At one point in history, when "professionals" meant only lawyers, clergy, and doctors, no one was thought competent to judge them except themselves and therefore they were expected to watch and govern themselves. As professions crumbled under the barrage of a culture interested only in money, predatory capitalism, their self-governance became inoperative. There were too many financial reasons to cover up, deny, and evade, let alone be less than vigilant gate-keepers.
At the same time, speaking of "professionals" of things like operating heavy equipment, meant that these workmen became invested in proof of competence via certification. Think of what this would mean in terms of running for political office! How many politicians could pass such a test. (I do NOT mean IQ, which only tests the ability to pass a paper IQ test.)
"What does Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) mean? A certificate of professional competence is a certificate required by all heavy vehicle operators and drivers over and above their drivers' or operators' licences. This ruling also applies to freelance operators employed by businesses."
"Certification is all about credentials. It’s what some people might consider “formal” education. Professionals who are certified in their area of specialty complete a course of study, pass a written examination, and must continue taking professional development courses throughout their careers.. . . these credentials do matter. In essence, having a credential represents a commitment on the part of the professional. It shows that they have set a goal for themselves and followed through to achieve it. The third-party stamp of approval validates the knowledge and professionalism they gained in the process.
Competency, on the other hand, has nothing to do with professional or formal education. Instead, it refers to the skill and knowledge needed to successfully complete a task.
Why is certified competency welcomed by heavy industry but shunned by today's professionals who undercut continued training and brush off ethical standards? Professions were once considered humanistic but now they are seen as technical, which means to many that they are without ethics.
Montana is known as a state that deliberately keeps its oversight of doctors lenient because this makes it more attractive to doctors in spite of harsh weather and small cities. Defining this in numbers and specifics would be politically dangerous. People who have the resources and are aware of local limitations go to the big medical centers like Mayo. I could give you examples if it weren't dangerous in a world of lawsuits. Indian reservations are doubly vulnerable because the shocking debts of new doctors can be reduced by working on a rez and there is even less oversight, even more need.
At the time ('78) I was thinking about UU seminary, The Rev. David Pohl was responsible for advising people like me and he was willing to talk about how difficult it was He said that the MMPI paper test was one filter they used. The version I took was the old-fashioned one. I don't know whether the new version is used by the UUA. "Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), published in 2008, is a 338–item self-report measure linked conceptually and empirically to modern theories and models of psychopathology and personality." Many contexts find it useful, not just ministry. It's online.
I expect a person might buy a copy and work through it, but might need someone with training to interpret the results. There's no chance Trump could focus enough to take it. It's not a pass/fail test but a way to describe the whole person.
The next filter was the requirement for a BA or BS degree from an accredited college and the Graduate Record Exam which is an evaluation of academic skills. Note the "accredited" qualification. This step plus grad school makes UU ministry a "learned" version of religious leadership, certified by at least an MDiv degree. But in theory, a UU congregation can call and certify anyone they consider worthy, even an uneducated person. This is rarely done and doesn't necessarily transfer from one congregation to the next. It is the pattern claimed by evangelical wealth-focused groups.
When I first felt the impulse to make this commitment, I paid a clinical psychologist to talk me out of it, since I was aware of having been divorced and working in a job that then was atypical for a woman. (Animal control.) The counselor was a woman and Jewish. She said she had no concept of what a Christian clergy person would be asked to do, what qualities and competencies were needed. The UUA later asked me to take an interview with another "professional" who turned out to have the same background and mystification. So this was a niche sort of subdivision of mental health worker, mostly informed by pop movies. "Shrinks" are often thought to be secular, non-religious because of being "scientific."
But this was also the result of a culture that in the name of tolerance had removed definition and description from religion. "Religion" and religious leadership were completely undefined, undescribed in order to prevent something like what India just did, which was to impose a religious qualification for citizenship. it started riots. They "get" the value of secularity.
The next, more serious hurdle was the Ministerial Fellowship Committee. My own minister was the chair at the time. This was my Ace Card that took me past all obstacles. I did pretty well on hurdles, but his recommendation pushed them aside. Personal influence is at the heart of most of these systems, not just ministry. The Rev. Alan Deale was sharply aware of the problems of evaluating free and progressive individuals who were sometimes atypical enough to raise questions. One example was an application he showed me. It required a photo which my school district had used to judge race which they were forbidden to ask directly, (Even using photos jocularly at hiring meetings to judge how pretty the women were.) An example for qualification judges was that one person intended a "clown" ministry and his photo showed him in full makeup. As the Fellowship Chair pointed out, the committee was unable to judge whether the makeup was well done, much less what the qualities of a good clown ministry might be.
When I got to seminary -- and I chose the stuffiest old traditional one -- I was startled by drug use, sleeping around. cheating on tests, and so on, but willingly joined a group focused on steady character. Not all the edgy characters made it into pulpits, but some did.
The problem with professions can be listed this way:
- Lack of definition of what exactly the job entails, esp in a specialty.
- Pre-existing cultural influence.
- Enormous variety in the sorts of candidate -- and also in the sort of congregation or kind of law or medical specialty. Part of being modern is being a specialist. The kindly old standard minister has gone the way of the kindly wise old family practitioner and the kindly old town lawyer.
- Prestige as a pure matter of wealth, nothing to do with learning or wisdom.
How do we get back to the old system? We don't. We need formal third-party certification of competence for professions. Someone should start a business, a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. The trend has been opposite -- to drop requirements and gatekeeping because it makes money to have students entering.
.jpg)
