Depending on the Excel experience required another fun little test is to generate or write up a macro, bollux it up just a little and then see if the candidate can recognize the vb editor and/or “advise” you on what the error is. (My favorite argh error is that I irritate myself by reversing column and row in .Offset() selections.)
An alternative for titling that would result in completely reworking the certification system is to do what the radiology field does for technician credentialing. An example from Radiology would be ARRT(R.T.)(MR)(CT), which is easily translated to, “American Registry of Radiological Technicians Certified Technician in Radiography, MRI, and CT.”
How it would work:
Designate TD for a TD, then a -X for highest certification level reached, then in parentheses indicate what that person’s qualifications are (could be Novice/Computer/Floor/Assistant/Chief, and/or Scholastic/Regular/Both.) One can only pass to the next TD level after one has satisfied all areas of the current level.
As such, I’d probably currently test out at: TD-L(AB) or TD-L(ChS). When I first started out, it probably would have been TD-C(N). I wouldn’t be able to step up to TD-S(Whatever) until I’d met the requirements for TD-L(ChB).
Long post for something I really don’t think is all that necessary… As Steve made an excellent point that all restrictions a TD has are self-imposed, or at best the organizer/affiliate may use as a guideline. (I have yet to be asked to direct anything where I haven’t had a direct connection to the organizer somehow, despite my email and phone being available on TD/A, which is OK since I only just recently became a Local…)
vb editor is an interesting ideal. But, one has to be prepared for solutions that are right using other tools and techniques.
After administering a test I developed I like to sit down with the applicant and grade it while they explain how they got the answer. By doing this I’ve learned there are often six ways to get the correct answer. And sometimes an incorrect answer won’t knock a candidate out because I am more interested in how they go about solving problems. The error might have been something minor I can teach the fix to. By sitting down and listening I can also tell if the candidate clearly doesn’t get it and save us both a lot of time.
I can not think of a good reason why a director who does 50 tournaments per year should have to wait as long as someone who does 5 to move up to the next level. Why is it a benefit to stagger out certifications? If a director meets all the requirements to move up 2 levels in 1 year why should he have to wait? Time should be counted as time directing, not the time since the last certification. Unless there is some sort of director education that would bring up the total of days working on director proficiency I just don’t see a day of doing no directing as counting towards getting to 365 days since the last certification level.
Well, I could just leave it as that’s why I said I’m not sure that it would have beneficial purpose.
However, if the idea is separating out TD qualifications based on scholastic versus non-scholastic tournaments - an idea I don’t believe in - because TDs in one or the other elevate too quickly, I’d rather see a way to slow down how quickly TDs can be elevated.
I do also think that a person should have to step through each of the various grades of TD. I believe in that for various reasons. But I believe it should be sufficient because if I understand the exams and what they test, a TD should have to prove that: They promise to have and uphold the rules, they can find the rules, they know how to interpolate situations that aren’t in the rules (they “know” the rules,) and they understand directing philosophy to be able to handle situations that can’t be interpolated. I think a TD should have to prove each of those in each successive level of directing by passing the test for it. (Not just that they’ve done enough tournaments so we can now skip to philosophy of equity.)
I have also come up with the following reasons why time-in-grade may be a good idea in addition to directing experience:
It takes time spent in study, not just experience, to understand the rules. I’ll grant that people can study at different paces, if at all. (Maybe someday it would be wise to require a certain level of continuing education in addition to continuing experience. That’s a different question for a different thread.) Should we not expect that a person wanting a higher TD level has spent enough time to be able to do a good job at it, beyond experience? And I feel that we can presume to set some minimum boundaries for that.
1A) I assume this is part of the reason why there are time delay periods for those who fail a certification exam to wait before retaking the exam. Do we assume that a person who has failed the exam must take some time out to study more deeply? Or is it simply to ease the bureaucratic system that there must be a pause? (Coupled with the knowledge that there are so many exam versions, I’d suppose…)
Hypothesis: It would build greater confidence in the system on the part of non-TDs if there were minimum time requirements.
I can see your point that a director who has much experience indeed has the experience. However, if it was clear that an NTD is one who must have had x years experience being a TD, would that be more meaningful for the non-TDs out there? (And likewise down the chain for however much stepdown time there is.)
That would be completely useless without having had directing experience requirements as well. But I still feel that having both can be more reassuring than just one. (Though there is a minimum, I suppose, in that there is a required number tournaments to step up a level.)
Why are there minimum time requirements in other fields of endeavor? Some of this is because there are limited resources and there is competition in those other areas. It may not apply here, since there doesn’t seem to be “competition” on the lower rungs of being a TD for event directing.
(Though there are only so many Category C, B, A, and N tournaments for directors to build their experience on. One answer here is, with the exception of Category N, there is nothing to prevent a director from building their own C/B/A events. And there is apparently no restriction on a TD to direct outside their level.)
But another reason that time-in-grade requirements occur is the assumption that one can get promotion inflation otherwise. (“Hey, everybody is a General around here! Where are the Lieutenants?”) The armed services of the U.S. also bookend the other side of this: You either advance after so long or you are out, so that others may have the chance at your slot.
I don’t know that the USCF suffers from either of these. 72 NTDs, 13 ANTDs, 191 Senior TDs, 621 LTDs, 959 CTDs. (On the top end of that, IIRC NTDs do not expire so long as the expiration is current?) It would be interesting to see how many category events there are per year.
Perhaps the time to elevate in level is already built into the system, in a limit on what is realistically possible to achieve. (See end of last section.) But if so, then establishing what those realistic minimums are should serve as a guide to those of us still looking to move up. In order to help us establish our goals and timelines, both negatively and positively. (Is it realistic to believe that I could step up in a year or two to Senior TD? Or am I underestimating myself, as I did in how long it would take me to reach Local?)
I dunno… I’m just trying to tick away the minutes until it’s “Open Presents” time, hoping that I get the Royale Series pieces I wanted.
LaughingVulcan wrote much but I want to address one issue for now.
While true that one can build their own events in many categories, the very fact that one can build them indicates a certain amount of proficiency. While there are players who will play in almost anything, there are others who will stop coming if the quality of the directing is lacking. They will also spread the word to other players.
A director who can build his tournaments to the level in which they qualify for the next level has attendance requirements. If the director is working for someone else, when he becomes a liability, he won’t be rehired and will fail to reach the requirements for the next level.
To say there is “nothing to prevent a director from building their own C/B/A events” overlooks that players can, for the most part, recognize who the good directors are and vote with their feet. I could give examples of directors who tried to build and failed but I won’t mention names here.
As for directing outside their level, there is a certain amount of abuse of those requirements permitted by the USCF. Certainly those that get an unexpectedly high number of players can not be expected to have a higher level TD on call on short notice. On the other hand, there are some tournaments which routinely get move players than the TD is certified to handle. Unless that organizer and/or TD are notified that the certification level is not sufficient to run such a size event, there is no compulsion to either have the director take the test to move up to the next level or for the organizer to hire a higher level TD. As far as I know, no one at the USCF checks on this. I suspect it would be easy for some additional code to be added to the rating program that would list those that are under certified for the event submitted. The USCF is in the awkward situation of wanting qualified directors but also wanting the income that these tournaments produce. Strict enforcement could be financially harmful to the USCF and unpleasant for players through no fault of their own.
Except for national events I agree with Steve. But except for the one type (N), certification level doesn’t seem to mean all that much if a local director can run tournaments with over 120 players dozens of times and no one tells the affiliate that they need to hire at least a senior TD to do so. My point is: what is the value of having any certifications requirements at all if under certified directors can direct anything under a national event? Shouldn’t the TD categories have some meaning before we start splitting them into additional categories?
Slight correction. If you’re a Senior TD who runs 50 tournaments a year and your certification “lapses” on December 31st, come January 1st you won’t be able to submit any tournaments online until you are officially reinstated (the TD/Affiliate service is programmed to reject submissions from TDs whose certification has expired-- thus ensuring that all the TDs are “current”). But if you’re a Club TD whose certification (and membership) are both current-- then the sky’s the limit!
So what is the solution? The “powers that be” seem to believe that keeping members happy and active is more important than enforcing the TD Certification rules. Or, that is how I interpret their attitude each time I bring this subject up with them. Can anyone say Delegate Motion?
If there was to be a delegate motion, I would think that it should include some leniency, at least at first. I know there are directors who routinely run events their certification says they shouldn’t. In most cases the reason seems to be that the TD was too lazy to take the test for the next level. Perhaps if the motion started off with a warning to both the TD and the affiliate and then when either reaches a yet to be decided number of under-certified events that the TD is cut off from running any events above the limit for that level.
Testing is one way to make those TDs re-read the rule book and fill in the gaps before taking on a too large tournament. My guess is that the “powers that be” won’t do anything until a major incident occurs and the complainant states something like “X has been running tournaments for years that he shouldn’t even though I’ve complained. If a properly certified TD had done it this wouldn’t have happened”. Properly certified TDs make mistakes too, but at least the “powers that be” would have a defense to that argument.
I understand Tim’s frustration. The TDCC works on establishing requirements for each level and the “powers that be” don’t enforce them. This devalues the work of the committee and makes it look like they’re wasting their time. I would suggest that the “powers that be” either respect the committee’s work or publicly state that some certification levels have no meaning.
I have suggested more than once that the USCF actually DO SOMETHING with the limits on TD certification levels given in the rulebook, nobody seems to have much interest in it, not TDCC, not the Executive Board, and not the Delegates. (It isn’t clear which of those has sufficient authority to ‘make it so’.)
I would think that enforcement would be the responsibility of the office. My guess is that TDCC makes the recommendations and expects them to be carried out in the absence of some well founded objection. Perhaps the EB has veto power but as far as I know it has never been used to ignore the TDCC rules on certification. Does the EB need to tell the ED that the TD limits need to be enforced or is it a given that they should be? I suspect that if it is enforced that it will be one more item on Mike Nolan’s already lengthy “to do” list.
Maybe someone who has influence with the online TD/A program? Somehow the program has already figured out all by itself to reject submissions from TDs whose certifications have “lapsed.”
Unless it is a USCF sponsored and organized event, it should not matter what the TD level is for local tournament. Sponsors/organizers are few and far between. Putting restrictions on the types of events they can hold because they do not have a TD with the appropriate level seems counterproductive. Unless you live in a major urban center with numerous opportunities to direct, it is difficult to rise in TD level.
If a new organizer appeared and wanted certain people he trusted to TD his event, I don’t think the USCF would tell him, “No you can’t do that. You have to use one of our approved insider TDs.”
It just isn’t right to pick on the USCF nationals, especially if they happen to be held in the middle of nowhere.
And you can make a similar argument for TDs with expired certifications. But in that case the organizer would have to use one of the approved, non-expired insider TDs, regardless of how far away the tournament was from a big city.
Also, how much latitude do we give the TD and organizer to follow or disregard other rules, if he lives in a small town?
If you go to TD/Affiliate support area you can get lists of TDs by geographical area or certification level. You can also look at a list of the tournaments they directed.
Based on your comments I get the impression that you believe there is no need for organizers to abide by director certification levels. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
We do not ‘reject submissions’ from lapsed TDs on TD/A, but TDs cannot log in if either their membership or TD certification has lapsed, so they cannot perform any TD/A functiions, including submitting any events or memberships.
We also check for non-current TDs listed as having worked as chief TD, assistant chief TD, section chief TD or assistant section chief TD, or if the affiliate listed for the event has lapsed.
