 50 67 40 62 30 57 20 52 10 45 5 45 1 1.5 !-lean 67.67 st. Dev. 16.21 Number 1,220 * TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference XP: Other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C I·GN CP* 107 99 94 87 Bl 77 71 66 61 55 50 50 50 71.52 15.96 5,152 l'!Ol·IEN CP* lOS 106 100 90 81 76 69 61 56 50 50 50 50 70.00 13.)8 128 XP* HOE VET* 107 100 99 96 93 92 87 86 B2 81 77 76 71 71 66 67 &J 62 52 55 50 47 50 40 50 50 71.17 70.10 16.32 16.25 1,224 80,442, XP* NON VET* 106 100 99 95 93 91 86 86 00 00 74 75 69 70 64 65 59 59 53 52 50 42 50 40 50 40 70.07 68.57 15.83 16.99 679 86,1112 77 TABLE 34 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES VEl'ERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATOOORY D MEN NON VET* TP* CP* XP* Percentile 104 106 lOS 100 99 95 97 99 98 95 93 9190 93 94 85 S6 S7 S7 so Sl 00 Sl Sl 70 76 756o 76 76 71 71 71 71 50 66 65 66 66 4D 6o 59 61 61 30 52 55 54 20 54 46 50 50 10 45 40 45 50 50 5 40 l 45 50 50 69.31 Mean 7J.39 71.31 70.90 16.14St. Dev. 16.29 15.81 16.16 1,224 00,442 Ntunber 41,564 5,152 WOMEN XP* NON VE'l'* TP* CP* Percentile 105 99 102 109 99 96 105 100 94 95 92 100 94 91 90 S7 S6 85 90 80 S2 so 79 S3 70 76 75 756o 73 70 67 72 70 50 62 66 65 63 4D 59 58 57 6o 30 51 20 52 50 54 41 50 50 10 45 50 4D l5 45 50 50 40 45 50 71.21 68.35 68.19 71.67 Mean l5o9S 17.05 St. Dev. 16.35 18.40 S6,812Number 1,220 128 679 * TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference XP: Other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference 78 TABLE .35 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATI:r-GS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR TP* Percentile 99 104 95 97 90 9.3 llJ 86 70 00 6o ' 76 !P 71 40 66 .30 6o 20 54 10' 45 5 45 1 45 Mean 70.09 St. ll:!v. 16•.35 Number 41,564 TP* Percentile 99 lD2 95 96 90 92 130 S5 70 796o 7.3 !P 67 40 6.3 .30 5S 20 52 10 45 5 45 1 45 Mean 68•.3.3 St.. ll:!v. 16.49 Number 1,220 * TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference J!P: other 10-Po~t Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E MEN CP* 106 99 94 86 81 76 71 66 6o 54 !P 50 !P 71.12 15.S5 5,152 WOHEN CP* 109 lD4 100 90 83 7S 71 6.3 57 50 50 50 50 7l.S4 1S.47 128 J!P* 107 99 9.3 Er1 81 76 71 65 59 52 50 !P 50 70.67 16.15 1,224 J!P* lD6 lD1 94 B8 83 76 70 66 6o 55 50 50 5J 71.6o 16.12 679 NOU VET* 100< 95 91. S5 79 74 70 65 6o 54 45 40 40 6e.90 16.21 00,442 UON VET* 99 94 91 86 00 75 70 64 58 51 41 40 40' 6e.21 17.1.3 86,812 79 TABLE 36 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F MEN NON VET* TP* CP* XP* Percentile 100 99 105 107 108 96 98 100 99 95 94 9290 93 94 87 85 87 00 87 00 81 81 82 70 75 76 76 6o 76 71 71 71 71 50 66 66 66 65 40 61 61 61 6o 30 55 20 55 55 52 46 50 10 46 50 40 50 45 50 5 40 1 45 50 50 71.08 69.62 Mean 70.73 71.59 16.26 16.26 St. Dev. 16.43 15.95 00,442 5,152 1,224 Number 41,564 WOMEN NON VET* TP* CP* XP* Percentile 106 100 99 103 109 95 96 105 100 95 92 100 94 91 90 85 84 89 87 00 81 00 78 84 70 75 76 75 60 72 70 67 70 70 50 62 62 65 64 40 58 57 57 6o 30 51 20 51 50 54 41 50 10 45 50 50 40 45 50 5 40 1 45 50 50 70.81 68.17 67.85 71.22 Mean 15.90 17.09 St. Dev. 16.41 18.48 679 86,812 128 Number 1,220 * TP: Tentative 5-Point Preference CP: Compensable 10-Point Preference XP: other 10-Point Preference NON VET: No Veteran Preference 80 Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Number Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 He an St. Dev. Number OUTSTANDING SCHOLARS 105 101 100 97 94 92 91 88 86 83 78 75 70 89.04 8.06 12,916 OUTSTANDING SCHOLARS 105 101 100 97 95 93 91 88 86 83 78 75 70 89.16 8.15 12,916 TABLE 37 PACE FY 75 CO~~ETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF Cm1PETITOR HEN ilOHEN NON OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING NON OUTSTANDING SCHOLARS SCHOlARS SCHOlARS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A 101 101 98 93 99 90 89 97 85 82 94 79 77 92 74 73 90 69 68 88 65 61. 86 60 59 84 55 53 81 49 46 76 40 42 71 40 40 70 40 67.58 86.95 64.10 15.43 7.62 15.56 115,466 17,613 71,226 HEN HOHEN NON OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING NON OUTSTANDING SCHOLARS SCHOLARS SCHOLARS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B 101 101 98 94 99 90 89 97 8582 94 79 77 92 7h 73 90 69 68 88 65 6h 86 60 59 81. 55 53 81 4946 76 hO 42 71 40 40 70 1+0 67.91 86.84 63.90 15.58 7.69 15.59 115,466 17,613 . 71,226 81 TABLE 37 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR STATUS BY SEX OF COHPETITOR \'!OHEN HEN OUTSTANDING NON OUTSTANDINGOUTSTANDING NON OUTSTANDING. SCHOlARS SCHOlARS SCHOlARSSCHOlARS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C Percentile 101 101 98 99 105 9095 101 95 99 8590 100 89 97 79 80 97 83 94 78 92 7470 95 90 69 60 93 73 50 91 69 88 65 40 88 65 86 60 30 86 60 84 55 81 49 20 83 54 40 10 78 46 76 71 40 5 75 43 70 1,0 1 70 40 64.07 Mean 89.15 68.32 86.76 7.71 15.58 St. Dev. 8.16 15.63 Number 12,916 115,466 17,613 71,226 HDr·lEN HEN OUTSTANDING NON OUTSTANDINGOUTSTANDING NON OUTSTANDING SCHOLARS SCHOlARS SCHO:r.ARS SCHOlARS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D Percentile 101 97 99 105 100 98 90 95 101 93 85 90 99 88 97 82 91+ 79 80 97 92 7470 95 77 90 6960 93 73 68 88 65 50 91 60 40 88 64 86 55 84 30 86 59 81 48 20 8') 53 76 hO10 78 46 71 40 5 75 42 70 hO 1 70 40 Mean 89.18 67.58 86.92 63.78 St. Dev. 8.03 15.40 7.60 15.54 Number 12,916 115,466 17,613 71,226 82 TABLE 37 (CONTDID"".....D) PACE FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES OUTSTANDING SCHOlAR STATUS BY SEX OF CONPETITOR HEN \WHEN OUTSTANDING NOU OUTSTANDING OUTSTAliDING NON OUTSTANDUrG SCHOlARS SCHOlARS SCHOU1RS SCHOlARS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E Percentile 99 105 100 101 95 101 93 98 9790 100 88 9080 97 82 97 8570 95 94 79 77 60 93 72 92 7450 91 68 90 6940 88 65 88 63 86 30 86 60 . 20 58 81, 54 83 53 81 10 78 48 M 76 hO5 75 1;2 1 70 40 71 40 70 40 Mean 89.11 67.18 St. Dev. 8.04 86.92 6;.62 15.43 7.61 15.61 Number 12,916 115,466 17,613 71,226 l-IEN l.!OHEN OUTSTANDinG NON OUT.STAIIDUJG OUTSTMIDING UON OUTSTAIIDIHGSCHOlARS SCHOL\R.S SCHOlARS SCHOLUl.S OCCUPATIO!U\L CATEGORY F Percentile 99 105 101 10195 101 94 9790 100 99 90 G9 80 97 a-;; 97 8570 95 78 94 7360 93 73 92 7350 91 90 69 69 Ov 40 89 64 ""' 6h .30 86 86 60 20 59 Ci. 5h 83 5h 10 78 46 81 1,85 75 43 76 L,O1 71 40 70 40 70 L,O l>!ean 89.29 67.92 36.80 St. Dev. 63.59 8.13 15.57 7.68 15.57Number 12,916 ll5,h66 17,613 71,2~6 83 TABLE 38 PACE. FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERI'AIN PERCENTILES CURRENT FEDERAL EHPLOYJ.!ENT CURRENT FEDERAL ENPLOYEES Occupational Occupational Occupational Occupational Occupational Occupational Category F Category D Category E Category A Category B Category C Percentile 101 101 100 100 101 95 94 93 99 100 94 95 94 94 89 89 89 89 89 90· 89 81 82 82 81 80 81 82 75 75 75 70 76 76 76 70 706o 70 70 71 70 64 64 65 64 50 65 65 59 59 60 5959 4D 59 53 53 54 53 30 53 54 48 47 "47 '4720 47 47 40 40 40 41 41 10 4D 4D 40. 40 4D5 4D 4D 40 40 40 1 4D 40 4D 64.56 64.32 64.71 Mean 64.81 64.93 65.23 16.96 17.01 17.05 St. Dev. 17.00 17.07 17.07 23,677 23,677 23,677 Number 23,677 23,677 23,677 84 TABLE 38 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 CON~ITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES Percentile 99 95 SQ 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 l4ean st. Dev. Number Occupatiobal Category A 101 96 92 86 81 76 71 66 61 54 46 40 40 69.69 16.45 196,270 Occup1tional Category l3 101 96 92 86 81 76 71 66 61 54 46 40 40 69-79 16.54 196,270 CURRENT FEDEML. EMPLOYHENT NOT FEDERAL,.El4PLOYEES Occupational . Cat€/gOry C 101 96 92 86 81 76 71 66 61 55 46 40 40 70-05 16.52 196,270 Occupational Category D 100 95 92 86 81 76 71 66 61 54 46 40 40 69.62 16.47 196,270. Occupational Category E 100 95 92 86 80 75 71 66 60 54 46 40 40 69-35 16.54 196,270 Occupational Category F 101 96 92 86 81 76 71 66 60 54 46 40 4P 69.72 16.47 196,270 85 TABLE '39 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATJNGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A SAN CHICAGO DALLAS FRANCISCO SEATTLE PHILADELPHIA ATLANTA BOSTONPercentile 100 101 103 100 99 100 101 101 97 98 94 95 94 97 96 94 93 94 90 90 90 93 93 90 87 89 8480 83 87 87 83 82 85 7870 77 82 82 77 80 746o 72 77 77 71 77 69 72 66 72 75 50 67 72 68 61 67 71 6440 62 67 62 55 62 66 5930 56 62 6o 5.~ 49 55 20 49 57 56 46 52 45 10 40 49 48 44 42 46 40 42 40 40 43 5 40 40 40 1 40 40 40 40 73.81 68.0) 1-!ean 66.08 71.14 71.05 66.04 70.82 16.14 st. Dev. 16.84 16.02 16.25 16.81 16.59 15.84 18,654 26,935 6,749 24,977 Number 29,391 16,339 27,980 HONOLULU SAN JUAN STLOUIS \'lASHINGTON DENVER NE\'1 YORK Percentile 101 1.01 99 102 100 101 90 96 97 81 94 95 95 97 93 91 92 75 91 90 93 87 80 88 85 85 69 86 82 58 80 80 79 70 83 74 52 75 77 6o 78 75 50 45 66 68 74 70 70 48 71 72 40 69 66 64 61 62 6o 59 40 30 64 55 55 20 58 54 52 40 46 46 46 45 40 10 51 40 40 40 40 41 5 45 40 1 40 40 40 40 40 72.45 69.26 68.56 52.76 69.69 70.7~ He an 16.72 14.00 1.6.19 16.84 St. Dev. 15.78 16.06 31 ,999 2,028 2,293 10,343 l4,96o Number 7,299 86 TABLE 40 PACE FY 75 CO!50 67 72 72 66 72 75 6940 62 67 68 61 67 71 30 56 62 62 64 55 62 66 5920 49 57 56 49 55 (f.) 52 10 40 '49 47 43 46 51 455 40 43 41 40 42 46 1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Mean st. Dev. 66.04 71.04 71.00 66._01 70.74 73.79 67.8" 16.87 16.02 16.26 16.84 16.59 15.78 1.6.17 Nwnber 29,391 16,339 27,980 18,654 26,935 6,749 24,977 DEf'lVER Nml YORK HONOLULU Percentile SAN JUAN STLOUIS \'lASHINGTON 99 101 100 101 90 tOl 101 95 97 94 95 81 95 9690 93 91 92 80 88 85 85 75 91 9:' 69 86 8770 83 80 (f.) 79 57 80 82 78 75 74 51 75 77 50 73 71 69 47 71 40 69 66 72 64 45 66 67 30 64 6o 58 40 61 62 20 58 54 51 40 10 54 54 50 46 45 40 46 5 45 45 40 40 40 40 40 1 40 40 40 40 40 40 Hean 72.30 69.23 68.27 52.51 69.56 70.44St. Dev. 15.77 16.09 16.82 13.98 :'.6.20 1.6.86 Nwnber 7,299 31,999 2,028 2,293 10,343 14,9(1.) 89 ATLANTA BOSTON Percentile 99 95 100 94 101 96 90 80 89 82 93 87 70 76 82 YJ 71 77 50 40 30 66 61 55 72 67 62 20 48 56 10 40 48 5 1 40 40 43 40 Mean 65.65 70.87 st. Dev. 16.90 16.12 Number 29,391 16,339 DENVER Percentile 99 101 95 97 90 80 93 87 70 83 YJ 78 50 40 73 68 30 63 20 58 10 50 5 45 1 40 Mean 71.85 st. Dev. 15.87 Number 7,299 TABLE 43 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES RIDIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E SAN CHICAGO DALLAS FRANCISCO SEA'l'l'LE PHILADELPHIA 101 100 101 102 100 96 94 96 98 94 93 87 82 77 72 67 62 56 47 41 40 90 83 77 7l 66 60 54 49 43 40 40 93 87 82 77 72 67 61 54 46 41 40 94 89 84 80 75 70 65 60 51 45 40 90 84 78 73 68 6? 58 52 45 40 40 70.67 16.32 65.68 16.89 70.56 16.67 73.52 '5.87 67.48 1 6.21 27,980 18,654 26,935 6,749 24,977 NEVI YORK HONOLULU SAN JUAN ST LOUIS WASHINGTON 100 101 90 100 101 94 91 85 80 95 92 85 79 81 75 69 57 95 91 85 80 96 93 87 82 75 70 66 74 68 63 51 47 45 75 70 65 77 72 67 YJ 54, 46 40 40 57 51 45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 YJ 54 46 40 40 61 54 45 40 40 69.16 67.88 52.52 69.08 70.32 16.17 16.89 14.03 16.24 16.95 31,999 2,028 2, 293 10,343 1 4,960 90 Percentile 99959080706o50 40 30. 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Number Percentile 99959080706o5040302010 51 Mean St. Dev. Number TABLE 44 PACE FY 75 CCJl.!PETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F SANATLANTA IDSTON CHICAGO DALUS FRANCISCO SEATTLE PHilADELPHIA 100 101 101 100 101 103 100 94 97 97 94 9S 90 93 93 90 93 95 97 94S3 S7 S7 .SJ S7 90 89 8477 S2 S:.! 77 S2 72 77 77 72 S5 79 67 72 72 66 77 80 7462 67 6S 61 72 75 69 67 71 64 56 62 63 55 61 6549 56 56 49 55 6o 59 40 49 47 43 46 53 40 43 41 40 42 51 45 46 4040 40 40 40 40 40 40 66.27 71.12 71.16 66.20 70.70 73-76 6S.05 16.97 16.11 16.41 16.95 16.68 15.96 16.29 29,391 16,339 27,980 18.654 26,935 6,749 24,977 DENVER NEW YORK HONOLULU SAN JUAN ST LOUIS 1-lASHINGI'ON 102 100 101 89 101 10197 95 96 81 96 9693 91 92 75 92 93S8 85 85 69 86 87 83 80 80 58 81 S2 79 75 75 51 76 7774 71 70 48 71 72 69 66 64 45 66 67 64 6o 59 40 61 6158 54 52 40 55 5450 46 45 40 46 45 -45 40 40 40 41 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 72.50 69.27 6S.67 52.56 69.92 70.22 l5oS7 16.19 16.91 13.97 16.37 16.95 7,299 31,999 2,028 2,293 10,343 14,96o 91 TABLE 45 PACE FY 75 COMPEI'ITORS RATINGS ~UIVALEm' TO CERI'AIN PERCEm'ILES COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A Agriculture & Architecture & Biological Business & Comnnmi- Computer & Nat. Resources Envir. Design Sciences Management cations Info • Sciences Percentile 99 101 101 101 100 101 101 95 ~ 80 70 95 91 85 81 97 95 89 85 97 94 89 84 93 88 82 77 95 92 86 82 97 92 85 79 60 50 77 73 80 75 80 76 72 68 77 72 74 69 40 69 69 72 63 68 63 30 64 63 67 58 63 57 20 59 57 61 52 57 51 10 51 49 53 45 49 45 5 45 44 46 40 43 40 1 40 40 40 40 40 40 Mean 71.39 72.79 74·11 67.01 71.02 67.99 St. Dev. 14.88 16.86 15.19 15-74 15.63 17-32 Number 2,938 782 5,634 44,222 5,301 1,448 Education Engineering Fine& Applied Arts Foreign Languages Health Professions Percentile 99 95 ~ 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 99 92 88 82 76 71 67 61 56 50 42 40 40 103 98 94 87 81 76 72 67 62 56 47 44 40 100 95 91 86 81 76 71 67 61 55 46 40 40 101 98 94 ~ 87 83 78 73 68 61 52 45 40 99 93 89 82 77 71 66 61 56 50 41 40 40 Mean St. Dev. 65.82 16.31 70-77 16.57 69.99 16.33 75-14 16.00 65.74 16.41 Number 21,955 1,551 4..385 5,433 1,559 92 OCCUPATIONAL CATIDORY A TABLE 45 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 7 5 COHPEITTORS RATINGS ~UIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES . , COIJ..IDE MAJOR Percentile Home Economics Law Letters Library Science Mathematics Physical Sciences 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 97 92 88 82 77 72 68 63 57 52 42 40 40 1C4 100 97 92 88 82 77 72 65. 57 46 40 40 101 98 95 91 87 83 79 74 70 64 55 48 40 104 99 95 91 137 82 77 72 65 58 47 40 40 105 100 97 93 89 85 81 76 72 66 56 48 40 103 100 97 92 88 83 79 74 70 64 55 48 40 Mean St. Dev. 66.45 . 15.78 74.34 17.87 76.41.. 15.29 74.14 17.34 78.30 15.47 76.84 15.42 Number 2,447 1,8132 12,484 532 4, 565 2,191 Public Affairs Social Percentile Psychology & Services Sciences Theology other 99 101 99 101 101 101 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 97 94 89 85 80 76 71 66 60 52 45 40 93 89 82 76 71 67 62 57 51 45 40 40 97 93 88 83 78 73 68 63 57 48 hO 40 99 95 91 86 81 76 72 67 59 50 43 40 95 91 84 78 72 67 62 56 50 40 40 40 Mean St. Dev. 73.74 15.64 66.35 15.91 71.52 16.39 74.47 16.56 66.70 17.29 Number 12,753 11,794 51,263 577 1,985 93 Percentile 99 95 'XJ 80 70 (:fJ 50 4D 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St.Dev. Number Percentile 99 95 'XJ 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 ~1ean St. Dev. Number Agriculture & Nat. Resources 101 95 92 86 81 77 73 69 61, 59 51 45 4D 71.74 15.00 2,938 Education 99 93 88 82 77 71 67 61 56 50 42 40 40 65.84 16.39 21,955 TABLE 46 PACE FY 75 Cm1PETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERThiN PERCENTILES COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATECDRY B Architecture & Envir. Design Biological Sciences Business & ~·1anagement Communications Comouter & Info.Sciences 101 97 95 90 85 80 75 69 63 57 49 43 40 101 98 94 89 84 80 76 72 67 62 53 46 4D 101 94 89 83 78 73 69 61, 59 53 45 40 40 101 95 92 86 81 76 72 67 62 57 49 43 40 101 98 94 86 80 74 69 64 58 51 45 4D 40 72.85 16. 'XJ 74.38 15.28 67.67 15.95 70.71 15.71 68.62 17.50 782 5,634 44,222 5,301 1,448 Engineering Fine& Applied Arts Foreign Languages Health Professions 103 99 94 88 82 77 73 68 63 56 47 45 40 100 95 91 86 81 76 71 66 (:fJ 54 h6 11) 40 101 93 94 90 87 82 78 72 67 (:fJ 51 1,5 LJ) 100 93 89 82 77 71 66 61 56 50 4l II) 40 71.44 16.66 69.52 16.37 71..81 16.10 65.81 16.50 1, 551 4,335 5,433 1,559 94 TABLE 46 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EnUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES COLLffiE HAJOR OCCUPATIOl'!AL CATffiORY B Home Library Physical Economics Law Letters Science ~1athematics Sciences Percentile 99 97 104 101 104 105 105 95 92 100 98 99 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 89 82 77 72 68 63 58 52 42 40 40 97 92 88 32 77 72 65 57 46 41 40 95 91 87 83 78 74 69 63 54 47 40 95 91 86 82 77 71 64 58 47 1,.0 40 98 94 90 86 82 78 73 67 58 49 40 97 92 88 84 79 75 70 64 55 48 40 ~lean St. Dev. 66.48 15.84 74.32 17.94 75.95 15.47 73.58 17.48 79.37 15.48 77.26 15.57 Number 2,447 1,882 12,484 532 4, 565 2,191 Public Affairs Social Psychology & Serv:j.ces Sciences Theology Other Percentile 99 101 100 101 101 101 95 97 93 97 99 96 90 80 94 89 89 82 93 88 95 90 91 84 70 85 76 82 86 78 60 80 71 78 81 72 50 76 67 73 76 67 40 71 62 68 72 62 30 20 10 66 60 51 56 51 45 63 56 47 66 59 50 56 50 41 5 1 45 40 40 40 40 40 42 40 40 40 Mean 73.66 66.33 71.36 74.34 66.65 St. Dev. 15.78 15.99 16.51 16.56 17.29 Number 12,753 11,794 51,263 577 1,985 95 Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 .30 20 10 5 1 !-lean st. Dev. Number Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 .30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Number Agriculture & Nat. Resources 101 96 92 87 82 78 74 70 65 60 52 46 40 72.60 14.98 2,938 Education 100 93 88 82 77 72 67 62 56 50 42 40 40 66.09 16.40 21,955 Architecture & Envir. Design 102 98 95 90 85 00 76 70 64 58 49 45 40 73·34 16.73 782 Engineering 104 99 95 88 83 78 73 69 64 57 48 45 40 72.15 16.56 1,551 TABLE 47 PACE FY 75 COHPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERI'AIN PERCENTILES COLLEGE HAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C Biological Business & Communi Computer & Scien'f!es Hanagement cations Ini'oo Sciences 101 101 101 102 98 95 95 98 94 B9 90 84 91 86 94 87 85 79 81 81 80 74 76 75 77 72 68 70 65 6o 72 67 62 71 65 59 62 53 57 52 53 J.,P 49 45 46 40 43 40 40 40 40 40 74·84 15·24 68.44 16.06 '{0.63 15.70 69.48 17·49 5,654 44,222 5,.301 1,448 Fine & Foreign Health Applied Arts Languages Professions 100 101 100 95 97 93 91 94 B9 85 90 82 80 86 77 76 82 71 71 77 66 66 72 62 &J 67 56. 54 6o 50 46 51 42 40 44 40 40 40 40 69./.IJ16.,30 74·42 16.12 66.07 16.54 4,385 5,433 1,559 96 TABLE 4 7 (CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENI' TO CERTAIN PERCENI'ILES Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Number Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Hean St. Dev. Number Home Economics 97 89 83 78 73 69 64 58 52 43 40 40 40 67.16 15.89 2,447 Psychology 101 97 94 89 85 80 76 71 66 60 51 45 40 73.76 15.78 12,753 COLLEGE 14A.JOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C Law Letters Library Science Mathematics Physical Sciences 104 100 97 92 87 82 77 71 ·65 57 46 41 40 101 98 95 90 86 82 78 73 68 62 53 46 40 103 99 95 90 86 81 76 70 64 56 46 40 40 105 100 99 95 91 87 83 79 74 68 59 50 40 105 100 97 93 89 84 79 75 71 65 56 1,9 40 74.06 17.78 75.33 15.54 73.01 17.42 80.24 15.33 77.66 15o52 1,882 12,481> 532 4,565 2,191 Public Affairs Social & Services Sciences Theology Other 100 101 101 101 93 97 99 96 89 93 95 91 83 87 90 84 77 72 67 62 82 78 73 68 86 81 76 72 78 73 68 62 57 51 45 63 56 47 66 59 50 56 50 41 40 40 42 40 40 40 40 40 66.76 71.37 74.12 66.90 15.98 16.49 16.56 17.22 11,794 51,263 577 1,985 97 Percentile 99 95 'X> 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Mean St. Dev. Number Percentile 99 95 9J 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 l4ean St.Dev. Number Agriculture & Nat. Resources 100 95 91 85 80 76 72 68 64 58 51 45 40 71.07 14.83 2,938 Education 98 92 88 82 76 71 67 61 56 49 41 40 40 65.66 16.35 21,955 TABLE 48 PACE FY 75 COMPEI'ITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D Architecture & Envir. Design Biological Sciences Business & Hanagement Communications Computer & Info. Sciences 101 97 95 89 85 80 74 69 63 56 47 43 /1) 101 97 93 88 84 80 76 71 67 61 52 45 /1) 100 93 88 82 77 72 68 63 58 52 45 40 40 101 95 92 87 82 77 72 68 63 57 49 43 40 101 96 92 84 78 73 68 63 56 50 45 40 40 72.36 16.92 73·71 15.71 66.86 15.77 71.10 15.63 67.23 17.32 782 5,634 44,222 5,301 1,448 Engineering Fine & Applied Arts Foreign Languages Health Professions 102 97 93 87 81 76 72 67 61 55 46 43 /1) 100 95 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 54 46 40 40 101 97 94 'X> 87 83 78 73 67 61 51 45 40 99 93 89 82 77 71 66 61 56 50 40 40 40 70.46 16.58 69.58 16.35 75.05 16.03 65.66 16.43 1,551 4,385 5,433 1,559 98 OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D TABlE 48 (OONTINUED) PACE FY 75 COOPETITORS RATINGS EQUIVALENT TO cEmAIN mRCENTILES COLlEGE J.1AJOR Home Economics Law Letters Library Science Mathematics Physical Sciences Percentile 99 95 90 80 96 92 88 81 103 100 97 92 101 98 95 91 103 98 95 92 104 100 97 92 103 99 96 91 70 76 88 87 87 89 87 60 71 83 83 83 85 83 50 40 30 20 67 62 57 51 78 73 65 57 79 75 70 64 77 72 66 59 00 76 71 65 79 74 70 63 10 42 46 55 47 55 55 5 1 4D 40 40 4D 48 40 40 4D 46 40 47 40 Mean 65.97 74·58 76.61 74·39 77·51 76.48 st. Dev. 15.76 17.92 15·24 17.32 15.64 15.39 Nl.UDber 2,447 1,882 12,484 532 4,565 2,191 Public Affairs Social Percentile Psychology &: Services Sciences Theology other 99 101 99 101 101 101 95 96 93 97 98 95 90 80 94 89 89 82 93 88 95 91 91 84 70 60 85 00 76 71 83 78 86 82 78 72 50 4D 30 20 10 75 71 66 60 51 67 62 56 51 45 73 69 63 57 47 77 73 67 60 50 67 61 55 49 41 5 1 45 4D 4D 4D 40 40 44 40 4D 40 Mean St. Dev. 73·59 15.63 66.22 15.96 71·58 16.40 74.60 16.47 66.43 17.30 Number 12,753 11,794 51,26.3 577 1,985 99 TABill 49 PACE FY 75 CO::.lPETITORS RATINGS EQUH'AI..EfiT TO CERTADI PERCENTilES COLLJ!JJE l·IAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E Agriculture & Architecture & Biological Nat. Resources Envir. Design Sciences Percentile 99 100 101 101 95 94 97 97 90 90 94 93 80 85 89 88 70 80 84 83 60 75 79 79 50 40 71 67 73 68 75 71 30 20 62 57 63 55 66 6o 10. 50 46 52 5 45 42 45 1 40 40 40 Mean 70.26 71.86 73·24 St. Dev. 14·90 17.04 15.24 Number 2,938 782 5,634 Education Engineering Fine & Applied Arts Percentile 99 98 102 100 95 92 97 95 90 88 92 91 80 82 86 86 70 76 80 81 6o 71 76 76 50 40 66 61 7166 ' 71 66 30 55 61 61 20 49 54 54 10 41 46 46 5 40 41 40 1 40 40 40 Mean 65.44 69.82 69.57 St. Dev. 16.40 16.6S 16.45 Nwnber 21,955 1,551 4,385 Business & l!anagement Communications Computer & Info. Sciences 99 92 88 81 76 71 67 62 57 51 45 40 40 100 95 92 87 82 77 72 68 6) 57 49 43 40 101 96 91 83 77 72 67 62 55 49 44 40 40 66.20 15-72 71·11 15·70 66.52 17.28 44,222 5,301 1,448 Foreign laDo"llages Health Professions 101 97 95 91 87 83 79 73 68 61 52 45 40 99 93 89 82 76 70 66 61 56 49 40 40 40 75·35 16.04 65.46 16.46 5,433 1,559 100 TABLE 49(CONTINUED) PACE FY 75 CO!·IPETITORS RATTIJGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PERCENTILES COu..EGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E Home Economics Law Letters Library Science Hathematics PhysicalSciences Percentile 99 96 103 101 103 104 102 95 91 100 98 98 99 99 90 87 97 96 95 96 95 80 81 92 92 92 92 91 70 76 88 88 87 88 87 6o 71 83 84 83 84 S3 50 66 79 80 78 79 7S 40 61' 73 75 73 75 74 30 56 66 70 66 70 69 20 50 57 64 59. 64 62 10 41 46 55 47 54 54 5 40 41 48 40 46 47 1 40 40 40 40 40 40 11ean 65.38 74.71 77.05 74.79 76.72 76.04 St. Dev. 15.77 18.06 15.23 17.39 15.80 15.43 Number 2,447 1,882 12,484 532 4,565 2,191 Public Affairs Social Percentile Psychology & Services Sciences Theology other 99 101 99 101 101 100 95 96 92 97 98 95 90 93 88 93 96 91 80 89 82 88 91 84 70 85 76 83 86 78 6o 80 71 78 82 72 50 75 66 73 77 67 40 71 6.1 68 73 61 30 66 56 63 67 55 20 6o 50 57 6o 48 10 51 45 47 50 40 5 44 40 40 LA 40 1 40 40 40 40 40 Hean 73·42 65.82 71.49 74.72 66.23 St.Dev. 15.68 16.02 16.46 16.49 17.42 Number 12,753 11,794 51,263 577 1,985 101 Percentile 99 95 9J 80 70 6o 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 l~ean St.Dev. Number Percentile 99 95 9J 80 70 6o 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 Hean St. Dev. Number TABlE 50 PACE FY 75 COI!PIITITORS RATmGS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN PEr'1CENTILE:J COLLEGE IL\JOR OCCUPATIOI·JAL CATEGORY F Agriculture & Architecture & Biolor;ical Business &: Communi- Comouter & Nat. Resources Envir. DesiQl Sciences l·lanaeement cations Info. Sciences 101 101 101 100 101 101 95 97 97 94 95 97 91 95 94 89 92 93 86 9J 89 83 86 85 81 84 84 78 81 79 77 79 so 73 77 74 73 74 76 69 72 69 69 69 71 6l; 67 63 64 63 67 59 62 57 58 56 61 52 57 50 51 45 40 48 h3 /,.0 53 /,.6 40 h5 /,.0 1.0 /,.9 43 LD 45 lD /,.0 71.48 72.45 74.04 67.59 70.76 67.97 14.97 16.91,. 15.28 16.00 15.71 17.51 2,938 782 5,634 44,222 5,301 l, 4!.8 Education Engineerinr, Fine& Applied Arts Foreif,Tl Lancua.r;es Health Professions 99 104 100 101 99 93 98 95 97 93 88 94 91 % 89 82 87 85 'X) 82 77 82 so 86 77 71 66 61 77 73 67 75 70 65 82 78 72 7l 66 61 55 62 6o (,7 5•) 49 41 40 40 56 47 1,.3 /,.0 51., . /,.6 !,0 ID 6o 51 hL 1./J 50 41 hO l,O 65.68 16.44 71.25 16.72 69.06 16./,.0 74·70 16.15 65.71 1(,. 52 21,955 1,551 4,385 5,1.33 1,559 102 TABLE 50 (CONTD!UED) PACE FY 75 COI1PETITORS RATINGS .E);lUTITALENT TO CER.TADJ PERCENTILES ,COLLSGE HAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F Home Economics La~r Letters Library Science 11athematics Physical Sciences Percentile 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 96 92 88 82 76 71 67 62 57 51 42 104 100 97 92 88 83 78 72 65 57 46 101 98 95 91 87 83 79 74 69 63 54 102 99 95 91 86 82 77 72 64 58 47 105 100 98 93 90 86 82 77 72 66 56 104 100 97 92 88 84 79 75 70 64 55 5 1 40 40 41 40 47 40 40 40 48 40 47 40 ~1ean 66.04 74.51 76.07 73.73 78.76 76.97 St. Dev. 15.85 18.00 15.45 17.45 15.66 15.58 Number 2,447 1,882 12,484 532 4, 565 2,191 Public Affairs Social Psychology & Services Sciences Theology Other Percentile 99 101 100 101 101 100 95 97 93 97 99 95 90 94 89 93 95 91 80 89 82 88 90 84 70 85 76 83 86 78 60 80 71 78 82 72 50 75 66 73 77 67 40 71 61 68 72 61 30 20 10 66 60 51 56 51 45 63 56 47 66 60 51 55 49 40 5 1 44 40 40 40 40 40 44 40 40 40 ~eant. Dev. 73.50 15.79 66.19 16.04 71.40 16.54 74.41 16.52 66.40 17.29 Number 12,753 ll,794 51,263 577 1,985 103 TABLE 51 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106 23.9 0.8 74.7 0.6 0.78 105 5.0 19.6 0.9 12.5 61.3 0.7 0.95 104 7.2 18.4 1.0 15.2 57.5 0.7 1.01 103 9.9 16.9 1.2 18.4 52.9 0.8 1.10 102 12.1 15.6 1.2 21.2 48.9 1.0 1.19 101 14.3 14.4 1.4 23.6 45.2 1.1 1. 29 100 9.7 7.7 0.8 18.7 15.3 24.0 0.7 23.2 2.42 99 10.1 6.3 0.8 22.8 15 . .2 19.7 0.6 24.5 2.94 98 10.1 5.2 0.7 26.7 15.1 16.3 0.6 25.3 3.56 97 10.1 4.3 0.7 29.9 14.4 13.5 0.6 26.5 4.31 96 9.8 3.6 0.7 32.4 14.1 11.2 0.6 27.5 5.17 95 9.4 3.0 0.6 35.4 13.9 9.4 0.5 27.7 6.17 94 9.0 2.6 0.5 37.3 13.8 8.0 0.6 28.2 7.27 93 8.6 2.2 o. 5 ' 39.4 13.5 6.8 0.5 28.6 8.57 92 8.1 1.9 0.5 40.3 13.6 5.9 0.6 29.2 9.90 91 7.8 1..6 0.4 41.1 13.5 5.1 0.5 29.9 11.34 90 7.3 1.4 0.4 41.2 13.9 4.5 0.6 30.8 12.90 89 7.0 1.3 0.4 41.1 13.9 4.0 0.6 31.8 14.44 88 6.6 1.2 0.4 40.9 14.0 3.6 0.6 32.8 16.04 87 6.3 1.0 0.3 40.4 14.2 3.3 0.6 33.9 17.72 86 6.0 1.0 0.3 39.7 14.3 3.0 0.7 35.0 19.43 85 5.7 0.9 0.3 38.7 14.3 2.7 0.6 36.8 21.39 Percent of Total 1.6 0.2 0.1 12.2 18.0 2.2 0.8 64.9 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 104 TABLE 52 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS.OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANIHNG SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to regulations** OCCiJl'AT!ONAL CATEGORY B OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR TP* 'CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* At or Above Rating 106 23.1 0.9 75.3 0.7 105 5.4 18.4 0.8 14.7 60.0 0.7 104 8.1 17.1 0.9 17.3 55.8 0.7 103 9.9 16.0 1.1 20.1 52.0 0.9 102 12.1 14.5 1.2 24.1 47.1 1.0 101 14.3 13.3 1.2 26.6 43.4 i.l 100 9.6 6.9 0.7 18.2 16.3 22. 6. 0.6 25.0 99 9.6 5.'8 0.8 23.4 19;3 18.9 . 0;6 25.6 98 9.6 4.8 0.7 26.4 16.1 15.6 0.7 26.1 97 9.4 3~ 9 0.6 29.4 1s.z 12.8 0.6 28.0 96 9.3 3.4 0.6 31.!8. 14.9 11.0 0.6 28.4 95 9.1 2.8 0.5 35.2 14.3 9.2 0.6 28.3 94 8.7 2.4 0.5 36.4 15.1 7.9 0.6 28.4 93 8.3' 2.1 0.5 36.8 14.6 6. 7 0.6 30.5 92 7.8 1.8 0.4 38.6 14.2 5.8 0.6 30.7 91 7.6 1.6 0.4 39.3 14.3 5.2 0.6 31.1 90 7.1 1.4 0.4 40.4 . 14.0 4.6 0.6 31 ~ 5 . 89 6.8 1.2 0.4 39.3 14.3 4.0 0. 6. 33.3 88 6.4 1.1 0.4 39:6 14.4 3.7 0.6 33.9 87 6.2 1.0 0.3 39.2 14.·5 3.3 0.6 34.8 86 5.9 0.9 0.3 39.0 14.5 3.1 0.6 35.6 85 5.7 0.9 0.3 38.1 15.2. 2.8 0.6 36.5 Percent of Total 1.6 0.2 0.1 . 12.2 18.0 2.2 0.8 64.9 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference Percent of Total 0.80 1. 01 1. 08 1.16 1. 28 1. 39 2.68 3.21 3.86 4. 71 5.48 6.54 7.64 8.97 10.34 11.67 13.13 14.94 16.53 18.09 19,75 21.41 .**Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 105 TABLE 53 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY c OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106 22.8 0.8 75.7 o.7 0.81 105 5.6 17.8 0.8 16.0 59.1 0.7 1. 04 104 7.8 16.5 0.9 19.3 54.7 0.8 1.13 103 9.8 15.2 0.9 22.6 50.6 0.8 1. 22 102 11.6 14.2 1.0 25.0 47.2 0.9 1.31 101 13.9 13.0 1.2 27.7 43.2 1.1 1.43 100 8.7 6.5 0.7 18.5 16.5 21.6 0.6 26.9 2.85 99 9.2 5.5 0.7 22.0 16.3 18.3 0.7 27.4 3.37 98 9.1 4.6 0.7 25.9 15.8 15.2 0.6 28.1 4.05 97 9.2 3.8 0.6 28.6 15.5 12.8 0.6 28.9 4.82 96 9.0 3.2 0.6 30.8 15.3 10.8 0.6 29.7 5.72 95 8.6 2.7 0.5 33.3 15.0 9.1 0.6 30.0 6.75 94 8.5 2.4 0.5 34.9 14.8 7.8 0.6 30.5 7.89 93 8.0 2.0 0.5 36.4 14.6 6.7 0.6 31.2 9.15 92 7.7 1.8 0.4 37.4 14.5 5.9 0.6 31.7 10.49 91 7.3 1.6 0.4 38.1 14.5 5.2 0.6 32.3 11.93 90 7.0 1.4 0.4 38.7 14.4 4.6 0.6 32.8 13.38 89 6.7 1.2 0.4 39.2 14.3 4.1 0.6 33.5 15.03 88 6.4 1.1 0.3 38.9 14.5 3.7 0.6 34.5 16.68 87 6.1 1.0 0.3 38.5 14.7 3.4 0.6 35.4 18.40 86 5.8 0.9 0.3 38.0 14.8 3.1 0.6 36.5 20.11 85 5.6 0.8 0.3 37.2 15.0 2.8 0.6 37.7 21.86 Percent of Total 1.6 0.2 0.1 12.2 18.0 2.2 0.8 64.9 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 106 TABLE 54 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORSAT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR PercentTP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106 23.0 0.8 75.7 0.6 0.81105 4.5 19.5 0.8 10.2 64.3 0.6 0.95104 7.1 18.4 I 1.1 12.2 60.6 0.6 1.01103 9.8 17.0 1.3 15.4 55.9 0. 7 1. 09102 12.4 15.6 1.3 18.7 51.3 0.7 1.19101 14.9 14.2 1.5 21.3 46.9 1.1 1. 30100 10.8 8.3 1.0 16.7 15.6 27.4 0.8 19.4 2.2399 11.2 6.8 0.9 22.4 15.7 22.3 0.7 20.1 2.7498 11.3 5.5 0.8 26.8 14.7 18.2 0.7 21.9 3.3597 11.0 4.5 0.8 29.8 14.9 14.9 0.6 23.5 4.11 96 10.5· 3.7 0.7 33.8 15.0 12.3 0.6 23.4 4.97 95 10.0 3.1 0.6 36.4 14.3 10.2 0.6 24.7 5.97 94 9.5 2.6 0.6 38.1 14.2 8.6 0.6 26.0 7.14 93 8.9 2.2 0.5 40.4 14.3 7.3 0.6 25.8 8.40 92 8.6 1.9 0.5 41.2 13.9 6.2 0.6 27.1 9.79 91 8.0 1.6 0.4 41.4 14.0 5.4 0.6 28.5 11.28 90 7.5 1.5 0.4 42.1 14.2 4.8 0.6 28.9 12.78 89 7.i 1.3 0.4 41.7 14.0 4.3 0.6 30.6 14.36 88 6.7 1.2 0.4 41.0 14.2 3.8 0.6 32.3 16.07 87 6.4 1.0 0.3 40.8 14.5 3.4 0.6 32.9 17.74 86 6.1 1.0 0.3 39.9 14.4 3.1 0.7 34.5 19.46 85 5.8 0.9 0.3 38.8 14.7 2.9 0.6 36.1 21.30 Percent of Total 1.6 0.2 0.1 12.2 18.0 2.2 0.8 64.9 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 107 TABLE 55 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR / Percent XP* NON* of Total TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* At or·AboveRating 106 23.3 0.7 75.4 0.6 0.80 105 4.5 19.9 0.9 9.5 64.6 o.s 0.93 104 7.2 18.6 1.2 11.9 60.4 0.7 1.00 103 9.7 17.2 1.4 15.0 55.9 0.7 1. 08 0.9 1.16 102 12.3 15.9 1.4 17.7 51.7 20.8 46.7 1.3 1. 29101 15.2 14.4 1.6 17.9 2.14 100 11.5 8.7 1.1 16.3 15.6 28.1 0.9 2.66 99 11.5 7.0 0.9 22.6 15.1 22.6 0.8 19.5 3.27 98 11.5 s. 7 0.9 26.6 14.9 18.4 0.7 21.3 97 11.2 4.6 0.8 30.2 15.3 15.0 0.6 22.2 4.00 4.91 96 10.5 3.8 0.7 34.2 14.8 12.2 0.7 23.0 95 10.2 3.2 0.7 36.9 14.5 10.3 0.6 23.7 5.86 94 9.7 2.7 0.6 39.1 14.3 8.6 0.6 24.5 6.99 93 9.1 2.2 0.5 41.0 14.0 7.3 0.6 25.2 8.27 92 8.6 1.9 o.-s 41.5 13.8 6.2 0.6 27.0 9.71 41.8 14.1 5.4 0.6 28.0 11.17 9l 8.1 1.7 0.5 28.9 12.71 90 7.6 1.5 0.4 42.'4 14.0 4.7 0.6 30.3 14.24 89 7.1 1.3 0.4 42.1 14.0 4.2 0.6 15.77 88 6.8 1.2 0.4 41.6 14.1 3.8 0.6 31.4 14.2 3.4 0.7 32.5 17.50 87 6.4 1.1 0.4 41.4 14.2 3.1 o. 7 34.5 19.36 86 6.1 Lei 0.3 40.2 21.02 85 5.9 0.9 0.3 39.3 14.3 2.9 0.7 35.8 Percent 0.2 0.1 12.2 18.0 2.2 0.8 64.9 of Total 1.6 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 108 TABLE 56 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR .PercentTP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of .Total At or Above Rating 106 22.8 0.8 75.6 0.7 0.81105 5.4 18.5 1.0 13.4 61.2 0.6 1.00104 8.0 17.0 0.9 17.0 56.4 0.7 1.09103 10.4 15.8 1.1 19.7 52.2 0.8 1.18102 12.6 14.6 1.3 22.5 48.? 0.9 1. 27101 14.7 13.4 1.3 25.4 44.2 1.0 1.39 100 10.0 7.2 0.9 18.3 16.4 24.0 0. 7 22.4 2.5699 10.2 5.9 0.8 22.2 16.1 19.5 0.7 24.7 3.1598 10.2 4.9 0.7 25.9 16.0 16.2 0.6 25.4 3.7997 10.3 4.1 0.7 29.5 15.6 13.5 0.6 25.7 4.5496 10.0 3.4 0.6 32.2 15.4 11.4 0.6 26.3 5.38 95 9.5 2.9 0.6 34.7 15.0 9.6 0.6 27.1 6.39 94 9.2 2.5 0.5 36.6 14.9 8.2 0.6 27.5 7.48 93 8.6 2.1 0.5 38.4 14.8 7.0 0.6 27.9 8.72 92 8.2 1.8 0.5 39.8 14.6 6.0 0.6 28.5 10.17 91 7.8 1.6 0.4 40.3 14.5 5.3 0.6 29.5 11.64 90 7.4 1.4 0.4 40.6 14.5 4.7 0.6 30.4 13.10 89 6.9 1.3 0.4 40.3 15.0 4.2 0.6 31.4 14.74 88 6.6 1.1 0.4 40.2 i5.o 3.8 0.6 32.5 16.38 87 6.3 1.0 0.3 39.6 15.2 3.4 0.6 33.5 17.99 86 6.0 0.9 0.3 39.0 15.3 3.1 0.6 34.6 19.70 85 5. 7 0.9 0.3 38.3 15.4 2.9 0.6 35.8 21.44 Percent of Total 1.6 0.2 0.1 12.2 18.0 2.2 0.8 64.9 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 109 TABLE 57 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAROUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent CP* XP* NON* of Total TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* At or AboveRating 106 105 104 103 102 101 0.7 0.2 52.7 1. 07 3.4 0.1 0.1 31.7 11.1 100 o.s 0.1 52.0 1.38 99 3.4 0.1 0.1 32.6 11.1 1. 73 3.4 0.2 0.1 31.9 11.7 0.6 0.1 52.0 98 0.1 52.8 2.16 3.3 0.2 0.1 31.1 11.7 0.6 97 0.2 53.9 2.64 0.2 0.1 30.2 u.s 0.5 96 3.4 53.8 3.17 95 3.4 0.2 0.1 29.9 11.6 0.6 0.2 54.4 3. 7794 3.3 0.2 0.1 29.3 11.9 0.7 0.2 54.8 4.47 0.1 28.8 12.0 0.7 0.2 93 3.2 0.2 5.20 0.1 28.1 11.9 0.7 0.2 55.5 92 3.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 56.0 6.06 91 3.0 0.2 0.1 27.7 12.1 56.4 7.01 0.1 27.2 12.2 0.7 0.2 90 2.9 0.2 0.8 0.2 56.6 8.11 89 2.9 0.2 0.1 26.9 12.4 0.8 0.2 57.1 9.21 0.1 26.3 12.5 88 2.8 0.2 10.49 0.1 25.8 12.8 0.8 0.3 57.2 87 2.8 0.2 0.8 0.3 57.5 11.83 0.1 25.5 12.9 86 2.7 0.2 0.9 0.2 57.9 13.59 85 2.6 0.2 0.1 24.9 13.2 Proportion 0.5 62.3 43.24 18.4 15.0 1.3 Passing 2.1 0.2 0.1 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings first adjusted for Veteran Preference then Outstanding Scholarship. Frequencies smoothed after adjustment. 110 TABLE 58 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 3.3 0.2 0.1 29.6 11.9 o. 7 0.1 54.0 1. 24 99 3.4 0.2 0.1 31.1 11.9 0.6 0.1 52.4 1. 57 98 3.6 0.2 0.1 31.3 12.0 0.7 0.2 51.9 1.94 97 3.5 0.2 0.1 30.1 12.4 0.7 0.2 52.8 2.49 96 3.4 0.2 0.1 29.7 12.6 0.7 0.2 53.1 2.94 95 3.3 0.2 0.1 29.4 12.6 0.7 0.2 53.5 3.46 94 3.3 0.2 0.1 29.4 12.2 0.7 0.2 53.9 4.04 93 3.1 0.2 0.1 27.9 12.5 0.8 0.2 55.1 4.96 92 3.1 0.2 0.1 27.2 12.5 0.8 0.2 55.8 5.69 91 3·1 0.2 0.1 26.9 12.6 0.8 0.2 56.0 6.47 90 3.1 0.2 0.1 27.0 12.7. 0.8 0.2 55.9 7.39 89 2.9 0.2 0.1 26.1 13.1 0.8 0.2 56.6 8.81 88 2.8 0.2 0.1 25.6 13.3 0.8 0.3 56.9 9.85 87 2.8 0.2 0.1 25.3 13.4 0.9 0.3 57.1 11.01 86 2.8 0.2 0.1 24.7 13.6 0.9 0.3 57.5 12.22 85 2.8 0.2 0.1 24.4 13.6 0.9 0.3 57.7 13.53 Proportion Passing 2.1 0.2 0.1 18.1 15.3 1.4 0.5 62.3 43.64 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings first adjusted for Veteran Preference then Outstanding Scholarship. Frequencies smoothed after adjustment. 111 TABLE 59 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAROUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent NON* of Total TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* At or AboveRating 106 105 104 103 102 101 0.2 0.1 28.6 12.0 0.6 0.1 55.2 1. 39 100 3.2 0.2 0.1 30.3 12.4 0.6 0.1 52.9 1. 75 99 3.4 2.13 0.1 29.3 12.9 0.7 0.1 53.3 98 3.4 0.2 2.58 0.1 28.8 12.7 0. 7 0.2 54.1 97 3.4 0.2 0. 7 0.2 54.6 3.12 96 3.3 0.2 0.1 28.3 12.7 3. 71 0.2 54.6 28.2 12.7 0.8 95 3.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 55;4 4.34 27.5 12.6 0.8 94 3.1 0.2 0.1 5.09 93 3.0 0.2 0.1 27.1 12.5 0.8 0.2 56.1 92 2.9 0.2 0.1 26.4 12.7 0.8 0.2 56.7 5.87 12.9 0.7 0.2 56:9 6.77 91 2.9 0.2 0.1 26.0 7. 71 90 2.9 0.2 0.1 25.7 13.2 0.8 0.2 57.0 89 2.8 0.2 0.1 25.5 13.3 0.8 0.3 57.1 8.82 88 2.8 0.2 0.1 24.8 13.4 0.9 0.3 57.6 9.98 57.8 11.27 87 2.8 0.2 0.1 24.5 13.5 0.9 0.3 58.2 12.61 86 2.7 0.2 0.1 23.9 13.7 0.9 0.3 14.08 85 2.6 0.2 0.1 23.6 13.7 1.0 0.3 58.5 Proportion 1.4 o.s 62.6 44.30 2.0 0.2 0.1 17.8 15.5 Passing *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings first adjusted for Veteran Preference then Outstanding Scholarship. Frequencies smoothed after adjustment. 112 TABLE 60 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* At or Above Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 3.8 0.2 0.1 32.8 11.4 0.7 0.2 50.9 99 3.9 0.2 0.1 33.9 11.2. 0.6 0.1 50.0 98 3.8 0.2 0.1 33.1 11.6 0.6 0.2 50.4 97 3.8 0.3 0.2 32.3 ll.8 0.6 0.2 50.9 96 3.8 0.3 0.2 32.3 12.1 0.5 0.2 50.6 95 3.7 0.2 0.2 31.4 12.1 0.6 0.2 51.5 94 3.6 0.2 0.2 29.9 12.3 0.7 0.2 53.0 93 3.6 0.3 0.1 29.9 12.1 0.7 0.2 53.1 92 3.4 0.2 0.1 29.0 12.4 0.8 0.2 53.8 91 3.3 0.2 0.1 28.4 12.6 0.8 0.2 54.3 90 3.2 0.2 0.1 28.2 12.7 0.8 0.3 54.6 89 3.0 0.2 0.1 27.5 12.8 0.8 0.2 55.3 88 2.9 0.2 0.1 26.3 13.1 0.9 0.3 56.4 87 3.0 0.2 0.1 26.2 13.1 0.9 0.3 56.3 86 2.9 0.2 0.1 25.6 13.4 0.9 0.2 56.8 85 2.8 0.2 0.1 25.2 13.5 0.9 0.3 57.0 Proportion Passing 2.1 0.2 0.1 18.3 15.3 1.4 0.5 62.0 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings first adjusted for Veteran Preference then Outstanding Scholarship. Frequencies smoothed after adjustment. Percent of Total 0.85 1.10 1. 46 1. 89 2.30 2.86 3.50 4.08 4.92 5.92 6.76 7.93 9.20 10.37 ll.82 13.48 43.56 113 TABLE 61 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* At or Above Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 4.0 0.3 0.1 33.9 11.4 0.6 0.2 49.4 99 4.0 0.3 0.1 33.7 11.4 0.7 0.1 49.8 98 4.0 0.3 0.2 33.3 11.6 0.6 0.1 50.0 0.3 0.3 33.6 11.5 0.6 0.2 49.6 97 4.0 96 3.9 0.3 0.2 32.4 11.9 0.5 0.2 50.6 95 3.8 0.2 0.2 31.9 12.2 0.6 0.2. 50.8 94 3.7 0.3 0.2 31.0 12.2 0.7 0.2 51.8 93 3.6 0.3 0.1 30.3 12.2 0.7 0.2 52.5 92 3.4 0.2 0.1 29.1 12.5 0.8 0.2 53.6 91 3.4 0.2 0.1 28.9 12.5 0.8 0.3 53.8 90 3.2 0.2 0.1 28.2 12.6 0.8 0.3 54.5 89 3.1 0.2 0.1 27.6 12.7 0.9 0.3 55.1 88 3.1 0.2 0.1 27.1 13.0 0.8 0.3 55.5 87 3.0 0.2 0.1 26.8 13.1 0.9 0.2 55.7 86 2.9 0.2 0.1 25.7 13.3 0.9 0.3 56.6 85 2.8 0.2 0.1 25.6 13.4 0.9 0.3 56.7 Proportion Passing 2.2 0.2 0.1 18.7 15.2 1.4 0.5 61.7 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings first adjusted for Veteran Preference then Outstanding Scholarship. Frequencies smoothed after adjustment. Percent of Total 0.78 1. 04 1.39 1. 79 2.24 2.74 3.30 3.98 4.89 5.82 6.74 7.83 8.94 10.21 11.79 13.27 42.67 114 TABLE 62 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE P.ROPORTIONS Of DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORSAT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* J!>l~ of Total At or Above Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 3.6 0.2 0.2 31.5 12.1 0.7 0.1 51.5 1.11 99 3.6 0.2 0.2 31.1 12.3 0.7 0.2 51.7 1.51 98 3.7 0.2 0.1 30.8 12.4 0.7 0.2 51.7 1.86 97 3.8 0.2 0.1 30.9 12.6 0.7 0.2 51.4 2.27 96 3.8 0.2 0.1 30.3 12.9 0.7 0.2 51.8 2.73 95 3.7 0.3 0.1 29.7 12.8 0.8 0.2 52.4 3.30 94 3.6 0.2 0.1 29.3 13.0 0.8 0.2 52.8 3.90 93 3.5 0.2 0.1 29.1 13.1 0.8 0.2 52.9 4.60 92 3.4 0.2 0.1. 28.2 13.2 0.8 0.2 53.9 5.38 91 3.3 0.2 0.1 27.6 13.2 0.8 0.2 54.6 6.28 90 3.2 0.2 0.1 27.0 13.2 0.9 0.3 55.1 7.23 89 3.1 0.2 0.1 26.6 13.3 0.9 0.3 55.5 8.33 88 3.0 0.2 0.1 25.9 13.6 0.9 0.2 56.0 9.48 87 3.0 0.2 0.1 25.5 13.8 0.9 0.3 56.2 10.73 86 2.9 0.2 0.1 25.0 14.0 0.9 0.3 56.6 12.06 85 2.9 0.2 0.1 24.7 14.1 1.0 0.3 56.8 13.53 ProportionPassing 2.2 0.2 0.1 18.3 15.6 1.4 0.5 61.8 43.34 *TP: Tentative 5-point ·Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings first adjusted for Veteran Preference then Outstanding Scholarship. Frequencies smoothed after adjustment. 115 TABLE 63 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A FEMALEMALE Percent NON* of Total TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* At or AboveRating 2.6 0.4 0.78 106 95.9 1.1 0.95 0.2 2.1 0.4 105 17.4 78.7 1.1 1.02 2.0 0.5 22.0 73.9 1.2 0.4 104 0.5 1.8 0.7 1.11 103 27.9 67.8 1.2 0.6 1.7 0.8 1. 20 102 32.8 62.7 1.4 1. 29 0.7 1.6 1.0 101 37.3 57.9 1.5 15.9 2.43 100 24.4 30.8 0.9 26.0 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 19.0 2.96 99 24.8 25.3 0.8 28.3 0.6 0.5 22.2 3.59 98 24.7 20.9 0.8 29.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 25.2 4.34 97 24.1 17.3 0.8 31.2 0.5 5.20 0.4 0.5 27.7 32.'3 0.5 96 23.4 14.4 0.8 0.3 0.4 30.1 6.20 33.1 0.5 95 22.8 12.1 0.7 0.3 0.4 31.9 7.32 94 22.3 10.2 0.7 33.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 34.2 8.63 93 21.5 8.7 0.6 33.8 0.5 0.2 0.4 35.4 9.9692 21.2 7.5 0.7 34.1 o.s 0.2 0.4 36.7 11.41 91 20. 7 6.6 0.6 34.3 37.4 12.99 0.5 0.2 0.4 90 20.7 5.8 0.6 34.4 38.4 14.54 0.6 0.1 0.3 89 20.3 5.2 0.6 34.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 39.1 16.1588 20.1 4.6 0.6 34.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 39.4 17.8487 20.0 4.2 0.6 34.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 39.8 19.5686 19.9 3.8 0.6 34.9 0.1 0.3 40.2 21.52 85 19.5 3.5 0.6 35.3 0.5 Percent 0.3 40.0 of Total 19.1 2.4 0.6 37.0 0.6 0.1 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 116 TABLE 64 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B MALE FEMALE Percent TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106 95.8 1.2 2.5 0.5 0.81 105 19.8 76.3 1.1 0.3 2.0 0.4 1. 01104 24.9 71.1 1.1 0.5 1.9 0.5 1.09 103 29.6 66.2 1.3 0.6 1.7 0.6 1.17 102 35.5 59.9 1.4 0.8 1.6 0.8 1. 29101 40.2 55.3 1.4 0.9 1.4 0.8 1.40 100 25.5 28.7 0.8 27.7 0.5 0.8 0.5 15.5 2.70 99 24.5 24.0 0.8 29.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 19.1 3.2398 25.3 19.9 0.9 30.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 21.7 3.8997 24.1 16.3 0.8 32.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 24.8 4.75 96 23.7 14.0 0.8 33.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 26.9 5.52 95 22.9 11.7 0.7 34.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 29.4 6.59 94 23.2 10.1 0.7 34.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 30.7 7.70 93 22.4 8.6 0.6 34.9 0.5 0.2 0.4 32.3 9.04 92 21.6 7.4 0.6 35.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 34.1 10.42 91 21.4 6.6 0.6 35.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 35.1 11.72 90 20.7 5.9 0.6 35.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 36.5 13.22 89 20.6 5.1 0.6 35.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 37.2 15.04 88 20.3 4. 7 0.6 35.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 37.9 16.64 87 20.3 4.3 0.6 35.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 38.2 18.21 86 20.0 3.9 0.6 35.8 0.5 0.1 0.3 38.8 19.88 85 20.4 3.6 0.6 35.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 38.9 21.55 Percentof Total 19.1 2.4 0.6 37.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 40.0 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at topof register. 117 TABLE 65 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY c MALE FEMALE Percent XP* NON* of Total TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* At or AboveRating 2.3 0.4 0.82 106 96.1 1.1 0.4 1.8 0.4 1.05 105 21.3 75.1 1.1 1.7 0.5 1.13 104 26. 7 69.5 1.2 0.4 1.5 0.5 1. 23 103 31.9 64.3 1.2 0.6 102 35.9 59.9 1.3 o. 7 1.4 0.7 1. 32 1.44 101 40.8 54.8 1.4 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.4 16.2 2.88 100 24.8 27.4 0.9 29.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 18.9 3.40 99 25.1 23.2 0.9 30.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 21.9 4.08 98 24.5 19.3 0.9 32.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 24.4 4.86 97 24.2 16.2 0.8 33.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 26.4 5.76 96 23.9 13.7 0.8 34.1 0.3 0.4 28.6 6.79 95 23.2 11.6 0.7 34.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 30.2 7.95 94 22.9 9.9 0.7 35.2 0.5 93 22.2 8.6 0.7 35.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 31.9 9.22 0.4 33.2 10.56 92 21.7 7.5 0.6 35.9 0.5 0.2 0.3 34.5 12.01 91 21.4 6.6 0.6 36.0 0.5 0.2 35.6 13.47 90 21.0 5.9 0.6 36.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 36.7 15.14 89 20.5 5.2 0.6 36.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 37.3 16.79 88 20.4 4.7 0.6 36.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 37.8 18.53 87 20.3 4.3 0.6 36.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 38.3 20.25 86 20.1 3.9 0.6 36.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 38.5 22.01 85 20.1 3.6 0.6 36.3 Percent 0.1 0.3 40.0 of Total 19.1 2.4 0.6 37.0 0.6 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 118 TABLE 66 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D MALE FEMALE Percent TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106 96.0 1.0 2.7 0.3 0.81 105 14.7 81.5 1.0 0.1 2.3 0.4 0.96 104 19.1 76.8 1.1 0.3 2.1 0.5 1.01 103 24.8 70.8 1.3 0.5 2.0 0.7 1.10 102 30.7 65.0 1.3 0.5 1.8 0.7 1. 20 101 35.6 59.5 1.5 0.7 1.7 1.1 l. 31 100 25.9 34.7 1.0 23.2 0.5 1.0 0.8 12.9 2.24 99 26.5 28.3 0.9 25.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 16.9 2.76 98 25.5 23.1 0.9 28.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 20.5 3.38 97 25.4 18.8 0.9 29.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 23.4 4.13 96 24.9 15.6 0.8 30.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 26.3 5.01 95 23.8 13.0 0.8 32.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 28.8 6.01 94 23.1 10.8 0.7 33.0 0.6 0.3 0.4 31.0 7.19 93 22.7 9.2 0.7 33.1 0.6 0.3 0.4 33.1 8.46 92 21.9 7.9 0.7 33.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 34.8 9.86 91 21.5 6.9 0.6 33.9 0.5 0.2 0.4 36.0 11.36 90 21.2 6.1 0.6 34.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 37.0 12.87 89 20.6 5.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 37.9 34.3 0.1 14.45 88 20.3 4.8 0.6 34.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 38.7 16.18 87 20.3 4.4 0.6 34.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 39.1 17.86 86 20.0 4.0 0.6 34.9 0.5 0.1 0.4 39.5 19.59 85 20.0 3.6 0.6 35.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 39.7 21.43 Percent of Total 19.1 2.4 0.6 37.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 40.0 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 119 TABLE 67 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E MALE FEMALE TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* At or Above Rating 106 96.0 0.9 2.7 0.4 105 13.9 82.2 1.0 0.1 2.3 0.4 104 18.8 76.8 1.2 0.3 2.2 0.6 103 24.4 71.1 1.3 0.5 2.0 0.8 102 29.6 65.7 1.3 0.5 1.8 1.0 101 35.3 59.4 1.7 0.7 1.7 1.2 100 26.6 35.7 1.1 21.8 0.5 1.0 0.8 12.4 99 26.1 28.7 1.0 25.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 17.0 98 25.9 23.3 0.9 27.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 20.6 97 25.9 19.1 0.8 28.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 23.5 96 24.8 15.5 0.8 30.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 26.7 95 24.1 13.0 0.8 31.6 0;6 0.4 0.5 29.0 94 23.3 10.9 0.7 32.3 0.6 0.3 0.5 31.4 93 22.6 9.2 0.7 32.7 0.6 0.3 0.4 33.5 92 21.8 7.9 0.7 33.2 0.6 o. z: 0.4 35.3 91 21.5 6.8 0.7 33.3 0.6 0.2' 0.4 36.5 90 21.0 6.0 0.6 33.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 37.6 89 20.6 5.4 0.6 33.8 0.6 0.2 0.4 38.5 88 20 ..4 4.8 0.6 33.9 0.6 0.1 0.4 39.1 87 20.2 4.4 0.6 34.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 39.7 86 19.8 3.9 0.6 34.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 40.1 85 19.7 3.6 0.6 34.7 0.5 0.1 0.4 40.3 ' Percent of Total 19.1 2.4 0.6 37.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 40.0 Percent of Total 0.80 0.94 1.00 1. 08 1.17 1. 29 2.15 2.68 3.29 4.02 4.95 5.90 7.03 8.33 9.77 11.25 12.80 14.33 15.87 17.61 19.48 21.14 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at top of register. 120 TABLE 68 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFF.ERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F MALE FEMALE Percent TP* CP* XP* NON* At or Above TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total Rating 106 95.9 1.1 2.5 0.4 0.82 105 18.6 77.5 1.1 0.2 2.0 0.5104 24.6 71.5 1.1 0.4 1.9 0.5 1. 01 1.10 103 29.7 66.1 1.3 0.5 1.7 0.6 1.18 102 34.5 61.1 1.4 0.7 1.6 0.8 101 1.28 39.4 56.0 1.5 0.8 1.5 0.8 100 27.1 31.6 1.0 27.5 0.5 0.8 1.40 0.6 10.8 2.48 99 26.8 25.6 0.9 30.1 0.5 0.7 o..6 14.8 3.06 98 26.5 21.2 0.8 31.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 18.3 3.70 97 26.1 17.6 0.8 32.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 ' 21.2 4.45 96 25.2 14.7 0.8 33.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 24.8 5.34 95 24.3 12.4 0.7 34.2 0.6 0.3 0.5 27.0 6.34 94 23.7 10.5 0.7 34.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 29.5 7.48 93 22.9 8.9 0.7 34.5 0.6 0.2 0.4 31.8 8.78 92 22.3 7.6 0.7 34.6 0.5 0.2 0'.4 33.7 10.25 91 21.7 6.7 0.7 35.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 34.9 11.75 90 21.2 5.9 0.6 35.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 36.3 13.29 89 21.3 5. 3. 0.6. 34.9 0.5 0.1 0.3 37.0 14.92 88 21.0 4.7 0.6 35.1 0.5 0.1 0;3 37.5 16.53 87 20.8 4.3 0.6 35.1 86 0.5 0.1 0.3 38.3 18.26 20.6 3~9 0.6 35.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 85 20.5 3.6 0.6 35.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 38.9 20.07 39.1 21.78 Percentof Total 19.1 2.4 0.6 37.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 40.0 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Those CP competitors who pass are placed at topof register. 121 TABLE 69 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A MALE FEMALE Percent NON* of Total TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* At or AboveRating 106 105 104 103 102 101 0.2 o.o 0.1 32.2 1. 20 13.8 0.8 0.2 52.8100 0.7 0.2 50.9 0.3 o.o 0.1 34.2 1. 65 99 13.6 2.20 98 14.0 0.8 0.2 48.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 36.2 97 13.6 0.7 0.2 47.0 0.3 o.o 0.1 38.0 2.88 96 13.2 0.7 0.2 46.0 0.3 o.o 0.1 39.5 3.65 95 13.0 0.7 0.2 44.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 40.8 4.58 0.3 0.1 0.1 41.6 5.60 94 13.1 0.7 0.2 43.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.1 6.85 93 12.9 0.8 0.2 42.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.6 8.08 92 12.9 0.8 0.2 42.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 44.2 9.47 91 12.9 0.9 0.2 41.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 44.5 10.92 90 12.9 0.9 0.2 40.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 44.9 12.44 89 13.1 0.9 0.2 40.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 45.1 13.98 88 13.3 0.9 0.2 39.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 45.0 15.62 87 13.5 0.9 0.2 39.8 o.o 0.1 45.. 1 17.28 86 13.7 1.0 0.2 39.5 0.3 0.1 44.9 19.27 85 13.9 1.0 0.2 39.4 0.4 o.o Proportion 0.4 o.o 0.2 41.9 48.49 Passing 16.4 1.5 0.4 39.1 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings adjusted for Veteran Preference. No adjustment made for Outstanding Scholarship. 122 TABLE 70 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORSAT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to ~stimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B MALE FEMALE PercentTP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106105104103102101100 14.5 0.9 0.2 53.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 30.2 1. 3999 14.4 0.8 0.2 51.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 32.8 1. 8898 14.3 0.8 0.2 49.5 0.3 0.0 o·.l 34.8 2.4397 14.2 0.8 0.3 47.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 36.4 3.2396 14.2 0.8 0.2 46.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 37.6 3.9595 13.9 0.8 0.2 45.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 39.2 4.9494 13.5 0.8 0.2 44.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 40.3 5.8793 13.7 0.8 0.2 44.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 40.7 7.1792 13.5 0.9 0.2 43.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 41.8 8.50 91 13.5 0.9 0.2 42.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 42.4 9.7390 13.5 0.9 o:2 41.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.1 11.19 89 13.8 1.0 0.2 41.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.3 12.93 88 14.0 1. 0. 0.2 40.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.5 14.5087 14.1 1.0 0.2 40.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 43.5 15.9986 14.2 1.0 0.2 40.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 43.7 17.6685 14.3 1.1 0.2 40.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 43.7 19.15 Proportion Passing 16.6 1.6 0.4 39.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 41.3 48.94 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings adjusted for Veteran Preference. Noadjustment made for Outstanding Scholarship. 123 TABLE 71 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS 'OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY c MALE FEMALE Percent TP*· CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 14.4 0.8 0.2 54.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 30.1 1. 55 99 15.1 0.8 0.2 51.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 32.0 2.01 98 14.9 0.8 0.2 49.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 34.0 2.63 97 14.3 0.8 0.2 48.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 35.8 3.31 96 14.2 0.8 0.2 47.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 36.8 4.13 95 14.0 0.8 0.2 46.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 38.2 5.09 94 13.9 0.9 0.2 45.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 39.1 6.15 93 13.6 0.9 0.2 44.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 40.1 7.33 92 13.7 0.9 0.2 44.1 0.2 0.1 o:1 40.8 8.61 91 13.8 0;8 0.2 43.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 41.5 9.99 90 13.8 0.9 0.2 42.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 42.0 . 11.40 89 14.0 0.9 0.2. 41.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 42.6 13.04 88 14.0 1.0 0.2 41.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 42.9 14.62 87 14.1 1.0 0.2 41.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 43.1 16.28 86 14.3 1.1 0.2 40.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 43.1 17.97 85 14.4 1.1 0.2 40.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 43.1 19.67 Proportion Passing 16.7 1.6 0.4 39.7 . 0.4 o.o 0.2 41.0 49.67 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings adjusted for Veteran Preference. No adjustment made for Outstanding Scholarship. 124 TABLE 72 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORSAT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated· test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D MALE FEMALE Percent TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* At or Above XP* NON* of Total Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 14.6 0.9 0.2 54.1 0.1 0.0 o.o 30.1 0,9699 14.0 0.9 0.2 50.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 33.7 1.38 98 14.0 0.8 0.3 48.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 35.6 1. 95 97 14.1 0.8 0.3 47.3 0.2 0.0 o;1 37.2 2,6196 13.8 0.7 0.2 45.8 0.3 0.0 Ci.l 39.0 3.38 95 13.5 o. 7 0.2 45.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 40.1 4.31 94 13.5 0.8 0.2 43.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 41.2 5.41 93 13.1 0.8 0.2 42.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 42.7 6.56 92 13.3 0.9 0.2 41.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.4 7.90 91 13.4 1.0 0.2 41.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.8 9.35 90 13.3 1.0 0.2 40.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 44.3 10.75 89 13.5 1.0 0.2 40.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 44.5 12.32 88 13.7 1.0 0.2 39.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 44.6 14.02 87 13.9 1.0 0.2 39.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 44.7 15.60 86 14.1 1.0 0.2 39.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 44.7 17.33 85 14.3 1.1 0.2 39.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 44.5 19.13 Proportion Passing 16.6 1.6 0.4 39.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 41.6 48.74 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings adjusted for Veteran Preference. Noadjustment made for Outstanding Scholarship. 125 TABLE 73 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E MALE FEMALE TP* CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* At or Above Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 14.8 0.9 0.2 53.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 30.4 99 14.1 0.9 0.3 50.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 34.0 98 14.1 0.7 0.3 48.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 36.2 97 13.9 0.8 0.3 46.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 37.9 96 13.7 0.7 0.2 45.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 39.6 95 13.6 0.7 0.2 44.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 40.7 94 13.3 0.8 0.2 43.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 42.0 93 13.2 0.8 0.2 42.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.2 92 13.2 0.9 0.2 41.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 43.9 91 13.3 1.0 0.2 40.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 44.5 90 13.2 1.0 0.2 40.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 44.9 89 13.4 1.0 0.2 39.7 0.4 0.1 0.2 45.1 88 13.7 1.0 0.2 39.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 45.2 87 13.8 1.0 0.2 39.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 45.4 86 14.0 1.1 0.2 38.9 0.4 0.1 0.2 45.2 85 14.2 1.1 0.2 38.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 45.0 Proportion Passing 16.6 1.6 0.4 38.8 0.4 0.0 0.2 42.0 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings adjusted for Veteran Preference. No adjustment made for Outstanding Scholarship. Percent of Total 0.88 1. 34 1.87 2.49 3.34 4.21 5.25 6.47 7.86 9.24 10.74 12.23 13.72 15.41 17.29 18.92 47.85 126 TABLE 74 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS VETERAN PREFERENCE BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores** OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F MALE FEMALE TP* Percent CP* XP* NON* TP* CP* XP* NON* of Total At or Above Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 15.0 0.9 0.2 54.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 29.4 1. 26 99 15.1 0.9 0.3 51.6 0.2 o.o 0.1 31.8 1. 7998 15.0 0.9 0.2 49.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 33.8 2.35 97 14.7 0.8 0.2 48.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 35.5 3.01 96 14.6 0.8 0.2 46.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 37.1 3.78 95 14.2 0.9 0.2 45.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 38.3 4.7294 14.3 0.8 0.2 44.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 39.4 5.7493 14.2 0.9 0.2 43.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 40.4 6.9192 14.0 0.9 0.2 42.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 41.6 8.29 91 13.9 1.0 0.2 42.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 42.1 9.69 90 13.9 1.0 0.2 41.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 lj2.5 11.11 89 14.0 1.0 0.2 41.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.0 12.63 88 14.1 1.0 0.2 40.8 0.3 0.1 Q-.1 43.3 14.23 87 14.4 1.1 0.2 40.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.3 15.81 86 14.6 1.1 0.2 40.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 43.3 17.48 85 14.7 1.1 0.2 40.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 43.4 19.19 Proportion Passing 16.9 1.6 0.4 39.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 41.0 48.60 *TP: Tentative 5-point Preference CP: Compensable 10-point Preference XP: Other 10-point Preference NON: No Veteran Preference **Ratings adjusted for Veteran Preference. Noadjustment made for Outstanding Scholarship. 127 TABLE 75 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE of Total At or Above Rating 106 43.4 8.4 44.6 3.6 0.04 105 30.0 3.0 65.6 1.5 0.22 104 32.5 3.0 63.1 1.4 0.29 103 34.7 3.2 60.8 1.3 0.39 102 35.5 2.8 60.2 1.5 0.49 101 37.3 2.8 58.2 1.7 0.61 100 29.5 13.6 46.7 10.2 1. 77 99 30.0 15.7 44.0 10.3 2.32 98 29.8 17.9 41.7 10.5 2.95 97 29.7 19.6 39.5 11.1 3.72 96 29.0 21.1 38.4 11.4 4.61 95 28.6 22.8 37.1 11.4 5.64 94 28.2 23.9 36.3 11.7 6. 78 93 27.4 25.5 35.2 11.9 8.12 92 26.6 26.0 35.1 12.3 9.49 91 25.8 26.6 35.0 12.6 10.96 90 24.9 26.7 35.4 13.0 12.57 89 23.9 26.8 35.7 13.6 14.16 88 23.1 26.7 36.1 14.2 15.81 87 22.2 26.5 36.7 14.6 17.54 86 21.4 26.1 37.3 15.2 19.29 85 20.5 25.4 38.0 16.1 21.30 Percent of Total 5.9 8.1 53.2 32.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 128 TABLE 76 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR PercentMALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE At or Above of Total Rating 106 35.6 8.7 51.0 4.8 0.05 105 28.9 2.3 67.0 104 32.3 2.6 1.8 0.26 103 32.7 2.6 63.4 1.7 0.35 63.1 102 32.9 2.6 62.7 1.6 0.44 101 34.8 2.4 1.8 0.58 61.1 1.8 100 28.5 12.3 0.70 49.0 10.2 2.01 99 29.3 15.6 45.1 10.0 2.57 98 29.1 17.0 43.5 10.3 3.25 97 28.7 18.6 41.5 11.2 96 28.1 20.2 40.4 4.13 11.2 4.92 95 28.4 22.2 38.3 11.1 94 27.5 23.0 38.3 6.01 11.3 7.15 93 26.4 23.2 38.3 12.1 8.52 92 25.8 24.5 37.4 12.3 9.93 91 25.3 25.1 37.2 90 24.6 25.9 36.8 12.4 11.29 89 23.2 25.4 37.7 12.7 12.80 88 22.6 25.7 37.8 13.7 14.66 14.0 16.29 87 21. ~ 25.5 38.3 14.4 86 21.2 25.4 38.5 14.8 17.89 85 20.4 24.8 39.4 19.62 15.4 21.32 Percentof Total 5.9 8.1 53.2 32.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at topof register. These competitors are not identifiabie in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 129 TABLE 77 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CU}IDLATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE At or Above Rating 106 34.9 8. 3 ' 52.3 4.6 105 27.0 1.9 69.3 1.8 104 29.6 2.0 66.5 1.8 103 30.7 2.0 65.5 1.~ 102 31.7 2.3 64.2 1.7 101 33.3 2.3 62.7 1.7 100 26.9 12.2 50.2 10.7 99 27.7 14.3 47.3 10.7 98 28.0 16.5 44.6 10.9 97 27.8 18.1 43.0 11.1 96 27.4 19.3 42.0 11.3 95 27.0 20.9 40.6 l1.5 94 26.7 21.9 39.8 11.7 93 26.1 22.7 39.1 12.1 92 25.3 23.6 38.9 12.2 91 24.6 24.2 38.6 12.6 90 23.9 24.7 38.4 12.9 89 23.2 25.2 38.3 13.3 88 22.4 25.2 38.6 13.9 87 21.5 25.0 39.1 14.4 86 20.7 24.7 39.6 14.9 85 20.0 24.2 40.2 15.5 Percent of Total 5.9 8.1 53.2 32.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. Percent of Total 0.50 0.29 0.39 0.49 0.59 0.72 2.18 2. 72 3.43 4.22 5.16 6.21 7.39 8.69 10.07 l1.56 13.05 14.74 16.43 18.22 19.97 21.78 130 TABLE 78 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE of Total At or Above Rating 106 43.8 10.0 45.0 1.3 0.04 105 32.6 2.7 63.3 1.5 0.19 104 36.7 3.6 58.4 1.4 0.26 103 38.4 3.5 57.0 1.2 0.36 102 39.5 3.0 56.3 1.2 0.47 101 40.4 2.8 55.0 1.8 0.60 100 32.4. 12.3 46.7 8.6 1. 55 99 32.8 15.7 42.9 8.5 2.09 98 32.9 17.9 39.9 9.2 2.73 97 31.6 19.7 39.2 9.6 3.50 96 31.1 22.1 37.5 9.3 4.40 95 30.4 23.4 36.4 9.8 5.43 94 29.4 24.3 35.7 10.6 6.63 93 28.6 25.9 34.9 10.5 7.93 92 27.7 26.5 34.5 11.3 9.36 . 91 26.5 26.6 34.9 12.0 10.90 90 25.7 27.1 34.9 12.2 12.44 89 24.5 27.1 35.4 13.0 14.05 88 23.3 26.7 36.1 13.9 15.82 '87 22.6 26.7 36.7 14.1 17.54 86 21.7 .• 26.1 37.2 15.0 19.31 ' 85 20.7 25.4 38.2 15.7 21.19 Percent of Total 5.9 8.1 53.2 32.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 131. TABLE 79 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR-NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE of TotalAt or AboveRating 106 42.3 11.5 43.6 2.6 0.04 105 34.1 3.4 61.2 1.3 0.18104 37.5 4.0 57.5 1.1 0.25103 38.9 3.8 55.9 1.3 0.35102 40.1 3.4 54.8 1.6 0.46 101 40.8 3.1 54.2 1.9 0.60 100 33.7 12.1 45.8 8.3 1. 4799 33.7 15.9 41.7 8.7 2.02 98 33.2 18.0 39.4 9.3 2.65 97 32.1 20.0 38.4 9.4 3.40 96 31.2 22.5 36.8 9.5 4.35 95 30.7 23.9 35.7 9.7 5.32 94 29.9 25.2 34.7 10.1 6.48 93 29.0 26.5 34.1 10.4 7.81 92 27.6 26.8 34.0 11.5 9.28 91 26.5 27.0 34.3 12.2 10.79 90 25.7 27.5 34.3 12.6 12.37 89 24.6 27.4 34.8 13.3 13.94 88 23.6 27.2 35.4 13.8 15.51 87 22.8 27.0 35.7 14.4 17.30 86 21.7 26.4 36.6 15.3 19.19 85 20.9 25.8 37.4 16.0 20.90 Percentof Total 5.9 8.1 53.2 32.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 132 TABLE 80 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS .OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF.COMPETITOR Selection order as according to regulations* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F OUTSTAND.ING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE of Total At or Above Rating 106 37.1 9.3 51.5 2.1 0.04 105 30.4 2.4 65.7 1.5 0.25 104 32.3 2.7 63.6 1.5 0.35 103 34.1 2.6 61.8 1.5 0.45 102 35.6 2.6 60.3 1.5 0.56 101 36.5 2.5 59.6 1.5 0.69 100 30.4 12.3 48.4 9.0 1. 90 99 30 . .2 14.3 45.4 9.9 2.51 98 30.0 16.7 43.4 9.8 3.16 97 30.3 18.7 41.2 9.8 3.94 96 29.7 20.2 39.8 10.2 4.81 95 29.3 21.6 . 38.6 10.5 5.85 94 28.5 22.8 37.9 10.7 7.00 93 27.7 24.0 37.4 10.8 8.27 92 26.9 25.2 36.7 11.2 9.76 91 26.1. 25.5 36.7 11.7 11.27 90 25.1 25.8 36.9 12.1 12.77 89 23.8 25.9 37.6 12.7 14.45 88 23.1 25.9 37.8 13.2 16.13 87 22.2 25.7 38.4 13.7 17.81 86 21.4 25.3 39.0 14.4 19.57 85 20:6 25.0 39.5 14.9 21.35 Percent of Total 5.9 8.1 53.2 32.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 133 TABLE 81 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING MALE FEMALE MALE At or Above Rating 106 25.0 8.3 61.7 105 23.1 2.6 72.7 104 23.5 2.4 72.5 103 22.6 2.3 73.6 102 22.7 2.2 73.4 101 23.2 2.2 72.5 100 23.1 11.7 53.5 99 23.1 12.2 52.4 98 23.0 12.3 51.6 97 22.9 12.4 50.6 96 22.2 12.5 50.4 95 21.2 12.8 50.4 94 20.3 12.8 50.6 93 19.6 12.9 50.4 92 18.5 12.8 50.9 91 17.8 12.9 50.9 90 16.9 12.9 51.4 89 16.3 13.0 51.2 88 15.7 12.9 51.2 87 15.3 12.9 51.4 86 14.7 13.0 51.4 85 14.0 13.1 51.2 Proportion Passing 9.1 11.2 52.5 *Ratings adjusted for Outstanding Scholarship and frequencies smoothed after adjustment. No adjustment made for Veteran Preference. Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. SCHOLAR Percent FEMALE of Total 5.0 0.03 1.6 0.20 1.6 0.25 1.6 0.33 1.8 0.41 2.2 0.49 11.7 1.55 12.3 1. 94 13.1 2.38 14.2 2.91 15.0 3.52 15.6 4.15 16.3 4.86 17.1 5.66 17.8 6.55 18.3 7.53 18.8 8.67 19.5 9.89 20.1 11.13 20.5 12.53 21.0 14.01 21.7 15.83 27.2 46.55 134 TABLE 82 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORSAT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE of TotalAt or AboveRating 106 21.3 6.3 66.3 6.3 0.04 105 22.4 1.8 73.9 1.9 0.24 104 23.2 1.5 73.2 2.0 0.30103 23.5 1.7 73.0 1.8 0.38 102 22.6 1.8 73.5 2.2 0.49101 22.0 1.8 74.1 2.2 0.57100 22.2 10.4 55.8 11.6 1.7799 23.0 11.3 53.7 12.0 2.1698 22.6 11.8 53.0 12.6 2.6797 21.9 12.1 52.0 14.1 3.3096 21.8 12.2 51.7 14.3 3.8595 21.2 12.3 51.5 15.0 4.47 94 20.1 12.4 52.5 15.4 5.25 93 18.9 12.3 52.2 16.5 6.25 92 18.0 12.3 52.5 17.2 7.07 91 17.4 12.5 52.6 17.6 7.9990 17.0 12.7 52.2 18.1 9.0389 16.1 12.6 52.3 18.9 10.57 88 15.6 12.6 52.5 19.4 11.73 87 15.1 12.6 52.6 19.8 13.03 86 14.6 12.5 52.7 20.3 14.36 85 14.1 12.4 52.9 20.6 15.91 ProportionPassing 9.1 10.9 53.2 26.8 46.84 *Ratings adjusted for Outstanding Scholarship and frequenciessmoothed after adjustment. No adjustment made for VeteranPreference. Those CP competitors who pass would be placedat top of register. These competitors are not identifiablein data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 135 TABLE 83 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scor~s* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE At or Above Rating 106 19.5 4.9 69.5 6.1 105 20.7 1.4 76.0 1.9 104 21.1 1.2 75.7 2.0 103 21.2 1.3 75.4 2.1 102 22.0 1.4 74.5 2.0 101 21.6 1.5 74.9 2.0 100 21.2 10.2 56.6 12.0 99 21.8 11.1 54.7 12.3 98 21.5 11.3 54.0 13.2 97 21.3 11.4 53.4 13.8 96 20.8 11.6 53.3 14.4 95 20.1 11.9 53.1 15.0 94 19.1 11.9 53.3 15.6 93 18.4 12.0 53.2 16.5 92 17.6 11.9 53.6 16.9 91 17.0 12.0 53.6 17.5 90 16.4 12.1 53.5 18.0 89 15.8 12.3 53.3 18.6 88 15.3 12.2 53.4 19.2 87 14.8 12.1 53.4 19.6 86 14.3 12.0 53.5 20.2 85 13.8 12.0 53.5 20.7 Proportion Passing 8.9 10.7 53.7 26.6 *Ratings adjusted for Outstanding Scholarship and frequencies smoothed after adjustment. No adjustment made for Veteran Preference. Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitor~ are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. Percent of Total 0.04 0.26 0.34 0.42 0.51 0.60 1.94 2.35 2.83 3.40 4.06 4.76 5.52 6.39 7.30 8.33 9.37 10.59 11.88 13.33 14.78 16.39 47.53 136 TABLE 84 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN .. RATINGS .OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING MALE FEMALE MALE At or Above Rating 106 28.8 8.5 61.0 105 25.5 2.4 70.5 104 26.2 2.1 69.9 103 25.8 2.2 70.6 102 25.0 2.3 71.1 101 24.4 2.3 71.1 100 24.9 10.7 54.4 99 24.9 11.1 53.3 98 25.0 11.8 51.4 97 24.4 12.1 51.1 96 24.1 12.4 50.9 95 23.1 12.5 50.8 94 21.4 12.5 51.0 93 20.5 12.8 51.3 92 19.4 12.9 51.1 91 18.3 13.0 51.0 90 17.7 13.1 51.3 . 89 17.0 13.1 51.2 88 16.1 12.8 51.4 87 15.7 12.9 51.6 86 15.0 13.0 51.4 85 14.4 13.1 51.4 Proportion Passing 9.1 11.1 52.8 *Ratings adjusted for Outstanding Scholarship and frequencies smoothed after adjustment. No adjustment made for Veteran Preference. Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in e!"ror. SCHOLAR Percent FEMALE of Total 1.? 0.03 1.6 0.17 1.7 0.22 1.4 0.29 1.5 i.3 0.37 0.47 10.0 1. 33 10:6 1. 68 11.8 2.12 12.5 2.68 12.6 3.24 13.7 3.89 15.1 4.64 15.5 5.40 1!).6 6.33 17.6 7.45 18.0 8.47 18.8 9. 72 19.7 11.12 19.9 12.47 20.6 13.98 21.1 15.74 26.9 46.76 137 TABLE 85 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR MALE FEMLAE. MALE FEMALE At or Above Rating 106 30.0 10.0 56.7 3.3 105 27.2 2.9 68.5 1.4 104 27.0 2.4 69.3 1.3 103 26.5 2.5 69.4 1.6 102 26.0 2.7 69.3 2.0 101 24.6 2.5 70.3 2.5 100 25.9 10.6 53.7 9.8 99 25.6 10.9 52.5 10.9 98 25.3 11.7 50.9 12.1 97 25.0 12.3 50.4 12.3 96 24.3 12.3 50.4 13.0 95 23.3 12.7 50.3 13.7 94 21.9 12.8 50.5 14.7 93 20.8 13.0 50.7 15.5 92 19.4 13.0 50.5 17.1 91 18.5 13.3 50.3 17.9 90 17.7 13.2 50.6 18.5 89 17.0 13.2 50.5 19.3 88 16.4 13.2 50.6 19.8 87 15.8 13.3 50.5 20.3 86 15.0 13.2 50.6 21.2 85 14.6 13.4 50.5 21.6 Proportion Passing 9.3 11.4 52.3 27.1 *Ratings adjusted for Outstanding Scholarship and frequencies smoothed after adjustment. No adjustment made for Veteran Preference. Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. Percent of Total 0.03 0.16 0.21 0.28 0.36 0.46 1. 26 1. 60 2.05 2.59 3.18 3. 77 4.46 5.25 6.26 7.35 8.40 9.61 10.84 12.25 13.89 15.47 45.89 138 TABLE 86 .PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORSAT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR STATUS BY SEX OF COMPETITOR Selection order as according to estimated test scores* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR NON-OUTSTANDING SCHOLAR Percent MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE of TotalAt or AboveRating 106 25.0 6.6 65.8 2.6 0.03 105 24.3 1.8 72.3 1.6 0.23 104 23.7 1.7 72.9 i.7 0.30 103 23.5 1.8 72.8 1.8 0.38102 23.6 1.9 72.7 1.8 0.46101 23.1 1.8 73.3 1.8 0.56100 23.8 10.5 55.4 10.3 1. 6699 23.5 10.8 53.9 11.8 2.1298 23.5 11.2 53.3 12.1 2.5897 23.5 11.6 52.4 12.5 3.1096 22.9 11.8 51.9 13.3 3.6995 21.8 12.2 51.9 14.2 4.3594 20.8 12.3 52.2 14.7 5.0993 20.2 12.4 52.3 15.1 5.92 92 19.1 12.4 52.6 16.0 6.82 91 18.2 12.4 52.7 16.8 7.86 90 17.5 12.4 52.8 17.3 8.9289 16.8 12.4 53.0 17.9 10.2488 16.0 12.3 53.1 18.6 11.49 87 15.5 12.4 53.2 19.0 12.88 86 14.9 12.4 53.2 19.6 14.34 85 14.4 12.5 53.1 20.0 15.91 ProportionPassing 9.2 11.0 53.5 26.3 46.56 *Ratings adjusted for Outstanding Scholarship and frequenciessmoothed after adjustment. No adjustment made for VeteranPreference. Those CP competitors who pass would ·be placedat top of register. These competitors are not identifiablein data presented here so proportions are somewhat in ~rror. 139 TABLE 87 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULA'l;IVE fROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS CURRENT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES* OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A B c D E F At or AboveRating 106 15.7 18.3 17.4 17.3 17.7 15.5 105 13.7 14.1 13.8 13.3 13.4 13.8 104 13.-7 .13. 2 13.2 12.6 13.4 12.0 103 12.3 12.4 12.9 12.9 12.9 11.7 102 12.6 12.1 12.3 ll. 5 11.9 11.4 101 12.4 11.8 12.4 11.2 11.2 11.6 100 9.1 9.0 9.1 8.5 8.6 8.6 99 9.0 8.9 9.1 8.4 8.5 8.4 98 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.6 8.4 8.5 97 8.6 8.7 8.7 ,8.3 8.4 8.4 96 8.6 8.7 8.5 :8.2 8.2 8.3 95 8.5 8.3 8.5 8.2 8.0 8.0 94 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.8 8.1 93 8.0 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.7 7.9 92 8.0 7.9 8.0 7.6 7.7 7.7 91 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.7 7. 7 90 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.6 7.6 89 7. 7 7. 7 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.5 88 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 87 .'7. 6 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.6 86 7.7 7.6 \7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 85 7.7 7.7 '7. 7 7.6 7.6 7.5 Percent 10.8 of Total *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed ,at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so propo.r:tions, are· somewhat in error. 140 OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY TABLE 88 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS NOT EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT* A B c D E F At or Above Rating 106 84.3 81.7 82.6 82.7 82.3 84.5 105 86.3 85.9 86.2 86.7 86.6 86.2 104 86.3 86.8 86.8 87.4 '86. 6 88.0 103 87.7 87.6 87.1 87.1 87.1 88.3 102 87.4 87.9 87.1 88.5 88.1 88.6 101 87.6 88.2 87.6 88.8 88.8 88.4 100 90.9 91.0 90.9 91.5 91.4 91.4 99 91.0 91.1 90.9 91.6 91.5 91.6 98 91.1 91.1 91.0 91.4 91.6 91.5 97 91.4 91.3 91.3 91.7 91.6 91.6 96 91.4 91.3 91.5 91.8 91.8 91.7 95 91.5 91.7 91.5 91.8 92.0 92.0 94 91.7 91.8 91.8 92.0 92.2 91.9 93 92.0 91.9 92.0 92.3 92.3 92.1 92 92.0 92.1 92.0 92.4 92.3 92.3 91 92.2 92.2 92.1 92.4 92.3 92.3 90 92.3 92.2 92.1 92.4 92.4 92.4 89 92.3 92.3 92.2 92.4 92.4 ·92.5 88 92.4 92.3 92.3 92.5 92.5 92.5 87 92.4 92.3 92.3 92.5 92.5 92.4 86 92.3 92.4 92.3 92.5 92.5 92.5 85 92.3 92.3 92.3 92.4 92.4 92.5 Percent of Total *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top ·of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 141 TABLE 89 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A ATLANTA BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DENVER NEW YORK At or Above Rating 106 105 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 104 0.2 103 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 102 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.2 101 0.5 100 1.2 2.2 2.0 1.2 2.6 1.3 99 1.5 3.0 2.7 1.6 3.3 1.7 3.8 3.4 2.1 4.2 2.1 98 1.9 97 2.5 4.6 4.4 2.6 5.3 2.8 96 3.2 5.6 5.4 3.3 6.4 3.6 6.7 6.6 4.2 7.7 4.5 95 4.0 94 4.8 7.9 7.9 5.2 9.1 5.5 93 5.9 9.4 9.5 6.2 10.7 6.8 92 7.0 11.1 11.2 7.2 12.0 8.1 91 8.2 12.6 12.9 8.4 13.7 9.7 90 9.5 14.4 14.7 9.6 15.8 11.4 89 10.8 16.1 16.4 10.9 17.7 12.9 12.1 17.9 18.3 12.2 20.1 14.4 88 87 13.5 19.9 20.1 13.7 21.9 16.3 86 14.9 21.8 22.0 15.2 23.9 18.1 85 16.5 24.1 24.1 16.8 26.0 20.4 Percent of Total 13.4 7.4 12.7 8.5 3.3 14.5 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. SAN JUAN 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.8 1.0 142 TABLE 89 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A PHILADELPHIA ST LOUIS SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE HONOLULU WASHINGTON Total At or Above Rating 106 105 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 104 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 103 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 102 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 101 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.6 100 1.1 1.7 2.4 3.3 2.2 2.1 1.7 99 1.5 2.2 3.2 4.4 2.7 2.7 2.2 98 1.9 2.9 4.1 5.3 3.2 3.5 2.9 97 2.6 3.6 4.9 6.6 3.8 4.5 3.6 96 3.3 4.7 5.9 7.7 4.3 5.7 4.5 95 4.2 5.7 7.2 9.0 5.5 6.9 5.5 94 5.1 6.8 8.6 10.7 6.7 8.2 6.7 93 6.2 8.1 10.0 12.6 7.8 9.8 8.0 92 7.4 9.3 11.5 14.5 9.6 11.3 9.4 91 8.8 10.7 13.0 16.4 11.2 13.0 10.8 90 10.2 12.4 14.7 18.3 12.7 14.8 12.4 89 11.7 13.8 16.5 20.3 14.3 16.6 14.0 88 13.2 15.7 18.3 22.6 15.7 18.3 15.7 87 14.7 17.4 20.1 24.6 17.3 20.4 17.4 86 16.3 19.2 22.0 26.9 18.6 22.5 19.1 85 18.2 21.2 24.2 29.0 20.2 24.4 21.1 Percent of Total 11.4 4.7 12.2 3.1 0.9 6.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at topof register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. 143 TABLE 90 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B ATLANTA ' BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DENVER NEW YORK SAN JUAN At or AboveRating 106 105 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 104 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 103 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.1 102 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.1 101 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 3.0 1.5 0.2 100 1.3 2.5 2.3 1.4 99 1.7 3.3 3.0 1.8 3.7 1.9 0.2 98 2.1 4.0 3.9 2.4 4.7 2.4 0.2 97 2.7 5.1 4.9 3.0 5.8 3.2 0.2 0.2 96 3.4 5.8 5.8 3.6 6.8 3.8 0.2 95 4.3 7.0 7.1 4.5 8.0 4.9 94 5.1 8.4 8.5 5.5 9.3 5.9 0.3 93 6.3 9.8 10.1 6.6 11.2 7.2 0.4 92 7.4 11.3 11.7 7.6 12.7 8.6 0.5 91 8.6 12.9 13.3 8.7 14.3 9.9 0.6 90 9.8 14.6 15.1 9.9 16.3 11.4 0.8 89 11.2 16.5 17.2 11.5 18.3 13.3 1.3 88 12.5 18.4 18.9 12.8 20.3 15.0 1.5 87 13.9 20.1 20.6 14.1 22.2 16.5 1.8 86 15.4 22.0 22.5 15.6 24.2 18.3 2.3 85 16.9 24.0 24.4 17.1 26.3 20.0 2.7 Percent 3.3 14.5 1.0 of Total 13.4 7.4 12.7 8.5 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. 144 TABLE 90 (continued) . PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B PHILADELPHIA ST LOUIS SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE HONOLULU At or Above Rating 106 0.1 0.1 105 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 104 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 103 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.4 102 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.8 101 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.7 1.1 100 1.3 2.6 2.0 3.8 2.5 99 1.7 2.6 3.3 4.7 2.8 98 2.2 3.2 5.6 4.3 3.5 97 3.0 4.3 5.3 6.9 4.1 96 3.6 5.1 6.4 8.1 4.8 95 4.4 6.3 7.6 9.4 6.0 94 5.5 7.4 8.9 11.2 7.2 93 6.7 8.8 10.3 13.0 9.0 92 8.0 10.1 11.8 14.9 10.6 91 9.3 11.5 13.2 16.7 12.0 90 10.6 12.9 14.7 18.7 13.1 89 12.2 14.9 16.8 21.1 15.0 88 13.8 16.4 18.6 23.2 16.3 87 15.3 18.3 25.1 20.4 17.6 86 16.9 20.1 22.1 26.7 19.1 85 18.3 22.0 23.9 28.9 20.5 Percent of Total 11.4 4.7 12.2 3.1 0.9 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at topof register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. WASHINGTON 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 2.3 2.9 3.7 4.8 5.7 7.0 8.2 9.8 11.4 12.8 14.5 16.5 18.4 20.1 22.1 23.9 6.8 Total 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.9 2.5 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.9 7.0 8.4 9.8 11.2 12.7 14.5 16.1 17.7 19.4 21.1 145 TABLE 91 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CERTAIN RATINGS*CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY c NEW YORK SAN JUAN ATLANTA BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DENVER At or AboveRating 106 0.1 0.2 0.5 105 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 104 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.2103 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.1 .0. 2102 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.1 0. 7 0.6 101 0.6 0.7 3.2 1.6 0.2100 1.4 2.7 2.6 1.5 2.0 0.2 1.8 3.4 3.2 1.9 3.9 99 2.5 0.2 2.3 4.1 4.1 2.4 5.0 98 3.2 0.2 2.9 5.0 5.0 3.1 6.1 97 4.0 0.2 6.2 3.7 7.2 96 3.7 6.0 0.2 7.4 4.7 8.4 4.9 95 4.6 7.1 8.7 5.7 10.0 6.1 0.3 94 5.5 8.5 0.4 93 6.5 9.9 10.3 6. 7 11.6 7.3 0.5 7.9 13.2 8.5 7.6 11.4 11.9 92 9.0 14.9 9.9 0.6 91 8.8 13.0 13.7 11.5 0.8 10.2 16.6 90 10.0 14.6 15.4 18.7 13.1 1.1 11.4 16.4 17.4 11.5 89 20.7 14.7 1.5 12.8 18.2 19.3 13.0 88 22.8 16.4 2.0 87 14.5 20.1 21.3 14.5 2.3 25.0 18.2 16.0 22.0 23.1 16.1 86 27.2 20.1 2.7 85 17.4 24.1 25.1 17.6 Percent ,u 14.5 1.0 12.7 8.5 3.3 of Total 13.4 7.4 *Those CP competitors '"ho pass would be placed at top These competitors are not identifiable of register. in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. 146 TABLE 91 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY c PHILADELPHIA ST LOUIS SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE At or Above HONOLULU WASHINGTON TotalRating 106 0.1 105 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.3 104 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.9 103 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.6 102 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.8 101 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.7 1.2 100 1.5 0.5 0.7 2.3 2.9 99 1.8 4.1 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.9 3.5 98 4.8 3.2 3.0 2.4 3.7 4.4 6.0 2.6 3.6 3.8 97 3.1 4.6 5.4 7.1 3.3 4.3 4.8 96 3.9 5.5 6.6 4.1 95 4.8 6.7 8.4 5.1 5.8 5.1 94 5.8 8.0 7.8 9.6 6.2 7.1 6.1 93 9.0 11.2 7.6 8.4 7.0 7.3 92 9.4 10.4 13.0 8.8 9.7 8.3 10.7 11.9 15.0 10.6 11.3 8.6 91 9.7 12.1 10.0 13.4 17.1 12.5 13.0 90 11.1 13.7 15.0 19.0 13.6 14.5 11.489 12.6 15.5 16.8 21.1 15.2 12.988 14.2 17.3 16.4 14.6 18.6 23.0 16.4 87 15.9 19.2 18.1 16.3 20.3 25.4 18.0 86 17.5 21.0 19.8 18.0 22.2 27.5 19.2 85 19.2 21.9 19.8 22.9 24.2 29.2 21.0 23.9 21.6 Percentof Total 11.4 4.7 12.2 3.1 0.9 6.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at topof register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. 147 TABLE 92 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR' ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D DENVER · NEW YORK SAN JUAN ATLANTA BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS At or AboveRating 106 105 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 104 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 103 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 102 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.1 101 0.5 0.6 1.0 '0.1 1.8 1.0 2.4 100 1.1 1.9 99 1.4 2.6 2.:S 1.5 3.1 1.5 0.1 98 1.8 3.4 3.2 1.9 3.9 2.0 0.2 97 2.4 4.3 4.2 2.6 4.9 2.6 0.2 0.3 96 3.1 5.3 5.2 3.3 6.1 3.4 95 4.0 6.3 6.4 4.2 7.4 4.3 0.3 8.7 5.5 0.3 94 4.8 7.8 7.8 5.1 10.2 6.7 0.4 93 5.8 9.2 9.4 6.1 92 7.0 10:9 11.0 7.1 12.0 8.1 0.5 9.6 0.7 91 8.2 12.7 12.9 8.4 13.7 11.2 1.0 90 9.4 14.4 14.6 9.7 15.6 12.8 1.1 89 10.7 16.1 16.4 10.9 17.4 14.5 1.5 88 12.1 18.0 18.3 12.3 19.8 2.0 87 13.5 19.9 20.1 13.8 21.9 16.4 2.3 86 15.0 21.8 22.1 15.3 23.9 18.3 2.5 85 16.6 24.0 24.0 16.9 25.7 20.4 Percent 8.5 3.3 ; 14.5 1.0 7.4 12.7 of Total 13.4 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. 148 TABLE 92 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D PHILADELPHIA ST LOUIS SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE HONOLULU WASHINGTON Total At or Above Rating 106 0.1 105 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 104 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 103 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 102 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 101 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 100 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.1. 1.8 1.8 1.5 99 1.3 2.0 2.8 3.9 2.5 2.4 2.0 98 1.7 2.6 3.7 4.9 3.0 3.2 2.7 97 2.3 3.4 4.6 6.2 3.6 4.1 3.4 96 3.1 4.3 5.6 7.5 4.2 5.1 4.3 95 4.0 5.4 6.8 8.8 5.4 6.5 5.3 94 4.9 6.5 8.3 10.4 6.5 7.9 6.5 93 6.0 7.9 9.8 12.2 8.0 9.3 7.8 92 7.2 9.3 11.3 14.1 9.8 10.9 9.2 91 8.7 10.6 12.9 16.2 11.3 12.6 10.8 90 10.0 12.2 14.6 18.4 12.7 14.3 12.3 89 ll.5 13.8 16.4 20.5 14.0 16.2 13.9 88 13.1 15.6 18.5 22.5 15.1 18.2 15.7 87 14.5 17.5 20.2 24.7 17.3 20.1 17.4 86 16.1 19.1 22.1 26.7 18.4 22.1 19.1 85 17.9 21.0 24.0 29.2 20.1 24.0 21.0 Percentof Total 11.4 4.7 12.2 3.1 0.9 6.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. 149 TABLE 93 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CuMuLATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E NEW YORK SAN JUAN ATLANTA BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DENVER At or AboveRating 106105 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 104 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 103 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 102 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 101 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.1 100 1.0 1.8 1.7 1.0 2.2 1.0 0.1 99 1.4 2.5 2.3 1.4 2.9 1.4 0.2 98 1.8 3.4 3.1 1.9 3.8 2.0 0.2 97 2.3 4.2 4.0 2.5 4.6 2.7 0.3 96 3.1 5.3 5.1 3.3 5.9 3.4 0.3 95 3.8 6.3 6.2 4.1 6.9 4.3 0.3 94 4.7 7.6 7.6 5.1 8.5 5.4 0.3 9.2 6.0 10.0 6.7 0.4 93 5.7 9.2 8.2 0.5 92 6.9 10.9 11.0 7.1 ll.5 0.7 91 8.0 12.7 12.7 8.3 13.3 9.7 1.0 90 9.3 14.7 14.3 9.6 15.2 11.3 1.3 89 10.4 16.3 16.1 10.9 17.0 12.9 1.5 88 11.6 17.9 17.8 12.1 18.9 14.6 2.1 87 13.2 19.8 19.6 13.5 20.9 16.4 86 14.7 22.0 21.6 15.1 23.4 18.5 2.3 85 16.1 23.8 23.5 16.5 25.1 20.4 2.7 Percentof Total 13.4 7.4 12.7 8.5 3.3 14.5 1.0 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. 150 TABLE 93 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY E PHILADELPHIA ST LOUIS SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE HONOLULU WASHINGTON TotalAt or AboveRating 106 0.1 105 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 104 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 103 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 102 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 101 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 100 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.8 1.6 1.7 1.4 99 1.3 1.9 2.7 3.6 2.3 2.3 2.0 98 1.7 2.5 3.5 4.7 2.8 3.1 2.6 97 2.2 3.2 4.5 5.8 3.6 4.0 3.3 96 2.9 4.1 5.5 7.4 4.5 5.2 4.3 95 3.8 5.1 6.8 8.7 5.1 6.4 5.2 94 4. 7 6.2 8.2 10.2 6.3 7.8 6.4 93 5.8 7.5 9.6 11.8 7.6 9.4 7.7 92 7.1 8.8 11.2 14.1 9.4 11.0 9.2 91 8.4 10.2 12.9 16.0 11.0 12.7 10.7 90 9.8 11.8 14.6 18.2 12.3 14.5 12.2 89 11.2 13.5 16.4 20.2 13.6 16.2 13.888 12.7 15.0 18.2 21.9 15.0 18.1 15.487 14.3 16.9 20.1 24.3 17.1 20.1 17.186 16.0 18.7 22.1 26.7 18.2 22.2 19.085 17.5 20.3 23.9 28.8 19.6 24.1 20.7 Percentof Total 11.4 4.7 12.2 3.1 0.9 6.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at topof register. These competitors are not identifiablein data presented here so percentages are somewhatin error. 151 TAB;LE 94 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN.RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F ATLANTA BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS DENVER .. NEW YORK At or Above Rating 106 105 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 104 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 103 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.1 102 0.5 0.5 o.s 0.4 1.0 0.2 101 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.3 100 1.3 2.3 2.2 1.3 2.8 1.4 99 1.7 3.1 3.0 1.8 3.7 1.8 98 2.1 3.9 3.8 2.3 4.5 2.4 97 2.8 4.8 4.7 2. 9 '· 5.5 3.0 96 3.4 5.7 5.7 3.6 6.5 3.9 95 4.3 6.9 7.0 4.5 7.7 4.7 94 5.1 8.2 8.3 5.4 9.1 5.9 93 6.2 9.6 9.9 6.4 10.6 7.0 92 7.5 11.2 11.6 7.6 12.4 8.5 91 8.7 12.7 13.4 8.8 14.2 9.9 90 9.9 14.5 15.1 10.0 16.1 11.4 89 11.2 16.4 17.0 11.4 . 18.1 13.1 88 12.5 18.3 18.9 12.8 20.0 14.8 87 14.0 20.0 20.6 14.3 22.0 16.5 86 15.5 22.0 22.5 15.9 24.0 18.2 85 17.0 24 .. 0 24.3 . 17.2 25.9 20.2 Percent 14.5 of Total 13.4 7.4 12.7 8.5 3.3 SAN JUAN 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.7 1.0 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so percentages are somewhat in error. 152 TABLE 94 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGES AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* REGIONS OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY F PHILADELPHIA ST LOUIS · SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE HONOLULU WASHINGTON Total At or Above Rating 106 0.1 0.1 105 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 104 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 103 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.4 102 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 101 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.7 0.9 0.5 0.6100 1.3 1.8 2.4 3.6 2.4 2.1 1.899 1.7 2.6 3.3 4.3 3.1 2.8 2.498 2.1 3.2 4.1 5.3 3.6 3.6 3.197 2.8 4.0 5.1 6.5 3.8 4.4 3.996 3.5 4.8 6.2 7.8 4.9 5.5 4.795 4.3 6.0 7.3 9.5 5.9 6.6 5.8 94 5.3 7.2 8.6 10.9 7.5 7.8 6.9 93 6.3 8.6 10.0 12.'5 8.5 9.3 8.2 92 7.7 10.0 11.6 14.6 10.3 11.0 8.6 91 9.2 ll.5 13.1 16.6 11.7 12.6 11.1 90 10.5 13.0 ) 14.6 . 18.6 13.2 14.2 12.6 89 12.1 14.7 16.6 20.7 14.3 16.0 14.3 88 13.5 16.4 18.4 22.8 16.0 17.8 16.0 87 15.0 18.3 . 20.2 ~ 25.0 17.4 19.7 17.6 86 16.8 20.0 22.0 27.1 19.0 21.6 19.485 18.4 21.8 23.9 29.0 20.3 23.7 21.2 Percentof Total . 11.4 4.7 12.2 3.1 0.9 6.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at topof register. These competitors are not identifiablein data presented here so percentages are somewhatin error. 153 TABLE 95 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A AGRICULTURE & ARCHITECTURE & BIOLOGICAL BUSINESS & COMPUTER & NAT RESOURCES ENVIR DESIGN SCIENCES MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATIONS INFO SCIENCES At or AboveRating 106 3.7 23.2 1.2 . 1. 2 105 0.9 1.3 3.2 15.6 2.1 0.9 104 1.3 1.0 3.0 17.0 1.9 1.3 103 1.7 0.7 2.6 18.6 2.3 1.3 102 1.3 0.7 3,1 19.3 2.6 1.0 101 1.4 0.5 3.0 19.7 2.4 1.0 0.6 4.2 12.5 2.4 1.1 100 1.3 99 1.3 0.5 4.1 12.4 2.4 1.2 98 1.1 0.5 3.9 12.5 2.2 1.0 97 1.2 0.5 3.9 12.3 2.2 0.9 96 1.3 0.6 3.8 12.4 2.3 0.9 95 1.2 0.6 3.7 12.6 2.4 0.8 94 1.3 0.6 3.6 12.8 2.3 0.8 93 1.3 0.6 3.7 12.9 2.4 0.8 92 1.3 0.6 3.6 13.0 2.5 0.8 91 1.3 0.6 3.5 13.4 2.5 0.7 90 1.3 0.6 3.5 13.7 2.6 0.7 89 1.3 0.5 3.6 13.9 2.6 0.7 88 1.4 0.5 3.6 14.1 2.6 0.7 87 1.4 0.5 3.6 14.4 2.7 0.7 86 1.4 0.5 3.6 14.7 2.7 0.6 85 1.4 0.5 3.6 15.0 2.7 0.6 Percent of Total 1.5 0.4 2.9 22.4 2.7 0.7 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 154 TABLE 95 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A FINE & FOREIGN HEALTHEDUCATION · ·ENGINEERING APPLIED ARTS LANGUAGES PROFESSIONS At or Above Rating 106 2.4 3.7 3.7 105 3.4 2.1 1.3 3.0 0.6 104 3.2 2.6 1.1 3.0 103 4.4 2.4 0.5 1.0 3.1 0.4 102 4.0 2.4 0.8 3.3 0.3 101 4•.9 4.0 1.0 3.3 0.3 100 4.0 1.7 1.7 3.6 0.4 99 4.3 1.5 1.8 3.7 0.3 98 4.5 1.3 1.9 3.9 0.4 97 4.7 1.3 1.9 4.0 0.4 96 4.9 1.3 2.0 3.9 0.4 95 5.2 1.2 2.0 4.0 0.4 94 5.4 1.2 2.0 4.1 0.4 93 5.7 1.1 1.9 4.2 0.4 92 6.0 1.1 2.0 4.2 0.5 91 6.3 1.1 2.0 4.3 0.5 90 6.5 1.0 2.1 4.3 0.5 89 6.6 0.9 2.2 4.3 0.5 88 6.8 0.9 2.1 4.4 0.5 87 7.0 0.9 2.2 4.3 0.5 86 7.2 0.9 2.2 4.3 0.5 85 7.4 0.9 2.2 4.2 0.5 Percentof Total 11.1 0.8 2.2 2.7 0.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at· top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 155 TABLE 95 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS · CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A HOME LIBRARY ECONOMICS LAW LETTERS SCIENCE At or Above Rating 106 2.4 11.0 105 2.8 10.2 0.2 104 2.6 9.3 0.5 103 3.0 8.9 0.7 102 2.9 8.6 0.6 101 3.0 8.1 0.5 100 0.2 2.9 11.1 0.4 99 0.2 2.5 11.2 0.5 98 0.3 2.4 11.2 0.5 97 0.3 2.2 11.4 0.5 96 0.4 2.1 l1.5 0.4 95 0.4 2.1 11.2 0.4 94 0.4 2.0 11.0 0.5 93 0.6 1.9 11.0 0.5 92 0.6 1.8 10.9 0.5 91 0.7 1.7 10.9 0.5 90 0.7 1.7 10.6 0.4 89 0.7 1.6 10.4 0.4 88 0.8 1.6 10.2 0.4 87 0.8 1.6 10.1 0.4 86 0.8 1.5 10.0 0.4 85 0.8 1.5 10.0 0.4 Percent of Total 1.2 1.0 6.3 0.3 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. OF COMPETITORS MATHEMATICS 6.1 9.2 9.1 7.2 . 6. 7 5.9 6.8 6.6 6.2 6.1 5.8 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.1 2.3 PHYSICAL SCIENCES 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.1 156 .TABLE 95 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* · COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY A PUBLIC AFFAIRS SOCIAL Percent PSYCHOLOGY & SERVICES SCIENCES THEOLOGY OTHER of Total At or Above Rating 106 9.8 7.3 24.4 0.04 105 6.4 3.6 29.0 1.1 0.24 104 5.8 3.4 29.5 1.0 0.32 103 5.4 3.5 28.6 0.2 0.8 0.42102 6.2 3.3 29.0 0.3 0.8 0.53101 5.9 3.4 28.0 0.3 0.6 0.67100 7.6 2.4 30.9 0.6 1.0 1. 91 99 7.4 2.7 31.4 0.5 0.8 2.50 98 7.8 ; 2.8 31.5 0.5 0.9 ·3.18 97 7.7 2.8 31.5 0.5 0.9 4.02 96 8.1 2.9 31.3 0.5 0.9 ' 4. 97 95 8.3 3.1 31.0 0.5 0.9 6.08 94 8.4 '3.2 30.8 0.5 0.8 7.30 93 8.5 3.3 30.4 0.5 0.9 8.7392 8.6 3.4 30.2 0.5 0.9 10.1891 ,8. 6 3.4 29.8 0.5 0.9 11.7790 8.5 3.6 29.7 0.5 0.9 13.4889 8.5 3.7 29.5 0.5 0.8 15.1888 8.4 3.9 29.3 0.4 0.8 16.9387 8.4 4.0 29.1 0.4 0.8 18.7586 8.4 4.1 28.8 0.4 0.8 20.6285 8.4 4.1 28.6 0.4 0.8 22.74 Percentof Total 6.5 25.9 0.3 1.0 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at tppof register. These competitors are not identifiablein data presented here so proportions are somewhat. inerror. 157 TABLE 96 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B AGRICULTURE & ARCHITECTURE & BIOLOGICAL BUSINESS & NAT RESOURCES ENVIR DESIGN SCIENCES MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATIONS At or Above Rating 106 1.0 3.0 26.7 1.0 105 2.2 1.1 2.7 18.7 2.0 104 2.0 0.8 2.6 20.0 2.3 103 1.6 0.6 2.9 21.4 2.2 102 1.6 0.6 3.2 22.8 2.2 101 1.6 0.5 2.9 23.8 2.4 100 1.2 0.5 4.1 14.6 2.1 99 1.1 0.5 4.2 14.2 2.1 98 1.2 0.5 4.0 14.0 2.2 97 1.2 0.5 3.9 14.0 2.2 96 1.2 0.6 3.9 14.1 2.2 95 1.2 0.6 3.8 14.1 2.2 94 1.4 0.6 3.7 14.3 2.2 93 1.3 0.6 3.8 14.6 2.3 92 1.3 0.6 3.6 14.7 2.4 91 1.4 0.6 3'. 6 14.9 2.4 90 1.4 0.6 3.7 15.0 2.4 89 1.4 0.5 3.7 15.2 2.5 88 1.4 0.5 3.7 15.3 2.6 87 1.4 0.5 3.7 15.6 2.6 86 1.4 0.5 3.6 15.8 2.6 85 1.5 0.5 3.6 16.1 2.6 Percent of Total 1.5 0.4 2.9 22.4 2.7 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. COMPUTER & INFO SCIENCES 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 158 TABLE 96 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B FINE & FOREIGN HEALTHEDUCATION ENGINEERING APPLIED ARTS LANGUAGES PROFESSIONS At or Above Rating 106 2.0 1.0 3.0 105 4.2 1.6 1.1 2.7 0.4 104 3.8 1.8 1.0 2.4 0.3 103 4.2 2.0 0.8 2.7 0.3 102 4.5 1.7 0.8 3.1 0.2 101 4.9 1.8 0.9 2.9 0.4 100 4.3 1.4 1.6 3.1 0.4 99 4.5 1.4 1.6 3.3 0.4 98 4.8 1.3 1.7 3.5 0.4 97 4.9 1.3 1.8 3.7 0.4 96 4.9 1.2 1.8 3. 7 0.4 95 5.3 1.1 1.9 3.8 0.4 94 5.5 1.1 1.8 3.8 0.4 93 5.7 1.0 1.8 3.9 0.4 92 6.0 1.0 1.8 4.0 0.4 91 6.2 1.0 1.9 3.9 0.5 90 6.4 0.9 2.0 4.1 0.5 89 6.5 0.9 2.0 4.2 0.5 88 6.8 0.9 2.1 4.2 0.5 87 7.0 0.9 2.0 4.2 0.5 86 7.3 0.9 2.1 4.1 0.5 85 7.4 0.8 2.0 4.1 0.6 Percentof Total 11.1 0.8 2.2 2.7 0.8 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 159 TABLE 96 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B HOME LIBRARY PHY~;>ICAL ECONOMICS LAW LETTERS SCIENCE MATHEMATICS SCIENCES At or Above Rating 106 2.0 9.9 1.0 6.9 105 2.7 8.4 0.2 9.6 4.2 104 3.4 8.7 0.4 8.8 3.4 103 3.0 7.8 0.6 7.8 3.2 102 2.8 7.5 0.5 6.9 3.0 101 2.7 7.7 0.4 6.4 2.8 100 0.2 2.6 10.0 0.4 7.6 2.7 99 0.2 2.4 10.1 0.5 7.4 2.7 98 0.2 2.2 10.3 0.5 7.0 2.9 97 -0.3 2.2 10.5 0.4 6.6 2.7 96 0.3 2.1 10.5 0.4 6.3 2.6 95 0.4 2.1 10.4 0.4 6.2 2.4 94 0.4 2.0 10.3 0.5 5.9 2.3 93 0.5 1.9 10.2 0.4 5.7 2.3 92 0.6 1.8 10.2 0.5 5.5 2.2 91 0.6 1.7 10.2 0.4 5.4 2.1 90 0.7 1.7 10.0 0.4 5.2 2.1 89 0.7 1.6 9.9 0.4 4.9 2.0 88 0.8 1.6 9.7 0.4 4.8 1.9 87 0.8 1.6 9.6 0.4 4.7 1.9 86 0.8 1.5 9.6 0.4 4.5 1.9 85 0.8 1.5 9.5 0.4 4.4 1.8 Percent of Total 1.2 1.0 6.3 0.3 2.3 1.1 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 160 TABLE 96 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY B PUBLIC AFFAIRS SOCIAL'PSYCHOLOGY · & SERVICES SCIENCES THEOLOGY Percent OTHER of Total At or Above Rating 106 8.9 7.9 24.8 105 5.8 3.5 0.05 26.5 0.4 104 5.2 3.3 0.9 0.28 27.4 0.4 0.8 0.37 103 5.9 3.6 27.0 0.3 102 6.0 3.5 0.6 0.47 27.0 0.2 101 . 5. 8 3.5 0.7 0.62 26.8 0.3 0.5 0.75 100 7.5 2.5 30.3 0.6 1.0 2.17 99 7.5 2.7 30.7 0.5 0.9 2.76 98 7.4 3.0 30.8 0.5 0.8 3.49 97 7.9 2.9 30.5 0.5 0.9 4.43 96 8.1 2.9 30.3 0.5 0.9 5.29 . 95 8.1 3.1 30.2 0.5 0.9 6.46 94 8.3 ' 3. 2 29.9 0.5 0.9 7.67 93 8.4 3.3 29.7 0.5 0.8 9.13 92 8.4 3.3 29.6 0.5 0.9 10.64 91 8.4 3.4 29.3 0.4 0.8 12.09 90 8.3 3.6 29.1 0.4 0.8 13.71 89 8.4 3.7 28.9 0.4 0.8 15.68 88 8.3 3.9 28.7 0.4 0.8 17.42 87 8.3 3.9 28.5 0.4 0.8 19.11 86 8.3 4.0 28.3 0.4 0.8 20.93 85 8.3 4.1 28.1 0.4 0.8 22.73 Percentof Total .6.5 6.0 25.9 0.3 1.0 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are· somewhat in error. 161 TABLE 97 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF COMPETITORS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY c AGRICULTURE & ARCHITECTURE & BIOLOGICAL BUSINESS & NAT RESOURCES ENVIR DESIGN SCIENCES MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATIONS At or Above Rating 106 0.9 3.8 27.4 0.9 105 2.0 1.0 2.5 23.1 1.8 104 2.0 0.7 3.2 24.1 2.1 103 1.7 0.7 3.1 24.0 2.0 102 1.6 0.6 3.3 24.9 2.2 101 1.6 0.6 3.0 25.4 2.3 100 1.3 0.5 4.4 15.6 2.0 99 1.3 0.5 4.2 15.4 2.0 98 1. 3' 0.5 4.2 15.3 2.1 97 1.4 0.5 4.1 15.3 2.2 96 1.4 0.6 3.9 15.4 2.1 95 1.3 0.6 3.9 15.7 2.1 94 1.4 0.6 3.8 15.9 2.2 93 1.4 0.6 3.8 16.0 2.3 92 1.4 0.6 3.9 16.0 2.3 91 1.5 0.6 3.9 . 16.2 2.3 90 1.5 0.6 3.8 16.2 2.4 89 1.5 0.6 3.8 16.3 2.5 88 1.5 0.5 3.7 16.4 2.5 87 1.5 0.5 3.7 16.7 2. 5 . 86 1.5 0.5 3.7 17.0 2.5 85 1.5 0.5 3.7 17.1 2.5 Percent of Total 1.5 0.4 2.9 22.4 2.7 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. COMPUTER & INFO SCIENCES 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.'4 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 162 TABLE 97 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY c FINE & EDUCATION ENGINEERING APPLIED ARTS At or Above Rating 106 1.9 0.9 2.8 105 4.0 1.3 1.0 104 4;2 2.0 0.9 103 4.2 1.8 0.8 102 4.8 1.7 0.8 101 5.2 1.9 0.9 100 4.8 1.5 1.4 99 4.6 1.4 1.6 98 5.0 1.4 1.6 97 5.0 1.3 1.7 96 5.1 1.2 1.7 95 5.3 1.2 1.8 94 5.5 1.1 1.8 93 5.9 1.1 1.8 -92 6.1 1.0 1.8 91 6.3 1.0 1.9 90. 6.5 0.9 1.9 89 6.6 0.9 2.0 88 6.8 0.9 2.0 87 7.1 0.9 2.0 86 7.4 0.9 2.0 85 7.5 0.9 2.0 Percent of Total 11.1 0.8 2.2 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. OF COMPETITORS FOREIGN HEALTH LANGUAGES PROFESSIONS 2.5 0.3 2.3 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.3 0.4 2.5 0.3 2.9 0.4 3.1 0.4 3.1 0.4 3.3 0.4 3.4 0.4 3.5 0.4 3.6 0.4 3.6 0.4 3.7 0.5 3.7 0.5 3.8 0.5 4.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 3.9 0.5 2. 7 0.8 163 TABLE 97 (COI).tinued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS AT OR ABOVE.CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C HOME LIBRARY ECONOMICS LAW LETTERS SCIENCE At or Above Rating 106 1.9 9.4 0.9 105 2.6 7.4 ·0.3 104 2.7 7.6 0.2 103 2.7 7.3 0.4 . 102 2.5 7.1 0.5 101 2.4 6.8 0.4 100 0.2 2.4 8.6 0.4 99 0.3 2.2 8.9 0.4 98 0.3 2.1 9.2 0.4 97 0.3 2.0 9.4 0.4 96 0.4 1.9 9.4 .0.4 95 0.4 1.9 9.4 0.4 94 0.5 1.9 9.4 0.4 93 0.6 1.8 9.3 0.4 92 0.6 1.7 9.4 0.4 91 0.7 1.7 9.3 0.4 90 0.8 1.6 9.2 0.4 89 0.8 1.6 9.2 0.4 88 o.s 1.5 9.1 0.4 87 0.8 1.5 9.0 0.4 86 0.8 1.4 9.0 0.4 85 0.8 1.4 8.9 0.4 Percent of Total 1.2 1.0 6.3 0.3 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in ertor. OF COMPETITORS MATHEMATICS 6.6 9.9 8.8 7.6 7.1 6.6 8.2 7.9 7.4 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.5 2.3 PHYSICAL SCIENCES 4.0 3.6 3.2 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 . 1.1 164 TABLE 97·. (conti~ued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE 'PROPORTIO~S OF DIFFERENT-GROUPS .· AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR 10CCUPATIONAL CATEGORY C PUBLIC AFFAIRS SOCIAL ·· PSYCHOLOGY & SERVICES SCIENCES At or Above Rating 106 B.5 B.5 24.5 105 5.4 3.0 26.4 104 5.4 ·'3.4 24.6 103 5.5 3.6 26.6 102 6.1 3.4 25.7 101 5.B 3.3 25.B 100 -7. 5 2.7 29.4 99 7.5 2.9 30.1 9B . 7. 7 3.0 30.0 97 7.B . 3.0 29.6 96 B.O 3.1 29.5 95 B.2 3.1 29.3 . 94 ·B. 2 ·3. 3 29.0 93 B.2 '3.4 2B.9 92 B.2 3.5 2B.B 91 B.3 ·3. 5 2B.6 .. 90 ·B. 3 3.7 2B.4 B9 B.3 '3. B 2B.2 BB B.3 3.9 2B.1 B7 . B.3 4.o 27.B B6 B.2 4.1 27.7 ' . B5 B.2 4.1 27.7 Percent of Total 6.5 6.0 25.9 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed'at topof register. These competitors ar'e not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. OF COMPETITORS ' Percent THEOLOGY OTHER of Total 0.05 0.2 0.7 0.31 0.4 0.6 0.41 0.3 0.6 0.52 0.3 0.6 0.63 0.3 0.7 o. 77 0.6 1.0 2.34 0.5 0.9 . 2. 92 0.5 O.B 3.6B 0.5 0.9 4.54 0.5 0.9 5.53 0.5 0.9 6.66 0.4 0.9 7.93 0.5 O.B -9. 32 0.4 O.B 10.BO 0.4 O.B 12.37 0.4 O.B 13.97 0.4 O.B 15.76 0.4 O.B 17.55 0.4 o.B 1'9.43 0.4 O.B 2J.29 0.4 0.8 23.19 0.3 1.0 165' At or Above Rating 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 Percent of Total TABLE 98 PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS OF AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D AGRICULTURE & ARCHITECTURE & BIOLOGICAL BUSINESS & NAT RESOURCES ENVIR DESIGN SCIENCES MANAGEMENT 2.6 24.4 0.8 1.3 3.0 15.8 0.9 1.1 3.3 18.2 1.5 0.8 2.6 18.4 1.3 0.7 2.6 19.0 1.5 0.6 2.5 20.1 1.1 0.6 3.9 13.0 1.1 0.5 3.8 12.8 1.0 0.5 3.7 12.7 1.1 0.5 3.5 12.9 1.2 0.5 3.5 12.9 1.2 0.6 3.5 12.8 1.2 0.6 3.6 12.8 1.3 0.6 3.4 13.0 1.2 0.6 3.4 13.1 1.3 0.6 3.4 13.3 1.3 0.5 3.4 13.6 1.3 0.6 3.4 13.7 1.3 0.5 3.4 14.0 1.3 0.5 3.4 14.3 1.3 0.5 3.5 14.6 1.3 0.5 3.5 14.9 1.5 0.4 2.9 22.4 COMPETITORS COMMUNICATIONS 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2. 7 COMPUTER & INFO SCIENCES 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0. 7 0.6 0.6 0.6 o. 7 *Those CP competitors who pass would be placed at top of register. These competitors are not identifiable in data presented here so proportions are somewhat in error. 166 TABLE 98 (continued) PACE FY 75 COMPETITORS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS AT OR ABOVE CERTAIN RATINGS* COLLEGE MAJOR . OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY D FINE & EDUCATION ENGINEERING APPLIED ARTS At or Above Rating 106 1.3 1.3 3.8 105 3.3 0.8 1.5 104 3.8 1.3 1.1 103 3.7 1.3 0.9 102 4.3 1.7 0.8 101 5.1 2.0 0.8 100 4.0 1.4 1.8 99 4.4 1.4 1.6 98 4.5 1.2 1.8 97 4.6 1.1 1.8 96 4.8 1.0 1.9 95 5.0 1.0 1.8 94 5.3 1.0 1.8 93 5.7 0.9 1.8 92 6.0 0.9 1.9 91 6.2 0.9 2.0 90 6.5 0.9 2.0 89 6.5 0.9 2.1 88 6.7 0.8 2.1 87 7.0 0.8 2.1 86 7.2 0.8 2.1 85 7.4 0.8 2.1 Percent of Total 11.1 0.8 2.2 ~