RAF Terms and conditions etc...

[Al R]

The RAF has to take an objective view - after all, the variables that civvy street can offer you (and the RAF) are far greater than whatever Uni might have to offer the job. Unfair maybe, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

You seem a mature type, so just keep your gob shut shut shut and look on IOT as the sighter into the bank for H - good luck.

[CirrusF]

I've been made aware that as a non-grad I'm deemed to be worth less to the eyes of the RAF

I think that is perhaps a hangover from twenty years ago, when getting into and graduating from university actually meant something, and actually brought something useful to the services. The services therefore offered seniority incentives to graduates in order to compete on the job market.

The problem nowadays is that you are considered to be a "graduate" if you have done "meeja studies" at "The University of Bognor Regis" and so are given equal status to somebody who has graduated with a double-first from Cambridge. I think that a lot of these "degrees" are next to useless and it is not so easy to justify offering blanket extra seniority to graduates of today.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by CirrusF

I think that a lot of these "degrees" are next to useless and it is not so easy to justify offering blanket extra seniority to graduates of today.

You may think that but I could not possibly comment. As for seniority, it is indeed still given. However while you might be a green shield flt lt it does not follow that you will make sqn ldr unless that degree actually taught you something.

[CirrusF]

However while you might be a green shield flt lt it does not follow that you will make sqn ldr unless that degree actually taught you something.

Ah, I anticipated that all the "I attended the university of life" posters would be along to attack that post. But tell me, if graduating from a decent university is worth nothing to the Services as you appear to be implying, then why do the Services pay cadets to go to university? And why do the US military go even further and pay for their officers to do PhDs? And if all the best private sector employers compete for the best graduates in the job market, don't you think that the Services should also be trying to get the best graduates too? Or do you think that there is something different about a career in the services that means that the Services do not need graduates?

[Time Flies]

Cazatou

Are you being serious? I have read them and will never get those 5 minutes back.

[Irish Tempest]

From one who knows...

Due to the Age Discrimination Act (recently brought in by the Government) all 3 forces had a hard look at the pay scales, increment levels etc and found there was significant disparity between RN/RAF and Army.

From memory one of the issues was non-grads in the Army & RAF started at a lower increment level than Naval College Entrants (NCE) RN. They have now all aligned (much to the upset of a few non grad RN NCE!) The RN is now paying less to NCE's on entry than they did a couple of years ago... so all services are equally shafted... (TSR2 & CVN anyone?)

The current situation for the RN is that you will get seniority 'awarded' to you by AIB on the basis of your qualifications (not your age - as was the case previously). I am led to believe the RAF situation is exactly the same. If in doubt what you will get do contact your Officer Recruiter who will ask the question for you and also preserve your anonanimity.

A hons degree will get x years seniority and a Masters will get x + 1. The location of your alma mater does not matter a hoot.

And you worked in the city... so?

I had a guy from the city (hotshot stockbroker) joined as an NCE in 97 was one of the first guys to be asked to volret... Nice fella, well spoken etc... I can see how he got through the 3 day snapshot board... but when the rain started p#ssing on Dartmoor that’s the test of mettle. Just blatantly unsuited to Military life.

Good luck at the sausage factory and personally I would play down the city bit and keep your head down.

[davejb]

However while you might be a green shield flt lt it does not follow that you will make sqn ldr unless that degree actually taught you something. Ah, I anticipated that all the "I attended the university of life" posters would be along to attack that post. But tell me, if graduating from a decent university is worth nothing to the Services as you appear to be implying, then why do the Services pay cadets to go to university?

Are you serious Cirrus? (Now say it quickly 10 times). How did you get from A to B via X? PN was merely stating the bleeding obvious - the benefit awarded to graduates was 'fair' in that a graduate in decades past was considered to bring a better academic background to the party in lieu of 'life experience' - it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain cell that the past decade has seen a significant shift away from degrees that could be considered useful to the forces - hell, to humanity even - ie away from difficult stuff like maths, engineering and the sciences, towards psychobabble, sports management and navel fluff contemplation, (media studies et al).... which are as much use to anyone as t1t5 on a bull.

Any sensible recruitment policy, civvy or mil, ought by now to be looking very seriously at the content of a degree before awarding any form of advanced standing for it - all degrees are far from equal. (Ditto all secondary school quals, actually).

why do the US military go even further and pay for their officers to do PhDs?

I doubt these PhD's are in media studies, Sports management, or Tourism...do you actually think it's a good thing that more and more such degrees are on offer these days in the UK, while (for example) physics departments are closing due to lack of student uptake - is that good for the country, do you think? Do we actually NEED all the supposed psychologists we churn out annually?

Dave
(Grad of the University of Life , thank God, prior to anywhere else).

Edited repeatedly due to bad typing caused by apoplectic spittle sticking the keys together....nurse! Fetch my medicine.....

[CirrusF]

davejb - I think you may not have read my post correctly. I agree with you entirely. The problem today is that "graduates" with a third in from an ex-polytechnic in "meeja studies" are considered equal to a graduate who has (say) a first in history or engineering from Oxford or Cambridge.

The former are no more worth to the services than a non-graduate but the latter (assuming they have the other required qualities too) are very valuable.

[Pontius Navigator]

Thank you Dave, most eloquent.

Cirrus, surely you have heard of green shield flt lt? Regardless of the grade of degree or the subjects read they skipped the ranks of APO, PO and FO and thus 3 1/2 years of protected stupidity. As a flt lt they were expected by their airmen to have all the professional and life skills of the aforesaid APO, PO, FO once they had reached flt lt.

Having jumped the ranks they were then behind the 8-ball in their race to sqn ldr. What they had going for them was education and a keen analytical and commnications ability. Many indeed prove that their proven academic abilities stand them in good stead as they climb the greasy pole - many do not.

The Services now have in place a foundation degree system and also sponsor selected students for MDAs and allow sabaticals for PhDs. I know two AVM that gained their PhDs having previously only graduated from Sleaford Tech.

PN
BSc, BA^2

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by CirrusF

davejb - I think you may not have read my post correctly. I agree with you entirely. The problem today is that "graduates" with a third in from an ex-polytechnic in "meeja studies" are considered equal to a graduate who has (say) a first in history or engineering from Oxford or Cambridge.

The former are no more worth to the services than a non-graduate but the latter (assuming they have the other required qualities too) are very valuable.

Ah Cirrus, we agree. It would be interesting to see what degrees successful applicants actually have. I know one graduate with a degree in modern history. This proves an ability to research and present material. As it happens it included a thesis on air power. I suspect that your media studies guys don't hack it to the front line.

Digressing I find it distressing having to explain the workings of Newton's Laws to staff officers who should have that basic level of physics. Perhaps we select SO2s to the wrong criteria.

[CirrusF]

Cirrus, surely you have heard of green shield flt lt? Regardless of the grade of degree or the subjects read they skipped the ranks of APO, PO and FO and thus 3 1/2 years of protected stupidity. As a flt lt they were expected by their airmen to have all the professional and life skills of the aforesaid APO, PO, FO once they had reached flt lt.

I take my hat off completely to those who are committed and keen enough to skip the chance of a university education and join the services in the ranks and work their way up to a commission, then right up to the top. But it is not really very realistic to build an entire career structure for every candidate around that premise. That is why there is already a staggered entry system (enlisted/officer). Building in another split at officer level (school-leaver/graduate) is just another way of enticing the best candidates to join.

[davejb]

Sorry Cirrus -
I'm happy to know you agree - although I'm damned if re-reading your post leads me to that conclusion, even in retrospect <g>

Also of note - there is far more 'spoon feeding' in the education system now, including University, than in the past...I include the recent past in that. It would be very dicey, these days, to assume anything about a graduate, beyond a certain competence in their chosen field of study.

This is not entirely 'their' fault - although it is, of course, only natural to blame 'them' for it all - serve them right for being young and better looking, having 32 teeth etc.... previous generations kicked footballs, threw sticks, built dens, and made their own explosives (cheaper than buying Standard Fireworks 'Little Demons' etc) - for the past 20 years kids have played on computers instead - we learned a lot from real life that current generations simply have no experience of. This lack of practical experience and home grown skills is now biting us in the a**e.

Dave

Another edit!

PN - They're not Newton's laws any more, that's far too non-pc... they'll be Newton's guidelines, or possibly Newton's position paper now.

[AdLib]

Annnnnnd, you're back in the room.


BG1. Your experience in the big wide world will stand you in good stead in the little world that is the RAF. If you are going Per Ardua then by all means man up. To me you sound like the the kind of thoughtful and intelligent bloke who'll keep his troops out of the merd. And that, essentially, is what it's all about.

A full and complete picture of the terms and conditions of your employment? You'd think after 90 ish years the RAF would be able to do that. Don't bother banging your head against that wall. If you are serious about the Regiment then flippin well dive in and MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Some decisions come from what you think is right, not a carefully balanced equation of pros and cons. But you know that already.

Sorry for sounding a bit american there.

[Biggus]

Regarding PNs comment ref 'green shield' Flt Lts skipping the ranks of APO, PO and FO, I offer the following observation......

I took my degree in the late 1970s, getting a 2i from a mainstream university, and joined the RAF, as a 'green shielder'..... I believe I had the most seniority available (there was more if you got a 2ii or better).

I graduated from IOT as a PILOT OFFICER, was a FLYING OFFICER a few months later, and made FLT LT about 6 months after that. So, I became a Flt Lt while still in the training system, so talk of the rank but not the experience is totally correct, and I don't dispute that..... However, in the cause of accuracy as a 'green shielder' I did not skip ranks, but rather raced through them!

Needless to say, I have not raced through them since.....!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, indeed you are correct now I think about it. We had one in the 60s were there were fairly rare. Of my nav studes all graduates arrived on the course as fg off. This included 2 straight through navs who had probably been POs at IOT.

Both now at least wg cdr whereas of the other 5 ex-pilots, the only one that qualified as a nav retired as a flt lt. The first to be chopped was a sqn ldr eng. Of the other 3 no trace.

[ianp]

Bit late on the bandwagon as the thread as it seems to have drifted a little, however: Basically Cheese, life and, more importantly, the vagaries of military pay are not always fair, tough.
I joined the RN from the merchant navy where I was a qualified bridge watchkeeper and received no advancement although chaps on my intake with a 3rd from Hull in sociology got 2 years seniority. Ironically the RAF does recognise service in the Merchant Navy so when I transferred to the RAF I got an extra few years senority for merchant navy service, bizarre.
One thing, if you are joining for the money aren't there better jobs out there? I joined in my early twenties and cared not one jot about the salary (maybe I should as I am still skint, ho hum) as long as they let me mess around in aeroplanes, you need to do at least a few years in and get an ATPL before you are allowed to be cynical about the money.
However it all works out try and enjoy IOT and have fun out there.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think Le Petit Fromage is not interested in the dosh as he has been trying for 3 years to get where he has got. I think he is really asking whether the present system is fair and actually attracts the right calibre of recruit. He may be right.

A 25 yr old non-graduate may well be of equal value as a graduate but IMNSHO still less value than an 18 year old entrant with 7 years service under his belt.

PS,

IanP, I don't think an ATPL is on the cards in this case.

[stuartm]

Is moving up to Flt Lt in the space of a year after IOT as a graduate a common occurrence? If not is there a general rule?

I'm starting IOT at the start of next year. Throughout the whole application process the time frames of promotion have never been discussed.

[Melchett01]

A hons degree will get x years seniority and a Masters will get x + 1.

Does that still hold true? I came into the RAF having got a 2.1 in my undergrad degree and then completed a MSc in Met. When I started OASC, I had to apply for the extra year's seniority rather than it being automatically awarded as was suggested in the relevant PAM Air, and was duly given it having cited the relevant documents and stumped up a copy of my degree paperwork

Fast forward a couple of years and I changed branches and lost my seniority as they argued that they didn't know why I was given an extra year's seniority, despite it being clearly set out in the documentation. When I appealed through a very understanding OC PMS at the time, he argued my case and failed, stating he'd tried and that PMA could do whatever they liked.

I would be interested to know if the Masters = extra seniority still applies. Not that it makes a single bit of difference to me anymore, but more out of curiosity and to confirm whether or not PMA and my branch sponsor at the time are the gits I thought they were back then

[Brain Potter]

I believe that an increased emphasis on recruiting university graduates came with the ending of the Cranwell Flight Cadet scheme. Up to that point the service had considered that it's own college provided an a education equivalent to that of a university. I think that they even tried (and failed?)to have the course ratified as such by the academic governing bodies.

I don't know what was ultimately prompted the end of the Flight Cadet scheme but I suppose that it was probably cost, together with an increasing societal view that such traditional colleges were anachronistic and not academically on-par with the rapidly-evolving universities. When the traditional 3-year Cranwell course ended the service sought to recruit more graduates, not because what they would have to offer in the early part of their career, but because of the perceived importance of having senior officers educated to an equivalent level as their civil service and political peers.

The criticism of the graduate scheme is understandable but the increments are often mis-understood. The graduate can be seen to be favoured over the 18-year old school leaver that joins on the same day. However, the scheme is actually designed to keep the pay of a candidate who goes from school straight into higher education for a 3-year course equivalent to that of an 18-year old who joins-up from the same school year. The intention is clearly to remove any pay/seniority incentive for a candidate not to obtain a university degree. I think the flaw in the scheme was that it saw graduates promoted to Flt Lt whilst still in training, thus producing the "green shield" criticisms.

What is particularly telling about the way our education system has been run in the last 10+ years is the widespread reduction in the status of a "degree-level education", as it has to be qualified with "in what?" and "from where?". As the face of higher education is now totally different to that of 20 years ago, maybe the services ought to have a serious look how they wants their officers of the future to be educated.