On 10/19/05, JESSE WILKINS <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >Frankly, I believe that we would be very likely to get government to
> >confer a monopoly on the ICRM for certification if we were to work to
> >that end.
>
> troubles me. One of the other key points regarding certification and
> licensure that either I missed or has been missed to date is that frequently
> the certifications are created to serve as a mechanism to limit competition
> to those who have already gotten it by ensuring that the barriers to entry
> are high. You can see this in a number of fields. I think it would be
> difficult to do this in RM in part because it is not as well known.

I agree licensing serves to protect and restrict access to the profession.


>
> It also serves, in my mind, to restrict the adaptability of the field,
> because the vested practititioners are the ones that create the
> certification and tend to adhere to what they needed to know "back then".

Not necessarily

> while there is a requirement
> to do continuing education for the CRM, there is no requirement, for
> example, to test on the newest RIM-related technology every X number of
> years,

Yes CRMs are required to obtain 100 Contact Maintenance hours per 5
year cycle. and yes we aren't required to test against technology, but
then no other profession that I know is required to test on the latest
technology. Are attorneys required to test against the latest legal
technology? are CPAs required to test against the latest financial
analysis software? the key is continuing education. It is up to the
CRM to educate themselves on the latest technology.

more info can be found here
http://www.icrm.org/forms/INFORMATIONSHEET5.htm

--
Peter Kurilecz
Richmond, Va

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance