more controversy

[Guest guest]

this is my favorite part. more from the CCAOM exec committee.

 

" The survey undermines the current VSTF process. ACAOM's doctoral survey

is particularly unfortunate in relation to the ongoing VSTF process, the

central purpose of which is to develop a collective vision for the

profession with input from all relevant stakeholders. At this time, the

VSTF process, in which ACAOM fully participates, has yet to define who the

relevant stakeholders should be in formulating a vision for the profession,

let alone to determine whether the profession should be surveyed on the

contentious question whether the doctoral degree should be the entry-level

standard. It is most regrettable that the national accrediting

organization for our field has stepped forward at this critical moment

with a unilateral initiative and proposed leadership role for itself when

the profession concurrently has only just begun its own collective effort

to develop a shared consensus on what the relevant issues should be.

 

The initial effect of the ACAOM survey already has resulted in further

polarization of our field, as various national organizations now feel

compelled to come forward and declare their long-standing positions on

issues that ought to lie in abeyance until a constructive and collective

visioning process has sufficient time to bear fruit. It is particularly

inappropriate that one national organization, especially a supposedly

neutral national accrediting entity, has unilaterally proposed a

leadership role for itself on a highly contentious issue at a critical

moment when healing voices within the profession are earnestly trying to

keep the profession from further fracturing.

 

The Council respectfully requests that ACAOM consider withdrawing its

doctoral survey at this time and save its initiatives concerning this

subject until a dialogue with the Council is undertaken and completed,

issues concerning AOM students and graduates are resolved, and the VSTF

process reaches the point of considering specific issues relating to

educational standards. Until that time, unilateral action by any national

organization outside the framework of the VSTF process is both

inappropriate and divisive for the profession. "

 

 

basically the council of colleges wants to make sure that asking this

question does not affect them in any untoward way. I am kind of horrified

that this organization would go to such lengths to prevent a question from

even being asked. this is like the slimy tactics used to prevent the

congress from taking floorvotes on issues because the powerbrokers who

control committees do not want to risk losing. How can it ever be too

soon to ask a question. the survey is not legally binding. ACAOM would

then receive public comment from all " relevant stakeholders " (yuk, who

comes up with these terms). If CCAOM has a good case to make against this

change or to ask that a second vote be taken after the VTSF process ends,

fine. but to try and block a first survey for the reasons they say. Well,

it also just smacks of something other than the public good. it must be

unamerican or something, too? ;-)

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

It is most regrettable that the national accrediting organization for our field has stepped forward at this critical moment with a unilateral initiative and proposed leadership role for itself when the profession concurrently has only just begun its own collective effort to develop a shared consensus on what the relevant issues should be. >>>This is done only after 10 years of very hard work by many of us at AAOM

Alon

[Guest guest]

As Jerry Garcia once sang,

 

" one way or another, this darkness has got to give " .

 

 

On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 04:35 PM, wrote:

 

> basically the council of colleges wants to make sure that asking this

> question does not affect them in any untoward way. I am kind of

> horrified that this organization would go to such lengths to prevent a

> question from even being asked. this is like the slimy tactics used

> to prevent the congress from taking floorvotes on issues because the

> powerbrokers who control committees do not want to risk losing. How

> can it ever be too soon to ask a question. the survey is not legally

> binding. ACAOM would then receive public comment from all " relevant

> stakeholders " (yuk, who comes up with these terms). If CCAOM has a

> good case to make against this change or to ask that a second vote be

> taken after the VTSF process ends, fine. but to try and block a first

> survey for the reasons they say. Well, it also just smacks of

> something other than the public good. it must be unamerican or

> something, too? ;-)