Originally Posted by Auld-Yin

Is this really going to sort the officer career path, or is it just rearranging the deck chairs?

I get the feeling that, while this will affect all future officers, it is it not going to improve the officer gene pool and thus improve the service that the army gets.

Like all changes there will be winners and losers - is the army one of the winners?

Nope.

This smacks to me of tinkering about aimlessly, it is however nice to see that David Brent is still getting some consultancy work - positioning the Army as an employer of first choice - what a pile of steaming dung that is!

Glad to see that we are reducing the Officer requirement by 1% when we are reducing from c. 100,000 to c. 80,000. Proportionately more chiefs and fewer Indians is great news! (or perhaps not).

Originally Posted by Auld-Yin

Is this really going to sort the officer career path, or is it just rearranging the deck chairs?

I get the feeling that, while this will affect all future officers, it is it not going to improve the officer gene pool and thus improve the service that the army gets.

Like all changes there will be winners and losers - is the army one of the winners?

............................

As ever you see the second order question. The truth is that all will actually change very little but will almost certainly embitter the young men and women affected by it, who will feel segregated from their only slightly older colleagues.

It is as you say simply rearranging the deck chairs, but in a badly thought through, almost knee jerk and haphazard way. What is needed is proper analysis tempered with actual officer experience.

Anything less will only exacerbate a potentially critical situation.

I feel that we have been betrayed and I cannot understand how CGS and CDS have sanctioned this.

I'm surprised at the negative reaction to this, overall its good news. To reply:

're-arranging the deck chairs' - certainly not; with university higher tuition fees and the introduction of the modular first degree for DE officers this is an astute move by the Army to set the conditions to get the quality from any generation.

loss of older entrants - the Army is dropping by nearly 20%. We need less so lets take younger officers who offer the possibility of giving more back.

graduate remuneration - those who want to prostitute themselves in the city will still do so. The reward package is still competitive compared to the opposition.

Let's finally shake off the cynicism and welcome a good initiative

WG

Originally Posted by WildGoose

I'm surprised at the negative reaction to this, overall its good news. To reply:

're-arranging the deck chairs' - certainly not; with university higher tuition fees and the introduction of the modular first degree for DE officers this is an astute move by the Army to set the conditions to get the quality from any generation.

loss of older entrants - the Army is dropping by nearly 20%. We need less so lets take younger officers who offer the possibility of giving more back.

graduate remuneration - those who want to prostitute themselves in the city will still do so. The reward package is still competitive compared to the opposition.

Let's finally shake off the cynicism and welcome a good initiative

WG

Hello PS(A).

"The truth is that all will actually change very little but will almost certainly embitter the young men and women affected by it, who will feel segregated from their only slightly older colleagues. " Surely the other way around, given that the some bright young school-leavers will be cutting around with 3 pips 2 years before their life-experienced and grizzled Lt non-grad predecessors.
However. I too think it's a good thing, but am concerned that the army is financially incentivising the young to chin off university- a decision they might regret after a couple of years when they've got dependants etc.
After 3 briefs on it in 24 hours... it's clearly not a rumour in the strict sense of ARRSE!

Originally Posted by WildGoose

I'm surprised at the negative reaction to this, overall its good news. To reply:

're-arranging the deck chairs' - certainly not; with university higher tuition fees and the introduction of the modular first degree for DE officers this is an astute move by the Army to set the conditions to get the quality from any generation.

loss of older entrants - the Army is dropping by nearly 20%. We need less so lets take younger officers who offer the possibility of giving more back.

graduate remuneration - those who want to prostitute themselves in the city will still do so. The reward package is still competitive compared to the opposition.

Let's finally shake off the cynicism and welcome a good initiative

WG

Cynicism? Not from me: I smell bullshit on your part and it isn't me being a cynic, but me recognising this for the piece of crap that it is.

So the Army doesn't want graduates to join? How will this improve the Army? How will this prove cost effective (e.g. RE officers with a non-engineering degree do a much longer course)? Graduates, in case you didn't realise, have 3 or 4 years of debts to pay off. Non graduates are (normally) much younger and immature. By all means what counts as a 'degree' should have been examined and changed: my degree in underwater basket weaving was of no tangible benefit to the Army...

...and don't slag off those who will "prostitute themselves in the City": who the fuck do you think will offer cunts like you jobs when you get kicked out at your 8 and 16 year points? So how does the fact that the army is getting smaller mean you have to lower the age of Commissioning? What happens when there is another round of cuts: only people sitting their GCSEs will be allowed to apply? The Army should always be taking the very best who are able to do so. To say that a 29 year old is incapable of having a full career is specious bunkum. On one hand you have the government saying the Police etc must raise their retirement age and people are living longer and more active lives (e.g. headlines yesterday that there are babies being born today who will probably live 120 years). Please explain how reducing the pool the Army recruits from increases the quality of the officer joining? Oh hang on... you can't because it is total bolloxs.

There is no point having an argument with you, as such is your 'on message' mentality that no reasoned discourse is possible. From your single post, it is possible to to accurately discern what kind of person you are: that you are unable to tell the difference between progress and change. Yes, all progress is change, but not all change is progress.

I can't get my head around this - graduates lose salary benefit over non-graduates? Or do they not? It seems to say they will be kept on the same pay spine post RMAS.

If the extra salary is being axed for graduates, be prepared for a drop in applications from engineers.

Get that off your chest there Dread?

Here's the question re Engineers: we spend forever telling our potential Officers that they won't be engineers, that they will be, at best, engineer managers, but should join with the expectation that they will be employed out of area. So why the concern?

As to the age vs "full career" where do we define the right hand marker age-wise - it's after 37 years service (18 - 55), which for a 29 year old takes you to the putative national retirement age. Do we really want 65 year old Maj or Lt Cols cutting around? Or do we put the right hand marker at 55, denying anyone who joins at 29 the possibility of progressing past Lt Col, having been a Sqn/Coy OC well past 40?

I'm not being facetious, I'm interested in your answers. (I know this is Arrse, feel free to throw abuse my way for an attempt at reasoned argument!)

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

As to the age vs "full career" where do we define the right hand marker age-wise - it's after 37 years service (18 - 55), which for a 29 year old takes you to the putative national retirement age. Do we really want 65 year old Maj or Lt Cols cutting around? Or do we put the right hand marker at 55, denying anyone who joins at 29 the possibility of progressing past Lt Col, having been a Sqn/Coy OC well past 40?

I'm not being facetious, I'm interested in your answers. (I know this is Arrse, feel free to throw abuse my way for an attempt at reasoned argument!)

Well surely lowering to 26 only means you'll have a 63 y.o. Lt Col rather than one at the statutory retirement age? Hardly a world of difference?

Well, that's the wider question - where do you draw stumps on a blokes career. As I said previously, the RN's ideal age for entry is 18, it means you can fit all the Junior Officer stuff in before you get to 26/27.

It seems like they're trying to split the difference, but can you imagine the uproar if we only recruited school leavers?