|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | FW: [gislist] FW: GIS Certification |
| Date: |
01/12/2004 10:55:01 AM |
| From: |
Marc Allred |
|
|
Thanks for your e-mail Al Butler. What I like most about the URISA idea
is that is experience and education oriented, not test taking. Let me
give an example, the Microsoft certifications (MCP, MCSA, MCDBA, etc...)
used to mean a lot to employers in the mid to late 90's. Now I'm
starting to hear employers say those certs just mean the person can take
tests well. Or that their trainable, but that doesn't necessarily mean
they know how to do the job they are applying for.
What I like about the URISA is it combines education, experience, and
contributions into its achievement levels. To me, that is more
important than taking a test. Whether or not the URISA certification
will 'fade away', that depends on employers. If you find out employers
are choosing URISA certified technician, analysts, or directors (not
sure of the level names) over non-certified URISA candidates I'm sure it
will take off. And its not like anyone can just become a URISA
certified director/coordinator (again I don't know the levels), you have
to have the combination of achievements mentioned earlier. That's
better than just taking a test to me.
Another improvement that certifications have brought to other
occupations is higher salaries for that field. Employers are more
likely to pay more for a GIS professional if they fill more comfortable
that the candidate is qualified for the job. Soon afterward other
employers must raise their salaries to keep up or have a high turnover
rate.
Marc Allred
Northwest Piedmont COG
GIS Analyst
Phone: 336-761-2111
Fax: 336-761-2112
E-mail: mallred@nwpcog.org
-----Original Message-----
From: gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com
[mailto:gislist-bounces@lists.geocomm.com] On Behalf Of Al Butler
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:40 AM
To: gislist@lists.geocomm.com
Subject: [gislist] FW: GIS Certification
As an early member of the URISA Certification Committee and its
successor organization (GIS Certification Institute), I am always
interested in the perceptions and comments of others regarding the
program. As a member of this geocomm listserver, I have seen mail
headings that ask such questions as whether GIS has a professional
association and others that suggest a group of GIS-related persons is
motivated by the acquisition of power or some other sinister motive. (I
only slightly hesitate to suggest that the typical GIS user is a bit
liberal politically and generally suspicious of
organizations.)
Each of us on the committee (now board) has his or her own motive for
participation. Believe it not, several of us joined because we thought
it was a bad idea to have yet another GIS-related certification program.
(There are presently two others, ASPRS and IAAO.) Personally, I was
motivated by my having one of those other GIS certifications (ASPRS
mapping scientist), which is test based and (apparently) very hard to
get since there are fewer than 50 of us. My concern was that the two
programs would overlap and make my existing credential less useful.
Ultimately, the GISCI program slotted in at a lower skill level than the
one issued by ASPRS, with the IAAO program being aligned to a property
mapping specialization. The new GIS Technician certification from ASPRS
is somewhat below the GISCI certification, although there is a bit of
overlap since you can get the GISCI a few years after qualifying for the
ASPRS Technician certificate.
There are many things wrong with the GISCI program. The intent is not
to have a perfect program. The intent is to get something out there
that can be massaged over time to be better. Should we have a test?
Absolutely. Does anyone have a clue how to construct such a test today?
Hell no. The analogy I often use is that GIS is a tool to do something
in a specialized field of endeavor. Trying to test someone on GIS
technical skills without placing the test within the context of that
specialized field won't work. It's like trying to certify people who use
hammers. How a carpenter uses hammers is very different from how a
blacksmith or an auto body repairman might use one. You can't test auto
body guys on how well they can drive a nail since they don't do that,
nor can you test carpenters on fender reshaping. And try to develop a
GIS test that doesn't use software, since we should be testing GIS
knowledge, not technical software skills. (Not everyone uses ArcView,
you know.)
The only level playing field approach is a theoretical one dealing with
projections, topology, scale, etc., and even that is outside the box of
what most people do with GIS today. How can you test map making
abilities without getting someone to make a map? And how can someone
make a map in a standard, testable way? Some might even debate, as the
GISCI group did just this week, that map making, per se, is not a GIS
exercise without certain other elements, such a
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
