High College Failure Rate?
 

Hi all,

I've just had a traumatic time reading a thread which indicated the college failure rates for NATS were sky high. I'm starting in September, and was looking for your opinions on why they are so high and if they are really at that level?

One of the things that the college is best at is milling rumours. The 'High Faliure rate' was all over the place while i was there and still is.

My experience of the college is that you tended to lose around a third of a course per course. I started with over 35 people at the induction and now there is 15-16 of us with licences. Some people quit, some were chopped and most got some form of re course. The main thing is that it is not for everyone, not one of the 35+ i started with was un motivated or un able but at the end of the day couldn't pass the assessments.

Just keep your head down and do the work and you'll be fine. People who make too much noise generally attract the wrong type of attention to themselves and come a cropper.

Completely agree with Inca there,

It's not for everyone... but if you have the desire to do it, and put the work that's necessary in, you'll get the rewards you deserve at the end of it. It is tricky and difficult at times, but everyone there is behind you to make sure you get through it with a smile on your face.

Scarf

I was down at Hurn last week and was told by a member of College staff that of the last course to have summatives, out of 33, 26 failed. Of the remaining 7, 5 had already been re-coursed.

So what? So there can be high failure rates on some courses but that doesn't affect anyone who's about to start just the same as if the last course through had a 100% pass rate. It has absolutely no bearing on anything. Get your head down and work hard, nothing else affects your chances as much as your own endeavour.

That's the plan!!!!

I think you'll find once upon a time the failure rate was quite bad, 1/3 of people or so not making it. Now it's terrible. Of one of the most recent 'large' courses that are passing through the college, out of over 50 people only 16 people remain, their fate yet to be decided! One course had only 9 people passing last week and getting a posting and of those some had been recoursed multiple times!

The course is too short now and there are not enough good instructors to go around. It'd be interesting to know how much each trainee on £10k 'costs' compared to students on the old salary. I wouldn't be surprised if it was now more! You can't pile em high and sell em cheap.

That is a worryingly high failure rate, too much cost cutting by bean counters no doubt with the college staff taking all the flack.
We started as a course of 60 and 44 of us graduated after 3 ratings with most failures at the procedural rating, as they no longer do that you would think the pass rate would be higher. Although the pay may account for some of it, not attracting some potentially excellent candidates, I would find it hard to believe that the selection process is letting the system down so badly.
Reducing the length of courses is to the long term detriment of NATS and we risk losing people who just needed a little longer at the college ?

Scarf; Some of the instructors are very good, but be careful about assuming all are when you have nothing else to compare it to. Some haven't been valid on radar for over 20 years and some are contracted back in because no one else wants to do it! Those who hold validations are excellent instructors. But there's a few who have a nice little earner going on, who by all accounts were a bit ropey when valid!

The problem with the 10k is it's an extra pressure you don't need. Plus I've heard some people need a part time to job to live, that cannot help you to focus on the course. Plus how do you afford to let your hair down and wind down at the weekend?

Eek, my apologies, other post disappeared.. trying to claw it back again!

You are right, I can't really compare it to "the good ol days" and how it used to be, so obviously have an inaccurate view on the whole thing! I haven't heard of anyone having another job to supplement their expenses, but i know where your coming from. It is tight, and i don't know how other people coming from other jobs are managing. Fortunately I came straight from college and into it, so for me it's actually the highest paid job i've had, used to living off a couple of tins of baked beans a week!

unfortunately very suitable candidates aren't able to give up well paid secure jobs to embark on a very risky course as they have commitments, hence the 10k appeals to a very small pool of candidates.

i hear people now are frequently failing oral boards and written examinations (despite the 70% rule for each q being changed) This was generally unheard of even up to the last non-10k course! These sentiments are being echoed from many different areas of the company so it's about time management listened.

Here's something; how about a new GM at Hurn, that concentrates on training our Atcos before those of other countries!

As a general rule, about 1/4 of people are making it through from entry to validation.

10k pay cut or not, I think this must be costing Uncle Barron a few bob, but the management don't seem to be bothered by the chop rate.

Or maybe it just that senior management elsewhere in NATS is telling the GM Hurn that he needs to bring in business to help fund the training of our own ATCOs. A change in leadership at Hurn will not necessarily bring a change in mindset up top in the company. Also, let's not forget that Hurn has been under threat for a good while, with it's future only being sorted out recently. Rocking the boat at the College would not do anyone any good.

I also heard that there is a course of 63 students about to start. Why so many? Surely senoior management would be better off cutting this by a third and paying them 15k each (or 10k plus 5k accom expenses) and concentrate on quality. Still that's another matter.

To be fair, I'm giving up a 33K a year job to do this, BUT I have no mortgage or commitments. It's a nothing ventured situation. I have some money put aside, so hopefully I'll have slightly less to deal with in that sense (plus no uni debts!). Those course numbers seem huge, surely if efforts were focused on fewer, they would learn more?

When I went through the course sizes were large 60 on each course, the success rate was pretty good losing at most a quarter of the course by the end and practically all validating.
It isn't down to the size of the course there are other factors.

Sorry if I come across as cheeky, can I ask what?

Cheers

If I knew I could make a fortune ;)

Well someone must know what's causing the failure rate, it can't be motivation as the process to get on the course takes a bit of work in the first place. I'm sure the college wants everyone to pass so is it a case of someone's capacity to deal with the actual flow of air traffic and the way someone deals with that, so even with extra tution and hard work that person simply won't make it? Perhaps I'm wrong but it does seem a highly large failure rate and it is making me consider if I want to go through the process of applying only to get chopped if I was on the course. My motivation is there, but that alone won't get my through the course!

I was on one of the first '10k' courses, also with a large intake of over 50.

Like yourself, before i joined, i was scared about the high failure rate rumoured. To be honest, i think this fear helped me pass the college, and pass it without failing a single exam/assessment. In first month, we had four people resign-dont think it was because it was too hard for them, just that they felt it just wasnt for them. The largest chunk off our course not to pass (trying to avoid word 'fail') was on our basic course. It wasnt the theory side, we all did well at that, it was the practical. out of 52 of us, only 23 passed basic. of those that did not pass, 1/2 got recourses (and for the record all then went on to pass basic and seem to be doing fine on their rating courses). When i was on my rating course (discipline) the course was split 50/50 with people on my course and people from previous courses having been recoursed. After a month, there were only two of us from my original course (out of five) still on my rating course, all those bar one that didnt pass were recoursed and have now passed. On my rating course all those that were recoursed onto my course (well done if you can get your head round this) passed, and, quite frankly without TOO much hassle.
The point i am making is that, quite frankly it is unusual for a student (it seems) to pass the college courses first time. Many get recoursed at some point, and those that do tend to do well-perhaps it shook them up and gave them a kick in the back side, perhaps it just gave them that little more time to get good at the job-more practise at r/t and better understanding of rules.
The failure rate tends not to include those who get recoursed, so although the pass rate for people passing first time is awful, i would say the majority of the course do pass eventually, whatever their discipline.
As to the reason why...i would love to bemoan the 10k, but, quite frankly for someone with no debt, no wife and no real commitments, i was fine with it-wasnt easy and certainly added extra pressure but is, at the end of the day livable.
The courses are just too short (intensive) and the high intake is too much for the instructors to make sure they spend enough time with students, especially on the basic course.
When i was on my rating course, there were only 8 of us, the instructors were able to see trends in our controlling that were good and bad, and spent enough time with us to be able too see it early and encourage what was good, and quash what was bad.
For the college, just keep head down, get head in books for theory and make sure that you are 100% for sim runs (not hungover etc). Listen to what instructors tell you, and make positive effort to heed advice-if get criticised, dont just think the instructors are plain wrong, just do it.
Find a group of you (dsay 4-5) to every week get together and practise oral board questions (literally just open MATS and ask a random question to each other, particularly scenario based). We did this and all my rating course passed their oral boards, we were so used to asking each other random questions that we werent phased by questions such as 'what are the rules regarding light shows, pyrothecnics and fire works in the vicinity of an aerodrome'
Hope helps.

Just to say, recourses are becoming more and more common. My time there a good 1/2 of my basic course made it through with no faliures at all and those who failed were advised to find other gainful employment. The recourse thing seemed to pick up as i was leaving, more and more people passing training reviews, which was almost unheard of before!

DAL208

An excellent, if somewhat convoluted, post :ok:

Area ratings courses are now starting with around 40 students on each. Are instructors able to identify these trends when they may only sit with each student once or twice (or not at all) over a three month period?

But not exclusively the basic course, it would seem.

Perhaps the courses should be planned to do this in the first place.

As Standard Noise mentions, past results have no bearing on your success as individuals. My advice to any new starters would be to work hard and give it your best shot. You may pass, you may not, but of those who fail, many get a second chance.

Its hard work, its pressurised, but mostly, its good fun.

Enjoy :}

Our unit has been saying for years that more Students should be failed at the college rather than be allowed to progress to live units and waste valuable training time, so, for the moment, it would be hypocritical to criticise the College for making it tougher for Students to pass, however they may be doing it. If the validation rate at LACC improves significantly as these New Course Students are posted in, then the College will have been justified in their approach. If not..........
It seems logical that if the majority who are recoursed pass second time around then lengthening the original course will improve the pass rates but I don't think it is quite that simple.
People who become Student ATCOs are generally hardworking, intelligent and above all confident. Very few Student ATCOs will have ever struggled or failed anything in their lives, prior to commencing their ATC training, so when they do struggle or fail it is a totally new experience and a challenge that some cannot rise to. It has not been uncommon at LACC (and LATCC as was) to have to fail a very capable student because they have stopped learning. They cannot conceive that they are going to fail and begin to ignore (or in some cases argue against) the instruction and advice of their OJTIs. When they are chopped it comes as a bolt out of the blue despite the evidence accumulating against them. Any capable Student chopped at LACC will be recommended for another chance at another unit (but it is not our decision whether or not they get one) and these Students often shine at their new units. I think that the realization that they CAN fail will often change their approach to their training and make them more receptive to criticism. Similarly, repeating a course can allow a Student to reassess HOW they are learning without having to worry as much about WHAT they are learning.
The effectiveness of the new courses will not be known for a couple of years yet. I have serious misgivings about the lack of experience our new trainees have but this should only lengthen the amount of time it takes to get valid, rather than prevent validation itself.
For those at, or shortly to be starting at the College I have one crumb of comfort. The greater the challenge at the College the better prepared you will be for the challenge of live training. As has been said many times before, on this thread and others, keep your head down, work hard at the theory and be 100% ready for the practical, absorb everything you are told - discuss but don't argue the point - and above all don't become isolated or brood on problems. You will learn as much from your course mates as from any instructor just by talking things through.

Big Courses
 

I couldn't imagine being in CATC on a big course with alot of other big courses around. I found the place claustrophic and would equate it to like going back to secondary school as an adult.

I've had people ask me about my opinion concerning them going for NATS posts they've seen advertised and I'll always advise:

Don't sell property to go, I struggled and spent a fortune to get back on the ladder.

I'd advise youngsters to go to Uni if they can afford it or get a trade before giving their life to NATS.

Anyone leaving a good job, don't burn bridges, make sure you have enough experience under your belt in your profession to be marketable when you want back in. I was lucky here and started back the day I left NATS.

Be prepared to be a NATS pawn.

I could go on. I've no idea what these people are on about when they talk about great college days. On 203 we were one of the first on the new courses (then), I can imagine it being alot harder nowadays.

We had a course of 11 but were expected to pair up on the simulators. hilarious.

As an adult the lucky ones are the ones who go down with partners or children, and rent a house, as they can have their own personal space.

A final straw among many for me was when some nosy sod open the letter containing my P45 in the locker room. That's the sort of place it is.

I think candidates giving up things should be given a more balanced view about the place on forums like this before they give up security, property, shares savings etc.

good luck to you, work hard.:ok:

Hi Scarf.
Thanks for the advice. Would you say practicals or oral boards are the hardest aspect of the course?

There have always been lots of people who don't make it through the college but remember lots of people DO make it through the college and validate. It's the old glass half full/empty thing.

You could argue that it is now easier to get through the college because there are fewer assessments and therefore fewer hurdles to get over with your one life line.

When I went through you had summatives at the end of Aerodrome 1, 2 lots of summatives in Aerodrome 2, Radar Skills, Area 1 and then Area 2. Also with every course there were written exams and oral boards where you could fail.

Now, unless i'm wrong you have just 3 courses to get through with a life line available for a re-course.

Couldn't be easier!

Revolution


Nice toungue in cheek post (I hope!)

I think the course structure has a lot to answer for - it's packing a lot in in a shorter time.

The process will never be perfect but I know that some college instructors who still hold validations at my unit are frustrated by the pass rates.

These instructors, who still live in the real world should be better at knowing who will be succesful at a unit, rather than instructors who have no tbeen valid for years.

The college should be a centre of excellence - and that applies to instructors as well as students.

There are some very good instructors who have not been valid for years, but they are in the minority.

The college should be staffed mainly by people who retain validations, and who should do a 3 or 5 year stint before being put back out full time in the real world.

The Instructors work to the sylibuss and standards required by the CAA, this is the same at Hurn as it is at ASTAC or BAe Cwmbran.

What differs is the attitude to hard work and comittment of the students, at the varying colleges.
At Hurn, there are NATS cadets who have undergone a selection process and have gained their place on that process.
At ASTAC and Cwmbran, the students have been forwarded by their employer or, exceptionally have self sponsered, and have undergone much the same selection tests to get on the courses.

Ultimately, where ever you are, you will get maximum support from the Instructors, but if your attitude smells like crap - you'll be treated like crap!
As an operational ATCO I've seen both sides and although I would give students as much leeway as possible, some of them have breathtaking arrogance and expectations.

I would venture to suggest that at Hurn, whilst the majority are commited to passing the courses, they haven't given up all and everything to attend a course that makes the difference between ultimate success, or failure and penury.

If you want to succeed, not just at the college but at subsequent unit standard, it's down to to positive attitude, ability and commitment.

Quincy

A very good question, although i think we both know the answer to that one ;)

Echo

Cheers Echo and Quincy, I'm feeling the love there!

Whilst I don't know what is going on at the College these days other than hearsay, I can't help but make a few observations about Arkady's post:rolleyes:
Well, there's a nice positive attitude and a welcome for new starters. I always thought we did training aiming for success rather than failure.
And so Arkady, you don't think the quality of your unit's training has anything to do with it. You don't think, either, that your OJTI's have/need skills in finding training techniques that suit the trainee's needs. once again, you seem to be almost planning for failure, for a lower pass rate - perhaps only so that you can say "I told you so".
A stunning generalisation but if true, good for them. It's just a shame that you appear to feel that you need to break them in (rather like horses).
Maybe you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off. Instead, you see it as something that needs to be knocked out of them! Again, perhaps this is more a reflection of your unit's trainers' skills.
Or, just maybe, it's a reflection on your unit.
Doesn't that rather depend on what the training objectives for the college courses are. Or do you not care?
That's nice.
I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone.

Before anyone at LACC starts telling me how hard it is to do the job there (and no, I've never worked LACC/LATCC), there's plenty of people who have managed to get validated so you don't change for work in a telephone box! And [B]every[B] unit has challenges - showing that you will be able to handle those challenges properly is all that should be needed for a trainee at any unit.

There is no question that you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training. But, for heaven's sake, when somebody does get selected (whatever criteria might have been used to select them), let's try and help them get through.
Although how having 60 in a class for the formative training courses will help I really can't imagine!!!!

Just a minor point,

Although there can be up to 64 on 'a course' it is effectively 2 courses - A and B groups. We are taught comlpetely separately on different timetables.
For instance, 211 is 42 TATC's - 22 A's and 20 B's.

That's good to hear, nobody has mentioned that yet. So the group sizes are effectively split, does that cause a split amongst trainees?

Not sure what you mean but if you mean is there a divide then no. People share houses/B&B's from different groups. If someone makes a good revision aid then everone gets it if they want it. All 4 one and one 4 all!!!
We are physically split in that we never spend any time in the classroom together, nor on the sims as i understand it.

Thanks, just the answer I was looking for. Groups that are split often become competetive (Tower & Area maybe, reading some of the posts on here!). I was just interested more than a genuine concern!

Even the Aerodrome/Area split doesn't really create much rivalry! There's a bit of banter that goes on (which discipline is the better), but you still go out and socialise with everyone from your course. You may not get to see other course members all day every day, but there isn't any rivalry involved, more just playful banter (i'd like to think so anyway hehe!)

And to answer the question on the simulator splits, your still kept in A and B groups (or at least we were). Everything is done in your "mini course", although outside work and during social hours it all blends back into one big course

Well I have made enquiries and it turns out that we do.

Scarf, what are you on about? You know as well as I do that the Area/Airports (inlcuding tower and radar) rivalry is alive and well! And we both know which is better!

Cheat Sheets
 

Don't worry Ro13erts there's a million cheatsheets and pass papers going around on your basic course et al.

All the answers are on them and often exams can be an exact replica of the pass paper photo copy you have. It's all very exiting as the instructors pretend they don't know.

Aye Right...

Flabbergasted
 

It is still shocking to see such a gross waste of effort and money. The costs involved with recruiting and training a student are large enough in the present day as it is. Shirley (sic) someone has added up the pennies to find out the cost of "binning" those students through the college. Thousands,,,perhaps more ?

As someone who has been through the dungeons of Hurn and lived to tell the tale, I am appalled that this civil servant, spend as though money was no object mentality still exists. What a fantastic (Not) solution to saving money, by cutting students pay and making sure that the student has another (possibly bigger) problem to deal with. There are commercial solutions to the recruitment of high calibre staff, some of which might not necessarily come from within NATS itself ??

Jenson Button

PS - best wishes to those working hard down on the south coast.

Spitoon
You say that “...you need a certain something to be a controller. What that 'something' is no-one seems to have managed to pin down otherwise we'd have a 100% record on selection and training.” I’d argue that it is a combination of factors and circumstances but either way we are agreed that we are unable to select recruits who will definitely validate, thus some must be failed at some point. Let’s face it, if we had a perfect selection process we would simply be “failing” applicants rather than Students.

In the real world the first opportunity to see if an applicant has got your “certain something” is the college. If we could identify at that point who would definitely validate, any failures at the units could be seen as reflecting on the unit training rather than the individual Student. However we still can’t pinpoint the “certain something” at this stage so some Students who can cope at the College are going to progress to live units and fail there. Fact of life.

Within NATS, Area training is cumulative, it gets more demanding the further you progress. At some point, those without the “certain something” will find they can no longer cope. That is not the end (at least not at LACC) as the Student will then be given further time in which to reach the desired level of achievement. This is crunch time. Whatever the circumstances the Student has to face the need to change something about the way they are approaching the task. Perhaps they are not methodical enough – they need to be more disciplined, maybe they are too cautious – they need to have faith in their decisions (and trust their mentors to catch their errors) or maybe they need to grasp the bigger picture to work better in the team. They will be given plenty of help to identify the problem and how to solve it. The one thing they cannot do is change nothing. Unfortunately for some, this will be the first time in their lives that they have ever had to question their own ability and methods. I stand by what I said in my previous post, Student ATCOs are, by definition, the sort of people who will have rarely, if ever, struggled at something. The first time it happens can make or break and success will have to come from within. They have to find a “certain something”.

You are concerned that “…. you do not recognise that someone prepared to argue a professional point is showing all the signs of reaching a level of knowledge and confidence where the training is paying off.” The context of my comment was a Student who has continually shown all the signs of NOT reaching the level of knowledge and ability required. In fact, your comment is a perfect example of this sort of thing. You have made a perfectly good and valid general point but utterly failed to recognise that within the context of the specific situation your argument is irrelevant.

"I can't help finding Arkady's kind of arrogance rather disappointing. Whilst NATS still seems to have problems selecting and training ATCOs ( it has for the last 30 years since I started in this business), I thought the 'we have to fail people to show how good we are' attitude was long gone. "

We have to fail people because they have not shown the ability to perform the task to the required standard within the time allowed. No LACC Student is failed lightly, many run up 400+ hours before the axe falls, but those that fail an SVC or after only 100 hours live? Should they really have been there in the first place? Live unit training is not really relevant to this thread and I’ll not be drawn on it any here any further. Start a new thread if you wish to debate it further.

I reserve judgement on the new courses at the College until we see the Students themselves but if it is more difficult to get through that can only be to the benefit of those that pass and the units to which they are posted.

Well, thanks for the advice all! I'll be giving it my best shot (which was never in question) and "certain something" prevailing, see some of you operationally.

Arkady,

You're right in my case, I have never failed at anything. I'd like to think it was down to me, but in reality it's down to a lot of the people who've helped me in whatever I've tried to do (I'll have a little credit though if it's on offer).