[Bryan Thalhammer (2003.07.17.2245 CDT)]
Fred,
Yikes! In a situation where one is doing development in an ethical,
cost-conscious atmosphere, I agree with you that the "whys" grounding the
study need to be done first. But obviously, Rick may feel that this
could/should be done, and was throwing it out in the middle of the room to
see who would jump on it in a casual way.
[Fred Nickols (2003.07.17.1640 EDT)] --
What you propose runs counter to everything I know about making
good things happen.... If I read your post below
correctly, you are suggesting that we need to have a set of evaluation
standards or criteria for certification first. I'm saying unequivocally
that that is NOT the first step.....
I am suggesting that he (or someone!) make a sketch (a rapid prototype on a
napkin) of the standards, so that we have something more concrete to talk
about, that's all. In a way, as the standards become more tangible we can
relate to them more easily from a policy point of view. A professor friend
of mine suggested that people often start from the Application level of
Bloom's Taxonomy and then reach up for Evaluation and down for Knowledge and
Facts. I tend to agree that is how the human creative mind works, moving
back and forth between application and plan, and so on.
As that sketch becomes more concrete, and the comments are made as they
usually are, the reality will kick in as to what a formalized program would
entail. Two outcomes, 1) Rick will pony up and give us our consulting fees
(aha my motivation, Rick!) so that we do it right, or 2) we have a skeleton
of a document finished for the next time Rick wants ppl to get certified.
Most often I agree to stick to basics, as you, Fred, suggest, but in this
informal discussion group (or am I on the clock?), I felt that we had the
latitude to make suggestions, throw something on the wall, and see if it
sticks. When we start having to pay for our posts by the word, then we
probably will be more judicious next time. 
But I really would like to
know, how is one to objectively judge whether an explanation, experiment, or
application IS really PCT, or IS NOT. What could the hurt be, if someone
prototypes a set of standards for no money down?
Whether or not certification would become the symbol, control strategy, the
cart before the horse, an imposition, ossifier, etc. Rohan Lulham just now
nailed the reason we probably wouldn't hurt to have such check list, that
is, to ensure that we don't constantly come up with yet another 'adhoc test'
for an article or suggested extension of PCT. Instead might we use a
consistent standard applied in a consistent fashion?
Cheers,
--Bryan, 1 of 50.
Here is the original post again, just for the sake of consistency:
···
[From Rick Marken (2003.07.17.0910)]
I wonder what people think of the idea of certifying mastery of
PCT? We have always had the problem of unqualified people teaching
and even doing research on faux versions of PCT. But the problem
seems to be multiplying. Or maybe it's not.
Maybe it's a self limiting problem and the people who are
teaching faux versions of PCT will eventually drop it and do
something new, as in the case of Bill Glasser.
This is probably something we should discuss at the meeting. But
I thought I would see what the 50 or so of those of you out there
on CSGNet think of the idea of PCT certification. Should there be
such a thing? If so, how might it work?
Best regards
Rick