New Army recruitment campaign

We have an annual demand plan set by DM(A) for Regular and Reserve Officer and soldier. This recruiting year (3 intakes) we have loaded over 99% of the target set by DM(A) for officers, no where near for soldiers.

Regardless of whether that is more or less, and obviously less than when a bigger army needed more officers, themselves the facts for this recruiting year :)
Is that 99% of regular officers, 99% of reserve officers, or 99% across both categories
 
Humour me for a minute oh enlightened despot, as you’re not making sense. Where does it say that the courses now have less vacancies or did you just make it up?

The_Pedant's_Revolt.PNG


:)

ETA: damn, beaten to it by @Cutaway but at least mine has a nice picture!
 
I wish you’d read what others write properly old boy. I don’t believe that numbers have gone up in recent months due to the higher education offer, though any positive active on the “offer” is likely to play a part, it would also be hard to prove that it didn’t. ?
So you didn't write post#1192:
The degree/PG Cert is what is believed to be what has filled the accommodation blocks again. Apparently they have the offer right. If we offered relevant qualifications across the board in the first 44 weeks, I’m sure that our numbers would improve, excluding bottlenecks. Everything is a bribe!
Unfortunate. Some plonker who evidently does "believe that numbers have gone up in recent months due to the higher education offer" must have hacked your account.

Obviously it's hard to prove a negative (maybe it had something to do with my getting a new Basset - who knows?), but on balance I think I'll go for the 50% initial pay rise followed by a 25% pay rise and accelerated promotion on par with grads.
 
From what I saw, the army had the first break, the RM the second and the RAF the third. But bearing in mind that nowdays 5 houses in a street could be watching the same programme at the same time and all get different ‘targeted’ adverts in the break, anything is possible :)
I posted BEFORE (others reported) the RAF advert, which I missed 'cos I zapped over to see what was on another channel.

I really don't remember an Army advert :( .

I did tho' see the RM paddling their inflatable "canoe" at least THREE times.

I cannot believe Freeview is so sophisticated as to target ME with adverts.

Approaching my 70th birthday in a couple of weeks, they need to review the(ir) criteria, if they think I'm included in the target audience for the RM ;) .

That would however, account for the interminable adverts I see for leeky bladders, even though I am NOT female, and don't ride a bike :( .
 
I can't see why everone is getting so hot under the collar over the cause and effect for recruitment. The fact is nobody knows what causes a rise or fall in applications.

Take the latest Army adverts how do we measure what they achieved?
 
I can't see why everyone is getting so hot under the collar over the cause and effect for recruitment. The fact is nobody knows what causes a rise or fall in applications.

Take the latest Army adverts how do we measure what they achieved?
I'd suggest the biggest and most easily traceable cause for the rise and fills in recruitment is economic prosperity, a lot of people join the army because there aren't any better jobs. That said if there is a measurable rise in the next two/three months then there's a fair chance that it's the new recruiting campaign.
 
I'd suggest the biggest and most easily traceable cause for the rise and fills in recruitment is economic prosperity, a lot of people join the army because there aren't any better jobs. That said if there is a measurable rise in the next two/three months then there's a fair chance that it's the new recruiting campaign.
That's the issue though isn't it? "A fair chance". Not really the way the MoD should be judging the wisdom of throwing £1.5m at the wall.

What if applications fall over the next three months? Do we blame the adverts or something else?
 
Out of interest when did the pay offer for non-grads change?
It was raised by the AFPRB as far back as 2009/10 and brought in as part of the Future Officer Structure, ABN 46/11. If you do a search for 'parity' in posts by me in other threads you'll find all the details you need (scroll down!) including links and the full AFPRB recommendations. Allowing for it's introduction, time taken for applications and processing, etc, it coincides with the increase in numbers on CC's.

Apart from my sympathy that someone's hacked your account to make you look like a plonker, though, @stacker1's post here (#1209) is the most valid point in this context. Potential non-grad officers could be joining, and undoubtedly are, solely because of the initial salary which is way, way above any they could get in any other profession without a degree or experience, resulting in "officers stuck in job they didn't like and didn't give a **** for about 5 years. That was great for their subordinates."

One of the prime reasons for the change from SMC+RCC and SGC to the CC, apart from commonality, was the immaturity of some officers on completion of SMC, and the danger that, with allowances being made for their youth, they had got in because they were "charismatic but stupid". That largely went in any case as 80-85% of cadets became grads, with non-grads being a minority

With parity in pay and promotion, though, there's less incentive for grads to join as they will have not only 'wasted' three years of Army experience and promotion at uni but they'll also be saddled with their student debt. The only bonus is that they'll already be academically qualified for promotion to Major, while non-grads will have to spend time working for a degree - time they may otherwise have been spending with their troops, organising AT, on a specialist attachment, etc.

Factor in 'risk passes' ('E' grades who would previously have been failed or deferred) and an aversion to back-terming and pressure on wastage rates and the outlook with an increasing number of officers who haven't made it to uni isn't so bright.

It's great celebrating an increase in officer recruiting numbers, but the big picture may not be quite so rosy.
 
I can't see why everone is getting so hot under the collar over the cause and effect for recruitment. The fact is nobody knows what causes a rise or fall in applications.

Take the latest Army adverts how do we measure what they achieved?
Probably because the recruiting issue is having an impact on retention. In my case the workshops are empty meaning nights out of bed for the MFD chaps is going through the roof this more are signing off. We are maintaining our infantry skills though, at all costs.
 
So you didn't write post#1192:
Unfortunate. Some plonker who evidently does "believe that numbers have gone up in recent months due to the higher education offer" must have hacked your account.

Obviously it's hard to prove a negative (maybe it had something to do with my getting a new Basset - who knows?), but on balance I think I'll go for the 50% initial pay rise followed by a 25% pay rise and accelerated promotion on par with grads.
There’s a difference between “I believe” and “it is believed”. I’ll ensure I am clearer in my assertion in future, it might help in reducing your abusive language.
 
It was raised by the AFPRB as far back as 2009/10 and brought in as part of the Future Officer Structure, ABN 46/11. If you do a search for 'parity' in posts by me in other threads you'll find all the details you need (scroll down!) including links and the full AFPRB recommendations. Allowing for it's introduction, time taken for applications and processing, etc, it coincides with the increase in numbers on CC's.

Apart from my sympathy that someone's hacked your account to make you look like a plonker, though, @stacker1's post here (#1209) is the most valid point in this context. Potential non-grad officers could be joining, and undoubtedly are, solely because of the initial salary which is way, way above any they could get in any other profession without a degree or experience, resulting in "officers stuck in job they didn't like and didn't give a **** for about 5 years. That was great for their subordinates."

One of the prime reasons for the change from SMC+RCC and SGC to the CC, apart from commonality, was the immaturity of some officers on completion of SMC, and the danger that, with allowances being made for their youth, they had got in because they were "charismatic but stupid". That largely went in any case as 80-85% of cadets became grads, with non-grads being a minority

With parity in pay and promotion, though, there's less incentive for grads to join as they will have not only 'wasted' three years of Army experience and promotion at uni but they'll also be saddled with their student debt. The only bonus is that they'll already be academically qualified for promotion to Major, while non-grads will have to spend time working for a degree - time they may otherwise have been spending with their troops, organising AT, on a specialist attachment, etc.

Factor in 'risk passes' ('E' grades who would previously have been failed or deferred) and an aversion to back-terming and pressure on wastage rates and the outlook with an increasing number of officers who haven't made it to uni isn't so bright.

It's great celebrating an increase in officer recruiting numbers, but the big picture may not be quite so rosy.
So now there’s been an increase has there? I thought you’d stated that the requirement had been reduced making the numbers look better?
 
It's great celebrating an increase in officer recruiting numbers, but the big picture may not be quite so rosy.
I agree with your point but I think there is a context that needs to be considered.

This generation is turning it's back on University education as they realise the massive con the University Bubble was/is. Due to the lowering of standards at Universities and the glut of Graduates young people today are faced with throwing three years of their lives away, accumulating in excess of £30k debt and facing a real struggle to find meaningful employment.

Those who choose to finish Education at 18 with two or three A Levels find themselves with enough UCAS points to join up as an Officer rather than in the ranks. So in this group you have those who may have finished after GCSE, but due the raising of the school leaving age achieve A Level, some too dumb to get a meaningful degree and those who choose to seek employment rather than a Degree. A pretty mixed bunch.

It's only the circle turning after all. Back in time a Commission could be achieved with 5 O Levels and a Teeth-Arm officer with a degree was virtually unheard of or treated with huge suspicion by his peers. Face it a Commission is very attractive to someone with a couple of A Levels whose alternatves are likely to be call centres or junior positions in business.

So now, it seems, we are returning to the 1980s style Army with school leaver officers rather than Graduates.

Getting back on track though, how many of those going through RMAS would simply not have got there ten years ago and are they impacting on soldier recruitment figures, their more natural route until recently?
 
Probably because the recruiting issue is having an impact on retention. In my case the workshops are empty meaning nights out of bed for the MFD chaps is going through the roof this more are signing off. We are maintaining our infantry skills though, at all costs.
I don't question the Army is short of soldiers, what I was questioning was the excitement over the effectiveness of the adverts, the efect of which can not and will not be measured.
 
Last edited:
That's the issue though isn't it? "A fair chance". Not really the way the MoD should be judging the wisdom of throwing £1.5m at the wall.

What if applications fall over the next three months? Do we blame the adverts or something else?
£1.5 million in the defence budget, you'll be demanding officers pay for their own mess biscuits next. 'A fair chance' is about the best any advertising campaign has got. The army has far bigger problems and there will be anew campaign out in 6 months. this one has achieved one objective, it got people taking about the army who wouldn't normally, even if only to do a 'snowflake outrage' to the BBC.
 
I agree with your point but I think there is a context that needs to be considered.

This generation is turning it's back on University education as they realise the massive con the University Bubble was/is. Due to the lowering of standards at Universities and the glut of Graduates young people today are faced with throwing three years of their lives away, accumulating in excess of £30k debt and facing a real struggle to find meaningful employment.

Those who choose to finish Education at 18 with two or three A Levels find themselves with enough UCAS points to join up as an Officer rather than in the ranks. So in this group you have those who may have finished after GCSE, but due the raising of the school leaving age achieve A Level, some too dumb to get a meaningful degree and those who choose to seek employment rather than a Degree. A pretty mixed bunch.

It's only the circle turning after all. Back in time a Commission could be achieved with 5 O Levels and a Teeth-Arm officer with a degree was virtually unheard of or treated with huge suspicion by his peers. Face it a Commission is very attractive to someone with a couple of A Levels whose alternatves are likely to be call centres or junior positions in business.

So now, it seems, we are returning to the 1980s style Army with school leaver officers rather than Graduates.

Getting back on track though, how many of those going through RMAS would simply not have got there ten years ago and are they impacting on soldier recruitment figures, their more natural route until recently?
Not forgetting the new degree-apprenticeships (just to muddy the waters still further) which have just as much value educationally but without the financial burden.
 
. this one has achieved one objective, it got people talking about the army who wouldn't normally, even if only to do a 'snowflake outrage' to the BBC.
What makes you think it was an objective for people to talk about the army? Id suggest the objective should have been to get more recruits.
 
There’s a difference between “I believe” and “it is believed”.
... as there is in writing " I'm sure ..." which was why I quoted your post in full.
. I’ll ensure I am clearer in my assertion in future, it might help in reducing your abusive language.
No chance.
So now there’s been an increase has there? I thought you’d stated that the requirement had been reduced making the numbers look better?
FFS. Yes, there's been an increase in the last couple of years compared with 2014 -15, but not to pre-2012 numbers when it was still 10% below target as the targets were higher, and nowhere near full accommodation capacity when numbers were over 1,000 a year.
 
£1.5 million in the defence budget, you'll be demanding officers pay for their own mess biscuits next. 'A fair chance' is about the best any advertising campaign has got. The army has far bigger problems and there will be anew campaign out in 6 months. this one has achieved one objective, it got people taking about the army who wouldn't normally, even if only to do a 'snowflake outrage' to the BBC.
So what you are saying is, just waste the money?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top