AIC certification plan

I have additional comments regarding certification that are worth
noting.   At some point in the dialogue I recall comparisons being
drawn to the certification of Engineers and Architects within this
country.  I believe AIC has based their proposal in part on the
American system of initial certification testing, periodic
application for recertification, frequent continuing education
coursework (on an annual basis for engineers), and certification
cost structure for these two fields.  I know several civil engineers
quite well.  As a result, I have learned that their industry
supports certification in many ways the museum world likely will
not.

Certification of engineering employees has monetary value to the
employer. Certified engineers are billable at a much higher pay
scale.  Also, a company cannot practice engineering legally without
having plans certified. Therefore, having certified employees is in
the employer's best interest. Because being certified is valued by
the employer, the cost of certification and the cost of continuing
education are borne by the employer.  The bigger engineering firms
sponsor courses annually so that their employees can maintain
certification.

In the AIC system, the majority of individuals will end up bearing
all of the costs for certification and continuing education,
including fees and travel.  The costs to the individual will be
large, and as a result many very qualified individuals may not
become certified.

I wanted to take one of the AIC courses this year but could not
afford to do so.  Even with the AIC scholarship subsidy the cost was
nearly $1000 when I tabulated everything, closer to $2000 without
the scholarship. In the current economic climate, professional
travel funds from my institution were not available.


                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 22:32
                 Distributed: Friday, December 5, 2008
                       Message Id: cdl-22-32-001
                                  ***