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.
Interesting twist, and assumptions, you've made here:
> > In California, you can have a Ph.D. in accounting, yet unless
> you have taken
> > and passed the CPA examination you cannot associate the words
> "accounting"
> > or "accountant" with your name. To do so is a violation of the
> law. Just a
> > bit extreme isn't it?
>
> Why is it extreme to protect consumers from those who do not
> posses the proper
> training/qualifications to mess with your money? Isn't one's money a bit
> extreme of a situation with which to be concerned?
". . . from those who DO NOT POSSES the proper training/qualifications . .
." (caps are my emphasis) I didn't state that the hypothetical individual
did not possess training and qualification. In fact, I said just the
opposite. There are a number of reasons for an individual not having a CPA
here (one is the limited number of "CPA candidate" positions available from
which to start the process). A certification process is designed to identify
an individual's set of skills, nothing more.
>
> >
> > In the trades industry, there are apprenticeship programs with various
> > levels of expertise. Besides limiting the number of "masters"
> (or whatever
> > name they may use for senior levels), the program says little
> more than that
> > a person has been in the program for a certain amount of time and met
> > whatever requirements had been deemed appropriate by their union. It
> > certainly doesn't ensure that the person you hire will do an
> excellent job
> > on your project.
>
> The inherent risk that hired help may not perform is universal
> regardless of
> certification and does not negate the benefits to both employer
> and employee
> offered by certification.
Oh? If the certificate cannot ensure that the work will be of a specific
standard, then what does that certificate accomplish? Other than indicating
that the individual is "capable" of a certain level of work. Certification
needs to accomplish something more that limiting the employee pool from
which employers can select. In fact, I do not believe that any certification
program, for what ever profession, should limit the pool of available
employees.
