Why should a two day Pat course be a Level 3 qualification?

[oracle]

When you consider the route that an Electrician has to take to achieve a full level 2 and 3 including an NVQ over several years, how can a one or two days course with a short multi choice exam and a practice assessment testing a class 1 appliance also be considered a level 3 qualification?

 

[Andy78]

The regs exam is also a level 3.
There are different level 3s though. You get level 3 awards, level 3 certificates, and level 3 diplomas etc. they are all "worth" different amounts of points towards other qualifications.

That's the best I understand it, it's all very confusing if you're not in the business of training.

But all level 3s are not equal is what I'm saying. It just proves you have studied at a level 3 standard. Some courses have you studying lots of level 3 stuff, some just a few bits of level 3 stuff.

Hope my gibberings make some sense.

 

[oracle]

Seems a bit like George Orwell all level 3's are equal but some level 3's are more equal than others

 

[HandsOffEngineer]

I've just completed the 2377-22. I would recommend it, if you want to do PAT testing in some capacity.

I wouldn't say it's a true level 3 course; the difficulty level straddles levels 1 and 2. I would assume the reason C&G have it at level 3 is because it's a 'professional' course and - again here I guess/assume - when it was originally set up it was probably intended as a supplemental award for electricians and trainees/apprentices rather than ordinary Joe Public.

I wouldn't say the course is 'easy'. For me it was, and from the perspective of an electrician it will be, but it's not going to be easy for an ordinary person. The course is over two days and is a pretty even split between theory and practical. You learn about the machine testing and Code-compliant inspection and testing. There are several practical exercises, including inspection and testing of 'live' equipment in use by the public, and there's a practical assessment in which you demonstrate competence in what you have learned. There's also a lot of classroom-type theory and a formal City & Guilds theory exam/assessment that is taken online under strict exam conditions and must be passed.

You need the two days because it's quite intensive - you need to know how to test different classes of equipment competently and confidently, you need to know the Code of Practice in great detail, and you need to grasp basic electrical theory and some of the mathematics, including Ohm's law (as a background), the power formula and the resistance formulae.

The exam requires an 80% pass mark - which means you can't blag it, you have to revise and prepare, no matter how clever you are. Yes, it's an open book exam, but you can't be sat there like Mister Bean thumbing through the Code of Practice trying to find explanations of stuff, as you only have limited time. Bringing the Code into the exam is essential, but it only helps in the sense that it allows you to quickly double-check things and also quickly look-up, or double-check, the testing exceedances and cable standards, etc.

I didn't find it difficult. I got 94% and was finished within an hour - but I have electrical knowledge. Others struggled. Sensible people do fail it.

 

[Zdb]

The "Part P" (building regs) course is only one day and that's a Level 3.

 

[HandsOffEngineer]

The "Part P" (building regs) course is only one day and that's a Level 3.

Yes, and again it's a similar idea - aimed at electricians, and others who are on the qualification track, who have the background knowledge. That raises a question in my mind: I wonder if City & Guilds ought to be running two different "PAT testing" courses, similar to what I believe happens in regard to Part P: one for people who already have a level of electrical competence and choose to take the optional course, and another much longer course for Joe Public? Or should they ban non-electrical people from the course altogether and leave that market to other providers?

My personal preference would be for a two-track route, with a compulsory foundation course at level 1 (or lower) for anybody without electrical qualifications. Also, I would require that anybody following the 'layman's qualification track' is restricted to certifying/working on assets they personally own or manage and cannot offer such services as tradesmen. If they then decide to convert their qualifications to 'trade' status, they have to take a further conversion course to achieve a formal NVQ, with a work portfolio presented and evaluated, etc.

Or some similar rigour needs to be brought in.

 

[Pete999]

When you consider the route that an Electrician has to take to achieve a full level 2 and 3 including an NVQ over several years, how can a one or two days course with a short multi choice exam and a practice assessment testing a class 1 appliance also be considered a level 3 qualification?

Why indeed? when I'm informed that you don't need to hold a qualification to do ISITEE work, just need to be competent to carry the ISITEE testing out.