City and guilds confusion

[stilllearning]

I'm looking to do my 2391 test and inspection course and after searching on the internet for courses I have found that it no longer exists and Is now 2394&2395 is this new qualification regarded as the same stature as the 2391 ? It also seems more expensive ?

 

[telectrix]

2394 is initial verification & testing. 2395 is fpr periodics, EICRs. it's more expensive to do the 2 courses than the old 2391 so they can screw more cash out of you.

 

[stilllearning]

Yh it does seem that way typical of c&g but are they seen as an easier version of the 2391 that is my biggest worry that I pay the money and have a qualification that is not worth anything ?

 

[telectrix]

from what i've heard, it's easier to pass, but should still carry the same weight as the 2391.

 

[mtfpuk2011]

I did 2394 it is easyer but yoy have read the question carefully as they are word same way as 95 in the sanaro.

 

[uksparks]

I also did mine this summer, only the 2394 mind, but they try to catch out with the wording. I wouldn't say its easy, a lot of people seem to fail it, like 50% fail it. But that's possible because of the level of the candidate to be honest, but if you feel competent and know GS3 inside out, you 'should' be ok, but just double read everything slowly to ensure you have understood what is asked. But yes, combined the 2394 and 2395 carries the same weight as the old 2391 IMO.

 

[ian.settle1]

I also did mine this summer, only the 2394 mind, but they try to catch out with the wording. I wouldn't say its easy, a lot of people seem to fail it, like 50% fail it. But that's possible because of the level of the candidate to be honest, but if you feel competent and know GS3 inside out, you 'should' be ok, but just double read everything slowly to ensure you have understood what is asked. But yes, combined the 2394 and 2395 carries the same weight as the old 2391 IMO.

Still better than the 2391 where the fail rate was 60-70%

 

[Des 56]

Still better than the 2391 where the fail rate was 60-70%

Exactly
With the changes that have happened to our industry,the 2391 was rightly held in high esteem by electricians and industry alike,it was maybe the one thing that was fit for purpose

What did they do,they binned it
Its typical of the low regard the welfare of the trade is given

It had such high esteem that it will be many years before it loses its perception of being a high value attainment,both by employers and the trade

 

[uksparks]

I think its fair to say that the level of knowledge of the people doing the 2391 / 2394 / 2395 etc, they do a Electrical Trainee course, then do the 91 or 94 etc, and wonder why they fail, maybe its just my view but I think there's a lot of numpty's doing it which is why the fail level is so high, and the 50% that do pass are the ones there who have put the time in to learn and understand what they are doing opposed to booking a week course not knowing anything and wonder why they fail.

 

[UNG]

The problem is that a lot of these course / exam changes are IMO driven by the training organisations that have swamped the industry with the quick trained sparks you only have to read Tradeskills 4 U reply in this thread to find they are now creating their own C&G courses to suit their needs and

Taken from Tradeskills 4 U reply in another thread

The same team members also work with City & Guilds to develop new course such as the City & Guilds 2394, 2395 and 2396 qualifications.

I assume they are not the only training organisation trying to influence the future of the industry if that is the case the future doesn't look that bright

The old courses / exams were not broke if you throw enough poorly trained candidates at a course that fail you distort the figures and then have an argument for change from what I can see

For many years C&G courses largely remained the same but in recent years the courses seem to change as the standard falls rather than addressing the reasons why the failure rate was climbing it would be interesting to actually see a breakdown of the exam results by exam centre over the last 8 years to see were the standard is falling most

 

[SirKit Breaker]

I teach the C&G short Electrical courses 2382, 2377, 2394 and 2395, and previously the 2391.

The reason that they have changed has nothing to do with anyone wanting to make things easier, they have not been dumbed down, and you will still need to be at the top of your game to pass them. C&G and all the other awarding bodies had to align their qualifications to the QCF system. This involved breaking courses down into units, so that anyone doing a different course, as an example C&G 2357, could use any credits gained in qualification as credit towards another, so that they don't have to do the same thing twice. If you get a certificate like the 2394, it will have all the unit credits printed on it, so if you do another course like an EAL NVQ level 3, then any credits you have from 2394 can be used to exempt you from any part of the NVQ where appropriate. We call it Acquired Prior Learning (APL). If you came to me wanting to do a L3 NVQ i would ask to see your current qualifications, and would APL these to the NVQ, and then you would only have to do the bits you weren't exempt from.

With regards to training providers charging double for the 2394 and 2395, then this is a rip off. The course content for these is just the same as for the 2391, with a few additions, and additional registration fees, so in reality it should only cost about £100 more to do 2394 and 2395 together over the cost of the old 2391. My company have taken a hit on this, and we haven't increased our fee's. We still charge the old 2391 price for the new 2394 and 5 combined.

Cheers..............Howard

 

[UNG]

I teach the C&G short Electrical courses 2382, 2377, 2394 and 2395, and previously the 2391.

The reason that they have changed has nothing to do with anyone wanting to make things easier, they have not been dumbed down, and you will still need to be at the top of your game to pass them. C&G and all the other awarding bodies had to align their qualifications to the QCF system. This involved breaking courses down into units, so that anyone doing a different course, as an example C&G 2357, could use any credits gained in qualification as credit towards another, so that they don't have to do the same thing twice. If you get a certificate like the 2394, it will have all the unit credits printed on it, so if you do another course like an EAL NVQ level 3, then any credits you have from 2394 can be used to exempt you from any part of the NVQ where appropriate. We call it Acquired Prior Learning (APL). If you came to me wanting to do a L3 NVQ i would ask to see your current qualifications, and would APL these to the NVQ, and then you would only have to do the bits you weren't exempt from.

Makes it all clear now the new training is all about creating more acronyms for management to play with

 

[AdsUk]

I sat my 2394 / 2395 in August, and have just had a call to say i have passed both (Yippie!!). I didn't find the 2395 very hard but i did struggle with 2394 which apparently is a common theme. Our lecturer said the 2394/5 is exactly the same level as 2391 but just to make more money they split the exam.

Cheers