CompuServe Messages

Nancy, Having separate curriculums based on discipline is not without its merits. It does create an instructor stratification that might work in major metropolitan areas. When it comes to discipline specific instruction I can't justify an AutoCAD curriculum or certification, as at that point the user should not be focusing on AutoCAd as a tool but on some Companion Application that will provide a manifold increase in productivity. There is no doubt in my mind that an instructor skilled in the intended discipline is going to be able to streamline the requisite command understanding, and superfluousness of certain commands, that a student may find some benefit in this directed approach. I just don't think such an approach is feasible in terms of segregating students and schedules or finding enough students in any one category to justify the effort. I'm sure you agree licensing operators and accrediting instructors is a GIGO proposition. Autodesk can only accredit a curriculum that applies to the AutoCAD software since it is a non-discipline specific tool. Are you saying that an Autodesk accredited curriculum should guarantee a learned user if the instructor is adequate, or an adequate user would result from an instructor learned in the accredited curriculum? I feel any instructor that can't create an effective curriculum is doing their students a great disservice. I do say this from the viewpoint of a 40 hr/wk USER who teaches part time though. A tenured instructor being handed an AutoCAD lab might see things in a different light. A discipline specific curriculum will not only assist them in their instruction, but it would also illuminate approaches that they could act on to increase their comprehension of what the software is capable of doing for them, not only in academia, but also in a private practice. I must reiterate that I see the benefit as minimal and I feel that a Companion Application should be introduced at this point. Expecting Autodesk to accredit discipline specific curricula is beyond the scope of their responsibility IMHO. Accrediting a fundamental curriculum does no more than the current testing process as you point out. If an instructors students can't pass the ACE then the results speak for themselves. I think the greatest assistance that can be provided would be including the ACE as part of all instruction requirements and that instructor accreditation continue to be based on this criterion. With the ACE as the common denominator the instructor DOES at least have a minimum target requirement to shoot at in developing an adequate curriculum. I've encountered major resistance to the test from users that currently make their living using AutoCAD. I assumed that it was because they feared the results, but it turns out that ACE accreditation just doesn't mean all that much. It all comes back to your argument for discipline specific training. The tool that AutoCAD represents is not as important as the Companion Application that it is used with. The important instruction begins once the lessons are applied to the day-to-day work that goes out the door. Knowing that the raw material has adequate knowledge of AutoCAD, by passing the ACE, establishes that least common denominator. Every office has different procedures that only can be learned in the work environment, and the requisite CAD knowledge can also be transferred at the same time. This might lead to propagation of poor practice, but it goes back to something I stress; I can teach any draftsperson (or selected professional) AutoCAD, but I can't teach them the profession. I say let's keep AutoCAD out of the professions and let them be responsible for their own havoc<g>. Dennis