Thank you, Sapeloapp! Those were the analogies I was trying to come up with but couldn’t for some reason. And yes, Maxine is my hero and I hope to be just like her one of these days.
Best,
Wow- I have come too late to the mud wrestling championships…LOL!
Hate to say it- but I am with Siegi on this one- of course I can’t help it- I am from Germany and grew up with this. It is a friggin profession people! not a pastime that anyone can just jump into and charge for lessons while they know little- that is just crazy and it is the predominant practice around here. The trainer has good horse expereince, knows a thing or two- but not a consistent training program, some logic behind the actions- actually physical facts about the horse etc…it’s all pieced together like patchwork over the years of working for others as assistant etc.
I wouldn’t get my hair cut by someone that doesn’t have a license, I wouldn’t go to a chiro that is not licensed or certified and comes highly recommended, I wouldn’t give my horse to someone that doesn’t have some long term proven education on the subject, can speak to it, has trained a number of horses and has some show results to boot.
I think it would help things a lot if there was an official path of education, certification and levels of competence. This would also set a earnings standard- which is the case in Germany. This is good- because it shows that someone has put in the time, learned and studied in practice and theory, stuck with it and completed it.
As a client- I would feel more secure and it would supplement my decision with whom I would train.
This - finally- has absolutely nothing to do with ‘big brother’ BS- it’s just a way to know that you’ll get quality for your money…would you send your kids to a school that has teachers that are not accredited??
Not me!
1 Like
Sabine, siegi and SapeloApp have apparently successfuly obfuscated the point of this discussion. Certification in and of itself is a good thing, of course. But the discussion is about ARIA specifically. SapeloApp and others have repeatedly stated that there is no practical exam (i.e., actually having to teach, live, in an arena, with a horse and rider) for this “certification”. It is done via videotape and essay. Sorry, but that doesn’t sound anything like the criteria for the German Bereiter cert, the BHS AI/I, or any other worthwhile certification. Until ARIA, USDF and USHJA come up with a certification that truly tests the knowledge and expertise of its candidates, they will continue to ignored by those of us that want any certification to actually mean something. 
To start couple of apologies.
First, that I managed to find myself in the middle of a controversy and then apparently disappeared, although it appears I remained logged on but inactive all afternoon, evening and night. My PC is acting crazy today.
Second, that my use of a dictionary definition seemed overbearing. It wasn’t intended to be quite the way it must have come across. It is difficult to communicate without using common definitions and it seemed to me (wrongly, it appears) there was some difference of opinion about the amount of teeth in mandatory.
Next, a very brief recap to be sure that my comments on two different but related (and now intertwined) topics in this thread are distinct, because I sense that may have created some confusion. Confusion is never conducive to communication and mutual understanding.
First, certification:
On the topic of certification (for anything, including riding instruction), I think it can be useful from the standpoint of the education of the person who is pursuing some certification: going through the checklist or fulfilling the requirements because it (probably) will highlight gaps or weaknesses or areas that never have come up before but might be relevant. That was, I think, the essense of comments from some early posters.
From the standpoint of the consumers of services provided by people both with and without certification, I think certification is overrated because it tends to encourage consumers to rely on somebody else they do not know (and some organization of which they usually know nothing) to do their thinking for them. Reputation among trusted people you know isn’t always a perfect guide for things about which you are unfamiliar, but it generally trumps a piece of paper from somebody you don’t know, or some outfit you don’t know about.
And nothing beats taking personal responsibility and deciding for yourself.
For example, in my personal opinion and purely as an example, no matter who the would-be teacher is, or whatever certifications or endorsements or even personal reputation they might enjoy, if they think it’s okay to have a student rider, beginner or otherwise, up on a horse without insisting the student wear a helmet at all times, I wouldn’t entrust either myself or my kid to their instruction. The safety stakes are too high to substitute their theoretical arguments for my personal understanding of physics and human anatomy. (Yes, I know there are dissenters and I understand the arguments but I don’t want to get sidetracked on the Great Debate. It’s merely an example.)
Certification for the learning experience, OK. They give diplomas at the end of many courses of study, including formal ones called degrees. Degrees are ‘certificates,’ of course. We’ve all met many people with these things. Some are wise and educated. But we’ve all scratched our heads at how at least some with so much education can have come away from it with so little understanding about much of anything. That somebody has a string of degrees doesn’t give me much confidence that whatever comes out of her mouth is a pearl of wisdom, or that they have a lick of sense. So much for certification: sometimes of value, no substitute for thinking. Certainly no guarantee and no warranty.
Now we get to licensure. I am opposed to occupational licensure for the reasons I stated yesterday. They stand on their own, but there is more:
Licensure gives a legal monopoly to whatever was the orthodoxy of the day when it was established and chases out anybody who doesn’t fit or wish to fit that orthodoxy. (The only evasion, and this only sometimes, is when somebody jumps through all the orthodox hoops to get the licenses, and then goes off in their own direction afterward. In the US, when physicians do this, outraged orthodox colleagues often try to get the heterodox violator’s medical license revoked.)
On the long run, whenever there are gatekeepers, it stifles change and innovation (especially if they are backed up with the power of the state, i.e., guns.) Gatekeepers who decide who’s “in” and who’s “out” enshrines ‘the way it always has been done’ or when there is change, it occurs at a glacial pace.
That is not to say, as Siegi and others have pointed out, that a rigid, uniform, state-enforced orthodox guild does not work in its way, or even that it cannot be made to work well. Of course it works. Look at the medal counts.
But when everybody is required to learn exactly the same things in exactly the same way, differentiated only by their individual motivation and abilities, everybody turns out pretty much the same in their approach. I didn’t have to be around for long to discover the uniformity of style within each national system. Closed systems generate no new information.
There is a real cultural and mindset difference here that I believe complicates our mutual understanding on approaching matters of professionalism and individual responsibility.
In general, in America, everything that is not specifically forbidden is permitted. In the Old World, everything that is not specifically permitted, is forbidden. (I am not being jingoistic; a European woman first pointed this out to me.) I have worked most of my career for European firms and all my experience affirms the basic truth of this. (I have many anecdotes. The look of amused admiration in the eyes of my former East German hosts was priceless when I squeezed through a barrier and walked across the grass, rather than to wait 20 minutes to work our way through a crowd that was coincidentally blocking direct access to the box office at the opera in Dresden.)
This thread happens to be on the dressage forum, but it might well be on HJ or Eventing.
Unorthodox innovators in riding who began in Europe such as Caprilli with his forward seat had the devil’s own time establishing their innovations which were in retrospect almost self-evidently superior to what went before in the context of their time, within the orthodox European military cavalry environment. Only because it worked so much more effectively did Caprilli and his followers ever establish themselves against the establishment-enforced orthodoxy. By the time horse cavalry became obsolete their practices finally had become adopted throughout Europe. (Perhaps luckily for Caprilli his national culture has a streak of anarchy it it, as those who have tried to drive an auto in Rome routinely affirm.)
It seems ironic to me that George Morris, of all people, appears to be thumping the tub for licensure of riding instruction and such, when it was the free-flowing environment in which he came up that made it possible for him to accomplish what he has, and to ‘be all that he could be.’ Based on what I’ve read, I think George would have been culled out from the system in many European countries, and certainly his mentor, Gordon Wright, would never have been able to teach him, or anybody else.
Quite a thoughtful post, ADAMANTANE. I would have to say I question the theory that licensure equates to robotics. In it’s utmost and furthest reach, this could be a result, no matter what country or field of study. In practical use, however, certification or licensure does not result in robotic performance. One thing overseeing associations do, however, while it may thwart the imaginitive changes, is to keep a rein on those that are quite over-the-top. Those whose ideas are workable and doable can be make positive strides over time (not overnight). Those that endanger, perhaps just for the thrill of doing it differently and damn the safety issues – the unsuspecting or the trustful are more protected. Certification and licensure provide sound parameters. Continuing education in a given field provides information as to the changes that have occurred and been proven to be workable.
What we found in the field of EMS is those who 1) couldn’t pass the minimum standards to start with, and, 2) those who couldn’t pass the con ed – these were almost invariably the ones shouting about how useless the process was.
Here, Here! Don’t think it’s any different in the equine world. If it’s so easy, step up to the plate and get certified. It won’t make people think any less of you if you pass. It will make people think a whole lot more. Plus, what is one more notch on your belt? I’ve never met a great horseman that doesn’t want more. It’s when you think you already know it all that you really weren’t a great horsemen to begin with.
Thanks for your kind words. We certainly agree about the usefulness of education in developing professionals.
I don’t mean to imply that mandatory uniform and tightly-regulated standards turn out robots. Clearly this is not the case. I sure didn’t see any robotic performances at WEG.
But if everybody sees things in the same way because they have been specifically trained to do so, they will tend to have uniform approaches to problems rather than to, in that detestable business cliche, ‘think outside the box’ about things and find new solutions.
Nor am I brushing aside standards or traditional values, far from it. To go far afield for examples if you will indulge me, although I am not at all a fan of Picasso’s mature work, I do respect what he did later in life because from his early work it is clear that Picasso possessed perfect and meticulous technical mastery of the medium and enormous talent. He chose to paint differently because he wanted to explore his unique vision, not because he couldn’t manage the traditional approach. Alban Berg’s violin concerto is another example of someone who found a way to beautifully synthesize two nominally incompatible approaches, lush late romantic tonal and 12-tone, in music in a way that showed he was an absolute master of both. I expect Caprilli was highly competent in the traditional approaches or he would have washed out of the cavalry school and never been heard from again.
Of course we don’t want ‘nut cases’ in teaching or anywhere else, especially when their errors or incompetence could result in serious injury or death. But let’s not engage in destructive overkill to accomplish what common sense already provides us.
No doubt some critics of licensure or individuals who scoff at obtaining certifications of various kinds are doing so simply because they couldn’t ‘cut it’ but that is not an argument. Sour grapes we will always have with us for all human endeavor, but this discussion is not about sour grapes. I would be dismayed and disappointed if you were suggesting that is the motivation behind those who are objecting here. (In my own case, as I mentioned in my first post, I am speaking as a consumer. The prospect of my ever trying to teach somebody to ride, makes me laugh even more than I think it would my instructors :eek::winkgrin:.)
But, as far as I know under the auspacies of the International Trainers Passport, the United States Equestrian Federation does not have any official certification program in place.
Equine Canada does, as it’s program has its’ equivalancies to other National Federations.
http://www.equinecanada.ca/Sport/COACHES/int_trainer_passport.html
Adamantane - you said “But if everybody sees things in the same way because they have been specifically trained to do so, they will tend to have uniform approaches to problems rather than to, in that detestable business cliche, ‘think outside the box’ about things and find new solutions.”
I submit to you that in order to “think outside the box” it is necessary to have a certain amount of knowledge in order to take that next step. If you don’t have a basic understanding of how things work, then there is no box to step out of.
You gave Picasso as an example… Picasso according to your own statement had mastered his techniques before he branched out.
Going back to teaching dressage (or any other discipline), I think it is necessary to have that basic knowledge about the horse, about advancing in your riding, about teaching BEFORE you go out and try to relay that information to others. You will always put your own spin on it because that’s what creative people do, but you have something to put that spin on - your basic knowledge of your field.
In teaching EMT and Paramedic, we commonly refer to that “outside the box” stuff as, “There are times you can bend the rules and times you can even break the rules… but first, you have to know the rules, cold.”
Good post Adam…BUT…and really major BUT…we are talking I think a bit about two different things here:
You are concerned that licensing would stop innovation.
I am concerned that no licensing perpetuates at best mediocrity.
Just like in any profession, a proper education is required. I am sure in your chosen profession- whatever that might be- you had to get a certain level of education- bachelor degree, maybe advanced degree, maybe certification etc.
Every CPA, Vet, MD, lawyer had to go thru a lengthy process of what I would call education, culminating in passing a final exam that gives you the permission to practice.( there are many more professions like these). Then there are others that might be more in line with horse training, such as educating our children, teaching at colleges and universities, providing services, such as body-related, beautification, well-being, hairremoval–etc…
Now in my book- no certification stands in the way of innovation- on the contrary- true innovation is understanding what the current process is and improving on it. Unless you understand horse and rider training as a process of pure art- for which no training- but just talent is required—I do caution your approach!
Siegi, there is not one single word in what you just posted here with which I would disagree.
Basic knowledge of one’s field (or even outside one’s primary field) is necessary to convey useful information about it to others. Only fools encourage ignorance.
But that we totally concur about the need for knowledge and education in some fashion, as I see it truly has nothing to do with licensure (which is a legal mechanism “with teeth”) nor the reliability of some official-looking signed and sealed piece of paper, a certificate, hanging on the wall, from the standpoint of the consumer who wants to take lessons.
Do we agree that if you (as a prospective student, or the parent of a young student) don’t like what you see, you should not rely on it, even if there is a piece of paper or even a license that says somebody else somewhere, thinks it’s okay for you to rely on it?
I think the answer is almost certainly yes, but although we agree about so much, I don’t want to assume we agree about everything I think we may.
As I also noted to Siegi for her last, there also isn’t a word in your post with which I do not agree. (Same comments, same question.) :yes:
Adamantane - you must have some bad experience that makes you so cautious when it comes to the word “license”. Would it be easier to swallow if we called it a Certificate of Achievement/'Accomplishment, or a degree? If it’s simply a matter of semantics then I think you and I are most likely in complete agreement.
In my ideal world, a person looking for riding instructions should be able to access a list of qualified individuals instead of taking lessons with ten different people in order to make a decision. The basic qualifications should all be the same with level of difficulty being a variable, very much like everyday business situations Sabine already mentioned. In the business world you have to have a certain set of qualifications before a potential employer will look at you. Why wouldn’t that be the same in the riding instructor scenario? In order to get a job in private industry you are expected to submit your resume which details your job experiences. Shouldn’t that be applicable in a training situation as well? How else are you going to judge whether or not you are getting what you’re expected to pay for right off the bat? Sure, anybody can figure it out after a while, but why should I have to pay several thousands of dollars only to find out that the trainer is incompetent and lacks fundamental knowledge? Is it ok because horse activities fall into the “luxury” category?
I had to have a degree in order to get most of the jobs that I’ve held, and I only think it is fair to ask for some qualifications when it comes to horse training as well.
Sabine, also think we may be talking about at least some different things. Before I go further, I particularly appreciate that all of us are still talking rather than going off into our respective corners convinced that the people in the supposedly ‘opposite’ corner are totally ignorant idiots in the grasp of the Forces of Darkness.:lol:
One of the reasons I am concerned about licensing is that, yes, it interferes with innovation as I noted today. But there are other reasons, too. Since my first post today was long, I didn’t repeat all the other reasons that were posted yesterday and before. (Post 50, which is about certification and not licensing, and below, to quote my ‘executive summary’ from post 59):
In my opinion those reasons are at least as strong as what I added today.
You said that you are concerned not having licensing perpetuates mediocrity. To me this suggests that you believe without licensing, that many unqualified people will teach, they will be able to recruit students, and that they will teach the students badly. Is this correct?
If so, why do you think that they will be able to attract students despite being incompetent? Are would-be students so ignorant or stupid that they would sign up? I really doubt it.
Just like in any profession, a proper education is required. I am sure in your chosen profession- whatever that might be- you had to get a certain level of education- bachelor degree, maybe advanced degree, maybe certification etc.
Yes. I have degrees and other professional credentials and years of experience some might find impressive, so I understand your point. But my credentials or anyone’s, are irrelevant to the merit of the arguments they make and this discussion. Truth or falsity is independent of any individual who makes the arguments.
The kindest, most reassuring person I ever met in my adventure first learning to ride was at the time 15 and had not graduated from an American high school. The first person who ever got me onto a horse many years before (and at my request) was the same age and regularly gave lessons even so.
Every CPA, Vet, MD, lawyer had to go thru a lengthy process of what I would call education, culminating in passing a final exam that gives you the permission to practice.( there are many more professions like these). Then there are others that might be more in line with horse training, such as educating our children, teaching at colleges and universities, providing services, such as body-related, beautification, well-being, hair removal–etc…
In my profession degrees and ceritifcations are usually thought desirable to be hired, but they are not legally required.
As a hiring manager, I take credentials into account but do not focus on them to the exclusion of other criteria. I once agreed to hire somebody with a only bachelor’s degree in engineering as a director of engineering, solely because a former boss at a former company (competent beyond words) said the person virtually walked on water. When I interviewed the prospective employee, after two minutes I laughed, smiled and told him that he could relax because as far as I was concerned the only question was how quickly we could get the guy on board and how I could help accomplish that. I had implicit confidence in my former boss’ opinion. The newly hired director of engineering was wonderful and my only regret 3 years later was that he retired from the company at 65.
Now in my book- no certification stands in the way of innovation- on the contrary- true innovation is understanding what the current process is and improving on it. Unless you understand horse and rider training as a process of pure art- for which no training- but just talent is required—I do caution your approach!
Who can convincingly disagree with a word of this? Of course you are correct. (I suppose some might quibble that there’s some science involved, too, but I agree with you. My personal opinion that any dynamic proprioceptive activity is mainly art.)
Having a certification does not stand in the way of innovation. I hope nothing I said implied that I thought it did. Education is always a plus, but certificates don’t always translate into knowledge or wisdom.
But being kept out of a profession by the authorities, despite one’s knowledge or experience, simply because one does not have the ‘correct’ degree or certification, is simply wrong. If you know what you’re doing, that’s enough. If you don’t, nothing else is enough. Remember, Bill Gates dropped out of college.
In America, as you know, it is necessary to have a state-issued license to teach in any school junior to college or university. People far superior in every respect to those officially permitted to teach very young people are prevented from doing so simply because of the licensure laws.
If a senior full professor at the finest university in America (Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Duke or the University of Chicago, for example) and winner of the Nobel Prize, wished to teach the eighth grade in the most backward community of rural Mississippi, he would not be eligible.
This is simply insane.
And those who for the flakiest most irrational reasons ‘offend’ the authorities, no matter how capable they are, can be out of luck when arbitrary gatekeepers who can keep them out are allowed to get their way, even when they don’t also have the legal authority to deny or revoke licenses.
The late Trudy Elion, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, and an absolutely wonderful human being (okay, I’m biased; she once volunteered to get me a job) was barred from completing her Ph.D. program at New York University because some idiots on her doctoral committee thought that women had no place in academic research. Fortunately her co-winner ignored the “rules” and hired her as a colleague anyway, and the rest is history.
No Adam - I like you even better after your post- I picture you as highly educated- I venture to say computer design, maybe chips- but something very familiar to my profession…your thinking sounds true- and while risking to sound stupid I venture to say- you have an emotional relationship to riding- you probably if you have kids- have left the raising and the tough parts- to your SO- and you enjoy their presence and achievements just like you enjoy your horse(s) and riding experience, something that puts you in touch with your body and feelings and excitement and emotion.
Although I can completely understand where you are coming from and add to that- you have probably been lucky to have found a couple of talented and caring and safety conscious trainers- that gave you true rewards in your riding experience and made you sure- that teaching how to ride is a mixture or magic knowledge about how the horse behaves- and encouraging/soothing and well competent support and teaching- so your riding felt better and better.
I am aware that the credential/certification process in this country is absolutely assinine…it is beyond what can be tolerated, I have had many RN friends- that had to be re-certified when moving from state to state and had to put a whole year of learning in- as adult -accomplished practitioners of their profession…absolutely crazy!
But- my view comes maybe from a bit different point: I have ridden all my life- first in Germany- and I was grilled by tough Reitlehrers and members of the SRS and all Hungarian army guys- culturally- kids over there are not important- adults are…contrary to the culture in this country.
I was taught by rules- the rules made sense- they preserved the horses safety and body and saved the rider from accident.
I was taught by classical principles- these are founded on hundreds of years of teaching and collecting the expereinces of very accomplished horsemen of their times- I would btw venture to say that even Caprilli was first taught the old-fashioned jumping style- before he ventured to change it to what made clearly more sense…LOL!
I was lucky to get a good foundation. I have ridden with many different trainers and clinicians in this country- and have learned a lot- I would admit gladly that I have learned from every single person that ever took the time and stood there and focused on one or the other detail of my riding.
BUT- I always put it into the context of the skeleton of riding that I learned in my teens- which also included 3 months stints at the Verden Hannoverian Verband…where we learned about skeletons, and horse diseases and how to treat them and all that good stuff…so I consider myself a truly ‘layered cake’…the benefit of my hard core early learning and the variety of ‘innovative’ and ‘classical’ and ‘competitive’ training that I have received since.
I have ridden many young horses and experienced the realm of a horses personality and fear and stuff you could never imagine…so I consider myself an amateur road warrior…BUT
when I decide who to train with- I resort to peeps that have a system, a foundation, an intellectual approach- especially because I still have young horses and must make sure that - just like kids- they get off to the right start.
Therefore- I do believe- and I know it is very hard to describe- because in Germany it is a real culture and a pride and a trade with a pride- that a proper educational path and some kind of apprenticeship and final accredidation- nationwide would greatly help the horse training profession out of the middle ages into a well-respected and prosperous future.
Great! Lets just keep it voluntary.
And maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I took that to be quite rude.
[QUOTE=A Horse of Course;2199457]
Great! Lets just keep it voluntary.
And maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I took that to be quite rude.[/QUOTE]
you did indeed- not sure of which part needs to be explained…but raising kids is like training a horse- there are great parts and not so great parts about it…not sure where you are coming from- but I guess- I will ask you to explain…before I go into more detail…LOL!
Seigi, there is a significant difference between certification that is educational and helpful, and something that is legally or practically required for a job. For example, I can give someone a massage as often as I like, but if I charged them for it, it is illegal, since I don’t have my CMT. Likewise, I couldn’t teach kids in a public school without a credential (or at least an emergency credential while going back to school for my degree), though some private schools don’t require them. In my field, there are a lot of different certifications. Some specific jobs require one or more of them, or a degree in a related major, but there is no legal requirement to have one. A lot of people feel the certificates might as well be used as bird cage liner, for all they’re worth, while others won’t take a second look at a resume that doesn’t include one. They can make a big difference in pay scale, or almost none at all. I think that the variety involved in riding makes it more similar to this situation than to practicing law or medicine.
As far as incompetent instructors not having any students, I don’t think that’s the case either. Some people talk a good line, and beginners and non-horsey parents often don’t know what to look for. I don’t think certification, whether voluntary or mandatory, will fix that. I think if the certification bodies can come up with programs that are more or less universally respected, that the supply/demand will allow those instructors to charge more, and be more selective about what students they take on. I think that’s already the case to some degree with German beireiters and instructors with BHS certification. If the certification companies want their graduates to have something meaningful, they have to convince riders that it actually does make a difference.
“You probably if you have kids, have left the raising and the tough parts to your significant other.”
If that were directed at me I would be offended. I don’t know any other way to see it. But your explanation could be different than how I see it. I don’t mean to get this off topic though.
