![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ensuring that information is accessible only to those authorized to have access
Removed the reference about Great Britain as this is nonsense. NVQ's are not awarded in Scotland SVQ's are. -- Pandaplodder 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Beefed up the academic equivalent section, in order to help people know where they theoretically stand in the jobs market.
I noticed a previous edit by '86.3.39.219', changing National Vocational Qualification to 'Not Very Qualified', which gave me a good laugh. That's true of most qualifications these days, as the education and training sector in the UK is simply not delivering the skills that employers need. -- Beefy_SAFC 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
HND (doesn't) stand for 'have no degree'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.115.13 ( talk) 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Does the academic equivalent section provide a realistic view of how NVQs are valued by employers? Having worked in recruitment for some years, I have never heard an employer say they are willing to accept NVQs of any level as being equivalent to an academic qualification, therefore some people may say they are equivalent, but generally they are not treated as such by employers. Indeed the only employers I've seen who attach value to NVQs are those who receive government funding to provide support for NVQs and/or those organisations forced through government requirements to have a certain proportion of their workforce qualified to NVQ level (e.g. the care industry). It can be argued that the government is forcing high take-up and then using that high take-up as proof that NVQs are valued by employers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.106.130 ( talk) 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit wary of the section that compares NVQs to their academic equivalents. Looks like WP:OR to me. I mean an NVQ level 5 being equivalent to a PhD? Is their a references for this? Million_Moments ( talk) 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Vocational Qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ensuring that information is accessible only to those authorized to have access
Removed the reference about Great Britain as this is nonsense. NVQ's are not awarded in Scotland SVQ's are. -- Pandaplodder 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Beefed up the academic equivalent section, in order to help people know where they theoretically stand in the jobs market.
I noticed a previous edit by '86.3.39.219', changing National Vocational Qualification to 'Not Very Qualified', which gave me a good laugh. That's true of most qualifications these days, as the education and training sector in the UK is simply not delivering the skills that employers need. -- Beefy_SAFC 13:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
HND (doesn't) stand for 'have no degree'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.115.13 ( talk) 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Does the academic equivalent section provide a realistic view of how NVQs are valued by employers? Having worked in recruitment for some years, I have never heard an employer say they are willing to accept NVQs of any level as being equivalent to an academic qualification, therefore some people may say they are equivalent, but generally they are not treated as such by employers. Indeed the only employers I've seen who attach value to NVQs are those who receive government funding to provide support for NVQs and/or those organisations forced through government requirements to have a certain proportion of their workforce qualified to NVQ level (e.g. the care industry). It can be argued that the government is forcing high take-up and then using that high take-up as proof that NVQs are valued by employers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.106.130 ( talk) 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit wary of the section that compares NVQs to their academic equivalents. Looks like WP:OR to me. I mean an NVQ level 5 being equivalent to a PhD? Is their a references for this? Million_Moments ( talk) 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Vocational Qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)