Most oversubscribed regiments/corps' during the RMAS COA procedure?

#1
Now I realise I'm probably going to get some backlash for this but here it goes...

I'm about to embark on what hopefully will be the process of earning my commission when I walk into my local army careers officer tomorrow and fill out some paper work.

That aside however it leads me to being quite curious into how actually selecting your regiment/corps works, so I did a bit of research on COA, I started to wonder exactly what regiments/corps' are the most over subscribed and have the highest failed applicants? (I presume the AGC)

But also exactly how over subscribed these regiments/corps' are, it seems to me that every time for example the Paras are brought up they are described as the most oversubscribed regiment, but where do these figures come from? Or is it just assumption?

Cheers in advance.
 
#2
From a few months of snooping on here I get the impression that the Guards regiments are pretty competitive. Taking a look at the latest RMAS commissioning list it appears as though there was just one commission into the grenadiers and none into the other four. I'd guess that this is due to a combination of very high standards and very few spaces across the guards.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#4
In no particular order, the following are often oversubscribed: Para Regt, Foot Guards, Household Cav, Rifles, Gurkhas, AAC, Int Corps
 
#10
Massively changes intake to intake. I was Sept intake a few years ago, so we were quite heavy on Welbexians and Bursars, therefore, the Corps were quite well filled.

From my own experience:

Hugely competitive: RGR
Very competitive: Para, Int Corps, AAC.
Competitive: Rifles, RE, RA, RTR
If your face fits: Line Infantry(Fit into the mess), Signals (geeks), REME(Eng grads),
Dependent on who you know: RAC less RTR.
Dependent on both who you know and how good you are: Guards
As long as you are not a complete and total mong: RLC, RAMC.
You are a complete and total mong: AGC(SPS), RMP, ETS
 
#11
agree largely with previous poster. however will vary on intake- for example on mine RE unpopular/RLC very popular. spaces will also depend on how many left for that intake from the yearly allocation of places. be aware that the amalgamations in infantry regiments will also affect number of spaces available....
 
#12
Regiments and Corps have an annual recruiting cap (no idea if this is Jan-Dec, May-Apr or Sept -Aug). For Inf and RAC this is usually about 4, and if they really like 3 in the first intake of the year that can make it very hard for teh follwoing intakes. Conversely if a Regt has taken no-one then the last intake of the year they'll be less selective as they'd rather take someone slightly below their usual standard than have an enduring shortage in a cohort.
 
#13
Also bear in mind you can do attachments, transfer or pick all arms specialisations quite quickly into your commission, so what you commission as and what you end up doing are not as rigid as you might think.

How well you are reported on is what counts when trying to be competitive at E2, which is where almost all the best jobs are senior Capt and above.

Do each assignment well, and it will open up better assignments and so forth. Promotion will largely follow the same path.
 
#14
Further to my previous unhelpful post, I would agree - it depends on intake.

It also depends on how many are needed into each cap badge in that intake.

For example, my Regiment, RA, needs to supply a fair chunk of people from each intake, to guarantee enough Subbies. Demand is therefore high, but for some reason the RA are also popular (despite apparently being stinking gunners...jealousy? Envy?).

Other, smaller cap badges (AAC, Int Corps for two) will be popular choices, but have fewer slots to fill. Competition will be high every intake, because secretly everone wants to be an Apache pilot or an Intelligence Officer (sounds like you're a Military spy...).

Then there will be passing fads in the Infantry domain, Paras are always strong, but other Inf Regiments will be popular, probably dependent on what they're up to, how good their PR is, etc.

Traditionally, the RLC are less popular. Maybe their PR isn't so hot, but they have a breadth of job choices open to a subbie and now with things like Hurt Locker glamourising EOD, that's more poppular.

Engineers, REME, Signals - popular with the right people - technically minded or qualified usually, but not exclusively (exept perhaps REME).

So, it all depends who needs how many bodies, how well they've been selling themselves, who end up in the cohort that intake...length of string stuff.
 
#15
Let's face it, not everyone is cut out to be one of the RAMC MSO master race, so have a Plan B in case your dream doesn't come true.

On a slightly more serious note, Papa_Lazarou is right in that no matter where you end up attachments are possible, and if you are good you will invariably get some interesting jobs regardless of capbadge. However, be aware that while attachments - like postings to the Sierra Leone Army / Eton College CCF / the UN / SF related roles and Army sponsored degrees - are possible they can be very difficult to secure. A busy Adjutant will give you short shrift, and unfortunately they are the rule not the exception.

Oddly enough - the best way of getting interesting attachments and postings is to be utterly bonk. Having spoken to a couple of blokes who worked in Glasgow, being a bell end of the highest order is easily the best way to get an infantry attachment, posting to Sierra Leone, Army-funded Barrister training and posting to an interesting civvy government agency. In fact I know one particular legend who achieved all of the above. Anyone unfortunate enough to be a Scaleyback will know who I mean.... :)
 
#16
Most of this has already been said, however, popularity of different regiments/corps at Sandhurst is quite a fickle business. When I went through the mill (prior to 9/11 and all that brought with it), the most competitive were RGR and PARA. Next on the list were probably AAC, INT CORPS and probably RTR. Following them, most of the other RAC, Ft Gds and Inf regiments, although as has been pointed out, most took people who had been on their books from well before Sandhurst and many informally knew that they had places with those regiments, provided they hit the required standards at Sandhurst. It was pretty unusual for any of these regiments to interview people at week 22, who they had never encountered before. You then had the so called big three (RLC, RA and RE), who between them took the majority of officers from each intake. Generally RE and RA will be more competitive than RLC; in my (September) intake (lots of Welbexians), RE was very competitive, with at least one person turning down a week 22 offer from PARA to go there. In line (in competitiveness terms) with RLC, you also got R SIGNALS, which frankly was not particularly competitive and also took quite a few technical types, who had been 'on the books' from before Sandhurst. Right at the other end of the spectrum were, in order: RMP, AGC(SPS), AGC(ETS) and RAMC.

I get the impression that a few things have changed since I commissioned. In particular, that the infantry has probably got a lot more competitive, with regiments more actively seeking out talent at Sandhurst and regimental boards considering more people with whom that regiment has had no pre-Sandhurst contact. RGR and PARA almost certainly remain the most competitive, but are now closely followed by RIFLES. Likewise, the light role infantry is (as a result of Afghanistan) seen as a really good place to end up (when I commissioned, it was definitely second tier to Armd Inf).

Interestingly, I have never seen the Foot Guards or HCav as particularly competitive at Sandhurst. But (like most Line Infantry and RAC regiments) they probably have a reasonably good idea of who they are really interested in commissioning prior to the start of the commissioning course. There just don't seem to be many people, who while at Sandhurst and having been sponsored by a completely different regiment, suddenly decide they want to go to the Foot Guards or HCav/RAC (less RTR, which does, curiously, seem to get a few mid-commissioning course applications).
 
#18
Ok Joyce127, I'm going to jump in here. I don't have a "thing" about the AGC, but will agree with the earlier post. The officers that join these units are almost always clowns (note almost). The RMP are usually infantry rejected men or the more grouchy female - they are often poor at the job and nearly always unpleasant people to boot. The ETS are often very bright officers, but I would argue that they should be PQOs having completed a masters and a PGCE - they are usually in no way "green". The SPS are usually the true mongs, as frankly who would join the army to be a secretary? That or they are a girl looking to get a posting to a dashing Cbt arms regiment and marry the right sort of chap (fair play, I'd probably do that if I'd been born with a snatch...)
 
#19
Ok Joyce127, I'm going to jump in here. I don't have a "thing" about the AGC, but will agree with the earlier post. The officers that join these units are almost always clowns (note almost). The RMP are usually infantry rejected men or the more grouchy female - they are often poor at the job and nearly always unpleasant people to boot. The ETS are often very bright officers, but I would argue that they should be PQOs having completed a masters and a PGCE - they are usually in no way "green". The SPS are usually the true mongs, as frankly who would join the army to be a secretary? That or they are a girl looking to get a posting to a dashing Cbt arms regiment and marry the right sort of chap (fair play, I'd probably do that if I'd been born with a snatch...)
There are a few grains of truth in that. The comment about the RMP is almost spot on.

Worth mentioning that there is a real difference between male and female choices. While (for instance) the AGC(SPS) might only be able to attract the dregs (with perhaps a few exceptions) from amongst the male cadets, it has a better chance of attracting cadets from the middle or even upper third of the female cohort. This is partly because a female cadet's choice of arm is more limited and partly because the job tends to be more attractive to many females than some of the 'war-ier' areas of the army. I would suggest that this (being able to attract a relatively higher quality female than male) also applies to RMP, ETS and RAMC. Women who do fancy something a little more warry tend to go towards RE or RA.

I'm afraid to say that there is at least some truth in your comment about joining the army to meet a husband. I remember being astounded to find out that this was (one of) the motivations for a female acquaintance of mine at Sandhurst. I would like to think that this is no longer the case, but I suspect there are still a very few who still secretly include this among their motivations in joining.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

New Posts