Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for recruiting those who have a high level of aviation knowledge. However, if that were a requirement, we'd have four courses a year of less than five students who had that level of knowledge and could pass the rest of the selection tests/interviews. Remember, it's no good being able to recall instantly how many individual tyres on a 744, or the thrust of an RB211-524H to the nearest pound, and yet be unable to manage time effectively, or work in a team, or make decisions under pressure etc etc. On my course (106, started in April 98) of 34 NATS students, there were two or three 'anoraks' if you will, another handful who had a good level of knowledge, and over 20 who didn't really know much about ATC or aviation at all. At last count, about 25 of them were employed by NATS as ATCOs, I think there are two non-NATS ATCOs, a few in NATS in other roles too. Not too shabby for the majority of non Total Aviation Persons to misquote Flight's Uncle Roger.
My comment above was aimed at Chevvron's remark that we only select those who have degrees regardless of their skills, or lack thereof. Simply not true.
I also have to take exception to the thought that the selectors are 'numbskulls'. Yes, we have objectives against which we score, but also we are ATCOs too, and at the end of the day throughout the process we, as 'selectors', are also going to have to work with and train those we are putting through. A lot of us feel passionately about this work, and put in a lot of effort to get the right result. In fact, it seems as if I'm going to be asked to give up working with recruitment later this year, and to be honest I'm dreading that day, and not a little cheesed off to put it mildly.
As an aside, on the day, if there is a disagreement between ATCO and HR, then ATCO wins.