On 24/02/2016 06:29, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:26:32 -0800 (PST)
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:51:06 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:25:59 +0000
Norman Lynagh wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 01:13:04 -0800 (PST), Graham Easterling
wrote:

SNIP
The number that go to University now is so large that
local councils cannot afford the fees and grants, unlike in my
day. But it all seems a bit pointless and leaves a distinct
impression of being a way of keeping young people away from
unemployment, as least temporarily.

Tudor Hughes

I think this is the most important point. Back when I took my
degree (1970-73) it was still a very small number (relative to
today) that did. However, it meant you got a grant, not a loan.
It was all essentially free. It meant you had no financial
worries about going, you could go from any background. At that
time my parents had little money and we lived on a Council
Estate, in the far west of Cornwall. It didn't matter, if you
wanted to go you could, and I ended up in NW London sharing with
2 lads from Barnsley.

Now, the policy of 'everyone who wants too should go & Britain
will be great again' has made the whole thing unaffordable. So
we have a system which works against people from a poorer
background. In addition, many go to the nearest university so
they can remain at home and saved money.

Getting away from home was too me the greatest experience.
(Actually I left home before finishing my 'A' levels, but that's
a different story.


At the time I started my career in meteorology (the early 1960s)
most Weather Forecasters in this country were non-graduates.


Yes, I started work at the Met Office at 18 instead of going to
uni. My father was an OAP and had been unable to work for a couple
of years through injury so I thought it was time I paid my way. As
it was, I think the money I earned from the Met Office wouldn't
have been an awful lot more than I would have got from a grant.

Late in '62, I went for an interview for AXO but was told when I
walked in that they were only taking graduates. In '64 I applied
for a bursary to study for a degree and was turned down because I
wasn't an AXO. I got promoted later that year.

I think the percentage of people being accepted to go to uni now is
about three times as high as those who passed the 11-plus when I
took it. Overall, I think that's good but there really are some
right dipsticks getting degrees. Still, that's better than what it
was like in my day when some clever people were destined for menial
factory jobs for the rest of their life.


I'm surprised that you were told they were only taking graduates
for AXO's. I can distinctly remember being aware that the entry
qualification for AXO's was a pass degree *or* decent A levels and
that therefore the fact that I failed my (pass) degree didn't
immediately matter. The interview was in Nov or Dec 1963. As far as
I can remember none or very few of the XO's and SXO's in Bracknell
had degrees. They were quite highly regarded and had a practical
background.


My interview was in November 1962. It put a bit of a dampener on
proceedings as you can imagine. I think if I'd been a little older and
more confident, I might have got up, thanked them for wasting my
time, and walked out. The interviewer seemed genuinely surprised that
I'd bothered to turn up with my measly 3 A-levels.

Perhaps this was one of these things that often happened in the Met
Office where they got too many AXOs one year so cut down the next. I'm
pretty sure that I got sent onto the IFC as a form of short-term
management in order to free-up my Bracknell post for one of many staff
who'd lost their positions when a major Met Office closed. Shunting me
onto the IFC gave Met O 10 a chance to kick the problem down the road
for another few months.

Par for the course with MetO10 - all the course members of the IFC of
79/80 ended up at their previous station as ASOs or stream 3 SOs (sorry,
supervisory SOs) due to a certain lady's cuts. When I said I didn't want
to be a forecaster anyway, they breathed a sigh of relief. I think quite
a few of that course didn't go forecasting, or at least not for a while.

"Metman2012" wrote in message
...
On 24/02/2016 06:29, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:26:32 -0800 (PST)
Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:51:06 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:25:59 +0000
Norman Lynagh wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 01:13:04 -0800 (PST), Graham Easterling
wrote:

SNIP
The number that go to University now is so large that
local councils cannot afford the fees and grants, unlike in my
day. But it all seems a bit pointless and leaves a distinct
impression of being a way of keeping young people away from
unemployment, as least temporarily.

Tudor Hughes

I think this is the most important point. Back when I took my
degree (1970-73) it was still a very small number (relative to
today) that did. However, it meant you got a grant, not a loan.
It was all essentially free. It meant you had no financial
worries about going, you could go from any background. At that
time my parents had little money and we lived on a Council
Estate, in the far west of Cornwall. It didn't matter, if you
wanted to go you could, and I ended up in NW London sharing with
2 lads from Barnsley.

Now, the policy of 'everyone who wants too should go & Britain
will be great again' has made the whole thing unaffordable. So
we have a system which works against people from a poorer
background. In addition, many go to the nearest university so
they can remain at home and saved money.

Getting away from home was too me the greatest experience.
(Actually I left home before finishing my 'A' levels, but that's
a different story.


At the time I started my career in meteorology (the early 1960s)
most Weather Forecasters in this country were non-graduates.


Yes, I started work at the Met Office at 18 instead of going to
uni. My father was an OAP and had been unable to work for a couple
of years through injury so I thought it was time I paid my way. As
it was, I think the money I earned from the Met Office wouldn't
have been an awful lot more than I would have got from a grant.

Late in '62, I went for an interview for AXO but was told when I
walked in that they were only taking graduates. In '64 I applied
for a bursary to study for a degree and was turned down because I
wasn't an AXO. I got promoted later that year.

I think the percentage of people being accepted to go to uni now is
about three times as high as those who passed the 11-plus when I
took it. Overall, I think that's good but there really are some
right dipsticks getting degrees. Still, that's better than what it
was like in my day when some clever people were destined for menial
factory jobs for the rest of their life.


I'm surprised that you were told they were only taking graduates
for AXO's. I can distinctly remember being aware that the entry
qualification for AXO's was a pass degree *or* decent A levels and
that therefore the fact that I failed my (pass) degree didn't
immediately matter. The interview was in Nov or Dec 1963. As far as
I can remember none or very few of the XO's and SXO's in Bracknell
had degrees. They were quite highly regarded and had a practical
background.


My interview was in November 1962. It put a bit of a dampener on
proceedings as you can imagine. I think if I'd been a little older and
more confident, I might have got up, thanked them for wasting my
time, and walked out. The interviewer seemed genuinely surprised that
I'd bothered to turn up with my measly 3 A-levels.

Perhaps this was one of these things that often happened in the Met
Office where they got too many AXOs one year so cut down the next. I'm
pretty sure that I got sent onto the IFC as a form of short-term
management in order to free-up my Bracknell post for one of many staff
who'd lost their positions when a major Met Office closed. Shunting me
onto the IFC gave Met O 10 a chance to kick the problem down the road
for another few months.

Par for the course with MetO10 - all the course members of the IFC of
79/80 ended up at their previous station as ASOs or stream 3 SOs (sorry,
supervisory SOs) due to a certain lady's cuts. When I said I didn't want
to be a forecaster anyway, they breathed a sigh of relief. I think quite a
few of that course didn't go forecasting, or at least not for a while.

It's so quaint hearing all the old terminology from you old farts :-)
Just to make it clear that grades were abolished in the MetO in 2008 and
replaced by roles. New entrant requirement now for any job is a degree,
preferably a first or higher from a good University if you wish to do
research. They do now, however, take in specialists with business or other
qualifications or even people with no formal qualifications provided they
have a good track record and pass interview. In theory you can become chief
Exec with no formal qualifications. As far as I know the few "forecasters"
left in the MetO all have degrees.

Will
--
" Some sects believe that the world was created 5000 years ago. Another sect
believes that it was created in 1910 "
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

As far as I know the few "forecasters"
left in the MetO all have degrees.

There are still a few of the older, outstation forecasters, without a degree, but not many. The problem with the "new entry" of forecasting and admin staff is that they have no understanding of the basics. In the old days, the majority of staff started as observers, or at least had some observing experience. They did part of their training at out stations and probably ended up as outstation forecasters where they were very closely "in touch" with the real weather. There's nothing that concentrates the mind better than a DATCO breathing down your neck when he's trying to recover aircraft in deteriorating weather! Today, trying to get senior staff to understand the importance of maintaining standards in basic observing is a difficult task, especially when it means spending money. With proper observers a thing of the past you only have to look at some of the obs from the few manned outstations left, where observing is undertaken by degree entry forecasters, to see the lack of understanding of actual weather. You old observers out there will all have come across forecasters who put pressure on observers to make the actual fit the Taf. You now have forecasters doing the actuals!

In message ,
Tudor Hughes writes
On Monday, 22 February 2016 11:51:06 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:25:59 +0000

snip

Late in '62, I went for an interview for AXO but was told when I walked
in that they were only taking graduates. In '64 I applied for a bursary
to study for a degree and was turned down because I wasn't an AXO. I
got promoted later that year.

I think the percentage of people being accepted to go to uni now is
about three times as high as those who passed the 11-plus when I took
it. Overall, I think that's good but there really are some right
dipsticks getting degrees. Still, that's better than what it was like
in my day when some clever people were destined for menial factory jobs
for the rest of their life.

I'm surprised that you were told they were only taking graduates
for AXO's. I can distinctly remember being aware that the entry
qualification for AXO's was a pass degree *or* decent A levels and that
therefore the fact that I failed my (pass) degree didn't immediately
matter. The interview was in Nov or Dec 1963. As far as I can
remember none or very few of the XO's and SXO's in Bracknell had
degrees. They were quite highly regarded and had a practical background.

Tudor Hughes.

As a university drop-out, I applied for an AXO post at Bracknell in 1968
with only A Levels, and was successful. However I opted not to take it
up, as Bracknell was just out of practical commuting distance by public
transport and (being pretty immature for my age) I wasn't ready to leave
home.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 02:11:19 -0800 (PST), Desperate Dan
wrote:

As far as I know the few "forecasters"
left in the MetO all have degrees.

There are still a few of the older, outstation forecasters, without a degree, but not many. The problem with the "new entry" of forecasting and admin staff is that they have no understanding of the basics. In the old days, the majority of staff started as observers, or at least had some observing experience. They did part of their training at out stations and probably ended up as outstation forecasters where they were very closely "in touch" with the real weather. There's nothing that concentrates the mind better than a DATCO breathing down your neck when he's trying to recover aircraft in deteriorating weather! Today, trying to get senior staff to understand the importance of maintaining standards in basic observing is a difficult task, especially when it means spending money. With proper observers a thing of the past you only have to look at some of the obs from the few manned outstations left, where observing is undertaken by degree entry forecasters, to see the lack of
understanding of actual weather. You old observers out there will all have come across forecasters who put pressure on observers to make the actual fit the Taf. You now have forecasters doing the actuals!


I've told this story before, but it's worth repeating.

When I was an Assistant at Prestwick Airport in the early 1960s the forecasters
on shift were usually one SXO (the Senior Forecaster) and two XOs. Most of these
had come up through the ranks and had been 'around the block' a few times. They
were 'experienced' forecasters. At that time the new graduate SO forecasters
were being introduced who had no grounding as observers and had little
'hands-on' experience. One of these 'new breed' of forecasters came onto the
Senior Forecaster roster at Prestwick.

The primary working charts at Prestwick in those days were 3-hourly European
charts and 6-hourly Atlantic charts, all hand-plotted of course. During periods
of 'interesting' weather hourly British Isles charts were also plotted. These
didn't extend as far as the Weather Ship locations so it was standard practice
to plot the OBS from 'India' and 'Juliette' somewhere in the left-hand margin of
the chart. On one occasion, early in his time at Prestwick, this graduate SO
forecaster analysed the latest British Isles chart. This had the obs from
'India' and 'Juliette' plotted very close together, one above the other in the
left-hand margin. He diligently fitted the pressures at the plots for 'India'
and 'Juliette' to his analysis and ended up with about a 250 knot westerly
gradient just west of the British Isles. This didn't seem to surprise him!

'Education' isn't all done in the university lecture room. It needs to include a
bit of experience as well.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org

Someone in the street you accidentally bump into calls you an idiot.

Someone in the street you accidentally bump into calls you a c*nt.

You'd take similar offence? Really?

No chance. hughes is a foul-mouth and his attempts at applying language to justify his dislike have no place here, or anywhere else for that matter.

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 13:24:24 UTC, dawlish wrote:
Someone in the street you accidentally bump into calls you an idiot.

Someone in the street you accidentally bump into calls you a c*nt.

You'd take similar offence? Really?

No chance. hughes is a foul-mouth and his attempts at applying language to justify his dislike have no place here, or anywhere else for that matter.

The trouble is you wouldn't meet anyone in the street and say either

On 24/02/2016 17:11, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 13:24:24 UTC, dawlish wrote:
Someone in the street you accidentally bump into calls you an idiot.

Someone in the street you accidentally bump into calls you a c*nt.

You'd take similar offence? Really?

No chance. hughes is a foul-mouth and his attempts at applying language to justify his dislike have no place here, or anywhere else for that matter.

The trouble is you wouldn't meet anyone in the street and say either


dullish as completely lost the plot, I can’t tell whom he is responding
to, as he doesn’t include the sender's message.

On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 11:12:33 UTC, Jumper wrote:
On 23/02/2016 09:15, haaark wrote:
On Sunday, 21 February 2016 16:40:30 UTC, haaark wrote:
I know it's been many years since the DT and ST were real quality broadsheets. I also know that the circulation of hard copy is in its death spiral-five years maybe I'd guess before the anachronism of sending hundreds of tons of newsprint round the country every day comes to an end, anyone?-and the papers must be haemorrhaging cash.
Phillip Eden's successor at the ST is Peter Stanford,a lightweight waffler who today came up with a classic.
Talking about the two ways of looking at winter's end, he said that one way was the end of February, and the other was the astrological way-i.e.March 21st.
Like almost everybody and his wife these days, he must have a degree.
Did he get it from the University of Glastonbury?
What started off as a lament for the quality press, and continued with the usual gratuitous vulgar abuse from a resident troll, has ended up with sad news about PE.
I've followed him for at least at least twenty years. Where else would you find out that in the 1850's-60's Sydney had its coldest ever winter's day? A southerly blast from the Antarctic with a max. temp. of 3C! Coming from any other source you wouldn't believe it.
All the best PE. Get well soon.



Unfortunately, all good things come to an end eventually. :-(

That's a bit trite. Phillip is only 64.

Tudor Hughes

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 22:50:36 UTC, Jumper wrote:
On 24/02/2016 17:11, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 13:24:24 UTC, dawlish wrote:
Someone in the street you accidentally bump into calls you an idiot.

Someone in the street you accidentally bump into calls you a c*nt.

You'd take similar offence? Really?

No chance. hughes is a foul-mouth and his attempts at applying language to justify his dislike have no place here, or anywhere else for that matter.

The trouble is you wouldn't meet anyone in the street and say either


dullish as completely lost the plot, I can't tell whom he is responding
to, as he doesn't include the sender's message.

I thought from one of his posts that he was having a go at me but on reading earlier bits of the thread I think his target was Lawrie. It was only routine garveygob so it didn't really matter. We shouldn't complain - great men have weightier things on their minds than the petty protocols of Google groups.

Tudor Hughes.