From the examiners

[dingbat]

I realise that most of my posts tend to be 'having a go' at the level of knowledge displayed by electricians in general. But it's not just me. Here are a few verbatim comments from the City & Guilds examiners in response to the performance of the October 2391 examination (pass rate 32%)

"The national pass rate for this paper was spectacularly poor..."
"The lack of knowledge and understanding of the requirements of Guidance Note 3 and BS 7671 continues to be apparent in answers given by candidates."
"From the information provided by candidates, it is apparent that whilst they may be aware of the need for inspection and testing, they have little understanding of the reasons why it is done or the interpretation of the results obtained."
"It appears from the candidate responses that very few have an understanding of, and cannot relate to, the inspection process."

And one of the regulars:

"Testing of ring final circuit continuity was poorly answered with candidates often only carrying out step one and then stopping or carrying out incorrect stages two and three, with linking one pair of ends and testing across the other pair a common option."

The examiners report (and I have them going back years - they rarely change!) is intended to show what went wrong, so that centres can adapt their entry requirements and tailor their courses to address the deficiencies. It's clear to me that this doesn't happen.

So, it's good to see the examiners echoing the advice we often give to enquirers:
"The C&G 2392-10 Fundamental Inspection and Testing has been introduced to enable candidates to obtain the fundamental skills for inspection and testing. This qualification has proved to be a good basis for candidates learning the basic inspection and testing procedures."

So, unless you are an experienced and knowledgeable tester (clue: only 32% of those who think they are actually are!) the 2392 course is the one for you.

 

[EngStudent]

Interesting reading. I wonder if these findings have anything to do with the 4 week wonders?

 

[1john]

You cannot be serious, people are making ommisions to testing, especially on a RFC or incorrectly testing it, imo, to work on electrical installations in this country you MUST know how to safely design, install and TEST a RFC, they are stupidly dangerous otherwise.

 

[dingbat]

Interesting reading. I wonder if these findings have anything to do with the 4 week wonders?

Absolutely not. These same comments are repeated time and time again, going all the way back to when the qualification first appeared.

In fact, if our experience is anything to go by, your four-week wonders invariably do well, while the time-served sparks bring the average down.

 

[dingbat]

You cannot be serious, people are making ommisions to testing, especially on a RFC or incorrectly testing it, imo, to work on electrical installations in this country you MUST know how to safely design, install and TEST a RFC, they are stupidly dangerous otherwise.

Those candidates are in the majority and most of them see themselves as fully competent electricians. I see it on every single course. (And we go to great lengths to dissuade the unready from enrolling.)

 

[bernardgreen]

So, it's good to see the examiners echoing the advice we often give to enquirers:
"The C&G 2392-10 Fundamental Inspection and Testing has been introduced to enable candidates to obtain the fundamental skills for inspection and testing. This qualification has proved to be a good basis for candidates learning the basic inspection and testing procedures."

The fundamental skills of how to on their own are not sufficient, the skill to perform needs to be supported by a fundamental understanding of what is being tested and why it is being tested.

 

[EngStudent]

Absolutely not. These same comments are repeated time and time again, going all the way back to when the qualification first appeared.

In fact, if our experience is anything to go by, your four-week wonders invariably do well, while the time-served sparks bring the average down.

So those who have done the 4 year apprenticeship know less about testing? To be honest that sounds about right. I didn't do an apprenticeship, instead financing myself through college and doing bits for various companies. Testing was drilled into us like our life depended on it, though a lot of the apprentices had a rather laid back attitude to college and often took 2 or 3 attempts to get through exams. One lad tried to test the trip time of an MCB - with an RCD tester.

 

[1john]

These are worked out on a majority pass, there is no pass mark, am I correct??

 

[dingbat]

The fundamental skills of how to on their own are not sufficient, the skill to perform needs to be supported by a fundamental understanding of what is being tested and why it is being tested.

Quite right. And that understanding only comes about through experience. I always say - directly to the class - " we can teach a chimp to test" and emphasise the need for the underlying knowledge. Few people are capable of gaining this on a one-week course, but most are capable of learning how to do the basics and then build on that in the real world.

(Compare this with driving - society is quite happy to allow people to drive around in a killing machine after passing a test, yet hardly anybody would say they are fully competent drivers.)

 

[dingbat]

These are worked out on a majority pass, there is no pass mark, am I correct??

There is no stated pass mark, but it is believed to be around two-thirds, 67% (which is lower than I would like).

 

[1john]

P plates for new sparkies, I like it

 

[1john]

These are worked out on a majority pass, there is no pass mark, am I correct??

There is no stated pass mark, but it is believed to be around two-thirds, 67% (which is lower than I would like).

I would imagine that 85 / 90% would be a better pass mark, saying that, shouldn't you know more like 98%+ of what you are doing?

 

[dingbat]

So those who have done the 4 year apprenticeship know less about testing?

Alarming, isn't it? I think it is that those who have done a traditional apprenticeship are more likely to want to learn a repeatable procedure, rather than to actually understand it.

 

[1john]

So those who have done the 4 year apprenticeship know less about testing?

Alarming, isn't it? I think it is that those who have done a traditional apprenticeship are more likely to want to learn a repeatable procedure, rather than to actually understand it.

I competly disagree with you but only from personal experience of myself and two apprentices which I had.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Compare this with driving - society is quite happy to allow people to drive around in a killing machine after passing a test, yet hardly anybody would say they are fully competent drivers.

When I passed my test, the examiner told me that it didn't mean I knew how to drive, just that I knew enough to be allowed to carry on learning unsupervised.