As my October 17, 2006 post "Continuing Education a Must For Structured Settlement and Settlement Planning Professionals" suggests, I am a big believer in continuing education. The speed of dynamic change in every segment of the broad financial services industry demands it. The structured settlement/settlement planning segment is no exception. You simply cannot afford not to be a student of your industry and related subject matter.
The American College in Bryn Mawr, PA with over 150,000 "designees" has long been a pre-eminent educational institution for the financial services industry. The American College has a mandatory recertification program as a means of ensuring quality control. The Professional Certification in Continuing Education (PACE) requires a declaration every 2 years. Please see Professional Designation PACE Recertification Letter from The American College and PACE Recertification Form from The American College. I cannot precisely recall when The American College introduced PACE, but it was either 1990, when I earned my Chartered Life Underwriter ("CLU"), or 1991 when I earned my Chartered Financial Consultant ("ChFC"). I recall being grandfathered from the PACE program while new CLUs and ChFC's were to be subject to PACE.
It was the recognition by my 29-30 year old self of the speed of dynamic change, and my desire to meet the challenge to keep up with it, that led me to voluntarily and irrevocably subject myself to PACE. Participation in PACE strengthens the recognition and credibility of the designation and American College degrees and underscores my personal commitment to excellence even 16 years on.
It will be interesting to see the approach taken with the curriculum for the new Registered Settlement Planner ("RSP") designation. It will also be interesting to see if there is any attempt to grandfather anyone, in particular existing members of the SSP or its Board Members. I recall a conversation I had with an existing SSP Board member in Kansas City in July 2005 in which this individual seemed to downplay his or her willingness to pursue professional designations and complete the work required to earn them. It is my recollection of this conversation that now gives me pause.
Leaders should set an example. I would question the value of a designation if the leaders of the organization sponsoring it are in my field, grandfathered into the designation, and subsequently act to pass judgment (as a member of the "Registry Board") on the work of the candidate applying for it. Worse would be hyping the level of coursework and defense of thesis/settlement plan required, in the individual's personal marketing efforts, knowing full well that he or she didn't fight in the trenches to earn it.
Limited grandfathering of certain coursework might be acceptable, but not the whole shabang. Even so, it should be applied uniformly to all candidates or not at all. What's wrong with a little refresher to enforce your knowledge foundation? For example, as a certified scuba diver I'd be sure to do some check out or refresher dives to reinforce my basic skills before setting out on a more technical dive.
Comments