Re: Re[3]: Certification & improvement (longish)

Subject: Re: Re[3]: Certification & improvement (longish)
From: Win Day <winday -at- IDIRECT -dot- COM>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 16:49:29 -0500

At 02:57 PM 12/28/95 -0700, Grant Hogarth responded to the certification
thread with the following:

>I don't believe that it will reduce the number of practitioners, for
>there is no way to fully close the door (or ring of fire <g>), and
>insist that documentation can only be produced by accredited writers
>(or editors, or illustrators), as there is no way to sanction those
>who choose not to use our services. Certification must
>(for the most part) become an assurance of value added;
>those who do not wish the assurance of that value, that warrantee,
>will hire elsewhere.

I agree. I have an engineering degree; I worked for years in the oil patch
and consulting engineering. I never became a certified Professional
Engineer for a number of reasons.

I could not sign off my drawings or equipment spec sheets, but neither was I
legally responsible for their accuracy. Usually only one or two project
members on a given project team (at a very senior level) had the authority
to sign off, regardless of how many licensed engineers actually worked on
the project.

My job title was sometimes "process engineer" and sometimes "process
engineering specialist". And I cannot advertise myself as a PEng.

But I was never passed over for a job or a promotion because I'm not a PEng.
Passed over because I'm a woman, yes, but not because I'm not a PEng. (But
that's a whole 'nother story...)

Win Day
Technical Writer/Editor
Email: winday -at- idirect -dot- com

Previous by Author: Re: gender issues and tech.write
Next by Author: Re: C-I-V-I-L-I-T-Y
Previous by Thread: Re: Re[3]: Certification & improvement (longish)
Next by Thread: Re: Resumes - writing your own - Hobbies

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

Sponsored Ads