Most peer rating formats require the rater to nominate a specified number of his group members to the top and bottom positions in the group in terms of some particular trait or ability. When these nominations are pooled, there are frequently members of the group who are not named as either high or low unrated group. The usual procedure has been to assign an average i.e. mean score to such individuals. However, it seems possible that, for the prediction of many criteria, the fact that a man was unrated might indicate something quite different from averageness. Peer ratings of leadership potential have been shown to correlate with subsequent success in the Naval Air Training Program. This study investigates the assumption of the averageness of this unrated group by comparing their later success with that of men who received the average score because of having received equal numbers of high and low nominations rated group, and with that of men who received scores at levels other than average. The results indicate that the unrated group are not inferior to those men who were rated average, nor to the average of the total group in performance on the criterion used.