Re: certification

[Nick Marino <Rhetonic -at- GTE -dot- NET>]

Denise Fritch wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> 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.

Again, the purpose behind this certification process is to ensure for the
protection of the consumer that the CPA field is populated with properly
qualified practitioners.  In the case of a CPA, perhaps it's better to think of
the certification as a license like with a doctor.

> > >
> > > 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.

Your implied misconception here is that somehow it is employers who are behind
the certification process.  Also why do you think that the goal of any
certification is to limit the employee pool.  Often times, certification simply
offers a means of attaining higher salaries.

Certification is not about controlling you or anyone; its about an agreed upon
body of knowledge that is established as a standard in order to upgrade or
maintain the quality of the practitioners in it.

Best,
Nick