Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>

UOTC or Reserves

I will hopefully be attending a Manchester area university in 2017. Most likely to study politics. Would joining the UOTC put me in a better place for an Application to be an army officer or would the practical experience as a soldier in the reserves hold a higher standing on an application?

thank you.

Reply 1

threeportdrift

Careers Forum Helper

Original post by Ellis Jenner

The UOTC would - that's what it is designed for. If joining the Reserves as a soldier was the best route, there would be no need for the UOTC. The UOTC is designed to show officer potential students what life would be like and what opportunities are available in the Army, as an officer. The Reserves are exactly that, the reserve to the Army and are designed around delivering that resource, not giving students a look see.

Reply 2

Ellis Jenner

Original post by threeportdrift

Thank you for the response. Was pretty sure that UOTC is the best route as obviously its for undergraduates aspiring to be officers, but was just wondering if previous 'hands on' experience would be of any benefit.

Reply 3

threeportdrift

Careers Forum Helper

Original post by Ellis Jenner

Well of course, you can spin anything to have some benefit. But it won't have more benefit, or else it would be the routine way to join.

Reply 4

user73867

Best officers are those that serve in the ranks first.

Also, it seems to be an excellent route to the beige list and more senior ranks. That's just in my experience though from meeting a Brigadier and several half Colonels with rank experience.

The more realistic explanation is most officers would have a combination of getting bullied in the ranks + not enjoying it. UOTC is a protected environment to develop. Plus, the UOTC serves an advertising and recruitment purpose to showcase the Army without any of the nasty bits (E.g. Being deployable and headed to a warzone.)

There's no better way to lead a soldier than by being one first. It will also give you greater respect from day one from those you serve.

In short: UOTC is better for getting into Sandhurst. Being in the ranks will make you a better officer in the long term, from both a respect and promotion perspective.

UOTC is a part of the Reserves, by the way.

SS

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 5

threeportdrift

Careers Forum Helper

Original post by Supersaps

Best officers are those that serve in the ranks first.

A perspective from some people's experience, but not empirically provable, otherwise the Army would be missing a trick in terms of creating the best officer cadre.

Also, 3 years, non-deployable (because why would you screw over your degree) in the Reserves is not the same as being spotted as having O potential as a soldier after 3 years as a Para etc.

Reply 6

user73867

Original post by threeportdrift

A perspective from some people's experience, but not empirically provable, otherwise the Army would be missing a trick in terms of creating the best officer cadre.

The army is missing a trick in terms of creating the best officer cadre. Why is your starting assumption that they arn't any missing tricks?

The fact is, if most officers had to serve in the ranks first they probably wouldn't join in the first place. It's a different type of service for sure. Most officers manage soldiers using equipment they've never personally used. Not a necessity, of course, but it does add a layer of complexity to decision making.

I think there are advantages to both paths as I've mentioned.

Furthermore, if you have a particular capbadge in mind, joining it as a Reservist will certainly give you a boost in getting into it after the RMAS. For example, obtaining 'confirmed cadet' status allows you to head straight into your chosen corps or regiment.

SS

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 7

NFI

In my experience, those who joined the TA (as it was) while a university student continued as reservists rather than fulfil a career as a regular. Off the top of my head, of five of us that went on to full time service from my Company only two went to Sandhurst, and only two went in to the same capbadge we wore while students.

I've worked with armies who insist on commissioning from the ranks and it worked for them, but they have a very different culture to the British forces, which at times comes across as ignorant of experience, education and knowledge due to the thread pattern on one's chest.

It is not necessary for officers to be competent and qualified on equipment used by the soldiers, but they would be a fool to take the capabilities straight from the SOHB as gospel. That's why there is generally always an inject of soldiers in headquarter locations to provide that intimate knowledge that the Staff may have forgotten since their STA/YOs.

As for OTC vs Reserves in general, I am still in very close contact with friends I have made in both organisations, so maybe the enlisted filth and Rupert Class are closer in similarities than people think :smile:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 8

ProStacker

Original post by Supersaps

If the best Officers came from having served enlisted, then the Army would have everyone serving enlisted first. For some, the minority, it makes them better. In my humble experience, too many Officers who came from the ranks spend their time a) solving the problems they experienced in the ranks, or b) being too much the 'I came from the ranks and I know everything' man or c) trying to distance themselves from their past as far as possible. A minority were well rounded and came out better for it,
It's a different role, life and skillset. It requires different people.