Good points all, but the initial request noted that the prospective candidate didn't have ready access to former superiors (or couldn't get reasonable assistance). 

So Judy and several others' points with regards to what someone did vs. what the job claims to entail are absolutely relevant; on the other hand, I think my point remains germane that there should be some fairly standardized way to know that this job title or code corresponds to *potentially* acceptable work background. In other words, there are two parts to qualification: 2+ years of acceptable work experience depending on education, and 3 of the 8 areas covered. So if a candidate provides the DD 2586 and DD 214 indicating 4 years as an admin clerk, there are 4 years of potentially acceptable work background on their face. The two documents would include specific schools and courses the candidate had attended, which would be more supporting documentation. And the detailed writeup the candidate identified as having written but was unable to get signed would correlate closely with those forms. 

Here's another take on it. The cost to apply is $100. Is someone really going to go through the effort to put together a detailed packet AND pay $100 AND pay $650 for the 6 tests (AND pass them) who doesn't qualify? Believe me, I understand the possibility and the potential drawbacks of "paper certifications" as well as or better than anyone else on the list. But the entire point of having such a complex, thorough exam including an essay portion seems like it would weed out the "paper certs"; in the meantime, I'd hate to think that the ICRM is losing otherwise qualified candidates (and CRMs, and revenue) because those candidates find it exceedingly difficult to dot the I's and cross the T's. 

I certainly don't want the ICRM to relax its standards, but I understand how difficult it can be to qualify for a number of reasons. It probably still has to be done on a case-by-case basis but I'd hope the ICRM would continue to show some flexibility where it can reasonably be determined that someone should qualify.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of myself and no other company, organization, association, entity, or board of directors,

Jesse
[log in to unmask] 
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessewilkins 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]