[etrevino]

That's old and "expired" data from over thirty years ago and the family member I'm discussing is open about it, now. What needs to stay quiet (in this instance) is operational details, not that this person did the work. So your point doesn't really stand. I felt it was useful information and it was information that was safe for me to share, so I did.

The Financial Times article is, of course, intended to promote the service to women and it really doesn't hide that fact. You can bet that MI6 reviewed the article before it went to publication and everything in there was vetted a thousand times. It wouldn't shock me if small, fake biographical details were added into the article to obscure who these people really are. We don't know. The fact is, though, that since this piece is probably meant to advertise the service and-- given where it was printed-- it's probably directed at Oxbridge women. That is, women who have more job mobility than most. MI6 wants women to know that they won't be viewed as honey pots and that they can have a family. So the article is probably going to be an accurate representation at some level: since these particular women can leave if they want to, you don't want to misrepresent what they're getting into if you intend to keep them.

[jll29]

In the UK, the government has a firm grip on the media, and that is enshrined by law; that's why The Guardian broke the Snowden story from their U.S. office, where freedom of speech is (more) protected. The author is a former security correspondent, and was perhaps chosen as someone known and trusted.

The article is a recruiting piece targeting well-educated females; but the same (Oxbridge) females can earn six digits in finance and stay safe, instead of earning 22k and getting shot in Kandahar or stabbed in Najaf. One wonders if that combination of compensation and dangerous job spec attracts reckless or idealists personalities.

Anyone interested in the history of the British SIS can be referred to K. Jefferey's (2010) "MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949" (London: Bloomsbury), which is detailed but of course suffers from selection bias due to the nature of the topic and the fact that the book was commissioned (if I recall correctly) by the organization it describes.

[bpye]

> The article is a recruiting piece targeting well-educated females; but the same (Oxbridge) females can earn six digits in finance and stay safe, instead of earning 22k and getting shot in Kandahar or stabbed in Najaf. One wonders if that combination of compensation and dangerous job spec attracts reckless or idealists personalities.

I always found that the pay scale for the security services is the same as the rest of the civil service really hard to justify. Why would I go work at GCHQ if I could make many multiples more, as a starting salary, in the private sector?

[implements]

Youthful idealism, access to cutting edge ideas and kit, stepping stone to a highly paid GCHQ contracting jobs … ?

Other possibilities: Perhaps the headline pay is low but there’s a ton of special allowances and other benefits that make the whole package competitive. Perhaps, like academics, there’s some gifted people who are a much better personality fit for the civil service rather than FANG culture?

[etrevino]

Not everyone is motivated by money. And if these are Oxbridge kids they may not need the cash anyway.

[bpye]

> Not everyone is motivated by money.

Sure but if you take a student loan in the U.K. starting pay in the civil service wouldn’t even put you above the repayment threshold. I get that there are levels, but unless you have support or a partner the starting pay really isn’t enough especially if you’re in London. Cheltenham or Manchester - maybe.

[etrevino]

That's fair, but this is why the "targeted at Oxbridge kids" thing is so important. Sure, some are paying with loans, but most don't need them.

Really, this isn't about targeting a specific level of education, it's about targeting a specific class.