Talk:National Vocational Qualification

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The sad thing is that the person who made the change thinks they are being incredibly witty and original. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HND (doesn't) stand for 'have no degree'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.115.13 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Equivalent qualifications-disputed[edit]

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)[reply]

Quite right. I have provided a reference (and therefore removed the OR tag) and adjusted the equivalence for Level 5 to the one that it gives, which is roughly to an "ordinary" (non-honours) degree. The other levels agreed with my source. seglea (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor has now twice inserted some (inexpertly formatted) academic equivalences that don't seem to have any basis in an authoritative source. I have reverted to previous versions, and will do so again. However, I don't claim special expertise in this area, and if you know more than I do, please explain what your sources are on this page (and please do get yourself a userid - it's free - so that situations like this can be resolved by discussion rather than just by reversing edits, which always comes across as unfriendly). seglea (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links do dispute what is in this section and there are no refs安東尼 TALK ^圣诞快乐 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a simpler explanation here to avoid this issue. NVQweb (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]