Certification vs. Experience

["Grismore, Carolyn" <cgrismore -at- ACCESSLINE -dot- COM>]

     Tim Alton wrote:

     <<I can't speak for my colleagues, but my own incipient sneer arises
     because of my experience with employers who assign complex tech doc
     tasks to the halt, the lame, and the blind, so long as any of them can
     type. >>

     I understand your problem, and have dealt with this myself, but those
     halt, lame, and blind were just as often as not engineers as
     secretaries.  An engineering degree and technical knowledge no more
     makes a technical writer than does the ability to type.

     <<Part of this is our fault, to be frank. We don't have a profession,
     because a profession implies a commonly-accepted set of standards that
     must be met before the title can be truthfully applied. In some lines
     of work, you can take on a title that an employer hands out, but a
     secondary, external group confers another set of initials after your
     name that tells the world that you're not just occupying a chair;
     you've been tested and found to be sufficiently learned to qualify for
     an honored spot in the upper tier. Such a program would have allowed
     you to gain the recognition you needed and perhaps drastically shorten
     your acceptance time.>>

     My problem with what you say is that it implies a belief that the
     academic system can come up with standards, tests, etc. that will
     enable a person to be fairly evaluated and rated, and that the course
     work these people are required to complete is pertinent to the field
     they are attempting to enter.  I have not found either to be the case
     thus far.  Most of what I see students learning are things that would
     get them fired if they even attempted to do them on a real job, yet
     they remain woefully ignorant of the basics of what we do every day.

     Should we let STC set the standards?  One of their members in Texas
     admits on this list that many of their leadership is incompetent.  I'm
     sure that is true in many other areas as well.  Isn't that the blind
     leading the blind?  What makes these people any different than a
     brain-dead employer who is more impressed with a few letters on a
     piece of paper than a proven track record and years of successful
     performance?  And if we had certification, do you think we will be any
     more willing to police our own than is the medical profession who
     would rather have bad doctors killing patients than admit that some
     doctors are not competent?

     <<It's still my firm belief that until we in the field finally begin
     to define what we do and hold ourselves to an objective standard, we
     won't have a profession. Instead, we'll continue to have everything
     from stellar lights to dim bulbs, all equally laying claim to the same
     job title and muddling our public perception. And we'll bequeath this
     sad situation onto the next generation, as well.>>

     My final comment here is that what you just stated is also true in
     every other profession, even those with high standards and all but
     impossible course work and testing.  There are stellar doctors and
     there are those to whom you would not take a sick cat, but they both
     claim the title of doctor.  The same is true in academia, science, and
     any other profession you care to name.  The fact that you have
     standards and certification will never prevent the good, the bad, and
     the downright ugly in your profession.  Only enlightened hiring
     practices and employers who can recognize a bodily orifice from a hole
     in the ground are going to change that.  Personally I don't see that
     coming any time soon.

     Carolyn Grismore
     cgrismore -at- accessline -dot- com