Re: Re[6]: Certification

Subject: Re: Re[6]: Certification
From: "Scott, Vester" <vscott -at- RPSPO1 -dot- ATLANTAGA -dot- ATTGIS -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 12:29:00 PDT

Whatever it is you are going for here, Arlen, you win.
See ya'.
From: Arlen.P.Walker
To: Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L
Subject: Re[6]: Certification
Date: Thursday, July 13, 1995 5:16PM

I say your truncation DOES change the meaning to support your
statements. But enough of that. Can you tell me, specifically, what
of the above statement is untrue?

The inference that it is somehow because they didn't go through some sort of
magical degree-conferring process before entering the profession that they
indeed, incompetant. That sentiment is clearly the intent of your statement.

would say that at the very least just as high a percentage of incompentant
writers came through degree programs and began their careers as writers,
switching. I'm even tempted to assert that *more* came that way than
because they had to leave one profession at which they were gainfully
to start with another one, which in all likelihood paid less, but I'll leave
at an equal percentage.

I absolutely do not believe that TW certification should be
I would be one of the first to rise up against such a notion.

This is completely inconsistent with your stated goal for that certification
process, which was to "filter out the rascals" (quote is from memory, so is
approximate, but I'm sure all of those words were in your post and used in
context). If it's *not* mandatory, it can't filter. At best it could only

A properly designed and administered certification
program can change that.

And I still say that particular sentiment is pure, unadulterated, bunk.
are respected, not wallpaper. I worked in a shop which had both
(for lack of a better term) and non-initialized engineers. And it was one of
non-initialized engineers that everyone (including management) depended on
push came to shove. His words carried more weight than the "certified" one,
because we knew that *he* knew what he was talking about. There was money on
line, and management went with the uncertified, rather than the certified,
because money, not certification, was what counted.

Connect it to the bottom line. Engineering was an esteemed and respected
profession long before anyone was ever certified as a "professional
Same also goes for doctors and lawyers. In fact I have difficulty thinking

single profession which was certified before becoming respected.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Certification is a path you take
you become respected, in a (usually vain) effort to reassure the public that
profession will continue to be respectable. It's not a path *to*

If certification isn't the answer, perhaps will
suggest the RIGHT answer.

(I'm assuming there was supposed to be a "you" between "perhaps" and

did. In the last post, which you quoted from at the end of your message. We
to do what we're supposed to be good at. Desseminate the information, in a
better, more readily understood way than we apparently have in the past that
directly affect the bottom line of the company. Act respectable, respect
professions (something many of us have trouble with, judging from the amount
engineer and programmer slamming which goes on here).

There's no silver bullet, no panacea. As Stephen Covey puts it, the "Law of
Farm" operates in our profession just as forcefully as in any other. Nothing
happens without proper preparation and gestation time. It takes 6 weeks to
a radish, regardless of how much you want it sooner.

Have fun,
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 124

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
In God we trust; all others must provide data.

Previous by Author: Re: our relationship to the bottom line/certification
Next by Author: Re: Re. Certification based on experience
Previous by Thread: Re: Re[6]: Certification
Next by Thread: Re: Re[6]: Certification

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

Sponsored Ads