From the examiners

[bernardgreen]

At the working level of 'electrician' as opposed to 'electrical engineer', we get away with it.

[1] Installers of cables and components,
[2] Electricians (able to most find faults by test )
[3] Electrical Engineers

Because the shower still works, so it must just be a 'minor technicality'.)

It is a "minor technicality". Minor but possibly fatal.

Probably nothing wrong with the installation when tested as the tests are for regulations that seem to allow for metal objects to be left un-bonded to pipework that can be touched while in contact with the metal work.

 

[bernardgreen]

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.

I seem to recall being told I was now competent in the operation of a car and now time to learn to drive. A friend arranged for me to spend a day on a supervised skid pan. That was when I really learnt about managing a car.

 

[dingbat]

Remember that this is a closed book written examination lasting 3 hours (I think)

Two-and-a-half hours.

There is no target pass mark in the written exam...

There is a target. It just isn't set in stone as in multi-guess papers. This allows the examiners to take account of unusually poor performance on a question-by-question basis and (as happens quite frequently) discount any questions perceived to be unfair, or having missing numerical information.

...despite tutors trying to second guess, each exam is different.

The answers are always the same, but because the reading age of the average bloke is around twelve, they don't understand the questions. (I would happily submit my answers to the next exam now with a reasonable expectation of passing, provided they don't hold me to the exact question numbers.) (I'm not going to, though!)

It is sometimes the case that unusually low pass rates can be attributed to a change in examination style - note that that is style not content. This is where the tutors who just use past papers (many many colleges) come unstuck because their students expect to be presented with say a RFC test process in a certain way.

Except that every exam has RFC questions and it is absolutely clear what is required. The poor scores in those particular questions are not down to the questions!

 

[EngStudent]

Because (sadly ) very few people actually die as a result of inadequate understanding of the dangers of electricity or the design requirements of electrical systems.

At the working level of 'electrician' as opposed to 'electrical engineer', we get away with it.

(Consider the recent post about the 'tingle' in the shower; the plumber thought he knew what he was doing and the client understands the issue so poorly she seems willing to put up with an unidentified current passing through her body. Because the shower still works, so it must just be a 'minor technicality'.)

'Very few' is still 'some'. There's a massive lack of respect for electricity and in turn, electricians in general. Nobody would think about installing a gas central heating system themselves but plenty of people are happy to do whatever electrical work needs doing without batting an eyelid.

I read briefly the thread re: tingling in the shower, which demonstrates the real lack of understanding of the dangers of electricity. Customers place their trust in tradesmen to do a job and to do it safely. People shouldn't be allowed to do something for a living that they fail so badly on when their work is assessed.

Personally, I think it's about time the 2391 is somehow built into whatever the 2330 is to become.

 

[bernardgreen]

It is sometimes the case that unusually low pass rates can be attributed to a change in examination style - note that that is style not content.

If the student's ability to use ( prove ) his or her knowledge is affected by the style of examination then their ability to use ( any) knowledge will be even more affected ( reduced ) by the "styles" they encounter when actually working in the real world.

True knowledge can be expressed, used and examined under any circumstances........

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Except that every exam has RFC questions and it is absolutely clear what is required. The poor scores in those particular questions are not down to the questions!

And if you really understood the procedures for testing RFCs you'd be able to answer the question no matter how it was phrased.

 

[dingbat]

Personally, I think it's about time the 2391 is somehow built into whatever the 2330 is to become.

No. Testing is already taught on the basic trade courses, so apprentices should already be going into the workplace with the background knowledge.

The whole raison-d'etre of the 2391 is to assess experienced inspectors and testers. It is supposed to be the 'gold standard'!

If anything it should be made more difficult and there should be a much greater emphasis on inspection.

I'd like to see the practical assessed by independent centres with no vested interest in overall pass rates. (Then we'd see the majority also fail the practical!)

 

[EngStudent]

No. Testing is already taught on the basic trade courses, so apprentices should already be going into the workplace with the background knowledge.

The whole raison-d'etre of the 2391 is to assess experienced inspectors and testers. It is supposed to be the 'gold standard'!

If anything it should be made more difficult and there should be a much greater emphasis on inspection.

I'd like to see the practical assessed by independent centres with no vested interest in overall pass rates. (Then we'd see the majority also fail the practical!)

The 2391 is the 'gold standard' but if I remember correctly anyone can test an installation with or without the 2391.

I did the 2330 and, as I alluded to on the previous page, a number of the apprentices took a laid back attitude to the course and often took 2 or 3 attempts to pass. The 302 & 303 of the 2330 were easier than the 301 (principles/elf and safety). I think the pass mark required for these are 50%? (Although the practicals one 'dangerous' action is an immediate fail). Now if you remember where you went wrong in your first attempt it's easy to know which bit(s) to correct rather than understand the whole subject. If the more difficult 2391 (or even the 2392) were to be built into the 2330 then you'd have to learn and understand the subject in a lot more detail.

True knowledge is being able to apply it in different situations. Anyone can pass an exam on a 6' square board. I think it was you who talked about understanding what the tests are for rather than just going through the steps.

As for independent test centres, my tutor also taught & examined the 2391. Out of four students he was assigned to examine, he failed every single one of them.

 

[dingbat]

If the more difficult 2391 (or even the 2392) were to be built into the 2330 then you'd have to learn and understand the subject in a lot more detail.

You're missing the point.

All electricians should be competent to inspect, test and certify their own work. This should be taught at basic level and consolidated with experience.

For those who did not take a traditional course - the multitude of installers in the domestic and light commercial market - there is the 2392.
(This is an excellent course and really ought to be a pre-requisite for the 2391.)

The whole point of the 2391 was to assess the ability of the experts. But, over the years it has attracted many who should not even attempt it, because the industry has encouraged new sparks to 'go for it' long before they are ready. I say, let's keep the gold standard the gold standard and if we do then it is not for everybody.

Out of four students he was assigned to examine, he failed every single one of them.

Good. He is by no means typical.

 

[OwainDIYer]

Nobody would think about installing a gas central heating system themselves

I would, and I know people who have done so.

But then I don't have a reading age of twelve, and I've seen the work done by (usually British Gas) fitters.

 

[1john]

Nobody would think about installing a gas central heating system themselves

Why not?

 

[EngStudent]

Why not?

Alright, let me rephrase that.

Your average-Joe DIYer wouldn't attempt it.

 

[ricicle]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - when I was doing my 2391 a few years back, some of the guys on it (who arrived in their vans and were sole traders) were some of the most under - knowledged electricians I had ever met and they were out charging for their services !

They didn't have a clue about Ohm's law, parallel and series resistance, never even heard of TT systems. And some of the other guys worked for a large I+T firm (beginning with 'E') and were also clueless.

They actually made me embarrassed for the trade but also gave me a sense of smugness as to how much I actually did know

 

[RF Lighting]

I must get round to booking my self onto one of dingbats 2391 courses.

It's a shame he's moved away from Leeds

 

[dingbat]

I must get round to booking my self onto one of dingbats 2391 courses.

It's a shame he's moved away from Leeds

Aye, 'appen, but it's nobbut a short 'op from God's own country to get theesen down 'ere, marra.