2391

[pcam1984]

Do any of you know if the 2391 course is available anywhere. I know its been replaced with the 2395 but i've geard that its a dumbed down version. Most companies are still advertising for 2391.

 

[MDJ]

what annoys me is the fact that i studied for four months solid to do the 94-95 , then you get dummies going to the select/ nic 1 day course where everyone passes no matter how bad you are , and then companies advertise that you have to be with select / nic to do their testing

I don't agree with that, the 94-95 has merit without doubt, any employer suggesting a days course with the NICEIC is equal is either a liar or bonkers, who are these companies who suggest such things?

 

[Engineer54]

I just have to laugh at threads like this!

All who know me know my feelings on the differences between the 2391 and 2394/95. What I find funny is the sheer pompous drivvel spouted by a bunch of sad old gits who are just bitter that things are changing.

There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that the new T&I quals are dumbed down, every person I have spoken to who has done both (and I know quite a few) has said quite the opposite. The only people who argue the ---- are those who hold the 2391 and have some sort of irrational fear that the new 2394/95 may one day be regarded higher and therefore try their hardest to put down the new 2394/95 at every turn.

Well all I can say is that neither one is better or worse than the other! Neither one will be held in higher regard in ten years time! There is no bloody difference between them academically, only the fact that the old 2391 was far better value for money!

I won't be getting drawn into debate again on this subject, the fact is that they are worth exactly the same and anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their rear end!

I'm no sad old git as you are fond of describing me, and as far as i'm concerned the jury is still out on whether they are as equal as they are made out to be. Just the fact they are now split and students can concentrate on one exam, and then the other, rather than sitting a one off exam, says to me there is a distinct advantage of passing, over the 2391.

But as i say the jury is out. I'm NOT saying that the 2394/5 isn't worth anything, as clearly it is and is still a meaningful qualification and well worth having under your belt....

 

[Badged01]

I'm no sad old git as you are fond of describing me....

Thats what us old ones have to put up with being called these days. The youth of society have no respect for their elders and betters anymore .... :smile5:

 

[Farmelectrics]

and no respect for the 2391 either lol

 

[MDJ]

I have noticed Skelton is getting his knickers in a twist a bit lately about anyone having a go at the Electrical Trainee or anyone suggesting the exams today are easier than they used to be, in fact he is getting quite loud regarding older members here who like to have a moan, I understand his frustration regarding the exams, they are the same really except they have different numbers, but going at the older members about it a bit silly, the younger generation like to argue lmao. He needs to start to laugh again and remember most of it is in jest, jeez these youngsters lol,and to think he was our hero a few weeks ago, Damien take a chill pill.

 

[trev]

Don't be so cynical Trev

It's a Geordie trait mate. Sorry

 

[D Skelton]

I have noticed Skelton is getting his knickers in a twist a bit lately about anyone having a go at the Electrical Trainee or anyone suggesting the exams today are easier than they used to be, in fact he is getting quite loud regarding older members here who like to have a moan, I understand his frustration regarding the exams, they are the same really except they have different numbers, but going at the older members about it a bit silly, the younger generation like to argue lmao. He needs to start to laugh again and remember most of it is in jest, jeez these youngsters lol,and to think he was our hero a few weeks ago, Damien take a chill pill.

I'm chilled mate

I just don't like seeing perfectly good quals getting bashed for no good reason! Funny how some who are all too happy to bash the new T&I quals have nothing at all to say regarding the wider Part P debate??

Pick your battles is my message! We should all be supporting sparks who want to go out and get real qualifications such as the 2391/94/95 and venting our frustrations at those who peddle useless quals. Not getting our knickers in a twist over a number change which is really quite meaningless.

I'm not having a go at older sparks in general, it just seems that all those who love to make wild and unfounded assumptions about the new T&I quals are those of the wrinkled type who hold the 2391!

I totally get the debate surrounding falling education standards as a whole, I also agree wholeheartedly with it, but it does not apply 100% of the time. The reason for the number change was money related IMHO, that is all, and being one who is fortunate enough to have sat both the old and new, I like to think I have a bit more knowledge of the subject than those who have never even cast their eyes over a 2395 paper but like to rubbish it none the less.

I dunno where you get the idea that I've been sticking up for 5WWs as of late though?!? That aint true one bit!

I'm still fighting the good fight mate, a lot of it in the background. Done two interviews this week for electrical mags who are running articles on the latest select committee report. Safe to say my information opened their eyes to what was once hidden from public view! They were shocked to say the least at the sheer level of corruption running rife amongst the top brass!

 

[Andy78]

I have noticed Skelton is getting his knickers in a twist a bit lately about anyone having a go at the Electrical Trainee or anyone suggesting the exams today are easier than they used to be, in fact he is getting quite loud regarding older members here who like to have a moan, I understand his frustration regarding the exams, they are the same really except they have different numbers, but going at the older members about it a bit silly, the younger generation like to argue lmao. He needs to start to laugh again and remember most of it is in jest, jeez these youngsters lol,and to think he was our hero a few weeks ago, Damien take a chill pill.

I think for every "wrinkled old sod/moaning old fogies/mithering stick in the mud" comment on this forum, there are at least 3 "bloody young un's/don't know they're born/not in my day/during the war" type comments.

Just in the sake of fairness you understand. Not getting dragged into this for a minute, lol. I've seen the way it can end up.

 

[vernam616]

Someone needs to jump off that high horse, i made my feelings clear about the 2394/2395, even reading cheif examiners reports shows the pass rate to be higher thus meaning the qualification is easier, i also have a good friend who TEACHS this in the local college and agrees that the 2391 was more difficult.

It may show that i do hold the 2391 and i worked bloody hard to pass it first time, oh and im hardly old at 28yrs !

 

[Jay Sparks]

I also hold the 2391 and I passed it first time. I revised just as hard as I did for all my exams to become a sparky! I have seen some of the papers for the new 94/95 qual and the only difference I can see is when you took the 2391, you had to read the scenario/question properly. You had to make sure if the question/scenario was asking about a new install or an existing one! For example...if the question asked about the sequence of test on an existing install, then initial verification wouldn't come into it.

But the with the new qual, you know what installs you are covering....i.e 94 is new installs and 95 is existing installs so you know what to revise for each, respectively. Now I haven't seen enough of either paper to say which is harder.....but then again, with a bit of revision, I didn't find the 2391 that hard. But thats just me.lol

I will reserve judgement on which is better than which, until I have taken the new one(s).....but then I will have been in this trade longer, so it may turn out to be easier anyway!!! Just a thought!

Jay

P.S. In am also only 36...so still very young....IMO!!!!!lol

 

[GLENNSPARK]

It was a 50% pass rate roughly were I am

yes and just about everywhere else as well..... because those that had been deemed `suitable` to deliver the course by C&G suddenly realised `hey, we can make some dough here....lets just let anybody & everybody on the course`....regardless of whether...or not they actually had any real chance of passing it...at that particular point in their development...

 

[D Skelton]

even reading cheif examiners reports shows the pass rate to be higher thus meaning the qualification is easier

Nonsense!

Evidence please for such a false statement?

 

[GLENNSPARK]

I also hold the 2391 and I passed it first time. I revised just as hard as I did for all my exams to become a sparky! I have seen some of the papers for the new 94/95 qual and the only difference I can see is when you took the 2391, you had to read the scenario/question properly. You had to make sure if the question/scenario was asking about a new install or an existing one! For example...if the question asked about the sequence of test on an existing install, then initial verification wouldn't come into it.

But the with the new qual, you know what installs you are covering....i.e 94 is new installs and 95 is existing installs so you know what to revise for each, respectively. Now I haven't seen enough of either paper to say which is harder.....but then again, with a bit of revision, I didn't find the 2391 that hard. But thats just me.lol

I will reserve judgement on which is better than which, until I have taken the new one(s).....but then I will have been in this trade longer, so it may turn out to be easier anyway!!! Just a thought!

Jay

P.S. In am also only 36...so still very young....IMO!!!!!lol

but jamie...

if you look at some of the chief examiners reports for that exam it was clear early on that there were persistant problems with such basics as terminology...usually worth 1 mark out of a 3 mark question..

again when we came to earth paths the same issue reared its head...basic fundemental lack of understanding...

so many times an insulation resistance tester was refered to as `megger`...further more an instrument used to carry out (R1 R2) was put down as a `continuity tester`

in fact on the subject of (R1 R2) it was often refered to as r1 r2...and so the candidate didn`t get the mark..

other things were basic lack of understanding of how to carry out continuity of a ring final circuit...and the values of (R1 R2) expected when dealing with lets say a ring final in 2.5/1.5 flat twin when the values of r1, r2 & rn had been given...

applying the 0.8 correction factor to a measured value of Zs was another classic...

 

[Engineer54]

I will reserve judgement on which is better than which, until I have taken the new one(s).....but then I will have been in this trade longer, so it may turn out to be easier anyway!!! Just a thought!

Why would you take the 2394/5 if you hold 2391?? Can't get my head around these people's need to basically retake an exam that they already hold, rather than moving forward, taking a course for a qualification that they Don't hold??

 

[Jay Sparks]

Why would you take the 2394/5 if you hold 2391?? Can't get my head around these people's need to basically retake an exam that they already hold, rather than moving forward, taking a course for a qualification that they Don't hold??

Whilst I totally agree about taking an exam that I already hold an equivalent to......I may need too!! I don't need too and can't afford too take this new qual but I may need to do it at some point in my career. But until I have done both.....I cant say which is harder.

A bit like the driving test. Back in my day (old git syndrome), you did your test then was asked about the high way code after. Then you passed or failed!! Now you need to pass a theory test before you can do your driving test.

So does that mean its harder to pass your test nowadays or back then???

Jay

 

[Jay Sparks]

but jamie...

if you look at some of the chief examiners reports for that exam it was clear early on that there were persistant problems with such basics as terminology...usually worth 1 mark out of a 3 mark question..

again when we came to earth paths the same issue reared its head...basic fundemental lack of understanding...

so many times an insulation resistance tester was refered to as `megger`...further more an instrument used to carry out (R1 R2) was put down as a `continuity tester`

in fact on the subject of (R1 R2) it was often refered to as r1 r2...and so the candidate didn`t get the mark..

other things were basic lack of understanding of how to carry out continuity of a ring final circuit...and the values of (R1 R2) expected when dealing with lets say a ring final in 2.5/1.5 flat twin when the values of r1, r2 & rn had been given...

applying the 0.8 correction factor to a measured value of Zs was another classic...

But these sort of questions may be asked in the new qual(s)....I don't know. But if they are...it would still require the same answer surely?? Like I said, in the old 2391, there were questions that would try and trip you up on the type of install. But the questions in the new qual may have equally difficult questions....I just don't know enough to say either way..YET!!

 

[Silly Sausage]

I will reserve judgement on which is better than which, until I have taken the new one(s).....but then I will have been in this trade longer, so it may turn out to be easier anyway!!! Just a thought!

They always are!
Things that seemed mind bogglingly hard on first encounter, a few years down the line, you think to yourself what was the problem!!! I've been there.

 

[Engineer54]

So using the same argument, you may need to resit the equivalent of your existing 236/2360/2330, which makes no sense whatsoever..


Same as your driving test, you won't be asked to resit that test either, ...not unless you've been a very bad boy, and the judge has ordered you too re-sit your driving test, before you're allowed back on the road (unaccompanied) !! lol!!

 

[Jay Sparks]

So using the same argument, you may need to resit the equivalent of your existing 236/2360/2330, which makes no sense whatsoever..


Same as your driving test, you won't be asked to resit that test either, ...not unless you've been a very bad boy, and the judge has ordered you too re-sit your driving test, before you're allowed back on the road (unaccompanied) !! lol!!

I may have been a very bad BOY!!!!lol
But the 2330 has been replaced by the 2365...I think!
But you are correct....I wouldn't take this qual again unless I NEEDED it to further my career.

BTW, when I achieved the 2391 I was buzzing my t1ts off!!! This was the pinnical of being a sparky from what I was told. And when I speak to others sparky's, this is the first qual I mention because it is held in such high regards. But things change and we have to move on. The 236 is still a high qual but its no longer available, I think the equivalent is the 2330 with the 2356.

Jay

 

[Anthony_wayne]

I completed a lot of old 2391 papers in preparation for my 94/95 and they seemed very very similar other than the obvious difference of knowing the setting ie periodic or initial. That was easy enough to work out in the older papers anyway if you read them properly. They certainly didn't seem any more difficult, all closed book and all need correct terminology and a bloody good understanding of the regs. In fact for the 94/95 may I say it could be classed as more difficult if only because you have two full closed book exams ) I sat both mine within 24 hrs of each other so not a lot of extra revision time either, oh and passed first time but that's due to good preparation and years on the job. Good luck to all who are thinking of doing the exams!