Course Selection Advice

shakespeare

I totally agree with psdtraining. I remember seeing your set up at that army base somewhere wet back in 2004ish...you still there? If so, good work, good to see you're still going. I know you've placed plenty of lads/girls in the past, I've met a few of them on hostile, good operators.

Scab

Actually, you are incorrect there; the exams are based upon a database of questions which were written by industry reps. Many of the same companies which are regularly praised on this very forum. Names like CR, Pheonix, Task Int, CTR, Nemesis... among others.

What made the exams easy to pass was down to the Accrediting bodies under direction of the QCA who went for the level three qualification. It had nothing at all to do with the sia who were merely the body comissioning the new qualifications.

shakespeare

I appreciate what you are saying, but the QCA entered discussions with the sia and they both arrived at the new lower qualification. I know the people who first introduced the prospect of licensing over 8 yrs ago, the format has certainly changed from challenging to downright simple. I agree that Phnx etc submitted exam questions and thoery which should be used, but only 25-30% of expert knowledge was utilised during the final outcome, the remaining "challenging" items have mysteriously been left out by the awarding bodies. I can only say that the SIA has turned this industry into some knid of CIS card scheme.

Also, why do I have the database of all the possible questions asked by the SIA? Funny how the Polish here in the City have CP badges but can't speak a word of English....Its a shame really and this is not a personal attack, I just wish it had been conducted with more of a professional ethos to increase the wages of the operators when licensing was introduced.

Scab

I quite agree, but the formation of exams was not conducted by the sia, so the SIA do not ask any questions; it was done by the respective awarding bodies. Ask them why many questions were left out..!

People with no language skills having licenses is a matter to take up with whoever trained them and ran their exam. I know of more than a few companies who not only read out the questions & answers but are less than subtle when indicating the possible correct answer. Again, a matter for the appropriate awarding body and the QCA.

Blurring the line between training and the SIA has gone on long enough: they comissioned it, and influenced the level of qualification and the core competancies to be undertaken out of the NOS; the rest of it is down to the educational industry not gripping its s**t.

The SIA handle licensing and enforement of the PSIA2001, nothing more... And we all know how well they do that!

Professionalism; friend, you are preaching to the converted!


What are the chances of me getting a look at that full list? I'd PM you but its bouncing...

shakespeare

Yeah, my PM is turned off bro, will try and activate it tomorrow.

shakespeare

Agreed, must admit its funny when asking a "I have the shades. done the course, Where is Madonna?" wannabe This question or proposal ...." Ok Mr/Ms Smith... Here is the proposal from the Cleint...Please have a set of WO ready for a brief in 6 mins in front of your 10 ops people...Please feel free to use the white board/power point blah blah blah ... need I say the rest? Oh.. I forgot the budget and Cleint liason skills somewhere in there...LOL I know what you are saying...honestly, just pi*sed off with the "chipped shoulder mentality" suddenly appearing over the last few years. Believe me everyone, the best earners are paid not for thier "expertise" but for the fact that firms know they will never card a client or steal a contract. OLD SCHOOL RULES ALL THE WAY IN MY BOOK.

shakespeare

Loads of typos in that message as wrote quickly from mobile last night and didn't spell check LOL. Can't edit it for some reason...not sure why? Anyway, here is the new version.

mickworldwide

Agreed PSD,

I was not aware of any self promotion on the thread, meerly a few of the provders pointing out the need for trainers to stay current. (Important I would suggest)

Any truthful training provider will never guarantee anything, they may assist employment or they may not , but I think it is necessary that a trainer should attempt to not only give the skills required to undertake the task but also to network with the employers and give a realistic chance to the successful graduates of finding some work.
Surely the concept of turning out more and more licensed people with no after course assistance just adds to the problem?
As you stated you have gained recognition from Aegis etc , and pumpng that fact is neither off post nor irrelevant to this thread as IMO it shows that your course is trying to go a step further to assist the student. In that respect I think it is to be applauded and not seen as shameless self promotion.....
The concept of a bi monthly think tank regarding updating and re evaluating is a top idea and if this was ever to become a reality I think it would assist the industry greatly as standards of training vary from company to company even on the delivery of 15 core competancies.
I disagree with the cost factor as many suppliers are dropping costs now in order to compete , and to be honest some are just plain ripping the arse out of it .... I agree with value for money , that does not always mean the most expensive option.

morrigan

Shakespear and Psd make excellent points as do all others involved in
this thread.

I am going to go slightly off the main theme of this thread but do not apologize for that as that is what tends to happen when a subject is being discussed and those involved introduce other angles and so on.

If there is a genuine intention on the part of trainers to improve the
standard of their courses ( and i believe that there is ) to offer
more than the core syllabus and to stand out from the rest then what
stops them from doing just that. Instead of complaining ( and i'm not
pointing any fingers here )

Market forces are just that, forces in the market place that encourage
or 'force' competition and although there always some negative
effects of such pressure ( a company diluting its product/ service etc
in order to save or make more money....or a company deliberately
trying to effect the success and prospects of another by operating at
a low profit or even at a loss just to force the competitors out of
the market). However, there are in my opinion many more positive results of what we would hope is 'healthy' competition. This industry is as dynamic as any other and the introduction of competitors has to be expected and reacted to in a positive way. No one training company has the god given right to a expect a candidate to take their course just because they have been training longer than others.

Longevity is a mark of credibility and reputation of course but it is not everything. As has been said in this thread, the content of a course has to cover basics and so on but it should always attempt to excel and deliver more. That is what will make a company stand out above the rest.

psdtraining

Morri rightly points out that a company doesnt live from content and reputation alone....... the market dictates!

I hate cutting costs personally, I also hate losing money and to that effect I also hate discounting, reasons are simple, we discount, we cut costs, the content and everything else suffers.

Saying that, you get nothing for nothing. If people want cheap, they will pay cheap, I'm sure someone somewhere will eventually come up with the bright idea of an online $100 long distance course to be "a bodyguard" hang on what am I saying..................... someone already has and I'm sure their "students" are reaping the benefits as I type............. NOT!

Equipment costs money, staff costs money, advertising costs money, buildings cost money, utilities