Originally Posted by
Melchett01
If I had anything to say about it, I would probably class 'high quality' as 2.1 upwards in one of the more traditional / rigorous subjects. But I suppose it's all reletive really - would you rather have someone with a 1st in English from Aberystwth or a 3rd in Mech Eng from Cambridge?
And whilst I do take your point about the differences between a Physics degree and an Underwater Basket Weaving course, as long as students have used their uni time productively, have learnt to think critically for themselves and picked up bit of life experience so they aren't completely wet behind the ears when they pitch up on day 1 then I wouldn't complain too much.
So on one hand we 'attract' high quality candidates with attractive pay but OTOH we pay all graduates the same. That attracts the higher flyer and the not so high as well. Maybe the 1st and 2.1s should get more and the type of degree too?
OTOH does pay make a difference between someone who wants to fly a FJ or be a city investment banker? Does pay make a difference between one who wants to fly the great unwashed to exotic destinations or one who flies the worthy unwashed home from even more exotic locations?
We stopped flying instructional pay because there was no need for an incentive so why pay more than a needs amount? Free food and accommodation for the singlie with pocket money and some subsistence allowance for the married? Extreme perhaps and what would we do with the few quid saved?
Perhaps give monthly increments as the trainee progresses and frozen if they are recoursed?