Night school it is then........

[dingbat]

If you have been at it for yrs (you sound like you have!) then don't bother with 2392; waste of time and money. EDIT: 2392 generally seems completely pointless!

We run a 2392 every month. Half the attendees are time-served sparks with years of experience.

They are generally clueless about testing, so this is the right course for them.

2391 will brush up your I&T skills,

No, it won't. There is so little time available, most centres simply do not provide any practical training. (But that's okay, because many colleges don't actually carry out the practical assessments correctly, one-on-one, as they should. Instead they do the practicals as a group exercise, often with the tutor carrying out the tests and the class writing down the results. This, by the way, is unacceptable to City & Guilds, but they're only just cottoning on to it and have little resources to police it.)


If you want to learn how to test, the 2392 is the correct course.

 

[crunchynut]

With all respects Dingbat you say you run a 2392 course...you are hardly likely to say it is pointless course are you!!

The college I was at to do 2330,2381,2382,2391 said that the 2392 was for the (less than bright) sparks of this world!

I hear what you are saying re jobbing sparks that have never tested beyond the bang test. But any decent spark should have the necessary previously acquired knowledge to pick up testing reasonably quickly on the 2391 course.

Of course testing everything you can in the interim is important also.

I was fortunate in that I carried out testing throughout the 3 yrs of the 2330 so was up to speed when doing 2391; so maybe you have a point.

The college I did the 2391 at had 5 people on the course. All one-to-one practicals and very thorough. If the tutors said they were going to do the prac's and the students to watch I would be asking for my money back; that's scandalous IMHO.

Regards

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This, by the way, is unacceptable to City & Guilds, but they're only just cottoning on to it and have little resources to police it.)

Put me in charge, with the power to create new agreements between training institutions and C&G, and I'd police it out of existence.

How does any violation like that resulting in a withdrawal of the rights to offer ANY C&G courses in any discipline, not to be reinstated until ALL the lecturers involved have been dismissed, and all qualifications issued in prior years to be cancelled, and legal assistance provided to all those who've lost their qualifications to sue the college for consequent losses sound as a start?

We could follow that up with individual registration for all lecturers and course administrators and department heads and principals, which could be withdrawn so that they could never work again providing C&G courses.

It's often said that likelihood of detection is more of a deterrent than penalties, but that costs money. Fear that, no matter how slight the chances of being caught, getting caught would send your college into financial meltdown, and would render you effectively unemployable for the rest of your life would focus the mind wonderfully.

 

[MalcofArabia]

Chris5 the 2392 is ok but it just really deals with Initial verification and does not really go that in depth into the testing procedure.

2391-10 is a better option, a bit harder work as it is not a multiple choice exam like the 2392 but like everything mate the more you put into it the more you get out and the easier it becomes.

I have to say that where I live in Kent I dealt with two centres that are City & Guild approved and both were ............well s..t hot on the rules, they can not afford to be any different. In fact a sparks I sent there when doing his 2391-10 practical had a City & Guilds examiner in with him and the examiner apparently told the centre that they were being too strict!!

 

[dingbat]

With all respects Dingbat you say you run a 2392 course...you are hardly likely to say it is pointless course are you!!

Good point, but I have no particular vested interest in promoting the 2392 other than to point out some home truths. We have one of the best pass rates for 2391 in the entire country and still we despair at the raw material we have to work with. Especially the 'know it all- know eff-all' brigade, who've been 'testing for years'.

The college I was at to do 2330,2381,2382,2391 said that the 2392 was for the (less than bright) sparks of this world!

Erm... that's practically all sparks then. Trust me, it is the only City & Guilds course that is designed to actually teach you to test. By rights it should be a pre-requisite for all 2391 entrants.

I hear what you are saying re jobbing sparks that have never tested beyond the bang test.

Again, you may not realise this, but that's still most electricians.

But any decent spark should have the necessary previously acquired knowledge to pick up testing reasonably quickly on the 2391 course.

With respect, that is hilarious.

I was fortunate in that I carried out testing throughout the 3 yrs of the 2330 so was up to speed when doing 2391; so maybe you have a point.

Fortunate indeed and most unusual.

If the tutors said they were going to do the prac's and the students to watch I would be asking for my money back; that's scandalous IMHO.

And all too common.

We get quite a few candidates who have taken the course at a college, 'passed' the practical, but failed the written exam. Believe me, very few colleges seem to carry out proper assessments.

Indeed, when I sat the 2391 some years ago, out of around 18 on the course, three passed the exam, yet everybody got a credit for the practical because the lecturer simply stood up in front of the mob, carried out the main assessment as a demo and we all recorded the same results. (Although, being an inky-swot, I objected and was allowed to come in on another day and do the task by myself... although there was no supervision!)

That paperwork was clearly never verified internally by the college, nor properly verified externally by C & G.

 

[crunchynut]

Fair play Dingbat,

We are at opposite ends of the spectrum somewhat with regards to our responses.!

You say the 2392 syllabus is the only course that is designed to (specifically) teach testing; I think that any lecturer should surely be able to incorporate and make time for testing on the 2391 and L3 2330 courses IMHO. My lecturer spent ages gassing about nowt in particular and we still had plenty of time for r1r2 etc!

Afterall, educators have a pretty easy life

 

[dingbat]

I think that any lecturer should surely be able to incorporate and make time for testing on the 2391...

You are entirely entitled to your opinion.

C&G recommend 30 guided learning hours in total. We deliver about 40 prior to the exam and still there's no time for teaching hands-on testing.

Afterall, educators have a pretty easy life

We do indeed. If it were not for students, our job would be a doddle!

 

[NotHimAgain]

We do indeed. If it were not for students, our job would be a doddle!

You should get a job at a certain university campus in Oxfordshire that has a close attachment to the military.

I was doing some testing there a while ago and I encountered a lecturer wandering down the corridor - he said 'have you seen my student?'.

Only one but he still managed to misplace him .