The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Southerwood wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Southerwood wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


Don't fret.. I passed and I don't know *anything* about part P regs.
So, can you recall what the pass mark is? 70%?

I managed about 73% just by guessing..

Exactly my score too, without reference to anything. Which is worrying if
that were a pass. Don't know about you, but I'm happy enough with
domestic electrics in my own house. But there is no way I should be let
loose on a farm or in a factory.

I don't think the sample paper I tried covered nearly enough material and
a 1 of 4 answer system encourages educated guesswork. I have a passing
familiarity with the 16th Edition, but at no time have I ever made a
concerted effort to read the whole book, let alone wot for an exam.


Indeed. My impression was that the examination was a question of reading
and memorising the regulations. Understanding them was not actually
required.


I was more impressed by the 2391 exam, not that I got beyond reading the
first page. At least it started with some open answers, which are a lot
more difficult if you haven't a clue. Which I hadn't so I gave up, which is
how it should be.

'course, doesn't lend itself to "cost efficient" automatic grading... Funny
how saving money these days always seems to cost more in intangible ways
down the line...

The 2381 was very similar to my PAT exam (2377-002) which was totally multi
guess AND open book. Got one wrong (which ****ed me off because I cannot
for the life of me work out which one).

The course was worth it though (IET in London) as the combination of the two
old boys, one former sparks and the other an Engineer did make the course
very informative. Mind you, even there, the "practical exam" was a bit half
arsed. The sparks was a very practical sort of bloke with a wealth of
useful tips (reminded me of Fred Dibnah) and the Engineer filled in with
some excellent explanations of why things were written the way they were.

Tim