RE: Future Changes to Part II?

["Dunn, Wes" <WDunn@intiso.com>]

Brian, I respectfully disagree. To generalize (and we know the problems
with that): Part I is a test of knowledge.  Part II is the application
of knowledge using appropriate judgement.  Would that not be a skill?

Wes

Wesley M. Dunn, CHP, Director, Environmental Health & Safety
International Isotopes, Inc.
3100 Jim Christal Road
Denton, Texas  76207
Wdunn@intiso.com <mailto:Wdunn@intiso.com>
Corporate Website:  http://www.intiso.com
940-484-9492; 940-484-0877 (fax)


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca [SMTP:Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca]
	Sent:	Thursday, February 18, 1999 10:08 AM
	To:	Multiple recipients of list
	Subject:	Re: Future Changes to Part II?

	Brian Gaulke
	02/18/99 11:01 AM

	Nancy:

	You used the word "skills" throughout your discussion of the
Part II exam.
	It seems to me that the exam is specifically a test of
knowledge.

	Qualification to perform a particular job includes a mix of
knowledge,
	skills, and abilities.  Skills and abilities are adequately
demonstrated by
	the practical experience requirement and sponsor
recommendations.  The exam
	then serves to verify the knowledge component.

	Just my opinions.

	Brian R. Gaulke, CHP
	Head, Dosimetry Section
	Radiation Protection Bureau
	Health Canada
	(613) 941-0143
	Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca


	
************************************************************************
	The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
	information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html