TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
If the reviewers of portfolios are anything like the judges I had the first
year I entered STC awards, it will be a thorough-going waste of time. How
do you determine who's qualified to review your portfolio? I have nearly 30
years experience and an advanced degree in communications (but not technical
communications) and I dropped my STC membership years ago; most of my
reviewable portfolio is marketing, because the vast majority of my tech comm
stuff is propriety or non-software oriented; and I don't believe that MMOS
is the answer to everything (my entries were disqualified because I did not
use MMOS standards--I used my company standards....). I probably could not
get certified under the current description of certification plans by the
STC. On the other hand, I just went through a competing offers situation
(Not trying to rub it in Bill, there's always hope for talented people who
just want a shot!) and landed an outstanding contract that is only partly
technical writing, so I find that I'm not too terribly concerned about a
specialized certification.
I used to think certification would be a great idea, then I took a look at
the folks I know who get to put PMP behind their names--they couldn't manage
their way out of a paper bag. And so many people have PMP certification that
it is meaningless from a practical perspective, although I continue to see
it as a desired credential in a lot of ads that are posted to dice and other
job sites.
I still think the models from PRSA and IABC are preferable: experience,
testing, portfolio review and oral exam.... hardest thing I've done outside
of my masters' program.
Of all the interviews I've had lately (and there were quite a few), probably
90 percent were looking for people who had more than tech writing skills...
they wanted tech writing, plus QA or plus BA or plus marketing. My new gig
is tech writing and change management! I doubt that TW's are the only ones
facing the challenge of recruiters looking for multiple skill sets. So you
end up making choices based on the cost of the certification, rather than
how much value it really has in your professional development. When I got
certified in PR, I did it to test myself, and nobody in the hiring offices
knew what the certification actually meant. I think that will be the issue
with STC's certification for at least the first few years of its existence.
MTC
Connie P. Giordano, MA
The Right Words of NC, LLC
Communications & Information Design http://www.therightwords.com
"It's kind of fun to do the impossible." - Walt Disney
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+connie=therightwordz -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+connie=therightwordz -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On
Behalf Of McLauchlan, Kevin
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:34 PM
To: Fred Ridder
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: Certification: Ernest and Scribbler
________________________________
From: Fred Ridder [mailto:docudoc -at- hotmail -dot- com]
Kevin [McLauchlan not McLaughlin] wrote:
> Sure, there are flaws in that model, but would it be any
> less effective or entertaining than the model whereby
> sit-down tests are devised and administered by bureau'rats
> driven by politicians?
Note that according to the STC's website "Certification will be
based on assessing portfolios and work artifacts, not examinations. (In
other words, there are no tests.)"
This isn't to say that the evaluation of portfolios won't be subject
to the same motivations and pressures, but nobody is talking about "sit-down
tests".
-Fred Ridder
________________________________
Evaluation of portfolios by earnest and intent reviewers
goes on until it becomes just too time-consuming.
Then, they either start automating the process or
developing standardized testing in order to handle
the number of applicants.
If the number of applicants does not become daunting,
given how many TWs there are, then the program is
basically a failure, yes?
By the way - thinking of recent World Cup Soccer -
would the evaluation of portfolios be open, transparent,
and subject to instant-replay?
That is, could I come along in a few years, submit
a portfolio, get miffed by how it was evaluated,
and refer back to somebody's review from this year
that had similar characteristics but seemingly got
a better eval?
Or... "Oh, no. We can't be transparent. Privacy issues,
you understand."
:-)
- Kevin
<bumpf-start>The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
Gain access to everything you need to create and publish information
through multiple channels. Your choice of authoring (and import)
formats with virtually any output. Try Doc-To-Help free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as connie -at- therightwordz -dot- com -dot-
Gain access to everything you need to create and publish information
through multiple channels. Your choice of authoring (and import)
formats with virtually any output. Try Doc-To-Help free for 30-days. http://www.doctohelp.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
