I agree.
Our current condition with "certifications" could possibly be argued to be worse than not having a credential at all.
I don't think there could be a greater amount of misconception among people of what a "certified welder" can be counted on to be able to do or to know.
Many people mistakenly think that term indicates competence as a metal worker rather than what we know it to mean. Including too many people who SHOULD know better.
As you know it is possible a "certified welder" isn't that skilled even in the process they tested with, isn't proficient with an air arc, torch, multiple welding processes, math, blueprints, layout, fitting, and so forth. They may have minimal or almost zero knowledge on basic procedures, consumable selection, machine set up, etc.
While a non - "certified welder" might be much more proficient both as a welder and as a fabricator.
It is always disheartening to see an experienced trade welder doing things wrong because he doesn't know better.
Personally I would like to see industry adopt meaningful credentials that tests knowledge, along with performance testing that includes torch and air arc work if that would be normal for work performed under a particular code, as a minimum standard for code work.
I know some employers / contractors want to keep standards low in the belief it will keep their labor cost down. But some of the things some guys do, or dont know, makes me scratch my head on that line of thinking.
There certainly is no shortage of workers who really want papers but who have no interest in acquiring welding knowledge or becoming skilled with the process they want to be " certified" with.
Unfortunatly the AWS itself is probably the biggest offender when it comes to adding confusion when it comes to the terms "certified" and "qualified" as they apply to welders...... All in an attempt to leverage the percieved need for more ATF's (accredited test facillities)
While it has it's faults... The CWB I believe handles this issue better than both the US and Europe (ISO/EN's)
Blaster... The AWS "SENSE" Program... Both curriculum guides and specifications... Do exactly what you think should be done...
Sadly it is pooly marketed and disrespected. There is great value in my opinion in all 3 SENSE levels.
Maybe someday they will get traction.
Are the written tests that are referenced in the sense books something I could get from AWS to use in my program if I wanted?
I already have a 4-hour 300 question general welding knowledge capstone exam the students must pass with a 90% or higher to complete the program, but I would consider using some or all of the AWS tests if I could preview them and they looked like valuable additions or even replacements.
Blaster
Being a SENSE school is easy to do... Membership is VERY inexpensive and the Standards and WPS's along with the 3 AWS memberships that go with the annual fees more than pay for the expense.
The written tests are pretty good... Much better than before the 2006-8 revisions........ Not perfect, but comprehensive in all 4 processes, cutting, safety, print reading, symbols etc.
You don't need to use the National Regestry to be a SENSE school... So those costs are not a requiement... You can just use the curriculum and extras if that's what you want. Which was my choice, even though I served on the Educators subcommittee on SENSE during the revisions..
I agree. unfortunately I'm not certain of the process and who would lead. It would take a law change to put weight behind a general welding certification in the same vein as what plumbers or electricians have. The AWS would need to be the one to lead the charge and as you say it would probably be opposed by certain industry groups who would complain about the availability of certified welders and cost of labor.
It would be really nice to have a piece of paper that says I'm qualified to read blue-prints, make measurements, interpret a WPS, setup a machine select the right consumable and all the other tasks associated with being a welder that aren't just passing a bend test