APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-01 > 1200957488


From:
Subject: Re: [APG] Jones APGQ article
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:18:08 +0000


I have enjoyed reading all the responses to the article by Tom Jones. I have found the responses, as the article, to be well reasoned and carefully thought out. I can see the possible difficulties of APG putting itself in the position of judging a portfolio or work sample. It would become akin to another form of certification. As I was mulling over the question, I wondered whether some sort of point system could be designed to document experience and continuing education, which would make a person eligible for a full membership in APG. (A type of point system based on activity and continuing education is used to renew figure skating judges endorsements, which is what made me think of it.) I will be brave now and toss out some ideas relating to this. I do this in the spirit of collaborative brainstorming, so please be gentle! For example, a person who is a CG or AG, or a person with a degree in Genealogy, would automatically be eligible for full membership. Others could be e!
ligible
for full membership upon obtaining, say, 100 points of activity. Renewal memberships might require 50 points. Completing the NGS home study course, or NIGR or IGHR within X previous years might be worth 80 points. Attendance at a major genealogy conference might be worth 50 or 60 points, a local conference might be worth 25 points, with additional points if you wre a presenter. (Or perhaps it would be 5 points for each contact hour at a conference or workshop.) Membership in NGS (or perhaps any society with a peer-reviewed journal) might be worth, say, 25 points. Membership in each local or regional historical society might be worth 15 points. Participation in chapter work or volunteer work for a local historical society would be worth points, as would teaching a genealogy course or publishing and article or book. Perhaps one could choose to submit a client report to obtain points, but submitting work would be an option, not a requirement. It sounds complicated, but once a !
"menu"
was designed it would be a rather straightforward application. There are, of course, drawbacks to administering this type of system, but I think overall that it might be a fair way meet everyone's needs and demonstrate a level of professionalism beyond simply signing the ethics statement. It might be too complicated to administer. But it was a thought I wanted to throw into the ring.

Cathi Desmarais
Vermont


-------------- Original message --------------
From:

> Rondina's points are well-taken. But, I am wary of APG (or a similar group)
> getting in the business of judging portfolios. BCG does a pretty good job
> of that. I do lean toward APG aiming at a somewhat narrower audience than it
> does now, but I'm wary of setting up experience/education/performance
> standards for membership. I think APG should serve professionals in the
> genealogy
> business, but am not at all sure it should be in the business evaluating
> qualifications for membership. I do agree with Rondina, however, that an APG
> with
> a narrower target audience can still serve a wide range of genealogists
> through educational programs and things like this very discussion list.
> Whatever
> else we do, we should help people be good genealogists.
>
> Also, please note: I am not advocating an increase in APG dues. I talked
> about $220 dues in order to make a point about the value decision people make
> when they consider joining an organization. When the price goes up, people
> think twice about joining. It is, in fact, possible that some kind of
> two-tiered dues structure might make sense at some time.
>
> Jay Fonkert
> Saint Paul, MN
>
>
>
>
> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message


This thread: