IOT salary

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Melchett01

If I had anything to say about it, I would probably class 'high quality' as 2.1 upwards in one of the more traditional / rigorous subjects. But I suppose it's all reletive really - would you rather have someone with a 1st in English from Aberystwth or a 3rd in Mech Eng from Cambridge?
And whilst I do take your point about the differences between a Physics degree and an Underwater Basket Weaving course, as long as students have used their uni time productively, have learnt to think critically for themselves and picked up bit of life experience so they aren't completely wet behind the ears when they pitch up on day 1 then I wouldn't complain too much.

So on one hand we 'attract' high quality candidates with attractive pay but OTOH we pay all graduates the same. That attracts the higher flyer and the not so high as well. Maybe the 1st and 2.1s should get more and the type of degree too?

OTOH does pay make a difference between someone who wants to fly a FJ or be a city investment banker? Does pay make a difference between one who wants to fly the great unwashed to exotic destinations or one who flies the worthy unwashed home from even more exotic locations?

We stopped flying instructional pay because there was no need for an incentive so why pay more than a needs amount? Free food and accommodation for the singlie with pocket money and some subsistence allowance for the married? Extreme perhaps and what would we do with the few quid saved?

Perhaps give monthly increments as the trainee progresses and frozen if they are recoursed?

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I think that the 'high quality' refers to the individual rather than the degree!

Duncs

[Pontius Navigator]

That's as maybe Duncs but I am not aware that this is true. All Grads get one rate all straight ins another.

How do you assess quality for a pay award? Assessment at OASC? Performance at IOT.

Problem with precise differential pay is that it is difficult to administer fairly and may also be divisive when the whole point of IOT is to meld individuals into selfless team players.

OK, that latter may rub off as you climb the greasy pole but that is the idea.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

My understanding (and this may be hoop!) is that the accelerated promotion offered to graduates means that they will become a flt lt at the same age as someone who joined from school (this does not take into account gap years etc). Further advancement is based on merit. With current government policy encouraging half of schoolleavers to go to university and post graduate salaries in excess of IOT cadet starting pay, something has to be done to encourage graduates. Whether or not this should be branch dependant is another matter.

I still think that the high calibre refers to the individual rather than the quality of their degree (grade or subject!)

Duncs

[bad livin']

Duncs - you make a valid point. Having undergone IOT in both light and dark blue I was always very aware of the fact that there seemed to be a pretty direct inverse relationship between the "quality" of insitution an individual had attended and how much of a **** they were. As far as aircrew went, all the dark blue guys (and gals) that I went through with and who have just now got their wings (well done all!!!!) attended a wide range of universities, colleges, and schools.

The people from the more "academically rigorous" places often seemed far less comfortable in company, culturally stifled, and generally not that great a laugh....which, after X hours on the bridge on a bad day, can be quite a nice thing to have around you.


Standing by....

[Melchett01]

That was way back then, can't see it having changed, certainly in principle. If they want to attract high quality graduates to join up, they have to renumerate them accordingly otherwise they'll all go to the private sector

Duncs, you are correct with regard to my original post back at the start of this thread, my use of the phrase 'high quality' was related to personal qualities of the individual rather than their degree or other qualifications. I have met some people with frighteningly high intelligence, but that I wouldn't trust with anything more complicated than the spoon out of my field kit, whilst I have met others, who on paper probably wouldn't get a second look but who have common sense, good humour, personability and leadership oozing from their pores. Military or merchant bank, I know who I would rather work with.

On the other hand, with regard to my later post, I do still regard a high quality degree as being one of the more rigorous/academic/traditional subjects from the original universities or the technical courses from the older polytechnics (as they were). Whilst there is no real way of differentiating between degrees for RAF purposes - and nor should there be apart from where they are required for the job eg MO, lawyer etc - I still cannot help but think that a "degree" in Media and Klingon studies with its 2 GCSEs at grade G entry requirements doesn't really help anybody and is more to do with targets and statistics than producing rigorous academic qualifications which enable people to think critically and evaluate.

But it is a fact of life that faced with competition from industry with their golden helos and the city with bonuses that pay more than my military salary for the year, the Armed Forces has to do something to make it attractive to those that have now invested in their futures by forking out the time and money to work through a degree. Whether the PC brigade like it or not, those increasingly becoming the leaders of the future and if we want them on the Air Force Board rather than the Board at UBS or Barclays, we have to do something to catch their interest now - hence graduates at IOT are paid more during training.

[airborne_artist]

Grads have been paid more in training for as long as I can remember - and that's thirty plus years. All three services gave them and probably still give them three years seniority over a first year Midshipman/Officer Cadet. Some non-grads were able to "earn" seniority before entry if they had quals., and I joined with an ex civil serpent who'd been an EO, and so claimed a year on me, a mere 18 y/o who'd spent his six months between school and BRNC working in M&S (lovely girls to work with, mind you)

Don't forget that about 25 years ago the RAF was pushing for an all-graduate officer entry - from which it seems to have rowed back since it discovered that not so many grads were good aircrew stude material.

[Melchett01]

AA

As a grad myself, I always found it slightly confusing that the RAF actively sought to recruit grads, presumably on the basis of the qualities developed during their degree courses eg reasoning, critical thinking etc but then got very irate when those grads used those very same qualities of reasoning and critical thinking during IOT!

[airborne_artist]

The RN may well have been going down the same route, until the Falklands. Bear in mind that the RN really had only seen action in minor skirmishes since 1945. The RN had become a bit lax at assessing officers, and had begun to value the froth more than the contents. The end result was that the hard-working, but perhaps dull guys were getting marked down, and yet when the bombs started flying in the S Atlantic, they were the people who kept the ships fighting and floating. Several chaps whose cards had been marked for great things suddenly stood still, and others who'd not been expected to make Command found themselves with a shiny ship to call their own soon after.