RAF recruitment statistics

[beardy]

An interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today today concerning the success of applicants from different backgrounds. Interesting in that the information had to be prised out of the military hands after 5 months of refusal to publish. Interesting because the RAF has a BAME Network (and spokesperson). Interesting that there were so few applicants from minority backgrounds, any change in low numbers can of course exaggerate the impression of what appear to be large percentage changes.

An RAF spokesman said: “The RAF has a proud history of offering opportunities to anyone who has the ability to serve, no matter their background. Aptitude tests are designed to assess a candidates’ potential for the job they are applying for, with professional analysis confirming they are not biased.

Whatever happened to the mould breaking 'Grammar School Boys'?

Does the Military have to reflect the society it serves? If so what place do the Gurkhas have in the Army? (or the Foreign Legion in France for that matter)

[Saintsman]

I found it interesting that the total numbers of people applying to join was around the 8K mark.

It's not the career choice it used to be.

[Asturias56]

So what WERE the "interesting statistics" - pray enlighten us...................

[Count of Monte Bisto]

I am a former RAF Officer and in a past life was a navigator on the Tornado GR1/1A/4, with a bit of time on the Buccaneer and Phantom. The world has changed since then and there is an enormous rush to be politically correct and ensure no one feels left out. Regarding recruitment, you can take the example of the Israelis where they overtly state, 'Only the best for the cockpit'. Life has taught them hard lessons that you need the absolute creme de la creme flying any aircraft, but particularly fast jets. Their air-to-air results speak for themselves. They start screening future pilots at age 8, look again at age 12 and by age 18 the survivors of that process are in a vicious competition for a rare spot in pilot training. Only the best of the best succeed. Then we come to the UK where we are faced with 2 possible ways of recruiting. Option 1 - Regardless of the demographic, you only take the best and do not care if that does not reflect the population at large. Option 2 - Make the flying community look like the rest of the UK, where 80 per cent of the population are white British, 6.8% are Asian (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, others), black groups make up 3.4% and the rest are a melting pot of Chinese, Arab etc. Then you have to ensure a certain percentage of women, LGBTQ+ etc lest anyone feel let down. That is all very nice, but we have to ask the question of what we want from those who are tasked with taking on the best of other nations - do we want someone there because they reflect society or because they will beat the best of other nations? I would humbly suggest that we take the best of the best (black, white, men, women etc) and let anyone be offended who feels they should be. In the meantime, just ensure we have the very best people in our cockpits that our recruitment system could find - our future enemies are absolutely cast-iron guaranteed to have done the same thing, and will be absolutely delighted we did not.

[Wig Wag]

I was taught in primary school (mid 1960's) that the 'Old Lady on the Bailey' wears a blindfold and holds the scales as justice must be blind to appearance and must weight the evidence objectively.

So it should be with assessing, selecting and training mililtary personnel for defence of the Realm.

If they stopped recording ethnicity we wouldn't have the issue. British citizen is all we need confirmation of. After that selection should only be on merit.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Count,

I absolutely would not disagree with you that "the best of the best" (or more accurately, the best of the people we persuade to apply) should be in the cockpit, and no one is suggesting quotas based on population make-up. However, unless you believe that some part of the population is likely to be better at flying, the fact that your recruited population does not match the make-up of your overall population implies something.

It might imply that your recruiting efforts are poorly targeted, it might imply that your selection process is inherently biased or it might imply that something further up-stream (education for example) is out of whack. If it's the latter (and the RAF clearly believe that in this case based on the article) you have two choices - keep a system that doesn't take this into account or attempt to develop a system that will select based on inherent ability regardless of educational background to that point.

The best explanation I've ever seen of this was a big brother and a little brother watching a sports match over a fence with equally sized stools - "equal opportunity" is equal opportunity to see the match, not the same sized stool.

[Count of Monte Bisto]

pba_target - this is a really difficult issue and there is no easy answer, but I personally am not into quotas. I now am a senior training captain flying Airbuses (long story, but that's for another day). We have all the same arguments about recruitment. My company wanted to get a higher percentage of women (industry average is 5% - we wanted to raise that to 12%). Why not 50/50 you may ask? The answer is that there are not enough women sufficiently interested in flying and who have the aptitude to do that. Before you all jump down my throat, this is a way harder problem to deal with than you may imagine. Our female pilots are great - no issues whatsoever with that. There were, however, way less of them available to recruit than of their male equivalents. Why? There are a whole host of reasons and the same would apply to pilots from black/Caribbean backgrounds - these groups of people (particularly young men interestingly) often just do not get to the point that they can apply. The reasons really are nothing to do with flying but rather to do with culture. Many young black men fall out the education system way earlier than their female equivalents. There are a whole host of reasons - single parent families, peer pressure to join gangs, lack of father figures (way more likely to be from single parent homes) etc. With women, I think probably more men naturally want to do the job, but also many women are not made aware of these opportunities in childhood when so many ambitions are formed. These are generalisations, but if these folks were there to recruit we would have gobbled them up - they just do not get to that stage. Also, many women do not want to work weird hours due to family commitments (women are way more likely to be the main carer for children than men are). Sadly, despite having a lot of women pilots now, we only have a handful of female training captains. Again, that is to do with women being off having children at the critical times of life when people are racing up the career ladder. I used to knock all this stuff and felt women should just stop whinging and just 'be in it to win it' - that was very much the attitude when I was in the RAF! I am ashamed of that attitude now, as I now recognise with a dwindling population we must facilitate women being able to have careers and have children - we need the next generation.

Regarding some part of the population being better at flying, we are not really talking differences between black people and white people, but educated people are more likely to succeed at it than those who are not. For the reasons above, some demographic groups simply never get to the stage where they reach higher education in large numbers and therefore form part of the future flying gene pool. The reasons for this are largely societal and are very difficult to tackle. Nonetheless, the answer cannot be to lower standards of recruitment to accommodate that, but to rather increase educational standards to get these 'forgotten' groups available for selection. That is way easier said than done, frankly.

[NutLoose]

Totally and utterly agree, we seem to have gone down this route in the U.K. where there is an over zealous drive to recruit from minorities, disabilities, religious and sexes etc etc without simply recruiting the best of the best, you sometimes wonder if people are recruited to some posts not on merit, but to simply fill some PC agenda, and that is not only doing a disservice to those highly qualified and motivated individuals passed over to satisfy this requirement, but also reduces the quality and professionalism within the individual companies / establishments.
The only way you will ever reverse that is to ensure better education and a change in the culture we appear to have where there are no winners in life.

[Tankertrashnav]

I was taught in primary school (mid 1960's) that the 'Old Lady on the Bailey' wears a blindfold ...

Actually she doesn't - look it up. A popular misconception. Seems like education in the 60s wasn't all it's cracked up to be ;)

[Big Pistons Forever]

One of the ironic aspects of the new recruiting standards is the education requirement. Chuck Yeager joined the Army Air Force as a private with a high school diploma. He would be completely ineligible for pilot training in today’s USAF

The sad reality in almost all Western Air Forces is that they are not looking to recruit good pilots, they are looking to recruit “future senior leaders” which is bureaucratic speak for pliable politically attuned managers.

Israel is the exemption because they have an existential threat around them, This concentrates the minds of senior IAF leadership and defence politicians in a way that is unimaginable in Canada, UK, US etc etc

[Bob Viking]

I think large organisations are absolutely correct to attempt to target all demographics. I do, however, worry that overtly targeted recruitment will alienate the core groups who fill the rank and file.

For instance, Army recruitment adverts aimed at women are a great idea but if you disenfranchise the young males who traditionally look to the Army you will have a major problem on your hands.

The bottom line, in my humble opinion, is that an organisation should just be able to prove that it offers equality of opportunity. It should also show that it has made every effort to target recruitment at a wide variety (yes, even white males!) of demographics.

If that organisation is then seen to lack diversity they can at least prove that they put in the required effort. If there are then not enough women/trans/black/Asian/Sikh/Muslim etc then why should these numbers be used as a stick to beat an organisation with?

I 100% agree that the Armed Forces should recruit from all walks of life and that everyone should receive fair treatment once they join.

I just don’t think that numerical targets are the way to achieve that.

I have two sons and a daughter (they are all white). If in future my daughter, for instance, were to make it as a FJ pilot I would hate for people to look at her and say she only got there because she’s female. If she were to achieve that it should be on merit alone.

That is the flip side of the whole argument. If you positively discriminate then those recipients will forever be tainted and that is grossly unfair as well.

With all of the above in mind I thank my lucky stars I am not in charge and not responsible for such policies and decisions. It must be an absolutely thankless task.

BV

[Runaway Gun]

I saw a job advertisement for the local airforce last week, as such...

"Aircraft Fabricator (Female Opportunity)"

Is this discrimination?

[Bob Viking]

Of course it is. And we both know the country involved.

If it is a job that can be done equally by all genders then it should be advertised as such.

BV

[beardy]

If particular minority groups are under represented because they have a reluctance to break out of their cultural 'silo' is it not reasonable to target them to reinforce the idea that they are welcome to participate (provided they have the requisite skills)?

​Does it not become a problem when the military (or police) become viewed as unrepresentative of the society they are there to defend? Or is targeted recruitment divisive?

[Bob Viking]

In my view the most valuable bit of research in this field would be if someone were to ask the minority groups or demographics if it bothers them that they are under-represented.

After all, we the people seem to feel that diversity is vital but if the targeted groups don’t care that there aren’t many BAME members of the Armed Forces, for example, or enough female aircraft mechanics then is it worth the effort?

As I’ve said previously, as long as people know there is equality of opportunity does it really matter what the statistics say?

If we take it to the extremes and look at UKSF (assuming that one day the tokenism opened up to women) there are very few men that are capable of making the grade. Let’s say 1:10,000. There are likely fewer women that could make the grade, let’s say 1:100,000 (made up numbers).

Taking my invented numbers it shows that not only are there few people capable of certain roles but you have to identify and attract those select few.

The UKSF doesn’t need to be 50:50 men and women. But everyone needs to know that (should UKSF be opened up to women) men and women are equally welcome.

I wish we could have a government with the balls to stand up to the media to be honest. After all it is their focus on diversity targets and equal opportunities that terrifies the government.

If the government could just say they are committed to offering roles to any suitable candidate regardless of gender or ethnicity and then ignore the interminable figures then maybe we could all find something else to worry about.

I honestly think that until we can stop chasing such targets any BAME or female FJ pilot (for example) or Chief Executive is always going to be looked on by certain members of society as a diversity quota filler. If I were that individual I’d hate to think my hard work could be trivialised in such a manner.

As a random other example, in 2020 over 80% of players in the NBA (basketball) are black. Has anybody bothered to start a campaign for diversity? Or is it possible that those players are there because they were the best players? Or maybe because not many white boys want to be NBA players. Or maybe African American males are taller on average and therefore better suited (although Google the name Mugsy Bogues to see why this is not a prerequisite) to basketball.

This whole topic is quite fascinating and the debate could go on forever. History could have been very different, for example, if the Vietnam draft or WW2 conscription had been for all genders. It would have been very fair but would it have been effective?

Anyway, enough from me.

BV

[Door Slider]

If particular minority groups are under represented because they have a reluctance to break out of their cultural 'silo' is it not reasonable to target them to reinforce the idea that they are welcome to participate (provided they have the requisite skills)?

​Does it not become a problem when the military (or police) become viewed as unrepresentative of the society they are there to defend? Or is targeted recruitment divisive?

The RAF is very actively involved in recruitment drives in BAME communities across the UK. Ensuring that BAME communities are aware of the opportunities open to them, the career it can provide and that they are welcome is only right and proper.

Aiming to have a workforce which represents the make up and diversity of the population is laudable and the correct thing to do. However, despite the hard work of the recruiters and the significant money being spent doing this, the numbers of BAME applicants is extremely low.

The RAF has made every effort to open itself to all backgrounds but applicants selected for a role should be on merit alone and not to fill a quota.

Is it a problem if the military are underrepresented, to some yes but this is an educational and cultural issue and certainly not an issue of RAF opening itself to all.

Targeted recruitment is not necessarily decisive but targeted selection most definitely would be.

[binzer]

Actually she doesn't - look it up. A popular misconception. Seems like education in the 60s wasn't all it's cracked up to be ;)



Looking forward to being asked that in a quiz night,,, now that I know the answer :-)

[Boeing Jet]

Will we see the same amount of trades available to the younger generation wanting to join the RAF. Or will these just vanish with the onset of space age technology looming up in the near distant future?

[NutLoose]

Will we see the same amount of trades available to the younger generation wanting to join the RAF. Or will these just vanish with the onset of space age technology looming up in the near distant future?


We don't now, lots of trades since I served have gone, Carpenters, Painters and Finishers etc, times move on with technology.
In WW1 the RAF/RFC would have been awash with Blacksmiths and Carpenters, today it's not worth training the small numbers you would require, so any work will be tendered out. There might be the odd Farrier left in some of the household regiments though.

[beardy]

I imagine that a problem could arise when, because of under representation, a or a coalition of minority groups feel that the organs of state do not work for them, and may be working against them. Or they may simply feel disenfranchised.

I know that this sounds a bit feely touchy, but of such things are revolts made.

[Wig Wag]

Actually she doesn't - look it up. A popular misconception. Seems like education in the 60s wasn't all it's cracked up to be ;)

TTN, prompted by that wee dig I did some digging around and, sadly, had to go to Wikipedia where I found that truth is indeed stranger than fiction:

On the dome above the court stands the court's symbolic gilt bronze statue of Lady Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice) by sculptor F. W. Pomeroy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._Pomeroy) (made 1905–1906).[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bailey#cite_note-8) She holds a sword in her right hand and the scales of justice in her left. The statue is popularly supposed to show blind Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_justice_(concept)), but the figure is not blindfolded: the courthouse brochures explain that this is because Lady Justice was originally not blindfolded, and because her "maidenly form" is supposed to guarantee her impartiality which renders the blindfold redundant.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bailey#cite_note-9)

Lovely sentiment but have you ever known an 'impartial maiden' ?

[langleybaston]

I was rejected in my youth by several who were indifferent.

[Cobra92]

Oh dear, oh dear.

This argument rears it's ugly head every couple of years, OR - whenever a social event drives the debate, al'la BLM. Whenever the discussion appears, the evidence tells us nothing much has changed since the last debate. So, do we think, in ten years time, the situation will have advanced? Likely not.

Now, to be fair, technology and politics means that there will continue to be massive change in the structure and compisition of our forces which will make comparisions difficult to apply. Let us assume that staffing issues will remain unchanged.

I absolutely believe that we should be attracting themost capable and apt for those roles available. However, societial studies tells us that some members have advantages, and receive very different messages to some others. Realistically, the recruitment messages says different things to different people. Simply, many BAME people (one more term I utterly hate, we are all people, human beings) live in the inner city. When I went to Cranwell in 1990, I went from a big city to rural Cranwell in one four our drive. I knew full well what I was going to, but some people would be overwhelmed by the massive cultural change from Peckham or similair areas to that sacred place. I joined with a large number of people who I swear had never met a black person in real life. Have we really advanced as a society, with our expectations?

Why are there so many people in NBA basketball, or a desire to get into Premier division football, or a desire to get into Rap? For to many of us, it's about your one route out, to the exclusion of realistic alternative routes. The COVID19 pandemic has shown us there are plenty of people making good progress at the highest levels in Medicine, but are being recognised by paying the price. There is no shortage of Teachers, in the inner city, TV presenters, journalists. We are all there. There are plenty of people of colour in the Army, and at sea, but not enough professionals. Do we really have to wait 20+ years for those people to advance to commission level to send out a possible message?

Politicians set quotas, the recruiters need to identify and encourage those who might overwise choose a career in entertainment journalism sport etc. Marcus Rashford is barely 21, and has shamed a forty plus PM who benefitted from the best education this country can provide. Is the message clear yet?

[rolling20]

'Marcus Rashford is barely 21, and has shamed a forty plus PM who benefitted from the best education this country can provide. Is the message clear yet?'

Rashford is 23, Johnson 56
The only reason Rashford has succeeded is because of the media. Media backs fringe causes, government and business poo themselves over the adverse publicity and cave in.
RAF recruitment , the problem is of the governments own making. 'Options for Change' / Peace Dividend etc...has run down our armed forces for the last 30 years.
Think of all the trainee pilots let go not too long ago.
Would anyone join a company, knowing that company is on a downward spiral and the rot hasn't stopped?
Saying ethnic recruitment is not happening in the RAF, is really not the issue. The issue is recruitment full stop and the problem runs much deeper

[Flugplatz]

Agree with Rolling20,
I left in 2000 because the whole armed forces seemed to be in a downward spiral which even big commitments to conflicts in the middle east haven't managed to stop. All the services exemplify the phrase "managed decline", with senior officers falling over themselves to justify more cuts efficiencies. Beating the drum for something fewer and fewer people believe in, and why should they? From the outside it is so obvious how it has been going for the last 20 years and the whole thing just comes across as a tiny little 'niche industry' with ever-diminishing opportunities. Fair enough, they don't want to spend money on bigger forces, but then shouldn't wonder why it is on so few people's radar, whatever their colour.

[heights good]

I had a fascinating conversation whilst waiting for a flight home from Cyprus with a lad of Indian descent. He was an Officer and was immensely proud of this fact, which I thought was great, as many are not.

The conversation progressed and he said with a heavy heart that his family pretty much disowned him for the first 5 yrs of his career and only his brother attended his graduation from IOT.

It turns out that his parents were absolutely aghast that he would choose to join the military and not become a doctor. Culturally, the armed forces were seen to be on a level pegging with a dustbin man!

His parents after nearly 10 yrs still gave him grief every time he visited home.

From what he had said, it appears that recruiting from certain demographics will never work, regardless of the aspirations, quotas and budget.

Just a thought...

[heights good]

I will leave this here, this should put most of the quota arguments to bed.

https://youtu.be/4bq3YrYjG-s

[beardy]

I will leave this here, this should put most of the quota arguments to bed.

https://youtu.be/4bq3YrYjG-s


I don't think that any of these discussions have argued in favour of a quota. Rule 6 stay away from over simplifications.

[Asturias56]

"Culturally, the armed forces were seen to be on a level pegging with a dustbin man!"

If you read "redcoat" - a history of the British Army - you'd find that that was the view of most families in England between 1600 and 1914

[rolling20]

"Culturally, the armed forces were seen to be on a level pegging with a dustbin man!"

If you read "redcoat" - a history of the British Army - you'd find that that was the view of most families in England between 1600 and 1914

Don't forget the pre-war joke, that , 'a son would tell his mother he was a pianist in a brothel, rather than admit to being in the RAF'.

[Blacksheep]

When I worked in an Islamic Sultanate we had a local pilot who rose to become one of the first local Captains. Then he got married, at which point his family decided it was time for him to stop playing with aeroplanes and get a "proper job". They pulled strings for a senior job in the Foreign Ministry and that was the end of his flying career.

[Lomon]

As an ex recruiter I can say that there was always a push to recruit people from BAME backgrounds, and a desire to to try and get the population of the RAF closer to that of the UK in terms of gender, sexual orientation and ethnic background.

But there are hurdles to this, just like you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink, you can have all the recruting drives and roadshows you want, targeted at every minority, but if they don't want to join you can't force them.

Our dwindling number of locations doesn't always help recreuitment or retention either. The biggest Muslim populations in the UK are in the North West of England.... where does the RAF have no stations? How can those young adults see what we do and look at it as an attractive job?

You then have the perceived hostility toward Muslims to overcome - more than once I was asked by MUslim kids "Why do you only bomb Muslims?" Obviously we don't, but that is what is focussed on in the news and is what the radicals in their communities would like them to think.

As an organisation we have to do better, how we do it needs serious thought.

[heights good]

I don't think that any of these discussions have argued in favour of a quota. Rule 6 stay away from over simplifications.

Apologies.

Poorly worded on my part, I wasn't trying to imply that people were arguing for quotas. I was trying to highlight that quotas just dont work and the MoD should provide equality of opportunity, not outcome.

I hope that clears things up.

[Saintsman]

I would ask the question as to whether RAF personnel would do their roles any better if the numbers of of ethnic minorities matched the
UK numbers?

If so, what is lacking at the moment and how would they make it better?

[NutLoose]

It’s like anything, you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink, you can try and entice through recruitment anyone and everyone, but if they don’t want to play in ones army, nothing will convince them otherwise so you make do with those that wish too.

[beardy]

It’s like anything, you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink, you can try and entice through recruitment anyone and everyone, but if they don’t want to play in ones army, nothing will convince them otherwise so you make do with those that wish too.
'Them'? Is not the use of this type of language seen as being exclusive and part of the reason 'they' don't feel included, part of 'us'?

[NutLoose]

'Them'? Is not the use of this type of language seen as being exclusive and part of the reason 'they' don't feel included, part of 'us'?

You are reading more into that statement than I was writing, if you re read it again, I said anyone and everyone, be they black, white, pink, yellow, etc etc etc, there was no preconcepted choice on my behalf as to who “them” were or are.

It at the end of the day is a personal choice and if parts of the populace decide not to partake in a career in the military, but there are those keen to, then logic dictates you take those.
I cannot believe a CIO will turn down applicants simply because the advertising wasn’t aimed at them.

[langleybaston]

.
Pardon my ignorance, as ever.

Are the selection tests [written] "colour blind".

Clearly they should be.

In my career [not directly military] I was allowed to choose, by interview, my personal admin staff. On several occasions the best candidate was BAME. Who would settle for second best? Not I.
Equally, I would want the best regardless. Surely the RAF would want the best available?.

[blimey]

Stats - always interesting and usually don't tell the full story. Two more questions which could be asked are: why do those with a Chinese background do the best, and how do those worst performing in education, the white working class, score in the tests.
As a general observation on who applies and whether it reflects society: if you're joining the armed forces, you have to be prepared to kill whoever at the behest of the government of the day. You might be against harming others or killing per se; you might be against killing specific nationalities. It's unlikely, therefore, to be a representative cross section.
Just my 2 bob's worth.

[sycamore]

Be interested to know since gliding got `buggered` ,if that has affected the number of ATC cadets entering the RAF...?

[Tankertrashnav]

I had a fascinating conversation whilst waiting for a flight home from Cyprus with a lad of Indian descent. He was an Officer and was immensely proud of this fact, which I thought was great, as many are not.

The conversation progressed and he said with a heavy heart that his family pretty much disowned him for the first 5 yrs of his career and only his brother attended his graduation from IOT ...

I had a similar experience in my shop, chatting to a chap who mentioned he was an RAF engineer officer. He was second generation Indian (born and brought up in the UK) and he had almost the same experience as your chap. They didn't exactly disown him but made it clear that they thought he had let the side down by joining the armed forces. This was some years ago, and I have no idea if these ideas are still prevalent in the Asian community in Britain, but I suspect things are little different now, which makes the task of enticing talented people of Asian origin into the service all the more difficult.

On a lighter note, back in the 60s I knew a black Lightning pilot, a very rara avis in those days. He used to come and join our poker school from time, and although I am sure he was an ace pilot, he was a terrible poker player, and we used to welcome him with open arms as we knew we were going to take money off him!

[NutLoose]

We had the combination in Germany of an Indian Sengo and Jengo, the Jengo used to wear a full Turban etc and one day he turned up hair shorn and minus Turban, from what I gather he wore it as a respect to his late father, but after his passing he decided on a change, ultimate respect to him.

[Tartiflette Fan]

I was rejected in my youth by several who were indifferent.

Then - on attaining your maturity - all swooned before you ? :O

[langleybaston]

Then - on attaining your maturity - all swooned before you ? :O

Dream on!

Mind you, the one lady who would wed me is still SWMBO, which says much for her stamina and tolerance.

[Asturias56]

What astonishes me is we have a thread entitled "RAF recruitment statistics" which is now on its third page and no-one has posted the actual numbers...............

[spitfirek5054]

Why spoil this thread with details.:)

[Flugplatz]

Yeah, and the original report wasn't about BAME not wanting to join, it was about some categories not scoring well in the airman aptitude tests (or whatever they're called)

[NutLoose]

Yeah, and the original report wasn't about BAME not wanting to join, it was about some categories not scoring well in the airman aptitude tests (or whatever they're called)

when I joined it was something like 50 people applying for each position, now they struggle to reach their quotas.

In the past it didn’t matter if people failed the aptitude tests as you still had a large pool to choose from, today the army etc have had to lower standards to attain recruitment levels that are still woeful.

[SLXOwft]

Asturias, I found the attached tables as part of a FOI request to the RAF which was initially turned down. It was answered after a successful appeal the requester pointed out he had already received similar data from the RN and Army. I put aside doubts about the motives of the requester, there was an identically worded request from another person a few days later. There are usual caveats about excluding small groups that could lead to identification of individuals.

Table 5 on number of applicants is of concern to anyone interested in a better racial balance.

FOI request at:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/raf_aptitude_test_results_per_et#incoming-1644897

[racedo]

Yeah, and the original report wasn't about BAME not wanting to join, it was about some categories not scoring well in the airman aptitude tests (or whatever they're called)

Question then is should you take everybody who wants to join. Put them through a 14 week basic training and education process and then do the aptitude tests at the end. Sure some will wash out anyway but you may also overcome some of the bias in testing.

[Asturias56]

Thanks SLXOwft - I see what you mean

[heights good]

Question then is should you take everybody who wants to join. Put them through a 14 week basic training and education process and then do the aptitude tests at the end. Sure some will wash out anyway but you may also overcome some of the bias in testing.

what bias?

[NutLoose]

Strange how they speak of integration and I’ve noticed this in a lot of applications, the lists posted for ethnicity as shown in post 49.

Any Chinese Background
Any Other White Background
Arab
Asian Bangladeshi
Asian Indian
Asian Pakistani
Black African
Black Caribbean
Declined To Declare
Mixed Asian And White
Mixed Black African And White
Mixed Black Caribbean And White
Other Asian Background
Other Black Background
Other Ethnic Background
Other Mixed Ethnic Background
White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British

Surely it should read as an example out of the above list
English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British Mixed Black Caribbean and White.
After all most of those applying WILL be second or greater generation immigrants who were born in the U.K. so by definition ARE English/ Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish.
To list them as the Services have done infers that to be “English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British” means you have to be white. So much for racial integration.

[Flugplatz]

Nutloose, all of the categories are either 'racial origin' or colour based at the start e.g. white English etc. I know what you mean though; the armed forces are supposed to be colour-blind when recruiting/promoting, but are also forced to pigeon-hole by race/colour when recording details of applicants, so both ends working against the middle in some ways.

I think just examining what makes the forces attract people by looking at what the forces have to offer, will only ever give an incomplete answer. You start getting a clearer picture when you compare the services with other occupations and parts of the public sector (NHS etc.). My own view is that it might be better to assume that the services will always be seen by most as lacking in appeal compared to the professions and quite a few other leading industries/areas of the public sector. With that in mind, the service offering should consider a genuinely compelling and beneficial counterpart to any time in uniform, probably along the lines of paying for a degree or other genuine professional qualification, open to all ranks, that can be taken up after a minimum engagement period. This would take quite a lot of investment, rather than the somewhat half-hearted attempt (with limited scope) at the moment, but most ambitious people from ethnic minorities (and whites as it happens) pretty much agree that a good education is invaluable. It would take quite a bit of money and change in the culture to convert the services to having such a 'two-part' offering, but I think it would at least put the armed forces in a bit of better place on a list of career choices.

[Krystal n chips]

Nutloose, all of the categories are either 'racial origin' or colour based at the start e.g. white English etc. I know what you mean though; the armed forces are supposed to be colour-blind when recruiting/promoting, but are also forced to pigeon-hole by race/colour when recording details of applicants, so both ends working against the middle in some ways.

I think just examining what makes the forces attract people by looking at what the forces have to offer, will only ever give an incomplete answer. You start getting a clearer picture when you compare the services with other occupations and parts of the public sector (NHS etc.). My own view is that it might be better to assume that the services will always be seen by most as lacking in appeal compared to the professions and quite a few other leading industries/areas of the public sector. With that in mind, the service offering should consider a genuinely compelling and beneficial counterpart to any time in uniform, probably along the lines of paying for a degree or other genuine professional qualification, open to all ranks, that can be taken up after a minimum engagement period. This would take quite a lot of investment, rather than the somewhat half-hearted attempt (with limited scope) at the moment, but most ambitious people from ethnic minorities (and whites as it happens) pretty much agree that a good education is invaluable. It would take quite a bit of money and change in the culture to convert the services to having such a 'two-part' offering, but I think it would at least put the armed forces in a bit of better place on a list of career choices.

Actually, that's already in place plus many airmen now have a tertiary qualification when joining. It's what happens thereafter that proves problematic in that gaining further promotions can be very much dependent on what secondary duties they perform, along with a timescale that can be very prolonged between ranks. Few see the RAF as a long term career option therefore.

[racedo]

what bias?

Aptitude tests pretty much follow the bias of the person writing the tests. People from many background cannot hope to fit into lots of different requirements of aptitude tests with ease.

In taking everybody in, as suggested then you can work, train, evaluate and then test.

You may not get the same people BUT you may open the door for others.

IF you do the same as always, why would would you be surprised when the result comes back the same..

[Flugplatz]

Kristal n Chips, glad to hear it, in which case that needs to be front-and-centre on the RAF website with a list of the kinds of degree, MBA etc. the RAF will fully pay for, and ideally the institutions with which arrangements already exist. Then perhaps after a couple more clips an enquirer will gradually become aware they have to also join the RAF and serve some minimum period.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Kristal n Chips, glad to hear it, in which case that needs to be front-and-centre on the RAF website with a list of the kinds of degree, MBA etc. the RAF will fully pay for, and ideally the institutions with which arrangements already exist. Then perhaps after a couple more clips an enquirer will gradually become aware they have to also join the RAF and serve some minimum period.
To slightly disagree with the previous poster, whilst the RAF has made some progress in arranging for professional training in the junior ranks to be accredited towards civilian qualifications, they also used to have the "In Service Degree " scheme (around the early 00's) specifically designed to encourage people to join as aircrew prior to university to extend the return that they gave before leaving at average age (i.e. get them in young). This credited various courses towards an OU degree (essentially the first year for free) and you then got the rest of the degree paid for so long as you did the studying. This scheme was unilaterally withdrawn not just as an offer but also for those who joined on it who hadn't already started studying for their OU course when university fees went up. The withdrawal was "publicised" in an obscure DIN - no attempt to directly contact people on the scheme to warn them to start studying or lose it.

Lesson : take every recruitment initiative with a pinch of salt because the MOD can and will move the goal posts if it suits them.