Re: cert discussion

[paul killey <paul@engin.umich.edu>]

	I wonder which historical precedent to consult, however.

the area of 'professionalization' (which i think would bear on the
certification discussion here) has been written about quite a bit.

'professions' (quite a range; accountants, doctors, lawyers, funeral
directors, engineers), academic areas (sciences and social sciences ...
associations in different disciplines), and a # of different jobs
(skilled trades, telephone operators, educators, secretaries, etc.).

the ideology of these studies is both "left" (rationalizes the
workforce for the employers, is used to drive women out of desirable
fields and make them male dominated or to push women into limited
roles, copts workers, makes them a commodity, and destroys their class
consciousness) and "right" (democratizes fields, opens entrance based
on ability and inclination, focuses on specific skills and raises wages
and creates more specialized and valuable ability & expertise in the
work force, which in turn advances the credibility of the entire field,
forces out charlatans and quacks, etc.).

the economics (tendencies toward low-end or high-end salaries) has a
lot to do with the supply & demand.  for example, if barriers to
certification are high (limited slots, high cost of qualifying, level
of difficulty in passing exams) the supply is kept down.  when the
professional or qualifying organization is not the employer, or is
adversarial to the employer (unions & trades), maintains exclusivity in
the cert process and maintains controls on the # of people one way or
another the supply is kept down.

of course, laws that require the engagement of certified professionals
help a lot too! :)

and, vice-versa.

law (and law schools) is an area where an oversupply was kicking in for
a while and may still be. so, you see a good # of lawyers with low
salaries, or really scraping from client to client.  and a really big
variance between low and high salary ranges.  and a lot of ex-lawyers,
for that matter.

it strikes me that the fact that there is a Systems Administrator's
*Guild* and not a Systems Administrator's Association or Union says
something about the values and assumptions of the organization. And
that's why this group is talking about certs like they are.

speaking of historical precedents (and i don't mean this in a bad way)
i wonder what an e-mail discussion on the weavers guild list in the
18th century or shoemakers guild list in the 19th century would have
been like?

--paul