Do you not feel that the term Electrical Trainee is derogatory

[MDJ]

It comes down to the fact a lot of the trade has been broken up into different sections now. Most of us over the age of 30 were trained to do everything, commercial, industrial and domestic plus testing and installing fire alarms, door access etc etc, we were not specialists in it all but had training in it all, and back then firms did all types of work unlike today. The trade now is different, it has been broken up into sections, Specialist companies are now installing alarms, fire alarms, data, door access, etc etc. And now the trade has been broken up again to Itemise Domestic only as a skill. There are reasons for this last part being broken up, it is political IMO but I won't go there in this post, it has happened. The question now is does a 5 week course have enough time and skill level in it to allow a man or woman off the street with no knowlege to train in this 5 week period to enter peoples homes and carry out work to a safe standard? If someone who has never been on site before walks into a college and takes the 5 week course, gets the 2382 and the part P multi choice exam under their belts then goes into a home after paying a scam 500 notes, are they competant. A lot of us including the panel of MPs think Not, the MPs themselves call these short course trainees Electrical Trainee themselves, so I it difficult to know what else to call them.

One suggestion would be to issue a card saying Domestic short course Electrician on it or DSCE qualification. So we could have from the bottom up the following grades.

Trainee stage 1
Trainee stage 2
DSCE
Electrician
Approved Electrician
Installation Technician
Site Technician
Engineer

This is just an example and could be debated all day, but it may shut the Electrical Trainee brigade up and give them something to keep in their wallets to prove competance. The card being issued though IMO would only be given out after 1 year of being in a scam and after a minimum of 5 completed Jobs looked at properly and all certification and test results examined alongside the whole of the 5 installations. If that were met then the DSCE card issued. Who knows the new card owner may want to try to become a Qualified electrician afterwards, it may give them an insentive. Now I know this post may seem insulting to some, it is not meant to be, that I promise, it is a compromise opinion on how to accept these 5 week courses and how to allow the course takers some dignity and respect, JMO, please feel free to rip this to shreads, I doony care, just a view.

 

[MDJ]

I think actually the trainee stage 2 should be level with DSCE, because if he or she took the 17th multi choice exam they would be as qualified easily.

 

[brman]

I sort of agree with what is being said but coming back to original question I still think the term Electrical Trainee is counter productive.
Like has been said, if you are using it identify someone who is incompetent then why not just call them incompetent? If you agree that some that have done the short course are good electricians then why imply they are some sort of lesser electrician just because of their route into the industry.

So, coming back to MJDs post, I don't see any point in the DSCE tag. Depending on how you look at it you are either saying that someone who has done a short course is automatically a lesser electrician or, on the other hand you are somehow saying that a short course has merit in its own right to elevate someone above a trainee. Neither is right!

I feel strongly that we have to accept the industry has changed and there are now many ways of become a good, competent electrician. Also that "electrican" can mean different things to different people (as it has always done...).
So lets stop getting hung up on which course or training route someone has taken and start concentrating on whether they are competent or not.

This takes me to the real problem - it is clear the schemes don't do a good enough job of policing competence levels. The apparent "2382 and you are in" attitude from the schemes is what has driven colleges to sell their courses in the way they do now.
I believe it comes back to the schemes to show they really do police bad practice, both by a more rigorous assessment of the contractors they accept on their schemes and kicking out (or seriously coaching) incompentent contractors. That, plus ensuring a QS has to actually supervise ALL work he is signing off (rather than sitting in the office signing bits of paper) would go a long way to improving standards in the industry.

 

[Guest111]

There are a lot of good points raised in this debate,well here's my view years ago when you did a proper apprenticeship you sat your exam and either passed or failed,if you failed you had to go back and start again.now with NVQ it's all modules,so fail one part and just redo it from an older sparks point of view it's like being able to have more than one bite at the cherry.in the right situation for the right person a fast track course can be okay,say for instance when someone has worked alongside an electrician for years but not sat any formal exams.however I dislike the term domestic installer as it would appear to me to indicate that domestic electrics are easier and safer than commercial or industrial work.get any of them wrong and you could have a fatality on your hands as has been seen before.In my opinion a lot of the time it's the training provider who is at fault,I 've seen first hand the way some of them spoon feed you the answers to the questions,I sat one course and at least a third of the candidates that passed should not have done so.Someone made a comparison to doctors or police early one in the post,well your Gp is trained in the basics of all things related to the human body and then undergoes further training to become a specialist in a given field say orthopaedics or gynaecology,which takes more years of training this doesn't mean that an orthopaedic consultant will be any better at treating you for a chest complaint than your gp would,however develop a bad knee or elbow and it's the orthopaedic specialist every time.I think there needs to be a better training regime for electricians in general and if there are to be fast track courses then there should be a set criteria for who can attend,say an entrance exam to prove that you have a decent level of knowledge to enable you to not only complete the course but also to carry out ANY electrical work safely.However this is unlikely to happen in the current situation,people in general seem quite content for the system to churn out literally hundreds of these often poorly trained electricians,DI's Electrical Trainee or whatever else you like to call them until something goes wrong and then they play merry hell.In my opinion a lot of the responsibility for this lies firmly at the door of the government and the so called professional bodies that represent our industry,It's not constant changes of the regs or the likes of part P that are needed but a decent training regime that ensures that only people who will ultimately perform their duties with due care and diligence and are properly trained are allowed to practice what can be a highly dangerous trade

 

[NickD]

"Trainee stage 1
Trainee stage 2
DSCE
Electrician
Approved Electrician
Installation Technician
Site Technician
Engineer"

What would earn you the title Engineer? This is a sore point among engineers. ("Sorry, chicken soup machine is out of order. Engineer has been called.") Engineer is not a protected title in the UK. There was a move on by the Engineering Council to protect it for only those who had relevant degree, Chartered Engineer and full corporate membership of relevant Institution, in this case IET. Is that what you'd go with?

 

[Badged01]

Perhaps the top title should be "chartered engineer" rather than just "engineer"? The chartered engineer is certainly a highly qualified, respected and 'protected' by civil law -- no one can use the title as they feel fit, unlike many electrical name groups.

The chartered engineering status is only granted to that select group of people degree qualified and with demonstrable professional engineering competencies born out through training and experience ..... :wink_smile:

 

[Badged01]

...... hang on, isnt that what all this JIB malarky is meant to do for the electrical profession?!?!?

 

[MDJ]

"Trainee stage 1
Trainee stage 2
DSCE
Electrician
Approved Electrician
Installation Technician
Site Technician
Engineer"

What would earn you the title Engineer? This is a sore point among engineers. ("Sorry, chicken soup machine is out of order. Engineer has been called.") Engineer is not a protected title in the UK. There was a move on by the Engineering Council to protect it for only those who had relevant degree, Chartered Engineer and full corporate membership of relevant Institution, in this case IET. Is that what you'd go with?

I didn't feel the need to go into engineer' it was just a hypothetical grading system' I mean chartered not a someone who repairs coffee machines

 

[MDJ]

I sort of agree with what is being said but coming back to original question I still think the term Electrical Trainee is counter productive.
Like has been said, if you are using it identify someone who is incompetent then why not just call them incompetent? If you agree that some that have done the short course are good electricians then why imply they are some sort of lesser electrician just because of their route into the industry.

So, coming back to MJDs post, I don't see any point in the DSCE tag. Depending on how you look at it you are either saying that someone who has done a short course is automatically a lesser electrician or, on the other hand you are somehow saying that a short course has merit in its own right to elevate someone above a trainee. Neither is right!

I feel strongly that we have to accept the industry has changed and there are now many ways of become a good, competent electrician. Also that "electrican" can mean different things to different people (as it has always done...).
So lets stop getting hung up on which course or training route someone has taken and start concentrating on whether they are competent or not.

This takes me to the real problem - it is clear the schemes don't do a good enough job of policing competence levels. The apparent "2382 and you are in" attitude from the schemes is what has driven colleges to sell their courses in the way they do now.
I believe it comes back to the schemes to show they really do police bad practice, both by a more rigorous assessment of the contractors they accept on their schemes and kicking out (or seriously coaching) incompentent contractors. That, plus ensuring a QS has to actually supervise ALL work he is signing off (rather than sitting in the office signing bits of paper) would go a long way to improving standards in the industry.

I don't think a Electrical Trainee is the same as a time served electrician who spends 3-4 years on site and college and neither do the MPs obviously' they are a different grade IMO' they can't go onto a commercial or industrial site can they? Any how just a view in a friendly debate

 

[NickD]

I didn't feel the need to go into engineer' it was just a hypothetical grading system' I mean chartered not a someone who repairs coffee machines

OK. I was just a bit amused that the only two on the list I appear to qualify for are DCSE "five week wonder", and Engineer.

 

[MDJ]

OK. I was just a bit amused that the only two on the list I appear to qualify for are DCSE "five week wonder", and Engineer.

It was hypothetical' engineer is a completely different direction regarding hands on' they run and design projects and would be the top grade' my post was just an idea to get some chat going about a grade for Electrical Trainee so they have a title' and electrician would not be one IMO,tin hat on lol

 

[NickD]

It was hypothetical' engineer is a completely different direction regarding hands on' they run and design projects and would be the top grade' my post was just an idea to get some chat going about a grade for Electrical Trainee so they have a title' and electrician would not be one IMO,tin hat on lol

Fair enough. But this does illustrate the problem with labels, especially ones which belittle people which some (not you) seem happy to bandy about.

Maybe we need a new CU label.

WARNING. This installation contains mixed engineering including black/red installed by a 30yr experienced sparky and blue/brown installed by a bin man who did a five week course. Proceed with extreme caution.

 

[MDJ]

Fair enough. But this does illustrate the problem with labels, especially ones which belittle people which some (not you) seem happy to bandy about.

Maybe we need a new CU label.

WARNING. This installation contains mixed engineering including black/red installed by a 30yr experienced sparky and blue/brown installed by a bin man who did a five week course. Proceed with extreme caution.

When we did our time we had to work under supervision even after qualifying for 2 years before getting our approved which meant we could work alone' so my view about a DSCE card for a year until 5 jobs have been inspected may not be so daft as it seems' why should 5week course people be aloud to work straight away without supervision when we had to do a 5 year apprenticeship and then 2 before being let loose on the public' it all about me me me and stop branding me a Electrical Trainee' there needs to be a minimum standard' 5 weeks won't cut it

 

[NickD]

When we did our time we had to work under supervision even after qualifying for 2 years before getting our approved which meant we could work alone' so my view about a DSCE card for a year until 5 jobs have been inspected may not be so daft as it seems' why should 5week course people be aloud to work straight away without supervision when we had to do a 5 year apprenticeship and then 2 before being let loose on the public' it all about me me me and stop branding me a Electrical Trainee' there needs to be a minimum standard' 5 weeks won't cut it

But then as I understand it this is the kind of direction they've headed in with the change to the Electrotechnical Assessement Specification. Don't you have to show a two year portfolio now or something before you can be QS? Which if you're a one man band means you can't even start up without said portfolio.

 

[NickD]

Although that's irrelevant if you're going to work unregistered of course.

 

[brman]

When we did our time we had to work under supervision even after qualifying for 2 years before getting our approved which meant we could work alone' so my view about a DSCE card for a year until 5 jobs have been inspected may not be so daft as it seems' why should 5week course people be aloud to work straight away without supervision when we had to do a 5 year apprenticeship and then 2 before being let loose on the public' it all about me me me and stop branding me a Electrical Trainee' there needs to be a minimum standard' 5 weeks won't cut it

I absolutely agree that 5 weeks on its own is laughable. You could spend 5 years in a classroom and it still would not cut it without hands on experience, no different to any other form of engineering.

So, if we agree that it is unlikely we will go back to the days of everyone doing apprentiships etc (was it really ever like that?) how do we ensure that the classroom is backed up with real experience and competence?
Is the schemes having a much more rigorous entry process (2 years portfolio etc) going to work?

 

[MDJ]

I absolutely agree that 5 weeks on its own is laughable. You could spend 5 years in a classroom and it still would not cut it without hands on experience, no different to any other form of engineering.

So, if we agree that it is unlikely we will go back to the days of everyone doing apprentiships etc (was it really ever like that?) how do we ensure that the classroom is backed up with real experience and competence?
Is the schemes having a much more rigorous entry process (2 years portfolio etc) going to work?

Some very good points raised by yourself and Nick which is good reading and very good debating, to add my 2 pence worth into the highlighed bit of your post Brman, yes it was a bit like that. I am aware apprenticeships have changed and probably in some cases for the better, don't think I am in any way rubbishing todays apprentices, I am not, honestly, were talking about 5 week courses just to clarify. When I took my apprenticeship we did what was called Block release back then. We did 6 weeks at tech then 6 weeks at work on site, then 6 weeks at tech and 6 weeks again on site and so on and so on with the exception of a 8 or 9 week on site only period during the summer holidays. This went on for 3 and a half years and then most of the class went into a 4th for the C Certificate and some went to work. The guys who did the C did the next year on one day a week at college with a lot of homeworking and 4 days a week on site and those who didn't did another 12 months on site only. Then after 4 and a half years both sets of apprentices got their JIB diplomas and their Electricians Grade card. That was great for us all we were very proud and although Electricians we had to work under the supervision of an Approved Electrician or a site forman for 2 years before getting our Approved status. Back then it meant we could get drawings and specs from the company office and travel to site ourselves without any supervision running the Job and having Electricians train under us, they were called Approvers. Usually but not always Electricians were 23 years old before being let loose without supervision on the public. That is how it was, Now okay as I mentioned in my earlier post times have changed and the trade has been broken up. So I can understandtraining time will not be near 7 years like it was before working alone acceptable, 3-4 years now is the norm and understandable. The exams are probably as tough if not tougher than before perhaps and time on site over 3-4 years.

Taking all that into consideration the 5 weeks in a college without site experience is laughable indeed. My idea about a DSCE card should be issued and treated as an improver was in my day. Supervision on site to be again a priority. My idea of 5 completed Jobs for the 5 week course guy or gal before being allowed to work alone is not unrealistic at all IMO, and a compromise the MPs may have to consider. At this present time due to a lot of confusion from many people it seems a short course, the 17th and a pat testing course as well as a part p chat enough to be considered competant. Lets get real and try to get some valuble on site time under supervision back before the schemes are allowed to take 500 sobs in a brown envelope and allow the person to enter someones home.

Finally I admit as will anyone if they are sensible times have changed and we will never get back to the olden times and probably good in a way for some not all, and we are where we are and thats that. The question now is what do we all consider the minimum requirement should be for a pat on the back regarding competance? and Damien Skelton ran a poll a few weeks back with what this forum thought. Unfortunately I have not got the time to look for it, but getting that added into this thread may help the debate even more.

 

[pepparz]

Fair enough. But this does illustrate the problem with labels, especially ones which belittle people which some (not you) seem happy to bandy about.

Maybe we need a new CU label.

WARNING. This installation contains mixed engineering including black/red installed by a 30yr experienced sparky and blue/brown installed by a bin man who did a five week course. Proceed with extreme caution.

i cant see the problem with sarcastic derodatory terms if there deserved,it's probably healthy in the long run if its not taken to extremes. nowadays you get kids in school going up to teachers saying "miss miss that person over there's hurt my feelings, cos they called me a name, now i'm all upset" its time people grew some balls and if there getting ripped give it back!

 

[Chrisuk]

Re: Cannot get RCD test to work?

I think it's unfortunate that it labels everyone who's done the short-route-to-full-scope-Part-P type courses with the same brush. I think there are probably many Electrical Trainee's who do a good job working competently within the scope of their competence, and others who don't even have any competence to work within. Just as I'm sure there are both excellent and completely useless time served electricians. Just because you've got twenty years on the insulated screwdrivers man and boy, doesn't mean you've been holding the right end. ;-)

(Sorry Marvo, only just saw the tail end of your last post, apologies.)

It is unfortunate that Electrical Trainee short course ppl are said to not have what it takes regards vs someone that studied for at least 4yrs, like I'm doing, I think some will be good but I personally think if it was a percentage, the ones that have no clue would be a much higher percentage, it's not possible to learn the 4yrs in 5 weeks, I am referring to ppl doing the course with no previous experience
That's just my opinion

 

[pepparz]

Re: Cannot get RCD test to work?

It is unfortunate that Electrical Trainee short course ppl are said to not have what it takes regards vs someone that studied for at least 4yrs, like I'm doing, I think some will be good but I personally think if it was a percentage, the ones that have no clue would be a much higher percentage, it's not possible to learn the 4yrs in 5 weeks, I am referring to ppl doing the course with no previous experience
That's just my opinion

bit of a contradiction that isnt it?