Different Testing Courses

[Engineer54]

Because it was as near as makes no difference free for me to do so, and at some point I see myself maybe doing some sessional lecturing so having the up to date qualification might help? I only did the exams for the 2394 and 2395, not the whole course.

I have already invested my money in the 2396, I start it in April.

So are you going to sit the new 2364/65 Lv 3 exams too, working on same basis as above??

 

[Engineer54]

No he doesn't, it's an automated process whether by brain or by calculator!

The whole point of using pencil and paper is to make the calculation easier than using your head! The same applies to a bleeding calculator! lol

Yeah right!! I give up, .....your not seeing the wood for the tree's!! lol!!

 

[D Skelton]

So are you going to sit the new 2364/65 Lv 3 exams too, working on same basis as above??

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.

 

[D Skelton]

Yeah right!! I give up, .....your not seeing the wood for the tree's!! lol!!

You give up because your argument is fundamentally flawed! Using a pencil and paper breaks down the calculation into a process which makes it easier to complete. A calculator does exactly the same thing but quicker!

I get why you're upset about it, you're just old and bitter because new technology is taking over from old school methods. Don't worry grandpa, it aint all bad! Just think, if it weren't for technology where would we be without RCDs!? HAHAHA

 

[Engineer54]

You give up because your argument is fundamentally flawed! Using a pencil and paper breaks down the calculation into a process which makes it easier to complete. A calculator does exactly the same thing but quicker!

I get why you're upset about it, you're just old and bitter because new technology is taking over from old school methods. Don't worry grandpa, it aint all bad! Just think, if it weren't for technology where would we be without RCDs!? HAHAHA

Not me, i give up because i just can't be arsed with the rubbish being spouted here!!

Me bitter, No, ..Sad maybe, that the UK's Electrical industry has been allowed to reach such low's, by the so-called young up and coming bucks!! But then i'm quite lucky, in that I don't have be around to see it!!

As for new technology, fine if it helps you digest and understand, not so fine if it's just a device to spurt out facts & figures... As for RCD's, ...Well we are still all here, after living for the majority of our lives without an RCD in sight...

 

[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!!

 

[D Skelton]

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...

Tangent?? I responded directly to your last comments??

Yes, you do have the right to make ridiculous assumptions, and I'll defend to the death your right to do so, but it doesn't stop your views from being ridiculous. Your views on the subject of the 2391/2394/2395 ARE bogus when they are based on nothing more than ill informed personal opinion. You have no experience on the matter. Your views on the further field of education are not bogus however because they are based on actual experience, they are still debatable however on some of the finer points.

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).

And this is where you are wrong. The 2391 was a 6 day course. The 2395 is also a six day course, as is the 2394. The difference between the new and the old is that they are far more in depth about the specific fields (IV and periodic inspection). The exam questions are also related to those two fields rather than the whole subject. The 2391 was a general overview of I&T, the subject matter wider, the exam questions easier. You don't get any 1 word 1 mark answers on the 2394 or 2395! You have to actually have an in depth knowledge of the specific topic and be able to explain it well.

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 MORE in depth subject matter to cover!

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.

On the whole I'd agree.

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!!

There's a time and a place for being antagonistic, that time is when you have actual experience of the thing that you are slating (I'm referring specifically to the T&I quals here, nothing more), and the place is not on a forum where several members DO have that experience and can categorically tell you that you're wrong!

 

[Engineer54]

lol!! So it takes 12 days to cover what originally took 6 days, but according to you, is a much more in depth and difficult course!! But hey, ....you didn't take the course did you, you just sat the exam, and passed!! ...Give it up for gods sake!!

Believe what you want Damian, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, the fact that i think you're wrong or at the very least over selling the virtues of a course that didn't need academically changing in the first place is by and by!! As i doubt if any others here will be even remotely ''Thinking'' let alone considering, about taking a qualification course that they basically already hold. So it's just your opinion against mine!! So as far as you telling me i'm categorically wrong on that basis, ...i don't think so, it's just an opinion, worth the same as my opinion!!

Jesus, just agree to disagree, this is getting tedious if not boring now!!

 

[D Skelton]

lol!! So it takes 12 days to cover what originally took 6 days, but according to you, is a much more in depth and difficult course!!

My bad, I got that wrong, the 2394 and 2395 are 4 days each, not six. The 2391 was 6 days. Still, no one said more difficult, just far more in depth.

As an example, a 2391 question might be: "What is 'X'?" (1 mark). A 2395 question would be "What is 'X' and explain why?" (3 marks).

The 2395 goes into more detail about periodic inspection and codes as well. The 2394 has a lot more content regarding paperwork and documentation which the 2391 almost missed out entirely!

But hey, ....you didn't take the course did you, you just sat the exam, and passed!! ...Give it up for gods sake!!

Give up what? Talking about what I have experienced and you have not?!

Believe what you want Damian, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, the fact that i think you're wrong or at the very least over selling the virtues of a course that didn't need academically changing in the first place is by and by!!

I never said it needed academically changing, I think it is nothing more than another con by C&G, but just because it has changed doesn't mean to say it is any easier! I am not making mountains out of molehills, I'm just defending a qualification that you love to shred so much for no reason whatsoever!

As i doubt if any others here will be even remotely ''Thinking'' let alone considering, about taking a qualification course that they basically already hold.

There are many others on here who have, because they teach it! If you aren't ever considering a teaching position then you're quite right, there's no point. I've never argued otherwise.

So it's just your opinion against mine!! So as far as you telling me i'm categorically wrong on that basis, ...i don't think so, it's just an opinion, worth the same as my opinion!!

No, it is my facts and my experience over your opinion! That is why I can say you are wrong, and you can only say you think I'm wrong.

Jesus, just agree to disagree, this is getting tedious if not boring now!!

Not while you are still shredding a perfectly good qualification for no reason whatsoever. What is tedious is your bombastic attitude towards anything new! New kids on the block get a hard enough time as it is when they're constantly getting told that their core quals are not up to par with the old school ones. To a point I'd agree. What they don't need is people with no knowledge of the subject and no experience telling them that on top of their core quals, their I&T quals are worthless compared to the old one too! Especially when it isn't true!

There is one final piece of damning evidence to your argument of the case that you simply cannot dispute! And that is; if the 2394 and 2395 are easier than the 2391, why are the national average pass rates the same?!

 

[Engineer54]

You can go on and on twisting what i have said to suit your side of the argument all you like, I've never shredded as you put it, any of the qualifications, but it i suppose it sounds better from your side of the court doesn't it.... All meaningful qualifications are worth holding, no matter when they were taken. My only point/question was, is the 2394/5 as onerous as the perfectly adequate qualification it replaced? Your stating it's more oneous, which coming now in two separate parts, is to me questionable, for the reasons i've previously posted!!

Can't see any of these ''many other members'' here, that have taken the the 2394/5 while already holding the 2391 chipping in with their views and comments on this thread as yet!!

If as you say having a bombastic attitude is because i don't agree with you on certain aspects, then so be it i'll remain the bombastic so and so!! Though i will strongly and totally deny giving any new electrician a hard time here for going down the correct route and obtaining their core qualifications, or any other meaningful qualifications, including the 2394/5 Just the opposite in fact!! That is just you i'm afraid, twisting things again, trying to put your side in a more favourable light!!

As far as i'm concerned you can go on and on waffling away all you like, you have your opinions
and i have mine. Maybe as far as the 2394/5 goes, if we have several members coming here that have completed both of the full courses, that agree with you, i can be convinced otherwise, but your arguments to date certainly haven't!!


Well, i suppose i'll await the next long load of twisted drose your going to throw my way... lol!!

 

[D Skelton]

Yeah yeah, start accusing me of twisting things just because the argument isn't going your way.

Here you go mate, found this jewel just a little while back:

http://www.electriciansforums.co.uk...al-nvqs/87319-what-course-instead-2391-a.html

I take it his opinion counts for jack all too?

 

[Engineer54]

As i stated above if you get a few more on here that have completed both the 2391 and the 2394/5 courses then you could convince me. So why would i take his opinion as meaning Jack?? Where are the ''Many others'' here you talked about, or was that just another exaggeration or wishful thinking on your part?? I've never been one to instantly change my opinion on a whim, or on one or two others opinions/say so, never have and never will, ...maybe you do... I actually hope you are right to be honest, as i say it'll be a first and about time if you are... Fingers crossed!!

I don't give a flying crap if the argument is going my way or you're way or any other way. I do however mind when you try putting words in my mouth by, YES twisting what i have said, into something i most definitely Did Not!!

But you're on the right track, let's see if you muster up more people that have completed both the full courses. At least this time you're not twisting or trying to twist what i've actually said into something completely different, to suit your own purposes...

Funnily enough i noticed on the English News this morning about the UK's education Minister coming to China to find out why Chinese kids are 4 years more advanced in Math than British kids. Does that vindicate what i've been saying for the best part of this thread about todays lowering educational standards in the UK too?? lol!! God knows what the result would be, if they did a similar table on English, across the English speaking countries/nations?? ..lol!!

 

[D Skelton]

As i stated above if you get a few more on here that have completed both the 2391 and the 2394/5 courses then you could convince me. So why would i take his opinion as meaning Jack?? Where are the ''Many others'' here you talked about, or was that just another exaggeration or wishful thinking on your part??

Well, like you have seen there is Howard, off the top of my head I believe Widdlers old man 'Oracle' has done them and agrees with me, Widdler too I think (I could be wrong here) a fella called alanl I believe has done both, there's a couple of people I know from over on the IET forums that have done both, all such people in a teaching role of some sort.

I've never been one to instantly change my opinion on a whim, or on one or two others opinions/say so, never have and never will, ...maybe you do... I actually hope you are right to be honest, as i say it'll be a first and about time if you are... Fingers crossed!!

I never said change you opinion instantly, but surely two or three members here who have done both all saying that the latter is harder should be enough to make you at least rethink your opinion? "NOOOO!!! ENG IS ALWAYS RIGHT! ENG IS NEVER WRONG! ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ENG IS STUPID!".

Like I said a while back, it is your irrational prejudice that holds you back and prevents you from having a dynamic approach towards progressional thinking.

It isn't up to us to PROVE you wrong, it is up to us to inform you as best we can and for you to then make up your own mind, but that is never going to happen whilst your mind has already been made up. We can inform you all day long but your prejudice will always ensure that our tales of our experience will enter one of your ears and move swiftly out of the other.

I don't give a flying crap if the argument is going my way or you're way or any other way. I do however mind when you try putting words in my mouth by, YES twisting what i have said, into something i most definitely Did Not!!

I never twisted anything you said, you're being delusional!

Funnily enough i noticed on the English News this morning about the UK's education Minister coming to China to find out why Chinese kids are 4 years more advanced in Math than British kids. Does that vindicate what i've been saying for the best part of this thread about todays lowering educational standards in the UK too?? lol!! God knows what the result would be, if they did a similar table on English, across the English speaking countries/nations?? ..lol!!

Yeah, you're right, our education system right now is crap, I have NEVER DISAGREED WITH YOU ON THIS!!!! But has this got anything to do with calculators? NO! Does our crap education system prevent those who want to learn from learning? NO!

The Chinese are doing well educationally speaking, this has more to do with the fact that the students are at school for no less than 12 hours a day!

Funnily enough, I was speaking to five Chinese head teachers the other day who were telling me that they prefer our way of doing things. That even though our education system is not as strict, we allow for more time to develop social skills and inter-personal relationships. "Although our kids leave school very acedemically able" they said, "they leave school as social outcasts and find it very hard to adjust to life outside of the learning environment". I kid you not mate, the grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[Deleted member 72666]

Okay, It's time for me to let both of you know that I too have done both the old 2391 back in 2006 and more recently 2394 (Oct 2012) and 2395 (Dec 2012). I've taken both the old and new because the company I work for suggested I was up to date with my qualifications and as I didn't do that much of installation work (maintenance electrician) I thought it be a good idea as now we do I&T 'in house'. I used the 2394/95 as refresher courses as I had been carrying out I&T to the 16th edition and wanted to see if I was going wrong if anywhere. It was also a 'no brainer' for me as the company paid for me to take these.
I have not chipped in to this argument sorry, debate as I dislike confrontations and taking sides, but was the 2391 harder than the 2394/95? In my opinion I found the 2391 just slightly harder but that may be down to my inexperience in testing procedures at the time.(We only ever did IR and Zs testing before) But I agree with Damien that there is no harm in taking both especially if you are being funded to do so.
Not sure my post is going to be much use to either of you I'm afraid.

 

[Badged01]

Not that Im keeping count but reckon after 3 votes its 2:1 to the 2394/5 being harder, though personally Ive yet to be convinced. I may have to do them both to add the 4th vote .......

 

[Engineer54]

Well, like you have seen there is Howard, off the top of my head I believe Widdlers old man 'Oracle' has done them and agrees with me, Widdler too I think (I could be wrong here) a fella called alanl I believe has done both, there's a couple of people I know from over on the IET forums that have done both, all such people in a teaching role of some sort.

Ok, let them come and say their bit then, no bloody good you speaking up for them, that's just hearsay!!

I never said change you opinion instantly, but surely two or three members here who have done both all saying that the latter is harder should be enough to make you at least rethink your opinion? "NOOOO!!! ENG IS ALWAYS RIGHT! ENG IS NEVER WRONG! ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ENG IS STUPID!".

Could say the same about you then, using that analogy, get a grip man!! Perhaps during you're next rant here, you can point out where I've called anyone here, at any time stupid?? Or where i have shredded anyone for holding a core qualification or any other meaningful qualification??

Like I said a while back, it is your irrational prejudice that holds you back and prevents you from having a dynamic approach towards progressional thinking.

I don't have irrational prejudices, ...any prejudices i have, are based on many years of life's experience that have taught me not to listen to ranters and not take things at face value!!

It isn't up to us to PROVE you wrong, it is up to us to inform you as best we can and for you to then make up your own mind, but that is never going to happen whilst your mind has already been made up. We can inform you all day long but your prejudice will always ensure that our tales of our experience will enter one of your ears and move swiftly out of the other.

Only when I'm listening to ranted dross, that never registers!! lol!!

I never twisted anything you said, you're being delusional!

No, just you trying to be clever, and still trying!!

Yeah, you're right, our education system right now is crap, I have NEVER DISAGREED WITH YOU ON THIS!!!! But has this got anything to do with calculators? NO! Does our crap education system prevent those who want to learn from learning? NO!

Back on to the calculators again Jesus!! No doesn't stop anyone that wants to learn from learning, but they just maybe held back from reaching their full potential by the other disruptive out of control kids that teachers these days cant seem to control!!

The Chinese are doing well educationally speaking, this has more to do with the fact that the students are at school for no less than 12 hours a day!

Been in China now a good few years, and married to a Chinese English professor, what you have come out with there is just utter absolute rubbish, see your listening to others and believing everything they say!! lol!! That goes for the next paragraph as well...

Funnily enough, I was speaking to five Chinese head teachers the other day who were telling me that they prefer our way of doing things. That even though our education system is not as strict, we allow for more time to develop social skills and inter-personal relationships. "Although our kids leave school very acedemically able" they said, "they leave school as social outcasts and find it very hard to adjust to life outside of the learning environment". I kid you not mate, the grass is always greener on the other side.

You mean they take their education more seriously than most UK kids, or are you talking about the social skills and inter personal relationships that UK kids develop by being on line and playing games for most of their waking free time etc?? lol!!
The main problem with the Chinese educational system is that they are taught in a manner to pass exams, with not much in the way of the whys and wherefore's given to the subjects. They Need a college education to stand any chance of improving their lives!! They do NOT leave high school as social outcasts.... [/QUOTE]



As usual, off on a tangent again lol!! Await tomorrow's next long rant then!! lol!!

 

[pepparz]

NOOOO!!! ENG IS ALWAYS RIGHT! ENG IS NEVER WRONG! ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ENG IS STUPID!".
not just me that thinks this way then.

 

[Badged01]

Now, now lets not get personal ......

 

[pepparz]

Personal how so?, this is the impression he conveys. My statment is purely an observation.

 

[D Skelton]

I'm done, there's no educating some people! Lol.

As much as me and Eng get into heated squabbles we still love each other really

Eng, I will make this point and only this:

I do understand your cynicism when it comes to new qualifications, I truly do! In fact, there isn't much that we fundamentally disagree on regarding this matter, however, maybe it is best to reserve your prejudice and snide comments about the 2394/2395 in particular until you have actually sat them, or, you have heard from a significant amount of people who disagree with my experience. As it stands, more people agree with me than they do you on this matter, and until the opposite is true, I will continue to defend an equally meaningful replacement qualification to the 2391!

Do I think one is better than the other? No. The 2391 was certainly better value for money! But cost aside, I cannot see any reason why the new T&I quals are any easier to pass than the old.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm done, there's no educating some people! Lol.

As much as me and Eng get into heated squabbles we still love each other really

Eng, I will make this point and only this:

I do understand your cynicism when it comes to new qualifications, I truly do! In fact, there isn't much that we fundamentally disagree on regarding this matter, however, maybe it is best to reserve your prejudice and snide comments about the 2394/2395 in particular until you have actually sat them, or, you have heard from a significant amount of people who disagree with my experience. As it stands, more people agree with me than they do you on this matter, and until the opposite is true, I will continue to defend an equally meaningful replacement qualification to the 2391!

Do I think one is better than the other? No. The 2391 was certainly better value for money! But cost aside, I cannot see any reason why the new T&I quals are any easier to pass than the old.

 

[ipf]

Bo$$ox to it....bring back the 'C cert' , that'll sort 'em all out.

 

[Engineer54]

NOOOO!!! ENG IS ALWAYS RIGHT! ENG IS NEVER WRONG! ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH ENG IS STUPID!".
not just me that thinks this way then.

Well as far as you are concerned, i'd be spot on every time then!! lol!!

 

[Engineer54]

Bo$$ox to it....bring back the 'C cert' , that'll sort 'em all out.

Exactly my thoughts!! lol!

 

[Engineer54]

=D Skelton;911373]I'm done, there's no educating some people! Lol.

As much as me and Eng get into heated squabbles we still love each other really

Eng, I will make this point and only this:

I do understand your cynicism when it comes to new qualifications, I truly do! In fact, there isn't much that we fundamentally disagree on regarding this matter, however, maybe it is best to reserve your prejudice and snide comments about the 2394/2395 in particular until you have actually sat them, or, you have heard from a significant amount of people who disagree with my experience. As it stands, more people agree with me than they do you on this matter, and until the opposite is true, I will continue to defend an equally meaningful replacement qualification to the 2391!

Do I think one is better than the other? No. The 2391 was certainly better value for money! But cost aside, I cannot see any reason why the new T&I quals are any easier to pass than the old.

I did say that i could be swayed/convinced if a few others come in and confirm your assessment of the new 2394/5, if that's what you mean by educating?? lol!!

Couldn't see what all the fuss was about anyway, for the most part, when i did make a comment on the new qualification course, it was mainly ''Supposedly equal to 2391'' is that such a bad remark to make on my part, in as far as i'm not convinced?? Can't remember ever ''Shedding'' the thing....

Anyway i hope that's an end to it for now!!