It is fine to find fault or to criticize, but what alternative have you to offer.
Employer base certification is not viable since there is no base line established and it is biased.
The marketplace wants a yardstick that can be used to determine if an individual has the basic knowledge required to perform a function. That is the case with folk lift operators, crane operators, electricians, plumbers, welders, inspectors, engineers, doctors, teachers, and lawyers. Few people or corporations have the time, money, or expertise to evaluate every candidate they interview or consider when filling a position. Instead, they depend on independent bodies that are perceived to have the expertise to do part of the task for them. It is still the employer's responsibility to exercise due diligence when assessing the abilities of an employee before assigning him or her to a task. the goal should be to ensure the assignment is within their capability and experience.
I do not expect a family practitioner to perform open-heart surgery. I do not expect a teacher fresh out of college with a license to teach grammar school to instruct a course intended for graduate students working on advanced degrees. I have to recognize the limitations of the credential. The credential alone does not mean the individual has the experience or capability to perform a job function that requires advanced training and experience.
What do you propose in place of the “certification?” What system do you propose that can provide a yardstick that can be used to assess an individual’s knowledge of a subject? Does the employer discount the value of the high school diploma and administer their own examination? Does the employer discount the college degree and make each candidate complete an examination to demonstrate proficiency or mastery of basic sciences, humanities, or subjects of specialization? Does the employer discount the engineer’s license to practice and require each candidate to complete an extensive series of practical engineering problems? Does each client discount the lawyer’s diploma and require the lawyer to pass an examination of their design before allowing that individual to represent your interests in a courtroom? The same argument extends to the doctor’s license and every other profession. How many of us have the expertise required to properly evaluate a prospective professional. Instead, we depend on certifications and licensing to verify the individual has the basic abilities, education, training, and experience needed to perform the job function.
Evidently, industry does recognize the need and the value of certification and licensing as a means of validating the individual’s knowledge or skill. Industry requires and relies on certification/licensing programs to ensure the individual has a basic understanding of a particular subject. It does not confer “expert” status on the credential holder.
The question really is, “How far does one go and how much money is to be spent to assess the knowledge and capabilities of the individual under consideration?” I agree that the credential should not be the only consideration when hiring someone to provide a service or to fill an employment opening. However, it is a recognized tool that can be utilized to sort out those individual that are unlikely to meet the needs of the employer or the client.
No system is perfect. Every system can be improved upon. I am always in favor of training. Few people taking the CWI examinations are proficient in all subjects. More classroom time and more time spent studying subjects such as welding symbols, metallurgy, mathematics, nondestructive testing, codes, material specifications, etc. would be a benefit. However, the subjects by themselves can be boring to say the least. I find it useful if the subjects can be tied into practical problems that require more than memorization. Learning to use analytical skills and learning how to find information using multiple references, i.e., codes, standards, and specifications are valuable lessons for solving real world problems. The question becomes, "How much time is required?" Some people require more time because the subjects might be new to them. Some people might be proficient in some subjects, but not others. What is a happy medium that would be suitable for the majority of the attendees? Home study, classroom training, on-the-job experience are all ways to learn. All ways are viable, but classroom training usually accelerates the learning process for most people.
The fact remains that people that have decided to take the CWI examinations have alternatives to consider. They can self study, they can attend the AWS one week review, they can attend a class offered by companies such as Hobart, Real, or others, or they can attend seminars offered by the local sections of AWS (not all sections offer CWI seminars). A one week seminar is hardly the venue for someone that doesn't have experience in welding, NDT, or mechanical testing. Yet, a two week curriculum would cause a person with years of experience to fall asleep in class. It is the individual's responsibility to determine what venue will best meet their needs. The one week CWI seminar is not intended to offer one-on-one tutoring. Few courses offer that type of training. One-on-one training simply is not cost effective. I should point out that a person that needs considerable "hand-holding" probably isn't an ideal candidate for a position as a CWI. There are many situations where the CWI is expected to wok independently. They have to be problem solvers that can use references to find answers to a broad spectrum of questions. They have use formulas to solve math problems and they need to be able to write reports. Basic skills such as those are difficult to teach in a one or two week curriculum. That's where classes completed at the local community college can be beneficial. Taking such courses would be of great benefit if they are completed before attending CWI training.
Finally, is the goal to eliminate the individuals that have not mastered the subject matter, enhance the capabilities of the CWI, or ensure the CWI can fulfill basic job requirements? It there a problem with the existing program or is there a problem with employers that assign the CWI work that they are not qualified to perform?
Best regards - Al
Al,
Thanks for the comments. I do think certification is a good idea. Documentation signed by someone indicating that someone has met specific requirements is a commonplace occurrence. But certification and credentials can begin to lose their value when a large number of people have them and it appears to allow individuals to be validated that are incapable of performing many of the tasks associated with the certification. My original post was concerned with the fact that someone suggested the certification program could be "improved" by mandatory class time. Yet in many cases I have observed (While Taking the Exam , and While Proctoring Years Ago), the majority of those who attended class seemed to struggle some. So the suggestion that making the class "Mandatory" struck me as a silly idea.
In my mind, one of the worst things you can do is teach someone the subject matter on a test, then give them the test immediately. I think a testing and certification system that is suitable for the task/job is sufficient. The CWI program has worked well for me. There is a wide range of knowledge held by employers as to what certification means. In welding, it means one thing for an inspector, another for a welder, and yet another for a SENSE certified welder. We could almost stand to have Certified Certification Inspector.
I propose nothing to replace certification, and I guess if I wanted to change it I should get on some committees. And though in depth interviewing as you describe is absurd, so is every little "stackable" credential that may come up for a CWI. One for welder Qualification, One for writing a Prequalified WPS for a carbon steel butt joint, reviewing a NDE reader Sheet, reading a project specification, verifying material, witnessing a PQR, and who know what else. Again, I'm not discounting certification, but it seems to be something that could get out of hand.
The question really is, “How far does one go and how much money is to be spent to prove ones knowledge and capabilities for the task under consideration?” I agree that the credential should a consideration when hiring someone to provide a service or to fill an employment opening. However, it is a recognized tool may overate, underrate or match an individuals potential.
I too am in favor of training. And even certification. But like all systems, a review may be in order. As far as I know, there are not tons of weld related failures occurring in the US that are the result of inadequate certifications. As you indicated there are many ways to learn. Forcing one method of learning is what I was originally concerned with. I fully support classroom training, I would just hate to become a second class CWI because I don't feel like paying someone to learn things that I learned from the welding handbook in the 12th grade.
I think there is a problem related to both individuals, employers, and agencies understanding what a CWI or Even a Certified Welder MUST be able to do, Might be able to do, and can Learn to do.
Again, I really like "certifications". And maybe even "Endorsements" to better document and verify abilities, but we need to make sure that when a system indicates someone has an ability, they have that ability. But it could also be perceived that just because an individual isn't proficient in one area, the whole individual is inadequate. Kinda like the statements I have heard from companies about a welder that couldn't read a tape measure. Though a desirable skill, I have worked with some guys I would pay top dollar for that only need a hood and gloves.
Have a great Day Al.