[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ABHP Degree Requirement - Background and Perspective
George --
Is this the message to which you had reference? If so, I note it is dated
on Sunday; mine was written on Friday. Thus, there is no possible way that
I could have cribbed from you. Indeed, one could conlude (I DO NOT,
however), that it could have been the other way around judging by the dates
of the postings.
Ron
At 10:26 PM 9/14/97 -0500, 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
>
>