Fag packet to excel model: Gi Bill stylee Uni fee payments

#1
Here is a cost model, with the following assumptions:

1) All degrees are 3 yrs
2) All degrees cost £7500pa (B21)
3) We need 2,500 Offrs
4) TACC max throughput is 500 pa
5) No-one drops out
6) However, we need 100 Offrs pa once we reach yr 5

I am fully aware some people don't even like the concept, but feedback on the model would be useful.

m-s-r
 

Attachments

#3
It's based on three payments of whatever value you put in cell B21
 
#4
Are you looking at paying 1 yr's fees for 3 yrs' service, then another yr's fees after another 3 yrs' service, etc? (Just making sure I understand the assumptions.) If so, then final year's fees will be paid by the TA approx 9-10 yrs after the officer paid them to the university? Appreciate that these are fag packet calcs, but allowing for 9-10 yrs' inflation will greatly reduce the costs.

Should the officer numbers in cell C7 be 2,100, rather than 2,500 (2,500 being reached in cell C11)? (Although this doesn't feed through to other parts of the model.)

I think the cost p.a. is possibly misleading. There are only 15 yrs when payments are made, so dividing the total cost by 15, rather than 17, would be a more useful guide. (Although the way costs bulge in yrs 6 & 9, perhaps any average needs a strong health warning.)

Really shouldn't be looking at s/sheets on my days off.....
 
#5
Are you looking at paying 1 yr's fees for 3 yrs' service, then another yr's fees after another 3 yrs' service, etc? (Just making sure I understand the assumptions.) If so, then final year's fees will be paid by the TA approx 9-10 yrs after the officer paid them to the university? Appreciate that these are fag packet calcs, but allowing for 9-10 yrs' inflation will greatly reduce the costs.
Yes, that's the plan. Inflation will reduce the costs, but the fees might go up too. Also the fees will start to be paid off when the Offr starts earning, so that will reduce the figure a bit.

Should the officer numbers in cell C7 be 2,100, rather than 2,500 (2,500 being reached in cell C11)? (Although this doesn't feed through to other parts of the model.)
These are more notes to self. You are right, they are not part of the model.

I think the cost p.a. is possibly misleading. There are only 15 yrs when payments are made, so dividing the total cost by 15, rather than 17, would be a more useful guide. (Although the way costs bulge in yrs 6 & 9, perhaps any average needs a strong health warning.)

Really shouldn't be looking at s/sheets on my days off.....
Thank you!
 
#6
msr,

Do you need to refer to the "GI Bill" at all? I would have thought that it stands a better chance of survival if it is not sold as:

1. a foreign concept;
2. which is a post-service perk (when this isn't);
3. for all ranks (which this isn't);

maybe I am being obtuse?
 
#7
As for the substance, can you direct me to the discussion / plan which this links to, please?
 
#8
I did an exchange in the 90's with a Pennsylvania National Guard unit. They had a similar system in place (I think it was a state arrangement) and it certainly helped them recruit young, bright people. You need to have the contractural obligations sorted so that it is clear to all that if the commitment isn't met, you pay the money back.
 
#9
There is nothing to pay back, as your fees are not reimbursed until years 3,6 and 9 of efficient service.
 
#10
Thanks, MSR, for pointing out the the pitfalls of a superficial reading of the proposals!

Suffice to say that I have seen that the concept does work.

Given the expansion of the TA and the need to recruit and retain I actually see this as a model for a "carrot" for all ranks but related to the level of committment. I do think there is justification for a higher level of support for Officers given the hurdles YO's have to jump to get a commission, which we know has been well rehearsed elsewhere on this site.
 
#11
Why not just offer a cash bonus to all officers at their 3, 6 and 9 year point?
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#12
The spreadsheet is the easy bit. Now come 2 of the more difficult bits:

1. Getting the Government to commit to that level of forward spend when it arguably doesn't have to, and

2. Drawing up the contract for return of services. How do you propose making it robust enough so that getting your bounty is not the only measure of return of service? A sub unit with Pl Comds who do just enough for their bounty and no more is arguably worse off than one with none at all.
 
#13
Stop being so negative Your Grace ;)

1) They have committed a large sum of money towards the TA

2) Happy to modify the requirements: OJAR B Grade?
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#14
Stop being so negative Your Grace ;)

1) They have committed a large sum of money towards the TA

2) Happy to modify the requirements: OJAR B Grade?

Yes, but how much is forward committed 12 years? What happens if at some stage in the future they need to reduce expenditure on the TA (again)? They may decide that have enough TA officers and want to get rid of a few. What is the get out clause (and cost statement) for the MOD rescinding their contract early?


B grade? Far too easy a cop out, given that a B grade spans 80% of the reporting spread. Too easy an option for an OC or CO who wants to play the system to keep them on board to keep the numbers looking good. Worse still when you take an objective look at the rampant overgrading across the board, but especially within the TA. What happens if you get an honest OC who wants to give a B- thus depriving Lt Snooks of his money? How does the law suit get handled?
 
#15
Stop being so negative Your Grace ;)

1) They have committed a large sum of money towards the TA

2) Happy to modify the requirements: OJAR B Grade?
But why do you want to pay officers extra with degrees who will be of the same use as officers without?
 
#16
Do TA officers represent a more useful contribution to ops than ORs?

Plenty of blokes in the TA who are highly qualified/more than capable of completing the necessary training, who prefer to join as a Tom as it means they can do the job for real when they deploy.
This only seems to further financially reward those who want an easy ride of it?
 
#17
Yes, that's the plan. Inflation will reduce the costs, but the fees might go up too. Also the fees will start to be paid off when the Offr starts earning, so that will reduce the figure a bit.
For a basic model, you don't need to worry about inflation affecting the cost of the fees. You can assume that the fees are always £7.5k (or whatever) in yr 1 money. (I.E. "academic inflation" is the same as general inflation, and what are shown as the £7.5k fees for future years are already adjusted for inflation.)

However, when the TA pays the £7.5k cash to the officer to cover the cost of the fees, it will be X years' worth of inflation later, so the cost will be less than £7.5k in yr 1 terms. Might be worth doing some basic modelling of this.

For the purpose of the model, I'm afraid I can't comment on fees being paid as people start to earn.

Basically -inflation is your friend in terms of the cost of the scheme as per the model. (Although - as lower costs equate to lower payments to these officers in real terms - it would also reduce the attractiveness of the offer.)

Sorry if I haven't explained myself too clearly.
 
#18
But why do you want to pay officers extra with degrees who will be of the same use as officers without?
You are missing the key point which is: how do we replenish the TA Officer Corps?

I suspect that there are very few DE Officers without a degree (or who are not studying for one)
 
#19
Do TA officers represent a more useful contribution to ops than ORs?
Well, seeing as there won't be any Ops for the foreseeable future...

I do believe a well stocked Officers' Mess is essential for a properly trained TA. YMMV.

m-s-r
 
#20
For a basic model, you don't need to worry about inflation affecting the cost of the fees. You can assume that the fees are always £7.5k (or whatever) in yr 1 money. (I.E. "academic inflation" is the same as general inflation, and what are shown as the £7.5k fees for future years are already adjusted for inflation.)

However, when the TA pays the £7.5k cash to the officer to cover the cost of the fees, it will be X years' worth of inflation later, so the cost will be less than £7.5k in yr 1 terms. Might be worth doing some basic modelling of this.

For the purpose of the model, I'm afraid I can't comment on fees being paid as people start to earn.

Basically -inflation is your friend in terms of the cost of the scheme as per the model. (Although - as lower costs equate to lower payments to these officers in real terms - it would also reduce the attractiveness of the offer.)

Sorry if I haven't explained myself too clearly.
You're right. When I have some spare time, I'll include inflation in the model.

m-s-r
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top