STC is broken

[Beth Agnew]

My apologies -- my facetious reply should have had a little more 
explanation. That definition you point to is exactly the one the "new" 
definition is supposed to replace. Since it's been a year (Apr 2007), it 
looks like they haven't yet been successful in doing so. Like most of 
our profession-related topics, especially where definitions and 
parameters are concerned, it is going to be dashedly hard to get us to 
agree. But just because it's hard doesn't mean it should not be 
attempted. So what if we go over and over and over it for a year or 
more? We'll at least be somewhat better off than we are now, with that 
industrial age view of what a techwriter does. Though if the society 
tagline that the MarCom Sig tried to hammer out on their list some 
months ago is any example, consensus will never be achieved. In a 
profession as diverse as ours, it may be unrealistic to expect a 
one-size-fits-all definition. But we should certainly try. Susan Burton 
is still the Executive Director of the STC.
--Beth

Dan Goldstein wrote:
> Hi Beth,
>
> Sorry - I didn't mean to suggest that you agreed with the SOL
> definition!
>
> Now, if STC were to propose a clear replacement for the current
> definition of "Technical Writer" at BOL... that would be something.
> <http://www.bls.gov/soc/soc_i3e2.htm>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan 
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Beth Agnew
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:19 PM
>> To: Dan Goldstein; techwr-l at lists.techwr-l.com
>> Subject: Re: STC is broken
>>
>> Ask Susan.
>> --Beth
>>
>> Dan Goldstein wrote:
>>     
>>> 1. What's a "manufactured service"? [Check the sequence of "and" in 
>>> that sentence.]
>>>
>>> 2. What about good writers who can't speak in front of people - do 
>>> they have "strong communication skills"? What about the opposite? 
>>> Discuss (20 pts).
>>>
>>> 3. What are "instructional and informational tools"?
>>>
>>> 4. What is "multimedia knowledge"?
>>>
>>> People hire us to write clearly about technical subjects. It'd be 
>>> ironic for *our* job description be this unclear.
>>>
>>> P.S.: I tried combining DOL (Dept of Labor) with SOC (Standard 
>>> Occupational Classification), but all I got was "SOL"
>