Re: Certification Issues

[Bill DuBay <bill_dubay -at- PHOENIX -dot- COM>]

Agreed, the primary reason for certification is not the roadmap into the
profession. It is a very important purpose, however. It is how the members of
the profession define the roadmap. The certifying agency often supplies the
preparation in terms of mentoring, apprenticeships, classes, etc., that are
often much more practical and cheaper than academic degrees. Most often,
applicants are working and learning at the same time as they prepare for
certification. It is not structured to keep anyone out, but to facilitate
entry.

The primary reason for certification is to enable members of the profession
to define who they are, what are the skills that make them unique, what
contributions they make to industry, etc. Without that identification of what
the skills are and the ability to decide who has those skills, there is no
profession. Right now we are being asked to identify those skills and methods
of testing them. Nobody is imposing anything on us from outside. It is a tech
writers' thing.







Bill DuBay
Technical Writer
Phoenix Technologies Ltd.
email: bill_dubay -at- phoenix -dot- com
(714)790-2049 FAX: (714)790-2001
http://www.phoenix.com
-------------
Original Text
From: "Walker, Arlen P" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>, on 6/16/97 2:50 PM:
OK, Bill, if you think we can have a calm, reasoned discussion on this,
I'll re-enter the lists.

I have several nits to pick with your post, but most of them aren't
important enough to lead off with. But late in the post you *did* arrive at
the crux of the matter.

      Certification is not directed at keeping anybody out of a profession
      but on bringing them up to speed in the quickest time possible--as
      determined by members of the profession, not by the academe nor by
      industry.

If this were truly the goal of certification, we could achieve this quickly
wihtout the cost or controversy of testing. If all you are wanting to do is
direct new entrants to the profession toward the skill set they need, there
is no need either for testing or for certificates and the additional
financial burden they by definition impose. All you need do is list the
skill set.

The only purpose behind a costly testing program with a published outcome
is to divide a group into those who pass the test and those who do not. (In
a quest to reach the fundamental issue, let us leave aside for the moment
the thorny question of whether testing is proof of anything other than the
ability to pass a test and assume testing is able to determine if a person
has achieved competance. Publishing the outcome of this test is not
necessary if the real goal is feedback on the individual's development. The
person could take the test and privately be informed of the result. But
when the result in question is published -- via the awarding of a
certificate -- it's clear to see that the purpose is *not* primarily
feedback to the one being tested but rather the division of those tested
into publicly branded "passed" and "failed" categories.)

Can we then agree that this "roadmap into the profession" idea is *not* the
reason for certification, but merely a by-product of it? (This is also
leaving aside the question of whether it's possible to create such a
roadmap in the first place. There are difficulties in that endeavor as
well, but we needn't go into them at all if we can agree that a
certification process is not a necessary condition for the existence of
such a roadmap in the first
place.)

      Those are the problems that certification solves. It defines the
      skills of the profession. (You'll hear me say that a few times.)

You know, I get real twitchy when I see such rear-drive horsecarts. If a
certification program is to have any value at all it must *not* define the
skills of a profession, but rather be defined *by* the skills of the
profession.

I got a similar wrong-headed twitch when I read the statement that the
required skill set must be defined, not by those who use the services in
question, but rather by those who provide the services. We can define skill
sets all we want, but if they don't coincide with the skill set the market
wants, the well-intentioned list is irrelevant.

For me, the fundamental issue in Certification is restraint of trade. No
matter what gets said, it boils down to the certified getting hiring
preference over the non-certified at all quality-minded shops. No pro-
certification viewpoint has ever adequately defused that issue. Which boils
down to discrimination based solely on possession/lack of a piece of paper,
not ability or merit. Which is fundamentally Unfair. (Speaking of which, I
should point out that the pro-certification viewpoint would maintain that
the possession of the piece of paper is identical with the possession of
ability or merit, or, alternatively, that possession of the paper
constitues a high level of probability of possession of ability. In the
second case, the unfortunate ones who are able but undocumented and
therefore excluded are an acceptable loss.)

So perhaps the first step in a reasonable discussion of the issues is for
the pro-certification viewpoint to admit that the purpose of certification
is to provide a certain class of people (the certified) with an advantage
in hiring, and to similarly hinder the hiring of those not in the class
(the uncertified). The two propositions are equivalent because hiring is a
zero-sum game; there is no way for all applicants for the same position to
win. One must obtain the position while the others lose. If we have
agreement on this point maybe we can go on to accurately define the classes
in question.

Ideas?


Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html