Does the humble C&G-2391 syllabus need to be updated?

There is an interesting thought here, that perhaps we are not teaching and testing the right things, or at least are not being honest about what  various courses and bits of paper really  qualify you for.

There is no doubt in my mind that best folk for the roles of the "hands on" and the "brains on" are not normally interchangeable, and having worked in a University research dept,  for some years in the past, I can say (without naming names) that there are many otherwise brilliant academics who I would not want to be anywhere near something  that required any hand-eye co-ordination at all !

Not so much ' could this person run a post-office?' as 'could this person wire a plug? '  - and the answer is "probably not" more often than you might think. There is sort of a problem with the language we use for qualifications as well - the usual moan is that the chap with the van with "engineer" on it is usually really a 'fitter', but there is also a problem of too many universities that turn out 'engineers' with a degree who cannot design, let alone act as a design authority or evaluate  the design or construction work of others, partially due to being taught by those who don't fo that side of things very well  either.

So if we are not careful the system creates folk with mis-matched qualifications who are still unfit for any role without a lot of further fettling, and I'd not be surprised to hear that is a problem at almost all craft and academic levels.

Coming back to the OP I'm not sure that creating a complex tree of permissible bits of paper that prove some equivalent competence is a great  way forward either. Equally I'm not sure then how you best prove someone's ability at all, unless you have an example of thing their work on the thing they are supposed to be good at to look at.

In that sense, I suggest a portfolio of previous jobs and experience is as good as any - but then beware the hundreds of jobs that are all the same, is not the same as a few jobs that are exploring the more difficult corners of the job - 1000 ceiling roses is no guarantee of a well fitted short length of pyro.... but for a general can-do and reading before starting sort of person it might be. There is always the risk that showing work on a big job means 'was carried by the rest of the team' or ' Iead the team from the front' and it is hard to know afterwards.

I'm lucky, I have a job for which on paper I am not especially well qualified, but I have been doing it long enough and well enough that no-one asks, but that is no help to a newcomer. We must be careful, having climbed the metaphorical ladder, not to pull it up with us, so no-one can follow.

Mike. 

I just look at the myriad of acronyms surrounding schemes, course providors and standards quangos and wonder what the hell they actually contribute to the industry other than to serve as vehicles for chaos. Back in the day, City & Guilds were the only game in town, everyone knew what they did and what course success meant, and the industry was all the better for it. Compare that with what we have now. I've never heard of some of these organisations. I have no idea why they exist, or what they actually do, other than relieve an ever shrinking number of tradespeople of their money.

I just look at the myriad of acronyms surrounding schemes, course providors and standards quangos and wonder what the hell they actually contribute to the industry other than to serve as vehicles for chaos. Back in the day, City & Guilds were the only game in town, everyone knew what they did and what course success meant, and the industry was all the better for it. Compare that with what we have now. I've never heard of some of these organisations. I have no idea why they exist, or what they actually do, other than relieve an ever shrinking number of tradespeople of their money.