Different Testing Courses

[jimmymac]

I'm nearly at the end of a HNC at the moment. One of the units is three phase which, as you can imagine, involves a lot of calculations. Many of these calculations involve conversion between rectangular and polar form. The assessment is two hours long and contains many of these calculations. If you were to do ALL of these questions without a calculator you would have to make the assessment about four hours long and it wouldn't mean that the student was any better educated as we have to prove that we can do these calculations without a calculator as part of our course work. The other option would be to reduce the number of questions in the assessment which would of course make it easier and we can't be having that can we?? lol :nonod:

 

[D Skelton]

Ah come one man, grab a sense of humour and get with the times! The whole way through this thread I've been in full agreement with you about this trade being devalued beyond all recognition, but for the love of god you cannot blame calculators for this! Lol. That is rubbish! And what is more rubbish than your rubbish, is the fact that it is often the case when you are in an unwinnable position you just start calling everyone elses opinion 'rubbish'! Rather than confronting it with logic and reason. Being dogmatic about something doesn't make you right.

 

[Engineer54]

2364??? What's that?

If by that you mean the new core qual then no, because the time and money I'd have to invest wouldn't make it economically viable for me to do?!

Anyway, what does it matter to you whether or not I choose to sit the new style exams for the T&I qualification? It just makes me more able to point out to a student at some point in the future the difference between the old and the new and the different ways in which I think that they should prepare.

Does it make me more qualified? No. But it does make me more informed. That is the only reason why I did it. If in ten years time they completely re-vamp the whole level 4 design course and do something completely different to it, I might look at doing that again too, it all depends on my situation at the time and the direction in which I'm heading.

Still don't understand the logic to be honest, it's not as if you sat the 2391, and then never tested anything again. Surely you are using and improving yourself on an ongoing basis, the original 2391 course and exam just being a base level to work from. So what exactly did you gain from the 2394/5, over the 2391/exam course, if as you say you didn't need do the course you just sat the exam?? If you passed with very little study and effort, then it's not going to be, Too Much at all!!

I'm all for people improving themselves through the higher education system, but i can't see much point in using higher education for standing still!! Yep you're right i am a grandpa, and i do still have strong values and opinions, but through it all, i'm no-ones fool either!! lol!!

 

[D Skelton]

Still don't understand the logic to be honest

You wouldn't though would you, you still have the idea lodged firmly in your blinkered mind that the 2394/5 is worse than the 2391. Remove your prejudices from the equation and you might view it differently. What I gained is the knowledge of how different the two courses and sets of exams are written and how they are geared. For very little cost or effort, I am more informed as a potential tutor than someone who has only done one or the other. I can also boast that I am current and up to date with my T&I quals, whether that is of any significance to you is a matter of personal opinion. Whether it will hold any weight in real life remains to be seen...

I'm all for people improving themselves through the higher education system, but i can't see much point in using higher education for standing still!!

Like I said, if taking the latest exams and remaining current (to a certain extent) helps in any way with my ability to inform others who may be learning from me, then I'm all up for it. If you call it standing still that's your lookout, I call it progress, however slight it may seem to others.

 

[Silly Sausage]

Man versus Calculator:

Who can work this out fastest, [SUP]10[/SUP]P[SUB]4[/SUB] ? :smilielol5:

 

[D Skelton]

Man:

42

 

[wozz]

By comparing national average pass marks in chief examiners reports. Also by taking both exams and seeing for yourself if they are the same or not. I have, and in my experience, I can say that the new 2394 and 2395 easily meet the standard of the old 2391.

Thanks. Is this information freely avaliable, if so where?

 

[D Skelton]

It's freely available on the C&G website

 

[Deleted member 72666]

Thanks. Is this information freely avaliable, if so where?

Just a couple from 2012 to get you started.
http://cdn.cityandguilds.com/Produc...-302_Chief_Examiners_Report_December_2012.pdf
http://cdn.cityandguilds.com/Produc...302_Chief_ Examiners_ Report_October_2012.pdf

 

[Badged01]

Makes for some 'interesting' reading and seems quite daming of candidates lack of knowledge and experience?!?!.

I particularly liked the quote, "The answers provided by many candidates included references that suggested compliance with the 16th Edition of the Regulations rather than the present edition." Suggests we aint got the dreaded Electrical Trainee's out there inspecting and testing but "qualified electricians" (term used very loosely) not compliant/knowledgeable on current regulations!!

 

[Engineer54]

Ah come one man, grab a sense of humour and get with the times! The whole way through this thread I've been in full agreement with you about this trade being devalued beyond all recognition, but for the love of god you cannot blame calculators for this! Lol. That is rubbish! And what is more rubbish than your rubbish, is the fact that it is often the case when you are in an unwinnable position you just start calling everyone elses opinion 'rubbish'! Rather than confronting it with logic and reason. Being dogmatic about something doesn't make you right.

Who is blaming calculators?? All i initially stated was that during my first sitting of exams, calculators were not allowed to be taken into the examination rooms, i didn't blow it all up out of all recognition. That was you trying to make out that a student with a calculator, gave that student no advantage over a student that didn't have one, ....which is as i stated earlier is utter rubbish!! In fact you have tried twisting everything that i've stated here

Me thinks, you need to brush up on your own logic and reasoning, because so far you're not making much sense at all!! I think i actually gave the ''fact'' that Higher education qualifications post 1999 DO NOT meet the same standards of recognition, of the same qualification gained prior to that date!! But hey just brush that aside!! lol!!

Listen, i'm not going to continue an argument that basically everyone past the age of 40, knows full well that educational standards from top to bottom in the UK are the PITS. School educational standards have been dropping and are continuing to drop year on year. Why because we can't have students thinking they are failures!! And that just about sums up your side of the argument, because like it or lump it, educational standards are nothing like they were 30 or 40 years ago, when exam papers were compiled to tax your knowledge of the given subject, which is NOT what i saw in the part question paper you emailed me.

Now if all this is being dogmatic on my side, then so be it, I'm being dogmatic and proud to be so, but Rubbish it AIN'T!! I wonder how many other older electricians here would actually agree with you, that current day exam papers are the equivalent in complexity of those of 30+ years ago??


While you're at it, check out the UK rating for educational levels, We have gone from being continually in and around the top 3 to 5 of the ''world'' tables (several years ago, my era in fact...lol!!) to now hovering around the bottom of the just the ''European'' tables!! Getting the message yet?? .....J e s u s!!

 

[D Skelton]

I have never missed the message, I have always agreed that educational standards are dropping, but the content taught is still the same! All that has happened is thingas are taught differently and exams in general have become easier to pass. My argument is that you cannot say that sparks now are worse than they were 20 years ago (5WWs aside). Most are, but there are many that apply themselves and will pass exams regardless of how easy or hard they are.

With regards to the paper I sent you, what exactly makes this easier than the 2391? Because this is one thing I disagree with you on completely!

 

[Engineer54]

I have never missed the message, I have always agreed that educational standards are dropping, but the content taught is still the same! All that has happened is thingas are taught differently and exams in general have become easier to pass. My argument is that you cannot say that sparks now are worse than they were 20 years ago (5WWs aside). Most are, but there are many that apply themselves and will pass exams regardless of how easy or hard they are.

With regards to the paper I sent you, what exactly makes this easier than the 2391? Because this is one thing I disagree with you on completely!

We aren't going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree.

I can't say one way or the other on the actual content between the two courses from the 1 page of new course you sent me. All i can say is that the previous course was a combined course so i would expect that the final exams (practical and written) covered everything, instead of only having to cover smaller sections with 2 identifiable separate exams. So i'm thinking more to retain and prove with the earlier single course...

 

[D Skelton]

I can't say one way or the other on the actual content between the two courses from the 1 page of new course you sent me.

We aren't going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree.

If you can't say one way or the other then you have no place agreeing or disagreeing with me because you don't know. You also have absolutely no place making statements like "Your C&G 2391 is probably worth more than the newer and easier to pass C&G 2394/95". This is an absolutely bogus statement and is made for no other reason than you have a penchant for being disparaging towards new qualifications regardless of whether or not they are easier or harder.

All i can say is that the previous course was a combined course so i would expect that the final exams (practical and written) covered everything, instead of only having to cover smaller sections with 2 identifiable separate exams. So i'm thinking more to retain and prove with the earlier single course...

2391 - 1 x 2 hour written exam & 1 x 2 hour practical assessment

2394 - 1 x 1.5 hour written exam, 1 x 1 hour online multiple choice, 1 x 1.5 hour practical assessment, 1 x 30 minute practical assessment
2395 - 1 x 1.5 hour written exam, 1 x 1 hour online multiple choice, 1 x 1.5 hour practical assessment, 1 x 30 minute practical assessment


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........... Which one do I need to retain more knowledge for????????????????? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

On it's own, you could put forward an argument that the 2395 is easier to pass than the 2391 (you'd still be wrong IMHO) based on it's written assessment being 30 minutes shorter. In practice the questions are a lot harder. I ran out of time on my 2395 paper whereas I'd completed my 2391 written well within an hour and a half I'd say. The same goes for the 2394 on its own. But together? Easier than the 2391? No bloody chance! And every tutor I have ever spoken to has only ever agreed with the fact that the new one is harder than the old! So yeah, for you, it's a first! lol

Whether one is worth more than the other??? Doubtful. Personally, I don't think either of them are anywhere near as challenging as they should be.

 

[Engineer54]

See off you go again, going off at a TANGENT. I think i have every right to state my views, they are certainly not bogus, they are simply based on what i have observed over many years...

But i'll stick my neck out for you on this one, ...and say based on the single examination(s) criteria, the 2391 is the more onerous course to pass, as you're only dealing with ''One course'' at a time with the 2394/5. The courses probably give less time on each, because you have ''less content'' to cover (eg less content to retain). But if you include the Two courses, 2394 and the 2395 then you actually have an hour ''More'' time allowed, than in the single 2391 Exams across the board!! ...OK!! ...And YES it will be a first for many years, if the latest C&G qualification is harder than the qualification it's replacing!!

Like i ''HAVE'' stated though, and no-one will ever convince me otherwise, in that present day examination content and procedures do not come close to being equivalent to those of yester years End Of. If you want to accuse me of being even more antagonistic, you could say exactly the same thing about the college Tutors and Lecturers of today as well!! lol!!