Subject: Certification
From: Barb Philbrick <barb -dot- philbrick -at- PCOHIO -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 09:33:00 -0500

L>Then, of course, there are ancillary issues -- at least one of
L>which is very important to STC: Should the Society restructure
L>its membership categories and/or change the qualifications for

No. I think membership should be open to anyone who is interested enough
to join it. It's not like people join for the status symbol it
represents. <g> I think determining credibility and such is the role of
certification, not membership.

L>- Someone mentioned that certification might lead to government
L> control of our profession. But I think certification might actually
L> be a way to forestall government intervention. By certifying, we
L> (as a profession) might be able to persuade the gummint that their
L> involvement isn't necessary, that we already have a self-regulating
L> process in place.

I agree here, although I think the government would be most likely to
regulate what goes into manuals, not who writes them. For example,
requiring that Warning 100058697 goes with any possible electrical shock

L>- Arlen: I pay my own STC dues. And I think a great many of my
L> colleagues -- including all those who are self-employed -- do too.

I've paid my own dues at two companies where I've worked full time and
now pay them as a freelancer. It's well worth the money.


barb -dot- philbrick -at- pcohio -dot- com
* CMPQwk 1.4 #9107 * A pile for everything, and everything in its pile.

Previous by Author: Re: Left intentionally bl
Next by Author: s or (s) or nothing?
Previous by Thread: Concern about content & a
Next by Thread: certification

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads