[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ABHP Degree Requirement - Background and Perspective
George J Vargo wrote:
>
> 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
--
Voice: 440-946-5259
Pager: 216-360-3773
Fax: 440-946-9859
E-Mail: carlson@en.com
Digital Display Pager: http://www.usamobile.com/epage.html
Use the pager number above to send text message!