Tree Tech Consulting    The Knothole  Hop To Forum Categories  ASCA Discussion Group Archives    Candidate report requirements

Read-Only Read-Only Topic
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Candidate report requirements
 Login/Join
 
<Wayne Cahilly>
posted
Just got the Arboricultural Consultant and see that for candidate members the report requirements have changed AGAIN!!!! Does anyone know what the real scoop is? I have heard nothing officially however it appears that Academy reports now count as one of the three, one selected by someone for the candidate to work up, and one real report. Russ, Scott, Lew, what the devil is going on??!! The requirements have changed at least once per year since I became a candidate.

grumbling

Wayne
 
Report This Post
<Scott>
posted
Reply to post by Wayne Cahilly, on May 14, 1999 at 08:30:00:

Ah change. Sorry I can't be of help on this. Maybe russ as Reports instructor & ASCA Director can help. Otherwise I'd say get an official response from Beth. It might be appropriate for ASCA to send an official notification to all mid-stream 'candidates.'
 
Report This Post
<Russ Carlson>
posted
Reply to post by Scott, on May 14, 1999 at 08:30:00:

Keep in mind that there is no official 'Candidate' category anymore. All former candidates are now regular members of ASCA. The higher level of designation is now 'Registered Consulting Arborist'.

The Board has approved this change for becoming an RCA:

Meet membership and CEU eligibility criteria.
Submit a total of three written reports on arboricultural topics. The first is the Academy report. ONce this is successfully completed (necessary to graduate the Academy) the applicant will submit a second report based on a prepared scenario provided by ASCA. When this is sucessfully completed, the third report is one of the applicant's choosing, based on a case of his/her own.

For applicants (candidates) already in the process, the Academy report counts as the first. If you have submitted a second report, even if from your own cases, it will count. One final report will be required (not sure yet if this must be a scenario or if a second self-defined report will be accepted). The advantage here is that former candidate members actually have one less report to submit now. This change was approved, but final details still being worked out, and may be subject to refinement.

Hope this helps.
 
Report This Post
<Scott>
posted
Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on May 15, 1999 at 12:36:00:

Ah change. More change (refinement) to follow.
 
Report This Post
<Russ Carlson>
posted
Reply to post by Scott, on May 15, 1999 at 14:30:31:

The Board recognizes that there have been a lot of changes recently. Once we set things in motion, we have to follow through and get it the way we want it. We can't stay in one place. As Lee Iococca said, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way!" We want to be leaders in the arboricultural industry, and that means we have to adapt- constantly.

The biggest challenge to change is the inertia of the membership. We have to inform them of what the Board decides, and we (as a Board) must have their comments and ideas to direct the mission of the organization. Communication must go both ways. But sometimes we don't have all the answers, and still have to communicate what is in the works. I'm sure there will be more information on this following the June Board meeting.
 
Report This Post
<Wayne>
posted
Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on May 15, 1999 at 12:36:00:

Russ,

This is the first time I ever procrastinated and gained something by it!!! Thanks for the clearification. I gathered that was the case from the way it was worded in the A. Consultant and agree that an official something is in order from the main office. I bet I am not the only one who is wondering where they stand.

All things being equal, I think the change is a good one at least having a report scenario provided so there is less room to "wiggle" in producing a quality product.

Wayne
 
Report This Post
<Scott>
posted
Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on May 16, 1999 at 07:03:45:

Russ, I understand the need or perceived need for change. Sometimes it's positive, sometimes not. Without getting into any discussion of where these changes fall on that scale based on the real merits, I can say that many (former) Canditates or (now) prospective RCAs have been frustrated by what appears to be continual change without clear communication from the board of what is required. I trust that's going to be corrected.

On a related note I've been asked if, in addition to the new report sequence (academy, scenario, real world), a grading checklist will be implemented (like the one used for academy '97 '98 & '99) so that all reviewers should come up with fairly consistent reviews fo the same report?
 
Report This Post
<Julian Dunster>
posted
Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on May 16, 1999 at 07:03:45:

I am not sure why we have dropped one report. If ASCA wishes to maintain its status an the highest possible level of accreditation, why would we be making it easier to gain that accreditation? It would make some sense to require increasingly difficult report assignments as a means of testing the skill level of the applicant. Perhaps this last report should be a real zinger, testing all skill levels to the limit, as a means of proving competency. If not, we seem to be in danger of lowering accreditation standards and diluting the ASCA stanbsdards.

Julian
 
Report This Post
<Russ Carlson>
posted
Reply to post by Scott, on May 16, 1999 at 11:52:49:

Yes, a new report grading system is being readied. We are not quite at the stage to implement it yet, but that should start soon. There will be some other changes that should greatly improve the system. [News at 11]
 
Report This Post
<Russ Carlson>
posted
Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on May 16, 1999 at 11:52:49:

Good points, Julian. This was a major concern, and was carefully weighed. But fewer reports does not equate to less stringent requirements. The degree of difficulty increases for each report, and the grading gets tougher each time. The new system will streamline the process, not make it easier for the applicants in terms of demonstrating expertise.
 
Report This Post
<Wayne Cahilly>
posted
Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on May 18, 1999 at 06:33:42:

Just a note for the record regarding my own academy report from 1996. Had it not been for Scott I would have never received an assessment of my report. Apparently there was a computer glitch along the way and other than being informed that my report passed, I never received an assessment from the committee. Scott reviewed my report after submittal and gave feedback that has I believe improved my report work considerably, but communication from the review committee was non existant.

Wayne
 
Report This Post
<Russ Carlson>
posted
Reply to post by Wayne Cahilly, on May 18, 1999 at 21:25:35:

Also, for the record, this problem has been corrected. THe review process is now considered part of the training exercise. Reviewers are encouraged to make constructive remarks, and assist with improving the reports.
 
Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Read-Only Read-Only Topic

Tree Tech Consulting    The Knothole  Hop To Forum Categories  ASCA Discussion Group Archives    Candidate report requirements

© 1997-2003 Tree Tech Consulting. All messages are the property of the original author.