Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Recruiting 18yos is n ot a bad thing.

We mould them in to what we want and then with the inclusion of a distance learning package, they could possibly gain a degree anyway.

With acreditted learning the RMAS CC could perhaps count as year 1, with TMAs acting as Year 2 followed by a year at shriv or something for year 3.

Which is what the RN does for it's 18 year olds. Only drawback is we chose a shit uni (and rubbish course) to partner with, no one does it as it's cockall recognition in civvy street.

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

Which is what the RN does for it's 18 year olds. Only drawback is we chose a shit uni (and rubbish course) to partner with, no one does it as it's cockall recognition in civvy street.

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

RMAS could link up with the Farnborough College of Adult Learning. result!!

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

So what? It achieves the aim, the loss of 27 - 29 year old OCs will be minor, the Army gets the numbers of Officer required for c80k personnel, with the DRU recommendations further decreasing the through-put of Officers. We're not an employment agency, a line has to be drawn and it has been. I really wouldn't be surprised if the Army (and RN/RAF) start looking for more and more 18 year olds as Officer Cadets - "go to uni, get a £30k debt; join the forces, get paid £60k in the same time period." Who cares if most of them leave at the 8 year point? There will be enough that remain, with all 3 thirds represented.

I think it is worth, at some point, re-evaluating the original reasons for trying to get more graduates involved in the first place, and whether or not these are still valid.

Lots of very successful officers commissioned immediately after A Levels (current CGS included). This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

You've made some very good administrative arguments for recruiting younger candidates but personally I would broaden the age range and raise the peformance thresholds. However I do say this without being acquainted with many who were commissioned at such a late age or having an intimate knowledge of how they went on to perform.

There might be some sense now in commissioning before going to Uni, as the Army may even see sense in an in-service degree.

Originally Posted by Outstanding

A smaller better trained and more focussed Officer Corps would not necessarily be a bad thing.

Isn't that the sort of language that the government uses? They add in words like agile, lean, adaptable, flexible etc to try and imply some form of elitism, but they just mean far smaller and cheaper. No economies of scale and no large pool to draw the best candidates from.

Never trust the government to do the right thing, except for themselves.

Originally Posted by Pyianno

I think it is worth, at some point, re-evaluating the original reasons for trying to get more graduates involved in the first place, and whether or not these are still valid.

Lots of very successful officers commissioned immediately after A Levels (current CGS included). This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

You've made some very good administrative arguments for recruiting younger candidates but personally I would broaden the age range and raise the peformance thresholds. However I do say this without being acquainted with many who were commissioned at such a late age or having an intimate knowledge of how they went on to perform.

There might be some sense now in commissioning before going to Uni, as the Army may even see sense in an in-service degree.

And I bet you 50p the Army doesn't know that either. It might have a "feeling" about it, or a "decent guess", but I would suggest there's not been a longitudinal study to prove it.

As for why we recruit Graduates, now that's an entirely different thread!

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

And I bet you 50p the Army doesn't know that either. I might have a "feeling" about it, or a "decent guess", but I would suggest there's not been a longitudinal study to prove it.

As for why we recruit Graduates, now that's an entirely different thread!

In 30 years time when all the papers are deposited with the Public Records Office, we'll be able to settle that 50p bet.

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

Which is what the RN does for it's 18 year olds. Only drawback is we chose a shit uni (and rubbish course) to partner with, no one does it as it's cockall recognition in civvy street.

And this is precisely the problem - I have come across too many junior officers who lack intellectual rigour and who hold poor quality degrees, which in tun informs the poor quality of their decision-making process. I am not saying that an academically-gifted officer is necessarily a good one, but as an Army (and I mean this this in its broadest, most collective sense i.e. Regular and TA) which neglects any aspiration to intellectual rigour we are heading for disaster. The DTUS is an excellent idea and if the Army persists in this foolish idea of not wishing to recruit so many graduates then there are two logical progressions to mitigate this shortsighted policy (1) making Sandhurst the Royal Military University Sandhurst and/or (2) expanding DTUS to include relevant and rigorous Arts and Social Science degrees. The illogical progression is adopt this new policy and carry on as before, which will herald disaster. Certainly the Americans (who already have a low opinion of our military prowess at anything other than the tactical level), who emphasisze the intellectual component of the profession of arms and insist that all DE officers are graduates. To reach high rank it is expected that incumbent will have at least one, possibly two, Masters degrees and maybe even a Doctorate. The fact that they were able to go away and completely re-write and then implement a new counter-insurgency doctrine in Iraq in short order is testimony to this approach. We were left trailing in their wake and wittering on about Crossmaglen, Belfast and Londonderry. Needless to say, they were not interested and if you don't believe me read some of the stuff put on the AKX by the British Liaison Officers in Washington D.C. - they make precisely this point, albeit in more restrained tones than me.

Originally Posted by History_Man

And this is precisely the problem - I have come across too many junior officers who lack intellectual rigour and who hold poor quality degrees, which in tun informs the poor quality of their decision-making process. I am not saying that an academically-gifted officer is necessarily a good one, but as an Army (and I mean this this in its broadest, most collective sense i.e. Regular and TA) which neglects any aspiration to intellectual rigour we are heading for disaster. The DTUS is an excellent idea and if the Army persists in this foolish idea of not wishing to recruit so many graduates then there are two logical progressions to mitigate this shortsighted policy (1) making Sandhurst the Royal Military University Sandhurst and/or (2) expanding DTUS to include relevant and rigorous Arts and Social Science degrees. The illogical progression is adopt this new policy and carry on as before, which will herald disaster. Certainly the Americans (who already have a low opinion of our military prowess at anything other than the tactical level), who emphasisze the intellectual component of the profession of arms and insist that all DE officers are graduates. To reach high rank it is expected that incumbent will have at least one, possibly two, Masters degrees and maybe even a Doctorate. The fact that they were able to go away and completely re-write and then implement a new counter-insurgency doctrine in Iraq in short order is testimony to this approach. We were left trailing in their wake and wittering on about Crossmaglen, Belfast and Londonderry. Needless to say, they were not interested and if you don't believe me read some of the stuff put on the AKX by the British Liaison Officers in Washington D.C. - they make precisely this point, albeit in more restrained tones than me.

Bloody well said.

Originally Posted by History_Man

And this is precisely the problem - I have come across too many junior officers who lack intellectual rigour.

When I joined the Cav this seemed to be a primary qualification. Only the Adj and perhaps one other Officer had degrees, and they were considered dangerous.

The mess was made up of a wide range of sorts including one who owned about half of the Republic of Ireland, a couple whose fathers had commanded the Regiment, a former estate agent and two former Corporals, one ex Int Corps & one ex R Signals.

Originally Posted by History_Man

And this is precisely the problem - I have come across too many junior officers who lack intellectual rigour and who hold poor quality degrees, which in tun informs the poor quality of their decision-making process. I am not saying that an academically-gifted officer is necessarily a good one, but as an Army (and I mean this this in its broadest, most collective sense i.e. Regular and TA) which neglects any aspiration to intellectual rigour we are heading for disaster. The DTUS is an excellent idea and if the Army persists in this foolish idea of not wishing to recruit so many graduates then there are two logical progressions to mitigate this shortsighted policy (1) making Sandhurst the Royal Military University Sandhurst and/or (2) expanding DTUS to include relevant and rigorous Arts and Social Science degrees. The illogical progression is adopt this new policy and carry on as before, which will herald disaster. Certainly the Americans (who already have a low opinion of our military prowess at anything other than the tactical level), who emphasisze the intellectual component of the profession of arms and insist that all DE officers are graduates. To reach high rank it is expected that incumbent will have at least one, possibly two, Masters degrees and maybe even a Doctorate. The fact that they were able to go away and completely re-write and then implement a new counter-insurgency doctrine in Iraq in short order is testimony to this approach. We were left trailing in their wake and wittering on about Crossmaglen, Belfast and Londonderry. Needless to say, they were not interested and if you don't believe me read some of the stuff put on the AKX by the British Liaison Officers in Washington D.C. - they make precisely this point, albeit in more restrained tones than me.

I would agree (to an extent) with this. I would say that there are two reasons that you ought not to use the subjective evaluation of the "quality" of a degree as a proxy for intellectual rigour:

1) You will always meet a complete dunce who strolled straight into Oxford and straight out with a 2:1.

2) All degrees are vetted by the Quality Assurance Agency for their 'academic rigour' and, theoretically, all degrees are equally rigorous. Any attempt by the forces to start cherry-picking 'suitable' degrees will immediately be open to challenge (perhaps legal challenge), not least from the Universities themselves, some of whom will object to their degrees being classified by the forces as inferior.

If you want greater intellectual rigour in the forces, then you need to place more emphasis on this during the selection process. If a dunce with a degree in basket weaving passes a rigorous selection process, what business is it of the army to declare him unsuitable based on the title of his/her degree?

I would agree in-service study at higher levels really needs pushing more. All the academics end up lecturing rather than commanding (seemingly).