Hello CIPD peeps
I have been asked a few times exactly what the Chartered CIPD qualification is equivalent to in academic terms, and am struggling to evidence this online here.
Is it a post graduate diploma? At what level is it considered?
Any pointers helpful - many thanks.
I think the German/UK example is a good one David, because as I know you are aware, for many years Germany has rated vocational qualifications alongside academic ones and thus already incorporates some substantial measure of comparability (and understanding of that comparability) within its employment (and social) culture; however in the UK, even after 30 years of the NVQ etc., vocational qualification is almost meaningless to many employers and the general public.
Transferability of qualifications transnationally is thus never going to work so long as "user" perception even in a single country is that, say, a BA behind someone's name is more significant than, say, a NVQ5. (The latter in fact far outstripping the assessed competence of the former, even though the academic knowledge-base may be similar or, possibly more importantly, less balanced).
To use myself as an example in relation to balance: I am a Charterd FCIPD; thus, by the current standards, equivalent in knowledge to (at least) someone with an Masters in HR. Yet as part of their study they will have covered every aspect of HR to a significant level, while as I have said many times on these threads, I go glassy-eyed whenever someone mentions rewards and benefits... and pensions are a totaly foreign language! (Or they were until last December when I had to sort out the screw-up that the NHS provider had made of mine! But that's another story....). So while I will (probably) far outstrip the newly-hatched MA in some aspects of practice and understanding (and have a NEBOSH G/C to back up my H&S "second string" too), it is quite clear that someone employing me in the expectation that I will be able to provide the same generalist competence as the MA, on the basis of my "higher" professional status, will be misled. (....And I will be both out of my depth and bored to tears!).
So if a single qualification, in a single profession, can be user-misinterpreted even against the current system of standardisation, what hope is there of meaningful transnational (or even national) understanding of what all those letters really signify when it comes to doing (any) particular job.
I am not being negative here: I am merely trying to suggest that questions of equivalence are, in effect, meaningless in terms of a single standard, because as the discussion between you and Keith showed: If the aspect being considered is academic knowledge then a vocational or professional qualification has no standard point of reference within other professions' frameworks (Keith's "runner-swimmer" argument), whereas if competence in praactice is the aspect under examination then the vocational qualification can legitimately be equated with the practice the holder of a given academic grade should be able to demonstrate (based purely on their understanding of their subject). But even then the academic degree in fact gives no guarantee that its holder can actually achieve the practice expected; as someone having an engineering degree and thus a thorough understanding of gyroscopic precession and Newton's first law cannot necessarily ride a bicycle!
P
I think the German/UK example is a good one David, because as I know you are aware, for many years Germany has rated vocational qualifications alongside academic ones and thus already incorporates some substantial measure of comparability (and understanding of that comparability) within its employment (and social) culture; however in the UK, even after 30 years of the NVQ etc., vocational qualification is almost meaningless to many employers and the general public.
Transferability of qualifications transnationally is thus never going to work so long as "user" perception even in a single country is that, say, a BA behind someone's name is more significant than, say, a NVQ5. (The latter in fact far outstripping the assessed competence of the former, even though the academic knowledge-base may be similar or, possibly more importantly, less balanced).
To use myself as an example in relation to balance: I am a Charterd FCIPD; thus, by the current standards, equivalent in knowledge to (at least) someone with an Masters in HR. Yet as part of their study they will have covered every aspect of HR to a significant level, while as I have said many times on these threads, I go glassy-eyed whenever someone mentions rewards and benefits... and pensions are a totaly foreign language! (Or they were until last December when I had to sort out the screw-up that the NHS provider had made of mine! But that's another story....). So while I will (probably) far outstrip the newly-hatched MA in some aspects of practice and understanding (and have a NEBOSH G/C to back up my H&S "second string" too), it is quite clear that someone employing me in the expectation that I will be able to provide the same generalist competence as the MA, on the basis of my "higher" professional status, will be misled. (....And I will be both out of my depth and bored to tears!).
So if a single qualification, in a single profession, can be user-misinterpreted even against the current system of standardisation, what hope is there of meaningful transnational (or even national) understanding of what all those letters really signify when it comes to doing (any) particular job.
I am not being negative here: I am merely trying to suggest that questions of equivalence are, in effect, meaningless in terms of a single standard, because as the discussion between you and Keith showed: If the aspect being considered is academic knowledge then a vocational or professional qualification has no standard point of reference within other professions' frameworks (Keith's "runner-swimmer" argument), whereas if competence in praactice is the aspect under examination then the vocational qualification can legitimately be equated with the practice the holder of a given academic grade should be able to demonstrate (based purely on their understanding of their subject). But even then the academic degree in fact gives no guarantee that its holder can actually achieve the practice expected; as someone having an engineering degree and thus a thorough understanding of gyroscopic precession and Newton's first law cannot necessarily ride a bicycle!
P
