The Value of the University Armed Service Units

Front matter

The Value of the University Armed Service Units

Rachel Woodward, K. Neil Jenkings and Alison J. Williams

Jul ubiquity press

Chapter 1. The University Armed Service Units: Background and Context 1.1 Introducing the university armed service units

1.2 The university armed service units missions

1.3 The UK higher education sector

1.4 Policy issues framing the university armed service units

1.5 The purpose and structure of this book

Chapter 2. Studying the Value of the University Armed Service Units: Research Rationale and Methods

2.1 Rationale and background to the research 2.2 Research methodology 2.3. Conclusions on rationale and methodology

Chapter 3. The Student Experience of University Armed Service Unit Participation 3.1 Demographic characteristics of the university armed forces units survey sample 3.2 University attendance, qualifications, degree subjects and other activities 3.3 Joining a university armed service unit

3.4 University armed service units and skills development

48 56 63 iv The Value of the University Armed Service Units

Progression through university

Career choices

Seeking and gaining employment after graduation Opinions about the armed forces

Overall experiences of university armed service units

Conclusions: the value of the university armed service units for participating students

Chapter 4. Graduate Evaluations of the University Armed Service Units Experience

4.1 4.2

4.3 4.4 4.5

4.6

4.7

The sample of graduates

The value of university armed service units experience in the workplace

Defence-minded for life?

Considering a career in the armed forces

The value of the individual to their university armed service unit and the armed forces

Graduate perceptions of the value of the university armed service units

Conclusions: the value of the university armed service units to graduates

Chapter 5. The Value of the University Armed Service Units to the Armed Forces

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

5:9

5.6

The commanding officers The university armed service units and the universities The value of the university armed service units to universities

The value added to university armed service units and

the armed forces from the university relationship Commanding Officer perceptions of the value of the university armed service units

Conclusions: the value of the university armed service units to the armed forces

Chapter 6. The Universities and the University Armed Service Units

6.1

Knowledge of the university armed service units within universities

80 83 91 95 97

106 116 120

139 142 148

Contents v

6.2 University armed service units-university communication and liaison

6.3 Perceptions of the value of university armed service units to students

6.4 The benefits to universities of the university armed service units

6.5 Conclusions: the value of the university armed service units to universities

Chapter 7. Conclusions: the Value of the University Armed Service Units

7.1 The reach of the university armed service units across higher education

7.2 Equalities, politics and access to information about university armed service units

7.3 The comparability of university armed service units and other extracurricular student activities

7.4 The university armed service units and recruitment to the UK armed forces

7.5 Knowledge of the university armed service units within the higher education sector

7.6 Knowledge of university armed service units amongst employers

7.7 Researching the university armed service units

Appendix 1: Questionnaire used for survey of student USU participants, spring 2013

Appendix 2: Semi-structured interview schedule for graduate interviews

Appendix 3: Semi-structured interview schedule for Commanding Officer interviews

Appendix 4: Semi-structured interview schedule for university representative interviews

Appendix 5: Student survey participation by university and service unit

Appendix 6: Students’ assessments of skills development through university armed service unit participation

Appendix 7: Students’ assessments of skills development through degree programme

159 161

170 171 172

Table 3.4 Table 3.5

List of tables

Officer Training Corps units and participating universities

University Air Squadrons, training locations and participating universities

University Royal Naval Units, ship and base, and participating universities

Military Education Committees, associated USUs and participating universities

Proportion of USU participants by JACS subject codes, by percentage

Awareness of USUs prior to arriving at university, by percentage

Awareness of USUs prior to arriving at university amongst women, by percentage

Motivations for joining by service unit, by percentage

Motivations for joining a USU by service unit and gender, by percentage

Pre-university views on an armed forces career, by percentage

Student views on an armed forces career, by percentage

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5

Figure 3.12 Figure 3.13 Figure 3.14 Figure 3.15

List of figures

Age profile of USU survey participants, by percentage Gender profile of USUs sample, by percentage

Proportion of sample attending independent school, by percentage

Length of time in unit at point of survey, by percentage

Proportion of USU participants by degree type, by percentage

University stage on joining USU, by percentage

Percentage of USU participants registered on degree programmes in medicine, subjects allied to medicine and biological sciences

Percentage of USU participants registered on degree programmes in physical sciences, maths, computing and engineering

Percentage of USU participants registered on degree programmes in social studies, law, business and mass communications

Percentage of USU participants registered on degree programmes in languages, historical studies, creative arts, education and combined studies

Significant sources of information about USUs, by percentage

Motivations for joining by service unit, by percentage Motivations for joining OTC, by gender

Motivations for joining UAS, by gender

Motivations for joining URNU, by gender

46 47

47 49

58 60 62 62 63 viii The Value of the University Armed Service Units

Critical thinking: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Numeracy: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Literacy: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Information literacy: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Synthesising information: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Organisation and planning: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Project planning: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Decision-making: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Initiative: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Independence: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Adaptability: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Problem-solving: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Time management: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Budgeting: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Communication skills: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Verbal interaction: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Presentation skills: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Figure 3.41 Figure 3.42

List of figures ix

Leadership: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Teamwork: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Knowledge of the armed forces: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Maturity: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Self-confidence: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Social skills: student evaluations of USU and university degree

Self-confidence: assessments of USU skills development by gender

Time management: assessments of USU skills development by gender

USU skills learned through other activities

USU participation: positive effects on degree progression, by percentage

78 80

List of abbreviations

BA Bachelor of Arts

BSc Bachelor of Sciences

CO Commanding Officer

COMEC Council of Military Education Committees

DBIS Department for Business Innovation and Skills DTOEES Defence Technical Officer and Engineer Entry Scheme ESRC Economic and Social Research Council

HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency JACS Joint Academic Coding System

MA Master of Arts

MEC Military Education Committee MEng Master of Engineering

MoD Ministry of Defence

MPhil Master of Philosophy

MSc Master of Science

NCO Non-Commissioned Officer

NUMEC Northumbrian Universities Military Education Committee OTC Officer Training Corps

OTR Officer Training Regiment

PhD Doctor of Philosophy

RAF Royal Air Force

SaBRE Support for Britain’s Reservists and Employers TA Territorial Army

UAS University Air Squadron

UCAS Universities and Colleges Admissions Service UK United Kingdom

UOTC University Officer Training Corps URNU University Royal Naval Unit USU University (Armed) Service Unit

Note on terminology

In this book, we list the units alphabetically rather than by seniority of service, in the order: Officer Training Corps, University Air Squadrons, University Royal Naval Units. This reflects both the sizes of the three service units and alphabetical order. It is a convention within defence-related documentation where all three armed forces are discussed, to list these in the order Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force, and we are aware that we are at variance with that.

In this book, we refer to ‘university armed service units’ in order to clarify for those working outside the armed forces, potentially with very little knowledge of the units, that the Officer Training Corps (OTC), University Air Squadron (UAS) and University Royal Navy Unit (URNU) are part of the UK armed forces, despite the fact that students are not liable for deployment and are not armed (although they may receive weapons training). We use this terminology to distinguish the units from other providers of services within universities, and in recognition that many student-centred university organisations and activities provide some kind of civic or public service, either for students or in a wider voluntary charitable capacity beyond the university campus. However, because the term ‘university service unit’ is more commonly used within defence circles and the armed forces, we use the abbreviation USU throughout this book.

We use the term Officer Training Corps and OTC throughout, in preference to University Officer Training Corps and UOTC, to reflect both common usage of the term OTC and to help the reader distinguish easily between the three service units. We use the term ‘units’ to denote individual units within the OTC, UAS or URNU, and ‘service units’ to denote the OTC, UAS or URNU as distinct branches of the armed forces. The term Royal Navy rather than Naval Service is used, whilst recognising that the latter is often used in official defence documentation to include both the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. The Royal Marines does not have a separate university service unit.

xii The Value of the University Armed Service Units

We use the term Commanding Officer and abbreviation CO to refer to commanding officers across the three service units, although we recognise that in the Royal Air Force the term Officer Commanding is more commonly used for the individual charged with responsibility for individual UASs.

We use the term Reserves in the text, but have kept to original wording when quoting individuals who have talked about the Territorial Army, to reflect the name of the organisation referred to at the time of data collection.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) through grant reference ES/JO23868/1.

The origins of this project lie in conversations with members of the Northumbrian Universities Military Education Committee (NUMEC), about the possibilities of conducting research on the value of the OTC, UAS and URNU experience for students, and for wider social understanding of military issues. We are very grateful for the support received from NUMEC in the earliest stages of this research, and in particular for the advice and input of Air Commodore Ian Forster OBE RAF (Rtd), Air Vice-Marshal Sandy Hunter CBE AFC MA LLB DL (Rtd), Captain Professor Iain Moffat RD DL RNR (Rtd) and Professor Trevor Page FREng. NUMEC and the Council of Military Education Committees (COMEC) have proved effective sounding-boards for the research as it has progressed, and we would like to thank the members of these two organisations for their input. The project steering group, a small group of ‘critical friends’ providing advice and constructive input, was established in 2013. Membership included representatives from the Ministry of Defence, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, RAF College Cranwell, Britannia Royal Naval College, COMEC, NUMEC and the Newcastle University Careers Service. Our steering group members gave generously of their time and expertise, and the research benefitted greatly from their input. The analysis contained in this book reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the project steering group, their parent organisations or the individuals listed above.

This book draws on data collected from a very large number of people involved in various ways, both in the present and past, with the USUs. In work of this nature, interviewees and questionnaire respondents are, necessarily, anonymous. We would like to thank all our research participants for their input to the project, not least in terms of their time. The richness of the data collected is an accurate reflection of the care and consideration with which xiv The Value of the University Armed Service Units our interviewees and respondents patiently answered our questions. Again, the conclusions drawn remain our own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of individuals or organisations consulted for the purposes of data collection.

We would like to thank our colleagues at Newcastle University, particularly members of the Power, Space, Politics research cluster in Geography, our colleagues across the School of Geography, Politics & Sociology, and members of the university’s Military, War and Security Research Group, for sharing their views and observations about our research. The research reported here was undertaken in a wider academic context of ongoing conversations about the nature and politics of research on militarism, militarisation and military forces. Newcastle University has emerged as a leading centre in the UK for critical scholarship on these issues; we are proud to be part of that intellectual movement within the social sciences, and are thankful to our colleagues at Newcastle University and further afield for providing us with the best possible mix of support and challenge as we proceeded with this research.

Finally, our thanks go to Alison Copeland, Joe Painter, Ralph Parlour and Billy Williams for assistance and advice on data analysis and presentation, to Heather McGrath and Lasairfhiona Swift for research administrative support, to two anonymous academic peer reviewers for comments on the manuscript, and to Tim Wakeford, Sam Hall and Paige MacKay at Ubiquity Press for their input in the production of this book.

CHAPTER |

This chapter introduces the university armed service units (hereafter USUs), and the reasons for studying them. It outlines the key features and missions of the three service units, the Officer Training Corps (OTC), the University Air Squadrons (UAS) and the University Royal Naval Units (URNU), and introduces the Military Education Committees (MEC). It provides an overview of the higher education sector in the UK, the context in which USU participation takes place. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the key policy issues currently facing the USUs, and outlines the structure of the book.

1.1 Introducing the university armed service units 1.1.1. What are the university armed service units?

The USUs comprise the OTC, UAS and URNU.' These units are overseen and managed through their respective parent services, the British Army, the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Royal Navy, and funded through public expenditure via the defence budget. The USUs exist to provide military training and an experience of military life to students attending UK universities. Participation is open to British and Commonwealth students, and is selective, subject to specific medical and physical criteria. Participation is paid, but does not involve payment or subsidy of university tuition fees. Students who join a USU do

1 See Note on terminology.

Woodward, R, Jenkings, K N and Williams, A J. 2015. The Value of the University Armed Service Units. Pp. 1-30. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.5334/baq.a. License: CC-BY 4.0.

so voluntarily, can leave at any time, and are under no obligation to join the armed forces when they graduate from university. Participation takes the form of weekly attendance at drill nights, and activities undertaken at weekends and during university vacations, which involve a combination of specific training activities (including land-based exercises for the OTC, flying for the UAS or ship-based activities for the URNU) and adventurous training opportunities in the UK and overseas. Although encouraged, it is not a requirement that cadets attend every drill night or weekend, though many do.

As of 1 April 2014, Ministry of Defence (MoD) statistics record a total of 6,370 students enlisted across the USUs: 4,420 in the OTC, 1,090 in the UAS and 850 in the URNU- To put this into context, the total UK student population in the academic year 2013-14 (the most recent figures available) was 2,299,355, comprising 1,759,915 students registered for undergraduate degrees, commonly Bachelor of Arts (BA) and Bachelor of Sciences (BSc), and 539,440 students registered for postgraduate degrees at a Masters of Arts or Sciences level (MA, MSc) or for a Masters or Doctor of Philosophy degree (MPhil, PhD).* USU members comprise around 0.28% of the total UK student population, a very small percentage of this group.

USU members are enlisted as Category B reservists but cannot be mobilised for active service. They are considered as part of the total strength of the UK armed forces in some iterations of MoD statistics, although not all. As of September 2014, the total strength of the UK armed forces, including trained and untrained, Regular, full-time and Reserve personnel (but excluding OTC, UAS and URNU participants), was 195,980 (120,800 for the British Army, 37,170 for the RAF and 38,020 for the Royal Navy).* As with the UK student population, USU members are a minority organisation, one-thirtieth the size of the full UK armed forces, although this proportion is likely to have grown over the past decade with the overall reduction in the size of the armed forces.

1.1.2. Why study the university armed service units?

It could be argued, given the relatively small size of the USUs relative to both the UK student population and the UK armed forces, that this is a minor, possibly even insignificant organisation in terms of the wider interests of the defence and higher education sectors, and wider debates about student experience and

2? Ministry of Defence. (2014). TSP7 UK Reserve Forces and Cadets. Retrieved from https:// www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314795/uk_ reserve_force_cadets_2014.pdf

> Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2015). Statistical First Release 210. Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/stats

4 Ministry of Defence. (2014). UK Armed Forces Quarterly Personnel Report (1* October 2014). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/373115/af-quarterly_personnel_report_oct14.pdf student employability. We disagree. The USUs are significant and merit scrutiny for the following reasons.

First, the UK armed forces are undergoing a substantial programme of restructuring in the wake of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and the Future Force 2020 programme, and anticipate further changes with the anticipated 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, which is under development at time of writing. The longer history of the units suggests that their planning, organisation and strategic development has always been closely tied to wider UK defence structures and objectives. Given current debates about the size, structure and function of the UK armed forces under conditions of tight public expenditure controls, and given that the USUs are part of the wider UK defence picture in that they are maintained by the three parent armed forces, there is a case for close scrutiny of the value of the USUs as part of the wider debate on the future structure of the armed forces.

Second, knowledge and understanding of the role and function of USUs, and of the nature of the USU experience for participants, is uneven within the armed forces. Those with experience of USU command, or indeed personal experience of membership as students themselves, will be alert to the existence and function of the units. There is reason to believe that within the wider defence community in the armed forces and MoD, knowledge of the units, what they do and what their value might be, is not as widely shared. This book is our contribution to expanding the knowledge base within that defence community.

Third, the UK higher education sector is also undergoing a period of quite distinct structural change. Specific initiatives include the recent introduction of payment of full tuition fees by undergraduate students (up to £9,000 per year for full-time study, at time of writing), coupled with the development of broader moves within higher education to make explicit the value of graduate-level skills and the demonstrable employability of graduates. Such developments have in turn introduced a greater awareness across the sector and within higher education institutions of the need to make explicit the value of a university degree. This broader debate about the value of a degree necessarily needs to include informed understanding about the full range of activities undertaken by students, and the benefits that these activities may bring to their employability. So whilst USU participation may be a minority pursuit within the UK student body, there is evidence that an understanding of the USUs brings an

5 For a summary of changes initiated and proposed under the Future Force 2020 plans, see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62487/ Factsheet5-Future-Force-2020.pdf. A key element of the Future Force 2020 plans is a restructuring of the Reserves, including a significant increase in the size of the Army Reserve (formerly the Territorial Army) to a trained strength of 30,000, 1,800 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and 3,100 for the Maritime Reserves. These proposals were set out in the Government White Paper: Ministry of Defence. (2013). Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valuable and Valued (Cm 8655). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/210470/Cm8655-web_FINAL.pdf additional and potentially valuable contribution to that wider debate. We are also alert to the potential utility of this book in raising awareness of the existence and core functions of the units within the higher education sector more generally, where informed knowledge amongst academics, administrators and students is unevenly distributed, and sometimes non-existent.

Fourth, despite their long history (the OTCs were first established in 1908, and some units trace their origins back over much longer timescales) there have, to date, been very few published accounts of the units.° This book is an attempt to fill that gap. It is also worth noting that for those involved with USU organisation and administration, and for their participants, the units can be a very significant element of their university or military career. Furthermore, given the long history of some units, and the continual throughput of students within the units over time, what looks initially to be a pursuit undertaken by a very small proportion of students is in fact a far more widely-shared experience than per annum participation numbers initially suggest. Therefore this book provides both a knowledge base about the current state of a much older organisation, and a summary of the units and the unit experience for a wider interested readership who may have previous or current experience of unit participation.

Finally, there are any number of anecdotal understandings about the units which have informed the genesis of the research underpinning this book, and which merit investigation in their own right. These include: questions about the reach (or otherwise) of the units across the higher education sector, including the question of the disproportionate inclusion of students from elite or Russell Group universities; considerations of whether USU graduates have a greater chance of success in the graduate labour market; interest in the significance of the USU experience for those seeking careers in the armed forces; questions about employer awareness of the units; what the experience may bring to graduates; questions about the influence of USU graduates in civil society as they pursue non-military careers after university; questions about whether USU participation is, could or should be included in mechanisms formally recording student activities whilst at university and questions about whether the USUs constitute a form of militarisation of universities.

This book does not constitute a formal assessment of the USUs for strategic defence planning purposes, and has been produced independently of the UK MoD (which funds the USUs) and the three armed forces. Neither does it constitute a formal evaluation of the skills and employability aspects of USUs for the purposes of university audit, or an assessment of the USUs for the purposes of

€ See Strachan, H. (1976). The History of the Cambridge University Officer Training Corps. Tunbridge Wells: Midas Books; Mileham, P. (2012). University Service Units: What are they really for? (Council of Military Education Committees of United Kingdom Universities occasional paper no. 1). Retrieved from http://www.comec.org.uk/documents/occasional_paper_no_1_ small_file1.pdf; Harrop, M. D. (2013).The University Air Squadrons: A valuable organisation and an organisation that adds value? (Unpublished MSc thesis, Cranfield University, Bedford).

student-centred organisations. However, it has been written with a view to its potential utility in informing current debates on the future role, purpose, impact and organisation of the units across the defence and higher education sectors.

1.2 The university armed service units missions 1.2.1. The Officer Training Corps

“The mission of the UOTC is to develop the leadership potential of selected university students and raise awareness of the Army ethos. Each UOTC is an independent [unit] with its own cap badge, customs and traditions. Members of the UOTC are paid to participate in training activities, but have no obligation to join the Armed Forces when they leave?”

The OTC is the largest of the three service units, with a membership of 4,420 in 2014. The size of the OTC nationally has remained fairly constant over the past decade.* There are 18 units in total; some include multiple sub-units to account for geographical distance between units. One of the 18 (Yorkshire) is designated an Officer Training Regiment (OTR) following proposals from an internal OTC review (the Roskelly Study) in 2010. Originally structured as two separate OTCs, the Yorkshire OTR was stood up in 2011, combining Sheffield and Leeds OTCs.’ The units and their participating universities are listed in Table 1.1. OTC units range in size from around 120 to over 400 actual strength.

As Table 1.1 shows, all OTCs take students from a number of different universities. Unit catchment areas can be geographically large, and some OTCs have local detachments to facilitate participation from geographically distant universities within a region or across federal universities (for example, London and Wales OTCs). It is also significant that each unit takes students, potentially at least, from universities across the range of providers in the higher education sector (see 1.3.2. below). So whilst all units offer a broadly similar training programme, they do so to a potentially diverse range of students. Units will not necessarily have, in any one year, students from all the universities listed in Table 1.1. Also, access to units by students from different universities will be uneven in terms of travelling distance.

7 Ministry of Defence. (2014). TSP7 UK Reserve Forces and Cadets, pp. 28. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 314795/uk_reserve_force_cadets_2014.pdf. Omission of ‘unit’ in original text.

8 Ministry of Defence. (2014). TSP7 UK Reserve Forces and Cadets gives figures of 4,700 for 2004, 4,140 for 2010, 4,120 for 2011, 4,360 for 2012 and 4,400 for 2013, with the cautionary note that a discontinuity in the time series means that figures for the pre-2012 period include support and training staff, and from 2012 includes students only.

? Although a second OTR for the North West of England was proposed through the merger of the Manchester & Salford and Liverpool OTCs, these two OTCs remain as distinct units.

Unit name

Participating Universities’

Aberdeen UOTC

Birmingham UOTC

Aston University Birmingham City University University of Birmingham Coventry University

Harper Adams University Keele University

Newman University Staffordshire University University College Birmingham University of Warwick University of Wolverhampton University of Worcester

Bristol UOTC

Bath Spa University

Cambridge UOTC

Anglia Ruskin University University of Cambridge University of East Anglia University of Essex University of Hertfordshire Bedfordshire University

City of Edinburgh UOTC

University of Edinburgh Edinburgh Napier University Heriot-Watt University Queen Margaret University

East Midlands UOTC

De Montfort University University of Derby University of Leicester University of Lincoln Loughborough University University of Northampton University of Nottingham Nottingham Trent University

Exeter VOTC

Peninsular College of Medicine and Dentistry (Plymouth)

Plymouth University

Unit name

Participating Universities’

Glasgow & Strathclyde UOTC

Glasgow Caledonian University University of Strathclyde University of the West of Scotland

Liverpool UOTC (includes both Liverpool and Lancaster detachments)

University of Chester (Warrington campus) University of Cumbria

Edge Hill University

Lancaster University

Liverpool Hope University

Liverpool John Moores University University of Central Lancashire

Manchester & Salford UOTC

University of Manchester Manchester Metropolitan University University of Salford

Northumbrian UOTC

Durham University Newcastle University Northumbria University University of Sunderland Teesside University

Oxford UOTC

Cranfield University

Oxford Brookes University

Royal Agricultural University Cirencester

Queen's UOTC (Belfast)

College of Agriculture Food and Rural Enterprise Queen's University Belfast

University of Ulster Southampton UOTC Bournemouth University (includes Brighton University of Brighton detachment) University of Chichester University of Portsmouth University of Southampton Southampton Solent University University of Sussex University of Winchester Tayforth UOTC Abertay University (detachments in Dundee, University of Dundee St Andrews and Stirling) University of St Andrews University of Stirling

Unit name Participating Universities’

University of London Includes the colleges and institutes of the federal UOTC University of London?

(includes Canterbury Brunel University Company) Canterbury Christchurch University City University London University of Greenwich University of Kent Kingston University St Mary’s University Wales UOTC Aberystwyth University (Detachments in Bangor University Aberystwyth, Bangor, Cardiff University Cardiff, Swansea and Cardiff Metropolitan University Wrexham) University of Chester (Chester campus) Glyndŵr University

Swansea University University of South Wales University of Wales Trinity Saint David

Yorkshire Officer Training | University of Huddersfield Regiment University of Hull (detachments in Leeds, University of Leeds Sheffield and York) Leeds Beckett University University of Sheffield Sheffield Hallam University University of York York St John University

Table 1.1: Officer Training Corps units and participating universities.

' The university titles given are the trading names of the institutions concerned as of February 2014.

Birkbeck, University of London; Courtauld Institute of Art; Goldsmiths, University of London; Heythrop College; The Institute of Cancer Research; King’s College London; London Business School; London School of Economics and Political Science; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Queen Mary University of London; Royal Academy of Music; The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama; Royal Holloway, University of London; Royal Veterinary College; St George’s, University of London; School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London; University College London; School of Advanced Study, University of London.

N

OTCs follow a standardised training syllabus laid down by the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. In year one, students complete basic training (known as MOD1) which covers key military skills including drill, map reading and field craft, as well as weapons handling, camouflage techniques and first aid training, and includes a number of exercises and often an extended training visit to a British Army base. In year two, students progress to leadership training (known as MOD2) which focuses on learning to manage small groups of officer cadets, organising and planning battlefield tactics, giving orders and debriefing after exercises. Both MOD1 and MOD2 are assessed and students are required to pass a series of written and practical exercises in order to progress satisfactorily. In year three, students can be chosen to take on additional responsibilities as senior cadets, leading platoons and providing some training for more junior students.”