Discussion in 'Officers' started by JWH, Mar 11, 2010.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Post no longer available
Well, the latest pay review report has just been published. So I imagine if this is the case it will be mentioned somewhere in HERE.
I've only had the briefest of brief glances at this but as far as I can see no changes the the current structuring of pay are imminent (apart from the 2% increase all ranks are getting).
In fact, I believe it reiterates the Army's stance on graduate/non-graduate pay, stating graduates have a higher pay and faster promotion to remain competitive with the civilian job market.
I prepare to stand corrected if others have differing information.
This must be the pay equivalent of Dumbing down!!!
I sincerley hope that you've been misled.
While you're at it, you might as well give everyone in the Army Para Pay. FFS!
I wasn't saying that Officers without a degree were dumb-er. Though some most certainly are.
I said it was the pay equivalent of!!!
Can somebody please explain to me what value a degree (leaving aside any particularly relevant degree) adds for the Army? As graduates and non-graduates now complete identical training programmes, in what way is a graduate more useful at a given point in their career?
I understand the competitive recruitment angle, and I know how few are non-graduate O/Cdts at the Factory, but my question (I want to be clear) assumes two officers of equal ability, experience, etc. In what way is the graduate WORTH more?
Life experience? Compensation for spending 3 (or more) years pishing it up against the wall?
The time and cost they've taken to invest in themselves is reflected in the higher pay grade. They're also more likely to be older, more experienced and more mature (not always the case!) than the non-grad entrants. For technical or more academic corps, graduate knowledge allows for greater problem solving skills, analytical capability and a greater knowledge base for future employment. The assumption is that in most cases the two officers would not be of equal experience and ability because of the graduates knowledge and experience. This won't always be the case, but in most part it is.
Non-grads are sometimes preferred for other jobs and have advantages that grads don't get, such as longer commanding a platoon/troop or because they have more time before they go to Staff positions.
The Army views graduate skills as so important, that they are now trialing funding of part-time degrees for non-grad officers through the OPU.
Also, to an extent I imagine the Army doesn't want to actively discourage getting a degree. This would be the effect if a potential officer who already has his/her heart set on the army faces a situation where getting a degree will merely put them at a three year pay/promotion disadvantage to those joining straight from school.
I think the Army recognises that a degree is a worthwhile aspect in a candidate and is establishing a pay structure whereby a graduate feels they are getting some kind of a return on their investment.
Beautifully phrased Shifty17.
I'm going to wade in here and most probably come across as the potential non grad with an already quite large chip on his shoulder, so here goes! I think the difference in pay whilst at RMAS between non-grads and grads is way too much. Whilst i don't have a degree, i have trade qualifications which the army doesn't recognise, which i think is wrong. There should be some kind of sliding scale, it's not so clear cut as grads and non grads.
This isn't a case of sour grapes on my behalf, but i'm taking a very substantial pay cut to (hopefully) get to RMAS, but i'm willing to do so as it's what i want to do. But i'm not going to pretend that when it comes to pay day i'm going to be jumping for joy when i get paid near enough 50% less than my fellow Ocdts for jumping through the same hoops.
I can see both sides of the argument in regards to recruitment, and parity with civillian jobs, but i would take a wild stab in the dark that there are a fair few tradesman earning alot more than majority of the graduates in this country. And i don't think they're the exception to the rule.
I shall await the incoming...
I don't see why you should get any, it's a fair point.
However, I think the way to look at it isn't that the Army is disadvantaging non-graduates, but making up for the otherwise disadvantage graduates would face.
I suppose one way of approaching it is for a non-grad to compare themselves with a first year student, rather than the graduate on the same intake - peter_parker mocked up this flow chart on another thread:
The result being that eventually grads and non-grads are evened out, without the grads being behind their peers as a result of their degree; something which, whether everyone agrees or not, the Army considers useful.
(Of course this is prone to the argument: "well, it was their choice to go to uni, others start serving their country instead")
I fully understand where you're coming from, particularly since you're not a school leaver and so the example above can't really be applied. I'm just trying to take a stab at where the logic lies.
If you go to university you pays your money you takes your chance. Some people use the opportunity to the absolute full and come out and enter a career where they can be earning over 100k in a couple of years and some end up with scraping by on a bar job.
I doubt the statistics would show that getting a good degree from a good university isn't worth it in the long term.
Bring back in-service degrees!
And University Cadetships Best way to do uni (apart from the couple of Cambridge full-pay things - "nominations" were they?)
Separate names with a comma.