NVQ Assessor

debrag

NVQ level 2 is GCSE standard and I found it easy and totally boring (health & social care). Been told I should do level 3 + and Assessors but not sure yet.

I've know assessors to basically do candidates work for them.

C_Mababejive

dpassmore wrote: »

I have to state that the impression I got was that the whole NVQ thing could be open to abuse - not just gaining the assessors award but giving a NVQ award to a candidate.

Maybe it is just me being cynical.

Having helped a former colleague gain his NVQ level 2, it really was very basic stuff and I was certainly surprised at the standards required to achieve the award.

It certainly is no surprise that many people suggest that NVQ stands for not very qualified!

I tend to agree that in general,the whole NVQ scheme is a complete joke and is used to legitimise and give some value and credence to what would be otherwise considered mediocre.

Its University and degrees for "professionals" and rubbish NVQs for the proletariat .

Utter rubbish with a few exceptions.

NVQ= not very qualified
NFC= no fail culture

eamon

Luckily in my present job NVQ's are rarely mentioned but when they I are I emit a groan of despair. Talk about setting the bar in a hole in ground.

babyshoes123

Hi Louisa, any of your local colleges, and the majority of your private training providers, could help you, and depending on your age and situation could help you with funding too, but be quick, education funding, like everything else, is being cut, so get in quick.

Oldernotwiser

It used to be the case that you could only assess the level below which you yourself were qualified, meaning that you could only assess level 1 and 2 if your diploma is level 3. I'm not sure if this has changed now.

louisaL

thank you everyone for your replies.

sorry littlevoice/oldernowiser slummymummy is absolutely right its level 3.

C_Mababejive

debrag wrote: »

NVQ level 2 is GCSE standard and I found it easy and totally boring (health & social care). Been told I should do level 3 + and Assessors but not sure yet.

I've know assessors to basically do candidates work for them.

Its nothing like the standard of GCE that i did at school 30 years ago...

More like primary school..bit fat crayon/ticky box questions and have as many goes as you like at it.

BexInLondon

I would argue that NVQs are no more open to abuse than degrees, and I say that as someone with both (who had to work harder for her NVQ than her degree, albeit over a shorter period of time). There's a lot of apparent snobbery on this thread, and what is lost is that an NVQ provides a national agreed, work-related standard by which candidates can be judged. If I'm looking at a CV and the candidate has a relevant NVQ, I would see that as a positive though I wouldn't take it at face value and would still question them. If I had the time, I would get hold of the standards for that NVQ, and would then have a good idea of what they needed training in and what they could already do. An NVQ is a vocational qualification (the clue is in the name) and of course people get more than one go at it, the whole point of an NVQ is that it is awarded once someone is working to the standard.

Based on my experience of employing people I have generally found that those with "just NVQs" often have more common-sense and nous than those with random degrees in very theoretical subject (and I say that as someone with a degree in Social and Political Science, which is basically a certificate in waffling).

Sorry if all that sounds a bit snotty but I'm sick of people slating NVQs based either on experience of a few bad centres rubberstamping candidates, or even worse, based on snobbery and small-mindedness.

hellokitty08

you may to consider the fact that funding for most nvq only courses has practually stopped. All funding is now directed towards apprenticeships, and you will need to be working towards a teaching qualification (PTLS, DTLS, KTLS) to teach the technical certificate for most of these.

dickydonkin

BexInLondon wrote: »

There's a lot of apparent snobbery on this thread, and what is lost is that an NVQ provides a national agreed, work-related standard by which candidates can be judged.

I appreciate your views - but some people may suggest that a course which requires a final exam taken under strict conditions is less open to abuse than NVQ's.

I don't think snobbery is an issue with the majority of posters on this thread as they are basing their posts on experience - not assumption and are not sneering at the NVQ awards, just questioning their value.

Certainly in my experience in attending the Assessors course, it was very apparent that NVQ's are open to abuse (from both sides) as this was mentioned on numerous occasions by the tutor herself!

Furthermore as I mentioned earlier, when I assisted a former colleague in attaining a level 2 NVQ - the standard was set at a very low and simplistic level which surprised me.

It just seemed that I was supplying the candidate with relevant documentation without him ever asking the purpose and content of said documents which I found unusual.