ABHP Degree Requirement - Background and Perspective

[george.j.vargo@ccmail.pnl.gov (George J Vargo)]

     DISCLAIMER:  These comments are my own and do not reflect an official 
     position of the American Board of Health Physics, Battelle Memorial 
     Institute, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory or the U.S 
     Department of Energy.
     
     Having seen enough discussion on the topic of the degree requirement 
     for ABHP certification, I suppose it is time for me to respond to 
     Charlie Willis and others and speak openly on this issue and hopefully 
     shed some light on the thinking of the American Board of Health 
     Physics.  Why did the ABHP do change its policy to require acceptable 
     4 year degreed? IT WAS TIME!  It was time to reflect rising societal 
     standards and the trend among other professional certification Boards.
     
     I am the ABHP member who made the motion to close the then existing 
     loophole for certain non-degreed applicants seeking ABHP 
     certification.  I did so feeling a responsibility to preserve the 
     value of ABHP certification and elevate the status of the health 
     physics profession in a climate of rising standards in the health and 
     safety community.  I also recognized that this would not be popular, 
     especially with those who would be affected by the policy change.  
     Anyone who says it was to control the number of applicants, reduce 
     grading workload, or any other reason is absolutely off base and 
     completely misinformed.  Yes, the Board did consider the ethics of 
     admitting candidates who had a low likelihood of success in passing 
     the examination (i.e., those candidates with minimal academic 
     qualifications.) In the end, however, it came down to an issue of 
     maintaining the integrity of certification and elevating the status of 
     the profession.
     
     After careful consideration by the ABHP, this policy change was also 
     reviewed and approved by the American Academy of Health Physics' 
     Executive Committee -- the elected representatives of the Academy.  
     The change was well publicized and sufficient lead time (3 years) was 
     given for those who might be affected by the change to take 
     appropriate action toward obtaining certification.  There was no 
     surprise here and I'm puzzled at comments that there was some 
     subterfuge on the ABHP's part here.
     
     Is requiring an acceptable 4 year degree such an unreasonable step?  
     Let's look at the evolution of other societal standards and 
     expectations:
     
     Seventy five years ago it was perfectly acceptable for my grandmother, 
     with a two year certificate from the state normal school, to become a 
     school teacher and my grandfather, with less than a high school 
     education to become superintendent of a power plant. Upon his 
     retirement in 1962, he was replaced by a mechanical enginer with a 
     four year degree.  Thirty five years ago, 4 years of education and 
     training was adequate to become a pharmacist or architect and two 
     years of instruction was adequate for an RN.  There were even two year 
     degrees in fields such as mechanical engineering and it was even 
     possible to get a PE license without any degree, given the right kind 
     of documented experience under the supervision of a PE.
     
     The times have changed and society expects more of its professionals!  
     Today, in most states a MA/MS/MEd is required for a permanent teaching 
     certificate (some states still only require BS+30 semester hours 
     post-graduate), in 1995 the entry level pharmacy degree changed from a 
     five year BS Pharm to a six year Doctor of Pharmacy.  A BS degree is 
     the norm for an RN license and a MSN is needed for upward mobility, 
     although a few two year programs remain.  Try getting a PE without an 
     ABET-accredited degree!  (It is possible in a few states in some 
     limited specialties  such as safety engineering, but forget about it 
     when it comes to the mainstream.)
     
     Let's look over the fence at our bretheren in industrial hygiene:  
     over ten years ago they eliminated the loopholes in their program for 
     admitting non-degreed applicants.  The ABIH has recently changed their 
     requirements to a Masters degree in industrial hygiene From an  
     accredited IH program as the entry level degree for certification. (At 
     the same time as some in the health physics community are still 
     arguing over the need for a 4 year degree as a minimum professional 
     level credential!)
     
     If health physics is to grow and mature as a profession, then our 
     professional standards need to reflect society's rising expectations.  
     Several yars ago, at an AAHP Special Session, Paul Ziemer at an AAHP 
     gave a presentation in which he cited several essential  
     characteristics of a profession.  I'm paraphrasing a bit, but among 
     these were high standards for entry, continuing education and 
     development of its members, and active promotion of its membership as 
     the primary or sole qualified practitioners of the profession.
     
     This opens the broader question of certification and what it 
     represents.  Certification does not merely lie in the ability to pass 
     an examination.  When the American Board of Health Physics certifies 
     an individual in the practice of health physics, it does so based on 
     an examination of the candidate's 1) education; 2) professional level 
     experience; 3) demonstration of professional level work (i.e., the 
     required Radiation Protection Report); and 4) professional level 
     knowledge by means of a written examination.  Certification is a 
     representation by the Board that the candidate has not only 
     successfully met all of these standards, but also has subscribed to a 
     set of Standards of Professional Responsibility.  In my mind, this 
     places a great societal responsibility on the Board.  At the ame time, 
     certification is a purely voluntary, non-governmental process.  The 
     ABHP passes no judgement on those who do not apply for certification.
     
     There seems to be a lot of griping about elitism.  I would argue that some 
     measure of elitism is an essential characteristic of a profession.  There's 
     a big difference between elitism and snobbery.  Webster's first definition 
     for elite is "the best or superior members of a society or group"  
     Conversely, a snob is "1) one who is convinced of and flaunts one's 
     social superiority; 2) one who despises one's inferiors and whose 
     condescension arises from social or intellectual pretension."  Does 
     the membership of the American Academy of Health Physics constitute an 
     elite group? You bet it does!   Are there some snobs in our midst?  
     Quite possibly, although none immediately come to mind.  Are there 
     outstanding and superior members of the health physics profession who 
     are not members of the Academy?  Certainly!  
     
     For those still arguing the degree issue, I think the question boils 
     down to whether health physics is a trade or a profession.  A 
     profession, to risk quoting Webster's one more time, is "a calling, 
     requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic 
     preparation."  Alternatively, a trade is "an occupation requiring 
     manual or mechanical skill."  
     
     I believe it's time to get past this issue and look forward to more 
     relevant problems such as the role of health physics in integrated 
     safety management programs, promoting certification as an alternative 
     to state licensure of health physicists, and other pressing issues.

     George Vargo