2391 returning, well on website it is anyway?

[Rpa07]

There's only one way to decide it -

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!
Beat you to it @telectrix

If were all confused what chance have employers got two candidates turn up Pete with his 2391 and parts 1,2 and C course and Westward with his 2394/5 & 2400 then you've got these EOL exams.

 

[Prat P]

Lol , but sometimes you have to explain what the 2391 is now to the people that have not heard of it.

The 2391 seperates the men from the boys and it was scrapped because the pass rate was too low

 

[Joshua]

The 2391 seperates the men from the boys and it was scrapped because the pass rate was too low

it looks like it's making a come back. . . but it's now like a wimpy version of 2391

 

[Pete999]

it looks like it's making a come back. . . but it's now like a wimpy version of 2391

It wasn't wimpy when I took it twice and passed both times, took it twice because the firm paid for it and I fancied a few days off site, anyone got a problem with that? good.

 

[Andy78]

Yes, I have heard the new 2391 will be even more lenient than the current 2394/5, going to the open book approach for exams.

The official spiel is that the 2391 is being brought back due to demand from industry for the old qualification. In reality it gives them a chance to rebrand the qual to 2391 in name whilst making the exam open book in an attempt to stop EAL taking their custom due to the easier pass.

 

[ruston]

What a retrograde step that is.

 

[Andy78]

What a retrograde step that is.

I'm not 100% on that but pretty certain that the info is right.

Maybe any forum sponsor training providers can help out with info ?

 

[Joshua]

It wasn't wimpy when I took it twice and passed both times, took it twice because the firm paid for it and I fancied a few days off site, anyone got a problem with that? good.

oh the original 2391 that you took is the proper qualification and you're worth your weight in gold if you pass it.

I'm saying that this new 2391 isn't going so be the same as the old, a 2391 Lite if you like

 

[Prat P]

It wasn't wimpy when I took it twice and passed both times, took it twice because the firm paid for it and I fancied a few days off site, anyone got a problem with that? good.

When you go on holiday...
Do you read bs7671 on the beach???

 

[Mr.Smith]

Can anyone actually confirm that the old 2391 was discontinued because it was too difficult.
I thought it was incredibly difficult but wasn't that the whole point?
Our trade isn't easy so why try to make it so?

 

[Pete999]

When you go on holiday...
Do you read bs7671 on the beach???

No mate the story line get a bit confusing

 

[Richard Burns]

Can anyone actually confirm that the old 2391 was discontinued because it was too difficult.
I thought it was incredibly difficult but wasn't that the whole point?
Our trade isn't easy so why try to make it so?

C&G would never confirm that they removed it because of the level of difficulty.
However since the pass rate was very low for some years I do not think that would be the sole reason. Probably it was the competition introducing an easier exam, however this is also speculation.

 

[Prat P]

Can anyone actually confirm that the old 2391 was discontinued because it was too difficult.
I thought it was incredibly difficult but wasn't that the whole point?
Our trade isn't easy so why try to make it so?

the only ones who say the old 2391 wasn't that difficult are those who never managed to pass it. It was not for part time study and you had to know guidance note 3 word for word

 

[Andy78]

Can anyone actually confirm that the old 2391 was discontinued because it was too difficult.
I thought it was incredibly difficult but wasn't that the whole point?
Our trade isn't easy so why try to make it so?

I think the official reason was that with the rise of the domestic installer, the market demanded a qualification split as a lot would never need the periodic inspection element of the 2391.
So basically, yeah it became easier to pass just the initial verification part.

 

[The Ghost]

To confirm and quash all rumours I have it on good authority. The C&G 2391 original had a 70% failure rate generally in colleges. This made colleges look very bad. They dealt with this by breaking the course down into parts. And moved over to the EAL version of 2394/5 (open book) The result of this cunning plan is that colleges now had a 70% pass rate and looked good. However canny employers knew, the C&G version was the one to look for in people having the 2391 2394/5. Now I know some people are going to get cross about this as they did the EAL, but it is just a fact of life, don't shoot the messenger. BTW C&G me.

 

[Prat P]

To confirm and quash all rumours I have it on good authority. The C&G 2391 original had a 70% failure rate generally in colleges. This made colleges look very bad. They dealt with this by breaking the course down into parts. And moved over to the EAL version of 2394/5 (open book) The result of this cunning plan is that colleges now had a 70% pass rate and looked good. However canny employers knew, the C&G version was the one to look for in people having the 2391 2394/5. Now I know some people are going to get cross about this as they did the EAL, but it is just a fact of life, don't shoot the messenger. BTW C&G me.

Totally correct and it winds some people up a lot but the he fact is,many good electricians couldn't pass the 2391 after trying 4 or more times . Plus when the exam was split into 3 seperate parts that = more money for the exam providers