There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.
6-10% of British Army officers have now come from the ranks, having served as a soldier or NCO and then applied for a Direct Entry commission (this is in addition to the Late Entry process whereby soldiers who have made it to Warrant Officer Class 1 (Command Segeant Major equiv) can apply for a commission.
RR
"War is an option of difficulties"
During the 1990s in the U.S. Army having a master's degree seemed to be a prerequisite for being promoted to major. I don't know whether the same thing is true today.Originally Posted by Red Rat
The thing I can't understand about this situation is that there seems to be an inverse relationship between the number of people having advanced degrees in a specialty or profession and the quality of that particular career field in the U.S. today. The quality of American industries and businesses seems to have gotten worse with every MBA that is awarded to an individual who is then hired. Our kids in school seem to get dumber and even more stupideras the number of teachers having master's degrees in education increases.
I don't know, maybe it's just me.
During the run-up to the recent Royal Wedding I was doing background reading and was introduced to the existence of the RMAS. Am I correct in my understanding that an important difference between the U.S. and British systems is the lack of a similar institution in the U.S.?
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
You probably need to look at West Point.
I suggest that the Brits have fewer routes to a commission than in the US services but this is understandable due to the every shrinking size of the Brit forces. The Brits went from two-year course to one-year some time ago (with a four-month platoon commanders (MoS?) added on afterwards). Reasons anyone?
You may want to consider a four-year commissioning process which includes an academic degree and look into retention beyond the five years.
West Point like Sandhurst are national institutions which are almost impossible to tinker with... say no more.
Last edited by JMA; 09-01-2011 at 04:59 AM.
I’ve never known any West Point graduates, but having met a couple of Naval Academy alums I have to say that my impression is that U.S. service academies manage to turn a lot of ambitious and promising young men and women’s energies towards arbitrary activities that seem to a non-professional to have no necessary relation to being better at being an officer. Don’t know if RMAS is anything like that, but if it is at least it only lasts for a year. (I get that counting the bristles on your toothbrush or whatever can be important just because, but for four years?)
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
Yes and No.
The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) is a bit like the Westpoint and the other military academies in the US in that it is a route (in the UK it is the only route) to commissioning. It differs in that it is not a degree awarding institution. The one year RMAS course is primarily designed to develop firstly robust leadership, and secondly a basic level of professional military knowledge. A large part of the syllabus is spent in the field on tactical exercises as a way of developing leadership (with a side benefit of developing tactical proficiency).
RR
"War is an option of difficulties"
What range of degrees? I wonder apart from the added maturity and life skills and generally improved education level how this all helps the young infantry officer comply with his role... which is to close with and kill the enemy?
(You know my position is that it would serve the military better to send the officers with long term potential off to a civilian university around the rank of major to study something of military value (that said I accept that in some of the technical corps earlier study by an officer would be advantageous).
It would be interesting to establish the ages and ranks of the 6-10% who enter Sandhurst from the ranks (with 29 years being the cut off I understand).6-10% of British Army officers have now come from the ranks, having served as a soldier or NCO and then applied for a Direct Entry commission (this is in addition to the Late Entry process whereby soldiers who have made it to Warrant Officer Class 1 (Command Segeant Major equiv) can apply for a commission.
All sorts of degrees (mine is in Philosophy). Apart from the advantages that you elucidate above there is a feeling that there is an adavantage in having a broadly educated officer corps. The main reason however that so many officers have a degree is the amount of social engineering that has happened in the last 15 or so years where the Government stated that they wanted half of all school leavers to have a degree; it is now very hard not to get people with a degree...
Add to this the changes to the (Army) career system whereby initial entry is on a short service commission for 4-6 years, then by competitive selection to an Intermediate Regular Commission (12 years) and then Regular Commission (up until the age of 55). Because people cannot join for a full career on application a great many hedge their bets by taking a degreee as well.
Professionally Qualified Officers (PQOs - doctors, nurses, cghaplains and lawyers) arrive with the recognised qualification and com plete a 6 week course at RMAS. Engineers (civil or otherwise) have to complete the full year at RMAS.
In terms of course length, in the 1970s and early 1980s Regular Commission officers conducted 2 years of training at RMAS and Short Service Commission officers completed 12 months training at Mons Officer academy. IIRC that it was felt that 2 years was somewhat extravagent and Mons was shut with all officers completing a 12 month course at RMAS (less graduates who were an exceptional breed in those days and completed only 6 or 9 months training at RMAS).
Most cadets at RMAS are in the 21-28 age bracket. This ties in with most students graduating aged 21 or 22. Apocryphally most officers from the ranks are aged about the same, assuming they joined at 18/19, realised within two years that they wanted to apply for a commission and then it takes up to 2 years to move them through the selection process to RMAS. The Army is trying to shorted the length of time it takes between a soldier expressing an interest in applying for a commission and getting him to RMAS.
RR
"War is an option of difficulties"
No offense, but the recruitment procedure for officers in UK Army seems a little easy (judging by the two videos). Physical and planning tests looked good but GD and PI were not good enough, no idea about the written test.
I faced a tougher competition in GD and PI for getting admission in my college for a simple bachelor's degree and it wasn't even the best in the city, let alone the state or country.
More than 350,000 applied for the written exams for NDA, and NA this year. This does not include CDS.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...-officials-nda
In Finland active officers don't need pre-existing university degree (apart from specialist officers, but they are different kind of breed) because cadets go through three year bachelor's degree in Military science.
Requirements for cadet training are secondary level education and either reserve officer or reserve non-commisioned officer training.
Selection process lasts two days and it consists of
First day (Everyone does same time):
Aptitude test for ability
Aptitude test for personality
Studying material for next day's literature exam
Second day (Timetable depends which platoon you belong)
Cooper's test
Interview
Group test
Medical examination
Literature exam (everyone does same time)
Thanks for the contribution.
Two questions, please.
What is the 'Cooper's test'?
And what percentage of those who start the course pass-out in the end and at what point of the course do most fall out?
Oh. It seems to be Cooper test in english instead of Cooper's test
You have to run as "far" as you can in 12 minutes.
Minimum lenght of run for career soldier in Finland is 2600m.
Also I tried to find out on pass-outs and fall-out, but nothing came up.
I don't want to get into an argument with you but I need to say that looking at those two videos no one can reach a definitive opinion on the quality or otherwise of the aspects of the Brit AOSB.
My interest in this subject is how best to structure the initial pre-course sekection process so as to reduce the attrition rate during the course itself.
I believe that on the information available the Brits run the most comprehensive pre-course selection process (the AOSB in two parts - first for two days then the 'main board' for four days). I hope to get a reply as to their attrition rate over the 44 weeks until commissioning.
Selection of youngsters with leadership potential does not have to be tough... it needs to be rigourous enough to be accurate... thats all.
I'm am also trying to get beyond the feel good situation that comes with the perception that those who pass are of the chosen few and get down to work out which is the most efficient system.
In this process I am constantly reminded what TE Lawrence said about the Brit officer around WW1 - that there was too much body and not enough mind - they have made progress in fixing this I believe (some believe the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction).
Last edited by JMA; 09-03-2011 at 04:53 PM.
I apologize if I have offended you in any way. JMA, my grandfather was a British Indian Army officer from 1942-1950, so I was always under the impression that becoming an officer in Royal Army is a very tough nut to crack. But as I said, videos suggested the other way. I could be wrong, but the way I see it, that the cream of British population is shying away from the armed forces.
BTW, I do not have any doubt that the British training is still one of the best
in the world. I have seen a reality TV series about Royal Marines and their training was extremely good from what I judged from a layman's point of view.
Not that easily offended but thanks for the concern.
I suggest that if you cast your mind back to when you were 18-22 and consider who you would choose as a leader if you were to be confronted by a life or death situation. Would it be the biggest guy? The sttrongest guy? The one who could run the the furtherest, the fastest? Maybe none of the above. Maybe it would be difficult to explain/define/quantify how you selected him?
This is what I am tying to establish. What are these important intangibles and what is the best/most efficient/accurate way of selecting those with these characteristics.
Oh BTW I am not an apologist for the Brits.BTW, I do not have any doubt that the British training is still one of the best in the world. I have seen a reality TV series about Royal Marines and their training was extremely good from what I judged from a layman's point of view.
Winston Churchill once said: "The Americans will always do the right thing . . . After they've exhausted all the alternatives." Sometimes the same must be said of the Brits as well.
The Royal Marines are up there with the best... but don't be fooled by a video.
Last edited by JMA; 09-03-2011 at 06:12 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks