CompuServe Messages

Hi Mark: If you evaluate all those things for the instructor certification then it will be a fine measurement. I'm not against the idea of trying to certify instructors – a bad certification process will be ignored. A good one will enhance the market, make users happy, and get good instructors paid more. I think certifying quality curriculum is easier than certifying quality instructors. I think certified curriculum can be augmented by the instructor with their own examples. I think maybe the ACE (and/or shorter class based exams) should be made a required part of AutoCAD training for ATCs. I think curriculum should be application based, generally, because AutoCAD isn't important – what you do with it is. And I know that most architects don't use AutoCAD with a 3rd party app, and hardly any mechanical types do. Quality control is everything. If you put the tools and testing in place – I think the bad instructors will be easy to weed out. Their students test scores will always be low. And licensing curriculum and QC tests would cost less than administrating a continuous series of tests for instructors. But, like the rest of the AutoCAD Educators in the field, I am looking forward to the solution the Autodesk team will develop. I support you in your endeavor and if I could think of any _practical_ advice beyond what I've given – I'd be happy to contribute it. The only practical advice I have is to focus on the results – trained students. Seriously, I know the solution that comes forth will be good. Who ever is "hands on" with this project might do well to ignore us kibitzers. n.