Is there an industry where the starting qualifications have not increased? Seems to me that the academic 'bar' is being continuously lifted. I think the primary reason is because it helps to create a wider range of qualifications, and in many ways allows the really industrious members of our community to rise up the academic hierachy in their field. Whether they are the most suitable persons for a particular position, outside of academia, is arguable.

I digress a little. In agricultural science - a PhD is the basic qual for most R&D positions, and it's because there are now enough people with them to allow selection. I see people in Canberra doing quite menial work, but for which a first degree was the level. It's been jokingly said that the now mythical tea lady would need a tertiary qual in CBR!

Why has this happened? My view is that it has everything to do with the huge numbers of students that Universities need to push through in order to qualify for funding and grants. Every PhD student is worth lots,(on completion), to a faculty...hence the drive to churn out more and more very well qualified people. Except for a very small number, most/many of these well qualified people spend their professional lives in boring jobs - because they're overqualified for the positions. This leads to job-hopping at the earliest possible - so the system is really self-defeating from an employers' viewpoint. But, it seems to have become entrenched.

I can see the same thing happening in aviation. The 1st filter in the selection process might eventually be +/- tertiary qual - not because it's essential to the job - but because it's possible. Next step it will be an MBA in 'aviation studies', and after that - a PhD could be possible. All new filters in the employment pipeline.

happy days,

I'd rather fly with a general dumbarse who knows the rule and regs, has noticably good flying skills and demonstrates a sound command judgement when in control of an aircraft rather than some diploma-waving person who can't fly for sh!t.

You'll get people who can and cannot fly well whether they have done the "bush" road or the "uni" road. It is the individual to a large extent- the best teacher won't be able to educate someone who doesn't particularly want to learn!

But to categorically state that a "uni" taught pilot will be better just because they did the diploma/degree/whatever, then that is simply wrong. Vice versa.


Me, non-uni. But i thought about it, decided it wasnt for me (I just wanted to go and fly ASAP!)

The day the Uni's work out how to teach "experience" then I might accept that as a qualification. In the meantime, prospective pilots should try and undertake their training at schools that are known for the standard of their product. (Not that many of them about these days I'm afraid!) Then go bush for a bit and get that "experience". A degree might be nice on the CV but means zip for the first decade or so of being in the "trade".

It started way back even before the Dawkins era of nearly 25 years ago

Worthless parasites who were members of the right group needed employment with a nice title and nice wage so the idea came in (actually this had been pushed for years before) where a "degree" was important for everything even pulling a beer

Canberra is the physical and emotional center of this group of s**t

FSA was their first score with aviation where they turned ASD into something that is not even useful for toilet paper and they are using FSA to bring forward the idea that they have some value as people (rather than being only useful if put in a pet food can) by encouraging their mates in the "education industry" in the hope of becoming a "professor", "senior lecturer", "consultant" etc etc

Back in the days when matric physics was equivalent to 2nd year uni physics today someone with a degree in hard science would expect to pass all 5 CPL exams with a couple of weeks self study. No need for a "professor of aviation studies"

I think it's pretty widely accepted that you don't need a degree to fly a plane (in fact it's bloody obvious!!) but you need it to get the job these days sadly!

Somebody believes that having a higher education is what life is all about. Well those pilots who came back from the war to fly our at the time modern airliners sure didn't have the same level of so called higher education as today but they had the skill to make this country what it is today without the silly bit of paper. To those now doing the hiring we built aviation in this fantastic country of ours on raw skill & guts, lets not forget that in even modern times (where it's meant to be easier & safer to pilot a plane) some peckerwood (as mentioned in "The Right Stuff") has gotta take it up & some peckerwood has gotta land it!:ok:.


Wmk2

I am pretty sure you can do a masters in aviation management after you have 4 years industry experience, and that would make your 4 years up north equal to a bachelors degree in the uni's eyes.
I do not know the specifics of it, but I have come across someone who is doing it this way, by correspondence while they are working.

if a yr 10 dropout can go on to self study all subjects from CPL to ATPL and hold down a full time flying job gaining real experience in the meantime then you "gotta" wonder what the difference is that all those dollars go towards....

"xxgxx" you bin peeking in my old school bag:ok: How did ya know?:E


Wmk2

The article is clearly biased as many have elaborated upon. Stereotypical intolerance and insecurity seem to pervade the many balanced responses thus far.

I don’t believe a degree influences employers to any significant extent (nor should it).

To those who doubt the validity and relevance of the true technical degree’s, does one also value a number in a logbook as opposed to the journey travelled to accomplish it? The same applies to those who set out upon a degree simply to accomplish a piece of paper. The true lasting result, regardless of the path chosen, is the attitude and knowledge, gained through true understanding. Either way, it comes down the resolve and attitude of the individual, what one makes of the opportunities presented.

Largely I believe it comes down to one’s situation, background and goals. Personally I come from a background of no connection to Aviation, however I could imagine working in no other industry, simply in the blood so to speak. If I was to loose the privilege of working as a pilot, a career as a maintenance or design engineer would be in my sights, failing that, operations etc etc. Given this, I chose to complete a technically oriented degree and frankly would do the same over again. Someone from a different background or goal set may choose alternatively.

Neither can be stereotyped or isolated and compared generically.

The one overriding influence I took away from my degree is that I understand a small amount about the many facets of the juggernaut that is Aviation, yet not much about any of them. To assume otherwise is an arrogant and ignorant stance, unfortunately adopted far to often by fellow pilots.

Tolerance and respect are virtues of fleeting, Aviation is a lifelong learning process, and to forget or believe otherwise is none other than dangerous.

How dare you disassociate a degree with self-funded students, simply ignorance at it's best.

You don't look at Proon for a weekend and look what happens.

I don't think I have seen so much insecurity about a Tertiary education EVER. And this is from guys on here whose opinions I respected.

I do love the 'not all but most Uni trained pilots I've flown with' or the 'I'd rather fly with a dumbarse' comments. Cos I'm sure you've flown with a large cross section in order to make that statement right? :rolleyes:

And Wally, bringing war time pilots into the argument? How? Why? Huh? Does not compute.

Just Wow. Don't know whether to be shocked or disappointed really. Probably just disappointed. Maybe it's time I bowed out of here.

As for the FSA article, and whether or not it's a series, let's wait until next issue. If there is nothing, then sure, lynch the entire FSA team, they all have DEGREES!!!!! That seems to be the mood of this current crowd.

J3, before you get your tailwheel in a real twist. I agree that there has been some surprising over reaction, but I think what gets up people's nose is the attitude which clearly comes across in the article that any alternative to a degree (or the military) is a lot less valuable.

I have observed that aviation uni programs have always had to try and prove their value to industry. In other industries the degree is a given starting point but aviation in Australia is not so. The article is basically saying we should take the USA lead (once again) and make an aviation degree a starting pre-requisite to a pilot career. Trying to prove their worth but also denigrating other avenues in the process. Not showing a lot of the tolerance and respect that Sparcap is reminding everyone of. We all know how well us Aussies 'give' respect when it is 'demanded' of us...!

Nomad,

The arguments of the article and the degree are two separate ones and yet once again this thread has gone down the degree bashing path.

I was happy to argue the merits of the article or otherwise, but the thread looks to have been steered in the direction that almost all of its predecessors have gone. No twisted tailwheel, just disappointed.

I do agree that sparcaps post is fantastic. I wish I could express myself as eloquently.

j3

Think about where the advertising money for this magazine comes from and tell me it's ethical. page 28 and I find an ad for Griffith Uni. I think you'll find they and other uni's have been long standing advertising contributers to this 72 page piece of chequebook journalism. If I were one of these other training operators advertising in this mag I'd be asking for my money back.

Sorry j3, there was never going to be a series but I'll there will be now, just so they can regain some credibility. The media , ent and arts alliance code of conduct (which they may not be part of anyway) doesn't require a statement be put forth regarding it being part of a series but it's considered common bloody sense to do so, especially if writing such a one sided piece.

You may be upset, and rightfully so, but the reason people feel so passionately about this is because they believe the article denigrated their hard earned experience in ga.

Maybe we can resolve this by referring it to media watch?

Seriously though, I'm considering nominating Steve Creedy from the Aus for a Walkley after this magazine's effort!

biton,

You say that with such certainty. Do you have an inside line to FSA? Not being sarcastic, but that is the second time you have made that assertion. Or do you have editorial experience?

I am in GA, I also did a degree. So what does that make me, do I hate myself? Is it Captain Jekyll and Pile-it Hyde?

I do understand how people may feel their experience may be denigrated by this article. But to then turn around and bash the degree or the people who attend/have attended doesn't make sense. By that skewed logic, my rebuttal would be, "Well all you bushies and New Guinea guys are cowboys and couldn't hack Uni". I KNOW THAT ISN'T TRUE, and nothing could be further from reality in my opinion. However that is the type of argument being put forward by some on here.

But this seems to be a circular argument, I give up, I won't be participating in this thread anymore.

j3

That's the thing j3, we'll never know because they never stated it upfront. Could have spared us from this whole thread. Think about it. I know a thing or two about the media industry from another life and let me tell you this kind of thing does happen, often! Be objective for a moment and consider the possibility. Also, you should consider popping a Valium.

Most airlines in the world have pilot managers. It is important to the well being of the industry that these managers have experience and training in other areas than the actual flying of aircraft. Safety management, Human factors,Airline economics, route planning and basic tools such as statistical analysis come to mind. A good degree programme covers these essential areas and many more. This is where University education should and does score in recruitment.

On another issue, those universities that don't teach licence subjects as part of the degree, add academic rigour and extra value to the process. Look for those.

(Posted by a non degree holder)

These titles and aircraft types do not necessarily command respect for the owner. That said, he is entitled to his opinion which is wide open to critical comment as seen in some of these posts.

j3, you obviously didn't read the rest of my post:
My opinion is that a tertiary education itself may (not will) not produce a better pilot just because it is a tertiary education.


And for what its worth, I've flown in 3 countries including 5 states and 1 territory of Australia; probably 10+ different nationalities of colleagues, some uni some not. Not as large a cross-section as some, but still varied enough to have some idea.

What would you expect considering the editor of FSA has never even had a flying lesson. She doesn't know jack s#@t about aviation.

A few issues ago they had to print a correction cos they didn't know the difference between a ELT, PLB and an EPIRB.

And they would like us to read this rag every two months.... it just goes to show how out of touch CASA is.

OK, I'll bite this hook...

I've had lots of flying lessons, and I still don't know the difference between an ELT and an EPIRB.

Woe is me... :sad:

Total rubbish. The article is just another advertisement for universities. Until the degree is a minimum requirement the whole 3 years is a waste of cash and time.

The number of extraordinary diatribes against degrees is perhaps is an argument for them. A bit more open mindedness please.

Oh FFS!!! The RAAF have been doing this since Pontius was a pilot. Guys got a degree at the RAAF Academy at Point Cook in the old days, now at ADFA. They then went on to pilots course.
I have instructed both ADFA and direct entry types, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that those with degrees performed better than those without, and vice versa. Additionally there is no evidence to suggest that pilot graduates with degrees do better out in the squadrons than those without, and vice versa.
There are good guys and plonkers - regardless of whether or not they have a couple of letters after their name!!

While we're going around in circles discussing the merits of uni grads as pilots, how about I put the following out there:

Pilots who learn to fly in Cessnas are better aviators in the long run.

CSD, while in the recruitment pipleine I was told more ADFA guys finished pilot training without getting scrubbed than DE guys. Maybe that claim is like the Unis saying it will look good to the airlines?

More ADFA guys get through pilot training then DE coz they put through more ADFA guys!!
Wouldn't believe too much from DFR these days. They lost a lot of credibility when the function was "out-sourced".

Haven't got round to reading the latest issue, not like the old "Crash Comic". They got read as soon as they arrived cover to cover in the one sitting.
Are the promised follow up articles appearing.

Frothy