CompuServe Messages

Dear James: Not to jump in, but I'm on your side. As most people know I get almost violent when it comes to a discussion of certification. I'm not even sure I'm too happy with the Certification for Users since I'm not sure I'm qualified, nor do I know anyone qualified enough to make such a judgement. For example, YOU make think layers are important, and I might think layers are important – but the guy at Hughes who wrote an entire NC application which cut parts using a variety of NC machines from inside AutoCAD never seemed to miss them. Now you tell me whose a better User of AutoCAD? If he were to judge you and I Well . . . I just don't know where we'd be. And instructor certification seems just as insidious. And I HAVE all the qualifications – a degree, publications, previous experience. So I'm in by all the usual measurements. I have attended universities and had instructors (qualified and everything) who couldn't teach, who hated students, and whose understanding of how to apply the information they provided was dubious at best. So – how is Autodesk going to license/credential trainers in such a fashion as to avoid this problem? And, even if I'm TECHNICALLY competent – does that mean I can teach AutoCAD any old way I want to? Seems like it would make lots more sense to accredit or license a curriculum, and then have tests for the students that measure understanding of the curriculum presented. After all, its easier to get the quality of training Instructor Certification is supposed to give you if you focus on the results. Trained Students. In fact, I would rabidly support a 'standard curriculum' with tests measuring delivery of that curriculum – i.e. what the students absorbed. And developing that curriculum would take a hell of a lot less work for everyone than developing a fair/standard/uniform test to accredit instructors. ATC instructors would turn in the tests with the 'Performance Evaluation' sheets. And people could petition to have documents/training manuals certified by Autodesk. This means the curriculum would grow. I'm not against accountability, just arbitrary standards. Not that I'm not a team player and all. I figure a poor qualification procedure would alienate so many people (trainers, students, ATCs, dealers, Universities, Community Colleges) that Autodesk isn't going to let it happen. So I guess I'll go along with whatever they say. Maybe they know better. 'Sides My Daddy (who hired engineers for the China Lake Naval Weapons Laboratory as Technical Director) says "Engineers are born, not made." And he was always smart enough to hire someone based on performance – not credentials. Most people are that smart.