More responses

Less "Big Brother", more "Catch-22"

From Don Hallett (Rec’d 29 December 2009; Pub’d 21 January 2010)

Sir, I read the article 1984 and all that (Geoscientist 20.01) with interest. I fall into the category of one of the unchartered two-thirds - a professional geologist (although now semi-retired) who never saw any benefit in becoming chartered. Indeed the mere effort and expense of preparing, justifying and submitting an application is enough to discourage applicants. Mr Brassington hits the nail on the head when he says that CGeol is regarded by many as an optional extra and that it confers no higher status on the holder than fellowship of the Society. My daughter is a chartered surveyor and without that qualification she would not be able to be employed in her current post.

That is surely the crux of the matter. I do not believe that the CGeol authorising committee will make a major breakthrough until CGeol becomes the sine qua non of employment, insisted upon by employers, and that will not happen until employers are persuaded that CGeol carries a guarantee of quality: that a geologist has been appropriately trained and his qualifications critically evaluated by the authorising authority. Moreover there is the dangerous implied corollary that if a chartered geologist turns out to be inadequate the authorising authority could be held partly responsible. Chartered surveyors have to demonstrate a number of years of relevant work experience and then submit to a rigorous cross-examination, in which the failure rate approaches 40%. I wonder what the failure rate is among CGeol applications?

It is a Catch-22 situation, which raises the question of how the 'founding fathers' foresaw that this dilemma could be resolved.