Responses to "1984 & all that"

Here's to double-think

From Prof. John Smellie (Rec'd & Pub'd  14 April 2010)

Sir, I am responding to the interesting letter by Rick Brassington (Geoscientist, 20.1, January 2010) in which he raises the issue of Chartered Geologist status.

I have been a Fellow of the Geol Soc since the 1980s and have worked professionally (in research) since the mid 1970's, with geology degrees at Edinburgh and Birmingham universities. I have never once been asked to demonstrate Chartered status by my employers. Indeed, whilst not denigrating the desire by some to be Chartered Geologists, I have never felt the professional or personal urge to do likewise for the simple reason that I cannot see how becoming Chartered makes me a better geologist, since it involves no additional training. In this context, one of Rick Brassington's statements might be revealing and is worth quoting: "....around two thirds of those Fellows earning their living as professional geologists [but choosing not to be Chartered] cannot be bothered to become professionally qualified".

The statement astounded me with its implication that having "only" a degree (or two) was somehow deficient and those geologists were "not qualified" to pursue their profession. Don't misunderstand me. If some wish the be Chartered, they have every right to do so if they see material advantage to themselves. But to create a catch-all system whereby all those "simply with degrees" become regarded as second-rate is an illogical step and could rightly be regarded by the universities (who train the students and confer the degrees after all) as deeply offensive. Either convince the profession why being Charted is essential and what additional important skills being Chartered provides, or else do not go down this path.

The current "doublethink" in the Geol Soc, highlighted by Rick Brassington, may be wiser than he thinks.

Big Brother go home

From Russell Corbyn  Received 12 January; Published 21 January 2010
 

Sir, I note that Rick Brassington (Geoscientist 20.01 January 2010) was quick to imply that any geologist who does not hold Chartered status as lazy, by suggesting that the fellows ‘cannot be bothered’. His analogy to Orwell’s 1984 therefore seems a little misplaced. The article riled me and made me question my whole outlook on working in geology as a whole.

Consider the facts: if 2250 of 10,000 Fellows are Chartered, Mr Brassington is aiming his accusation of apathy at the remaining 77.5% of Fellows. Yet maybe they simply do not wish to be Chartered. I am also a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry and I do not see them lambasting me for my lack of desire to become a Chartered Chemist. The fact that I am active in the science and education is good enough for them.

I am happy being a Fellow and do not wish to be Chartered. I thought about it once and then thought, ‘why?’ It serves no purpose to my soul. Should I carry on my Fellowship next year and allow my sense of loyalty to override the disappointing sense of failure that Mr Brassington seems to wish to foist upon me? I have now been totally dissuaded from ever joining what Mr Brassington implies as basically another ‘old boys club’ which implies that unless you are in it, you are not worthy of the title ‘Geologist’. I shall continue my love for science in the way I see fit, and I wish not to be branded apathetic by someone who seems to make wholesale assumptions about people he hasn’t even met.

My weeks consist of reading many geological papers and texts, while my weekends regularly consist of walks that include geology somewhere along the line. I make my own notes and field logs. I like reading about geology: I am currently reading the Geology of England and Wales 2nd Edition, various Memoirs, and my wife has just bought me the Geology of Europe. I like planetary geology, alongside my (very) amateur astronomy. I am a member of various other societies and like to attend lectures and help out on geological field trips where I can with my local university.

I fully understand and appreciate the need and requirement for the Chartership status in industry. CGeol is fine for those who desire it, and industry requires it to cover indemnities and liabilities and so on. What I do not agree with is the public slaying of those who do not want it. To suggest those that do not wish to have it are lazy strikes me as overweeningly authoritarian. Should we strike off Fellows who do not wish to be Chartered, denying ourselves 77.5% of the Society’s annual fellowship income?.

I would not wish to work in a world of such elitist geology. I would rather return to the science that welcomed me with open arms and does not try to shun people for finding their place and enjoying it. Come back Chemistry, all is forgiven!

 

CGeol – optional extra

From Prof. John Murray (Rec’d 11 January; Pub’d 21 January 2010)

Two articles in the January Geoscientist concern chartered status and thereby they raise broader issues with regard to membership.

Although the Geological Society has taken on the role of acting as the professional body for geologists Council should not forget that membership is voluntary and not all geologists apply for Fellowship. Indeed, it should be of great concern to Council that a large number of well qualified younger geologists, including many academics, do not feel it necessary to be a member. If these younger colleagues choose to join any scientific society at all it is more likely to be one allied to their speciality.

Rick Brassington bemoans the fact that only 22.5% of fellows have chartered status. It is clear from his comments that he would ultimately like all Fellows to become chartered. However, an alternative interpretation of the figures is that the majority of professional geologists see chartered status as an irrelevance to their employment. Why should they be coerced into becoming CGeol just because a minority of fellows consider this to be desirable? Those of us who are not chartered certainly do not consider ourselves to be inferior in any way. When I was an Honorary Secretary (1989-92) I reluctantly became a CGeol not because I valued it but because it seemed right to do so as an officer. However, I subsequently resigned it.

As matters stand, obtaining geological employment is not conditional either on possession of chartered status or on membership of any specific scientific society and that is surely the way it should be in a free world. The present arrangement operated by the Geological Society is realistic and pragmatic. CGeol is indeed an optional extra and those fellows who feel the need can apply for it. Those fellows who have no need for it should not be pressured into applying. Furthermore, it would be invidious for the Society to give higher status (whatever that might mean) to CGeol members than ‘basic membership’. Such a strategy would be divisive. At present all fellows are treated equally regardless of their academic qualifications or employment status and that is the way it should remain. Two-tier membership status would to lead to some fellows resigning and that is in no one’s interest.