Does OASC Understand Ex-rankers?

[isaneng]

Over the last few years, several friends and colleagues have gone to OASC for selection. Regardless of their results, many have come back with the same questions and comments - namely that the whole procedure seems geared around DEs, (perhaps understandable to a degree). The 43 yr old FS being asked about his activities in school does seem somewhat ridiculous. Is the system fair to Ex-Rankers, or has my perception been biased by a few unbalanced reports.

[Bluntnotsharp]

I went through OASC as a civilian aged 30 and I too was asked many many questions about my school activities from some 14 to 17 years before. It would appear that they treat civilians and ex-rankers the same.

[sisemen]

Standard format for interview. No distinctions. The start of the interview is all about you and your life. It's stuff that you know (or should do) and is designed to not only get some background information but also to set you at ease. Part 2 of the interview concentrates on the more esoteric things and what your aims in life are.

[isaneng]

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer I was only talking about the interview. Aspects such as leadership style were also commented on - how many of us use the shouting/overly 'energetic' approach to leadership that OASC seem to look for in the hangar.

[minigundiplomat]

It's followed the same format for years - and it more or less works. Plenty of those ex-rankers that have attended (such as myself) have passed.

If you have the motivation and qualities they are looking for, you will pass, regardless of age or background.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Quite simply it's a game, if you play it and you are good enough you get selected, simple as :ok:

[dickym]

Is the question about what your father does for a living designed to set you at your ease as well, coming as it does in the first part?

I could always understand the rationale behind everything else in the interview, but this one always smacked of a 'byegone age.'

[Dundiggin']

********************* Of course if the question was too hard for you then I could understand. The staff are trying to get to know you after all. What your father does for a living is nothing to do with a 'byegone era' - ****!

We don't do personal attacks and insults in here!

[Pontius Navigator]

I suppose it is an improvement on "When did you last see your father?"

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Is the question about what your father does for a living designed to set you at your ease as well, coming as it does in the first part?

I could always understand the rationale behind everything else in the interview, but this one always smacked of a 'byegone age.'


Whilst Diggin's "prat" is a bit strong what on earth is wrong with a question like that :confused:

OASC and the subsequent Airman Aircrew or Officer courses now at Cranwell, my AAITC was at Finningly, are nothing more than yard sticks used to see if the individual has what it takes. Bed packs, bull nights, carrying pine poles up hill and down dale, stretcher run etc etc are all designed with nothing more in mind than seeing if you can stay the course.

I have not a single formal educational qualification to my name yet to me the above stands out like the proverbial dogs appendage which is why I am struggling to understand yours and the OP's confusion on the matter :ok:

[Biggus]

Surely the point the OP is making is this. Asking an 18 year old what he has done in school over the last few years is relevant. He can easily remember it, as it wasn't long ago, and it's about all his worldly experience at that stage.

By contrast, for a 43 year old you are asking him about things that happened nearly 30 years ago, so his memory won't be that good. Secondly, for the 43 year old a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, he has no doubt matured, developed, and done things in his 20s and 30s that are far more relevant to the OASC decision making process!!

[The Old Fat One]

If you have the motivation and qualities they are looking for, you will pass, regardless of age or background.


This sentence implies OASC was (is?) a pass/fail course. I was there in 88 and it was an attendence course in all but name. To fail (as in chopped without recourse) you had to:

a. Commit a crime
b. Be so hopeless you could not get out of bed in the morning.
c. Voluntarily quit.
d. Get injured.

Only about 7 out of 150 of my entry managed to distinguish themselves as above, most quitting or getting medically discharged.

20 or so were recoursed, but all passed later. As far as I am aware this was par for the course and I do recall being told by a Sqn Cdr that chopping people was becoming relatively unheard of, whatever their shortcomings.

[Pontius Navigator]

TOFO, I think you are confusing OASC and IOT.

I read MGD's "If you have the motivation and qualities they are looking for" as focusing on motivation and qualities at OASC. The corollary is that an excellent SNCO may be just that and lack the motivation and qualities that are perceived as essential for a commission.

A signicantly larger proportion of 'rankers' are commissioned compared with DE although many more aspiring DE will present.

The more junior airman and JNCO may also be prefered over the older SNCO as the latter may be more set in their ways than the younger aspirant.

[OneFifty]

I can't speak for OASC, but in the AFCO's, all interviews, including P2 filter interviews, are conducted from a 'script'. This ensures that each and every interviewee is treated exactly the same regardless of age, experience or anything else. It may seem harsh to the older interviewee, but it does standardise the process. The interviewer may take into account the interviewees age when making his/her notes however, but it isn’t always the just the answer to the question the interviewer is interested in. It’s how the candidate performs to the interview situation, which may include questions he/she wasn’t quite expecting or makes them think that little bit harder.

[Two's in]

The 43 yr old FS being asked about his activities in school does seem somewhat ridiculous.

It's just a theory, but do you imagine the interviewers are fascinated at what Bloggs' school days were like and are hanging on his/her every word? Or just maybe they are instead judging Bloggs' ability to construct and articulate a sensible response to a straightforward question?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

It's just a theory, but do you imagine the interviewers are fascinated at what Bloggs' school days were like and are hanging on his/her every word? Or just maybe they are instead judging Bloggs' ability to construct and articulate a sensible response to a straightforward question?

Nail...hit... on...head :D

They could not give a **** if your dad was Winston Churchill or Fred West so long as you can answer the question, why the **** folk are struggling with this is beyond me :p

[Mach2]

From my time on OASC I can assure you that while the Board members do indeed follow the same interview format for each candidate, in their pre-interview preparation they do identify which parts of a persons life they are going to find more productive. For the 30-year old - civilian or Service - the schooldays will be covered very quickly! As has been said, it the overall performance that counts - especially in the second half of the interview when they are probing motivation, confidence and determination, amongst other things.

[exblanketstacker]

As an ex Board Member I remember that when dealing with older candidates you would cover the School days by asking the candidate how they would best be remembered from those days. There were standard interview question guides one of which was called the 'wrinkly card'. The wrinkly card would skip over the earlier years and concentrate on recent employment including military service where applicable. Its been about 5 years since I was there but I don't think the interview would have changed that much since.

[Samuel]

You would think that modern PC Britain would have come up with a term less rank than ex-ranker. "Extraordinary Person" perhaps, or "Superchap", or "Dearly Beloved" or, indeed, as it states on my Commission Parchment, of which I'm very proud,"Trusty and Well-beloved". I'm not sure if I ever felt those particular vibes...

[The Old Fat One]

PN and MGD

Oops rookie mistake!

Hat, coat, taxi for TOFO please

[Pontius Navigator]

TOFO, no probs. On what you posted however you were spot on.

We had a Nav Stude, hope he reads this :}, who ran up such huge credit card debits at IOT that he was assigned an instructor to manage his financial affairs. His credit cards and cheque book wee surrendered and he was delayed graduation until he was solvent.

We knew nothing of this.

It was then noticed that he had a Vauxhall Cavalier cabriolet (IIRC) which was rather more than many of us could afford at the time, including Spec Aircrew. Then it was pranged and we saw it sitting for days in the car park.

It emerged that the car, on HP, had only been insured for 3rd Party which of course broke the HP Agreement. On further investigation he was once again up to his eyes in debt. Had he been chopped at IOT it would have been relatively easy but once commissioned things were more dificult. I think some people wanted to keep him so that he could repay his debts. Other that someone who could not manage his own affairs could not be trusted with a commission. I think in the end he was persuaded to relinquish his commission.

At least with ex-rankers their history is an open book. That in itself makes it more difficult to get an OCs recommendation.

PS, I am very sad to say that one woman I gave a very strong rec for was commissioned and then killed in Iraq.

[sisemen]

how many of us use the shouting/overly 'energetic' approach to leadership that OASC seem to look for in the hangar.

Definitely not! We were looking for a thoughtful, practical approach to a leadership situation. This certainly involved taking the ideas from the rest of the team and putting all the ideas, including your own, into good effect.

If some member of the team was slacking in their personal effort to achieve the team's goal then a bit of shouting and "positive encouragement" would get brownie points.

Commissioned officers (and SNCOs) from which OASC board members and IOT instructors are selected from all go through the process of absorbing thoroughly the 3 "magic circles": Task; Team; and Individual. Depending on the situation each one of these 3 items could assume a greater importance than the other 2 but no one circle could be completely done away with.

OASC board members look for the beginnings of that system - not the ability to shout.