2391 returning, well on website it is anyway?

[Wilko]

Good question !
I'm saving my pennies at present and this is an interesting turn of events. 2394/5 and 2391-52 are all level 3, so it will be interesting to see who will be the daddy ...
Edit : I've just emailed C&G for their advice

The good folks at C&G replied to me today, but I'm not any wiser (a tough ask, I know) :
"I have reviewed your query regarding the 2391-52 qualification and believe some further investigation is required from our support teams."
I'll keep you posted

 

[Andy C]

I will be interested in the end result of this as I have my 2394/5 exams next week.

 

[Spud28]

when i did it, 2391 was testing and 2400 was design which as Pete said incorporated the testing elements. 2400 was a tough 3hr exam followed by a hefty assignment.

 

[westward10]

when i did it, 2391 was testing and 2400 was design which as Pete said incorporated the testing elements. 2400 was a tough 3hr exam followed by a hefty assignment.

Too much for the current crop

 

[Toneyz]

If were all confused what chance have employers got two candidates turn up Pete with his 2391 and parts 1,2 and C course and Westward with his 2394/5 & 2400 then you've got these EOL exams.

 

[Rpa07]

There's only one way to decide it -

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!
Beat you to it @telectrix

If were all confused what chance have employers got two candidates turn up Pete with his 2391 and parts 1,2 and C course and Westward with his 2394/5 & 2400 then you've got these EOL exams.

 

[Prat P]

Lol , but sometimes you have to explain what the 2391 is now to the people that have not heard of it.

The 2391 seperates the men from the boys and it was scrapped because the pass rate was too low

 

[Joshua]

The 2391 seperates the men from the boys and it was scrapped because the pass rate was too low

it looks like it's making a come back. . . but it's now like a wimpy version of 2391

 

[Pete999]

it looks like it's making a come back. . . but it's now like a wimpy version of 2391

It wasn't wimpy when I took it twice and passed both times, took it twice because the firm paid for it and I fancied a few days off site, anyone got a problem with that? good.

 

[Andy78]

Yes, I have heard the new 2391 will be even more lenient than the current 2394/5, going to the open book approach for exams.

The official spiel is that the 2391 is being brought back due to demand from industry for the old qualification. In reality it gives them a chance to rebrand the qual to 2391 in name whilst making the exam open book in an attempt to stop EAL taking their custom due to the easier pass.

 

[ruston]

What a retrograde step that is.

 

[Andy78]

What a retrograde step that is.

I'm not 100% on that but pretty certain that the info is right.

Maybe any forum sponsor training providers can help out with info ?

 

[Joshua]

It wasn't wimpy when I took it twice and passed both times, took it twice because the firm paid for it and I fancied a few days off site, anyone got a problem with that? good.

oh the original 2391 that you took is the proper qualification and you're worth your weight in gold if you pass it.

I'm saying that this new 2391 isn't going so be the same as the old, a 2391 Lite if you like

 

[Prat P]

It wasn't wimpy when I took it twice and passed both times, took it twice because the firm paid for it and I fancied a few days off site, anyone got a problem with that? good.

When you go on holiday...
Do you read bs7671 on the beach???

 

[Mr.Smith]

Can anyone actually confirm that the old 2391 was discontinued because it was too difficult.
I thought it was incredibly difficult but wasn't that the whole point?
Our trade isn't easy so why try to make it so?