Graham P Davis wrote:

Richard Dixon wrote:

On 18 June, 15:18, Graham Easterling
wrote:

By having such firm regulations as to which degree is really relevant,
it's easy to discount proven ability & aptitude.

Prime example - and he'll murder me for saying this on here - but
waghorn (a rare poster on here now) has an education in fine art - and
having taught himself meteorology over the years, recently published
his first paper with my former supervisor:

http://www.abuhrc.org/Publications/AA2.pdf

Proof if ever there was that you don't need the qualifications to have
the ability !


Also, having the qualifications doesn't doesn't mean you have the ability.
I've known a few who, though they were well-encumbered with degrees, bring
to mind phrases such as "two short planks" and "Toc-H lamp".

When I started in the Met Office, someone said to me, "forecasting isn't a
science - it's an art!" In those days, at the sharp end of the business, I
think it was true but it's less so these days.


Some years ago the then head of the Met Office College told me that, in
general, in his experience there was an inverse relationship between the level
of academic qualifications and the natural ability to perform as an operational
forecaster.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.