Your dedication to inspiring students to aspire to loftier objectives and pursue advanced qualifications is commendable. I am curious about the success rate for the Incorporated Engineer registration, as I have recently encountered an unsuccessful attempt, leaving me somewhat disheartened.

I would hope that you got detailed feedback on why your attempt at Incorporated Engineer registration was not successful. I contend that  it is all the more worthwhile if achievement aspirations are difficult but where the candidate fails to meet the mark, he really needs to have a clear understanding of just where he has gone wrong and what he needs to address to put things right! Sadly, I think City and Guilds have failed in that regard.

please don’t think this patronising AMK, but if you want Incorporated Engineer status, don’t let anything stand in your way, including one, two or multiple knockbacks! 

I have taken the initiative to reapply after reflecting on the recent outcome. Admittedly, the journey has been challenging, with 10 months of diligent application efforts and a 10-week anticipation period following the PRI, only to receive a notification of an unsuccessful attempt. The feedback indicated a need for additional evidence in competencies E1, E3, and E5. While the decision is disheartening, I recognize it as an opportunity for growth and improvement.

Your encouragement is well-received and far from patronizing. I am resolute in my pursuit of Incorporated Engineer status and will not be deterred by setbacks, be they singular or numerous. Your support reinforces my commitment to this goal.

AMK said:

I am curious about the success rate for the Incorporated Engineer registration, as I have recently encountered an unsuccessful attempt, leaving me somewhat disheartened.

There is no need for that, if you get in touch with IET, they can get a Professional Registration Advisor to help you.

lyledunn said:

I would hope that you got detailed feedback on why your attempt at Incorporated Engineer registration was not successful. I contend that  it is all the more worthwhile if achievement aspirations are difficult but where the candidate fails to meet the mark, he really needs to have a clear understanding of just where he has gone wrong and what he needs to address to put things right! Sadly, I think City and Guilds have failed in that regard.

The IET do have support measures in place.

Congratulations for your candidates. 87.5% success is pretty remarkable given the overall figures.

The argument against lack of feedback is that an exam is summative rather than formative.

You may think the pass rate is bad, but the old primary FRCS rate was 15% (with adjustments for good and bad cohorts) which controlled entry into the profession. Retakes were limited only by finances. By contrast, the "Perisher" assessment for would-be RN submarine commanding officers had (as I understand it) a 10% pass rate with no retakes.

Life is tough, and competitive!

Instead of feedback to your unsuccessful candidate, I'd look at exam technique. It is all too easy for the mind to go to jelly. I had that in an OU engineering exam last year. It was entirely unexpected and naturally, as soon as I had submitted my paper (remotely) I could solve the problem.

Frankly, I don't have a solution, but just because you lost today does not mean that you will not win tomorrow. Elite sportsmen (and sportswomen) must have a means of coping with losing.

I did the course twenty years ago when it was the C&G 2400 awarded at Level 3 before it was upgraded to Level 4 and we were told the pass rate was 40% and that’s what it was this year, isn’t the anomaly the higher pass rates in recent years?

Earlier this evening I read this years report 

www.cityandguilds.com/.../2396_chief_examiners_report_march_2024_final-pdf.ashx

Then I read last year’s report, some of the comments in both reports are quite cutting, such as it is a Level 4 qualification and some entrants did not demonstrate the level of understanding expected at Level 3.

www.cityandguilds.com/.../2396_chief_examiners_report_march_2023_final-pdf.ashx

As almost an outside observer, I find this both interesting and perhaps a bit concerning.

Are we really saying that UK wide we only need to replace less than 100 folk a year, who are competent to design erect and verify an electrical installation ?

To me this seems very low - even if each successful candidate then goes on to have  a 40- 50 year working life with that knowledge, then this imlies there are only a few thousand such competent folk working in the UK at any one time, a fraction of the total -which still seems low.

Or perhaps the qualification is not really needed, perhaps is overly theoretical or in other ways difficult (but reading the examiners comments, it does not seem so - understanding ADS and being able to decide the cable size to use in a given case ought to be bread and butter stuff, and not being able to is a reasonable ground for losing marks, indeed failing.

So maybe there is another discouraging factor - the cost, not enough exam time, a requirement to wear fancy dress to take the exam or something ?

And,  what are the other folk calling themselves 'electricians' doing, if not installing and verifying things they have designed ? And, then do we know how well/ badly are they doing it ?

So why so few candidates and then why so few pass?

It seems a lot of effort and excessive secrecy to put on a full exam nationwide for what is less than one lecture theatre   full of candidates from all over the whole country.

I am not sure of the significance of Chris's comment that an exam is summative rather than formative,and I'd like to be

To me all knowledge is worth acquiring, and if the aim of the exam is to demonstrate that  a candidate understands the topic there are many ways to achieve that - is the problem that the failures do not understand, or that the exam does not let them demonstrate their ability?

I have no answers but the numbers suggest right now this is really a dead duck of an exam, both for the C and G, and worse for most of the folk investing their hard earnt dosh into taking it, - and yet Lyle must be doing something very different, and I suggest very right, because his students actually pass.

So perhaps if this skill  is not to  fade away, replaced by Amtech or something, the effort needs to be to train the (other) trainers first so they also know what target their students are supposed to be aiming at rather than where they currently are.

Mike

 mapj1 (4430d62673dfbb2c7e97d2db0fb171a1 

Having gained their Level 3 qualifications most newly qualified electricians look to gain more Level 3 qualifications for PV, EESS and EV to work on the new technologies,  rather than following the more traditional approach of gaining the Level 4 qualifications.