Originally Posted by
Gonzo
I really don't think any statement on graduates v non-graduates from any one person, perhaps even any one unit, can be statistically significant.
Firstly there is the fact that the nominal 'degree' doesn't exist. A law graduate is going to have learned vastly different skills during study than a drama graduate, than a archaeology student, than a physics student, than a rural resource management student.
If I picked the multi-year time periods carefully, I could, with conviction, say that no ab initio trainee from the college is good enough to validate at LHR Tower. I could point to 'evidence' that would back that up.
If I picked a different, but adjacent, multi-year time period, I could, with conviction, say that valid en-route and TMA controllers are not good enough to validate at LHR Tower. I could point to 'evidence' to back that up.
Does NATS (or specific units) base selection processes on that sort of assertion? No, of course not, because we look for a set of skills and behaviours, and we are usually broad minded enough to understand that those skills and behaviours occur in many people, regardless of levels of education, or wealth, or ethnicity, or gender.
The only way of assessing success is to judge against a standard. We do not, when faced with a similar candidate to one who has just been judged as not suitable, dismiss that candidate just because s/he is of a similar background/education/etc etc.