[TCP] certification (was: ranting STC)

[Ned Bedinger]

I would hate to discourage anyone who actually reads my posts, but two 
points come up.
 
 
First,  I have to wonder about an employer who pays for certification 
*after* hiring the writer.  I don't know how else they'd do it, but that 
way is assuredly backward.  Thoughts on how this would work, anyone?


Second, Kevin--the way I read yours below, I find that IF you were 
interested in certification, you MIGHT (however unlikely) be willing to 
pay for it.  Since the context of my hypothesis is the self-paying TW, 
your scenario works.
  
 
Unfortunately, you then get disqualified from the experiment if your 
employer pays for your STC membership and/or certification, since Dexter 
and I can't then evaluate your willingness to pay.  I suppose we could 
evaluate your employer's willingness to pay, and try to characterize 
your employer's satisfaction in their purchase, but to me, that's 
drifting into the twilight regions where corporations pay to gratify 
inscrutable corporate "feelings", or they "want" things that have 
traditionally been in the domain of individuals.  That is scary stuff, 
and I want no part of it, at least not without clarification, and 
perhaps a ritual or two.
 
 
If I were to allow the data for TWs when corportions pay, it would be 
because I'm reasonably certain that your employer's planning to take the 
frequent flier miles when you go to the STC conf.
 
 
 
Thanks for writing.  Hope this helps.

Ned Bedinger
doc at edwordsmith.com
 
 
 
McLauchlan wrote:
> Ned Bedinger was replying to Jim Dexter when he happened to say:
>
>   
>> If you do this, perhaps you'll do 
>> me a favor 
>> and also test the hypothesis (ok, hunch) that TWs who are 
>> interested in 
>> certification will be willing to pay for either certification or 
>> membership in STC, but not both.
>>     
>
> So, if I were now to pay for certification (don't hold your 
> breath), then either it would be _another_ frill that the company 
> volunteered to pay for, or it would be the first such one 
> that came out of my pocket. Thus the either/or-but-not-both 
> hypothesis doesn't seem  to apply.
>
>