course code changed

[atm84]

Hi guys been off the tools for a while. I'm a qualified spark with the 2391 inspection and testing qualification. Just wondering what the new code for the inspection and testing was? I'm wanting to do a refresher but I believe the city and guilds course code has now changed.

 

[telectrix]

2394 initial verification.. 2395 periodics. but with 2391, you don't need these.

 

[atm84]

Cheers. Yeah I understand that but was thinking of doing the 2394 as a refresher. Not done any inspection and testing since 2010.

 

[uksparks]

That's not really a long time ago, just have a read through GN3. If you knew it then you you 'should' know it now.

 

[iamelectric]

you would be wasting a grand

 

[atm84]

Thought it was only about £500

 

[telectrix]

each. 2391 has been split into the 2 courses, 2394 and 2395.

 

[guest119]

What about if you fail the exam? :blush5:

Boydy

 

[Engineer54]

Look at you're old course work, if you if you have that much of a short memory, it needs refreshing!! lol!!

 

[brucelee]

just do what you did to pass 2391
study , study and study some more as others have said above its a waste of your money

 

[atm84]

I'm confident I won't fail. I'm well clever me. Haha. Thinking about it. I prob wont do it. Ill just have a look through GN3.

Just wondered what prospective employers would want though. Would they be happy with the 2391 or would they want someone with the 2394 and 2395?

 

[danzor]

2391 shows that you have been a spark longer

 

[Engineer54]

I'm confident I won't fail. I'm well clever me. Haha. Thinking about it. I prob wont do it. Ill just have a look through GN3.

Just wondered what prospective employers would want though. Would they be happy with the 2391 or would they want someone with the 2394 and 2395?

Unfortunately the trend with all C&G's these days is for replacement qualification levels to lower rather than be heightened. The C&G institute is also on the money train like many other establishments that were once known for excellence. It makes more financial sense to split a perfectly acceptable and sort after qualification, into a new qualification 2394-2395 and charge almost double the price for what is a watered down version of 2391.


So wear your 2391 with pride, because if anything employers will be preferring to see 2391 over the new!!

 

[atm84]

Ok cheers guys. Ill stick with the 2391 and save some £££££. Has anyone done the design course. Don't know the new number but it used to be the 2392-20 design and verification course. It was then a NVQ level 3. I believe that the new version is an NVQ level 4. Does anyone know the C & G number and done the course?

 

[ImpededLoop]

I'm confident I won't fail. I'm well clever me. Haha. Thinking about it. I prob wont do it. Ill just have a look through GN3.

Just wondered what prospective employers would want though. Would they be happy with the 2391 or would they want someone with the 2394 and 2395?

Unfortunately the trend with all C&G's these days is for replacement qualification levels to lower rather than be heightened. The C&G institute is also on the money train like many other establishments that were once known for excellence. It makes more financial sense to split a perfectly acceptable and sort after qualification, into a new qualification 2394-2395 and charge almost double the price for what is a watered down version of 2391.


So wear your 2391 with pride, because if anything employers will be preferring to see 2391 over the new!!

Having done the 2391-10 and both 2394/5, I would say that the 2394/5 is more difficult. There's 2 three hour written exams plus two practicals, one as an EIC and the other as an EICR with faults that you have to identify. If you do both the 2394 and 5 it is certainly not a watered down version of the 2391. The content is the same and the assessment is doubled.

It is however true that you have to pay for two courses where one used to cover all. Some places teach both together and give a discount.

I did the 2396 earlier this year and it's an excellent course. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to get a good knowledge of 7671 and design. The project that they set really gets you thinking.

 

[guest119]

My 2391 is from 1997 and has no expiry date on it!

Boydy

 

[atm84]

Cheers impeded. Some useful info you have given. Can I ask why you did the 2394/5 when you already had the 2391? Was it a personal choice or did someone ask you to do it.?

 

[Engineer54]

Having done the 2391-10 and both 2394/5, I would say that the 2394/5 is more difficult. There's 2 three hour written exams plus two practicals, one as an EIC and the other as an EICR with faults that you have to identify. If you do both the 2394 and 5 it is certainly not a watered down version of the 2391. The content is the same and the assessment is doubled.

It is however true that you have to pay for two courses where one used to cover all. Some places teach both together and give a discount.

I did the 2396 earlier this year and it's an excellent course. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to get a good knowledge of 7671 and design. The project that they set really gets you thinking.

If that's the case, it will be the first time in twenty to thirty years that an electrical replacement qualification course from the C&G institute has remained at it's predecessors level, none have ever been harder passes!! Surely, when taking the 2391 Written exams, you had to answer questions on both the contents of which is now 94/95, ....Splitting the units into two has to make things easier for the student to study and remember!!


I'm just dying to hear the reason why you found it necessary to attend a course that you supposedly already hold the equivalent too, and pay almost twice as much again for the privilege of doing so?? That's going to be a cracker!! lol!!

 

[wackyracer]

Surely, when taking the 2391 Written exams, you had to answer questions on both the contents of which is now 94/95, ....Splitting the units into two has to make things easier for the student to study and remember!!/QUOTE]
I would tend to agree with you, it enables the student to 'swot up' on the two different areas at different times.

Having done the 2391-10 and both 2394/5, I would say that the 2394/5 is more difficult./QUOTE]
In reply to Engineer54's post above he never actually says he passed either of them.:smile5:

 

[Engineer54]

=wackyracer;880564]

Surely, when taking the 2391 Written exams, you had to answer questions on both the contents of which is now 94/95, ....Splitting the units into two has to make things easier for the student to study and remember!!
I would tend to agree with you, it enables the student to 'swot up' on the two different areas at different times

Having done the 2391-10 and both 2394/5, I would say that the 2394/5 is more difficult.

In reply to Engineer54's post above he never actually says he passed either of them.:smile5:

Very true, in which case both would be just as hard/difficult and quite expensive too, with nothing to show for it at the end!! lol!! :smile5:

 

[ImpededLoop]

Cheers impeded. Some useful info you have given. Can I ask why you did the 2394/5 when you already had the 2391? Was it a personal choice or did someone ask you to do it.?

It was personal choice. I did the 2391-10 in 2006 and the 2394/5 last year. I hadn't needed to do much testing work since I took the 2391 as I've been office based since then. My employer has a policy of offering ongoing training, so I asked to do the 2394/5 & 2396. As I hadn't done any expensive courses since 2006, he said yes.

I passed the 2391 and the 2394/5 & 2396. All were good courses & you always learn something.

The 2394/95 exams were taken one week apart. Obviously you can revise a bit more specifically, but you have to do six hours of exams instead of three.

Anyway, each to their own! I was lucky to have the opportunity to do the 2394/5 and I feel I gained knowledge through doing so.

 

[ian.settle1]

From what I can gather from the examiers report the pass rate for 2394 is around 70% but for the 2395 it is still around the same as the old 2391 30% or less.