Re: Xe-133 HVL

[tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de Castro)]

>>The ABHP Part 1 panel is always on the lookout for good new questions for
>>the Part I exam.  The Xe-133 discussion has presented several neat twists
>>that would make good questions.  e.g.:

Excuse me - but this is an EXCELLENT example of WHY the CHP test seems to
be elitist, a rite of passage and/or not totally relevant to some.

First - it has been a LONG time since I looked towards taking the exam -
almost 20 years - so many of my comments reflect the nature of the exam
questions at that time.

Also part of my view is that my whole HP career has been narrowly focused
on machine radiations - x-ray and accelerator.  AND that I have known some
of those who used to submit some of the questions used.

First off - I have seen repeatedly in this thread comments that
certification represents MINIMUM competence.  Therefore are questions with
"neat twists" the sort of questions that should be there??  Especially since
many of the candidates will be out of their main field when picking enough
questions to answer.

Neat twists are the sort of attention to detail that one gains with
experience in a particular field and not normally expected to be known to
someone without experience in that field.

Questions I have seen submitted where I knew the person who submitted them
were just such "neat twist" kind of questions written by a consumate
expert in the field and taken from that person's actual experience.  BUT
when that expert solved the problem - it wasn't solved in and hour or two,
without access to reference material and was finally solved by drawing on
those "neat twists" gained by experience.

So we have questions submitted by experts in a field and deemed by them to
have challenge or interesting aspects - but expected to be solved in short
term by non-experts without access to reference materials.

Also - there seems to be a completely different standard when it comes to
continuing education classes!  Although NOT a CHP have have taken a few of
these when they are in a field of interest hoping to gain valuable
knowledge and insight.  BUT is seems that the CE classes, unlike the exam,
are written to give minimum exposure on a topic to people outside the
field.  Generally I find when the CE class is in my area - I could have
taught it!!  ------ if I weren't such a poor teacher!

It would appear to me that the CE classes impart less of a proficiency in
and area than is expected to pass the test to begin with.  ie.  if one took
CE classes in the areas questioned by the exam - they couldn't pass the
exam.

The purpose of this posting is to take a case in point to add to the
clarification from the view of the "outside looking in" and promote
understanding on issues and feelings touched on throughout this thread.

This is not meant to be a personal attack on any CHP or non CHP out there.
So let's not start a fire fight here.

Also - this may not still be true - or there may be a good reason for this
if it IS true - so let's hear comments to that effect.

BUT - I just don't see that the comments here suggesting that
certification implies minimum competence fit with the exam questions and I
see a disparity between the level required for the exam and the level of
continuing education.

Also regarding professionalism - one thing I have always felt was the mark
of a professional was a belief that "knowing what one does NOT know" is
often more important that what one knows.  That is to say that the
professional will limit his areas of independant practice to areas of
expertise - and if NOT an area of expertise will seek to gain sufficient
familiarity or expertise before bidding on a job.  This speaks to a
previous suggestion of certification in specific disciplines.  After all -
to use the MD metaphor which has appeared throughout this thread - doctors
aren't ALL GP's!


Ted de Castro
tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov
University of California Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Bldg B75B Rm 101
Berkeley, CA 94720
(510) 486-5256
(510) 486-7304 - FAX


The preceeding message was NOT reviewed by my employer and therefore
represents MY OPINION ONLY and does not in any way represent the policies 
or opinions of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory or the U.S. Department of 
Energy.