Hello all!

This is my first post on this forum so be kind ;) I'll try to be as concise as possible but I must apologise in advance for the length of this post because I think this could be my magnum opus! Regardless, I think everyone should be made aware of this because I’ve already read with quite regularity the same general question “What level CIPD training should I do?” on this forum. If this applies to you then I implore you to read on:

So just a brief overview of my HR education and career to give you some back story to my query:

I graduated with a CIPD accredited 2.1 BA Human Resource Management (HRM) degree in 2008. Basically the CIPD specified what subject matter should be taught (Employment Law, HRM: People & Development, Corporate Strategy and a relevant dissertation etc.) and my university complied. This then allowed me to gain CIPD Student membership and then subsequently acquire a job in Cardiff Council's HR department. During this employment in Cardiff Council I let my (at the time) student membership lapse because none of my multiple roles in my work place really needed it (for better or worse). I stayed there until I took a career break to travel around the world about 12 months ago.

I've recently rejoined the CIPD initially as a Student and then, after a ridiculously long winded process (which I won't go into here), my CIPD accredited degree was deemed worthy of me progressing to Associate Member after they validated that what I learnt is still relevant to what I would be taught now (bear this in mind for later). So I'm now I’m an Associate member, with an actual HR degree surely that's all I need to start applying for HR jobs? If only......

I quickly realised that practically every HR role now requires or working towards Level 3, 5 or 7 CIPD...... which I don't have, mainly because it's only been in existence since 2010 i.e. after I left university So I thought I probably need to enrol on one of these courses. However I subsequently found out (thanks Keith www2.cipd.co.uk/.../66978) on this forum that the levels 3, 5 and 7 have not been created by the CIPD but in fact is a government specified scale defining the level of education ANYONE in the UK has regardless of profession or subject (link below).

https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/list-of-qualification-levels

So examples of each level:

Level 1 = GCSE - grades 3, 2, 1 or grades D, E, F, G

Level 2 = GCSE - grades 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 or grades A*, A, B, C

Level 3 = A Level

Level 4 = higher national certificate (HNC)

Level 5 = higher national diploma (HND)

Level 6 = Degree with honours - BA or BSc

Level 7 = Master’s degree

Level 8 = PHD

So, as previously indicated, because I already have a CIPD accredited BA degree in HRM (which according to the UK government is Level 6 of education) then it would simply being a matter of calling the CIPD and they would, much like what they did with my degree in relation to moving me from a Student to Associate membership, validate that the CIPD accredited degree means that I also have CIPD Level 6 qualification and I could state it on my CV. The rationale being that if I’ve a degree in HRM (Level 6) what would the use of me even studying Level 3 (equivalent to an A Level) and/or Level 5 CIPD (equivalent to a HND) in the same subject matter? Yes, course content changes but that doesn’t invalidate my already held qualification which the CIPD have already certified. Putting it another way; even though I got a HR degree in 2008 if someone had previously acquired a HR degree in 1998 then even though the course were probably different then they are still valued the same by the government. So why would the CIPD be allowed to do anything different? I thought the worse that could happen is that although I learnt at Level 6 because that no longer exists that they can’t promote me up to a Level 7 but at the very worse I could be Level 5. How wrong I was…..

I was told that even though what I was taught during my degree is essentially what individuals now get taught at CIPD Level 7 (CIPD’s words not mine) that I cannot say that I’m Level 7, 5 OR 3. I was also told that I can’t say I’m CIPD Level 6 because it no longer exists . Which I found plainly ridiculous. I could understand that if my degree was in say, History, that it couldn’t be converted over to the new levels but it WAS the same subject matter i.e. HRM, and it WAS certified by the CIPD. Did they get it wrong? Also how did the CIPD validate that what I learnt at degree level is still relevant to what I would be taught now and thus move me from Student to Associate membership but they can’t do the same for CIPD Level? They seems like a massive inconsistency doesn’t it? It’s the same organisation, does one part of the organisation have special dispensation to do so and not the other? If so, why?

I asked whether anyone else has encountered this problem and the CIPD readily conceded that they get these same types of calls practically every week. So logic would dictate that if more than one person is encountering the same problem that something needs to be done? That a flaw exists in the system? Surely the needs to be some form of conversion of old qualifications to the new? For example if in 10 years time the CIPD changes the current system of Levels 3, 5 and 7 to Levels 4, 6 and 8 that there would be a conversion from the old to the new? If they didn’t then everyone would have to do the course again which would be paying money for old rope (which is essentially what I’m refusing to do!). What about individuals who’ve been in a HR role for long than say 10 years and progressed to senior positions e.g. HR Manager or Partner. They can’t move to another organisation and continue to be a HR Manager or Partner because they new job would likely specify that an essential for the role would be Level 7 CIPD…. Which they probably don’t have. However it doesn’t really matter because they can stay in their current HR Manager/Partner role…. Which surely should also have the same essential requirement shouldn’t it? To put it another way; if the pay scale in an organisation changes then roles are automatically transferred over to an equivalent pay point on the new scale. They aren’t just simply stopped being paid!

So even though the CIPD accepts that a problem exists for what could easily account for a good proportion of it’s (and this should be emphasised quite vehemently) PAYING members I was told that I had to resolve that problem. I was informed that I should explain to any potential future employer of the existence of the government education scale and that in turn would lead them to understand that my HRM degree (Level 6) clearly is worth more than a CIPD Level 3 and/or 5 qualification and essentially equivalent to CIPD Level 7. Which is a ridiculous burden to have placed upon me. Basically I’m being ask to explain the problems in the CIPD processes and resolve them. Shall I also sort out Brexit and the problems in the Middle East? Putting what the CIPD said into practise; most jobs require you to submit your CV. So how exactly do I explain this? When do I explain this? Where do I put it on my CV? We would all probably agree that most job applications are now started by submitting a CV. Said CV is then either processed using programs searching for key words e.g. CIPD Level 3/5/7, or an individual briefly scans it for 30-60 seconds. In which case I’m going to get stoned wall either way.

So I did a little field research: I’m currently working in a Finance department of a rather large car finance company (as a stop gap job) so I thought I’d talk to my HR department and see if they had an understanding of the above. Surprise, surprise they did not.

The members of the CIPD within HR had no understanding of the existence of the government scale. Even more concerning is that I also had to explain this to the HR Manager who creates the job descriptions for new roles within HR! Upon me clarifying my degree, essentially, is worth more than a Level 3 or 5 CIPD she said (I’m paraphrasing):

“But it’s industry standard to ask for CIPD Level 3, 5 or 7”.

But that’s just one organisation, surely that can’t be extrapolated to all…… could it? Well…….

I spoke to an other individual (who I won’t name) within the CIPD who admitted that this general lack of understanding by both CIPD members and employers has been flagged up internally as a problem before. The person continued by saying that a request to clarify all of the above on the CIPD website has been ignored, although I was given no indication why. Well I wondered why? Is it because if members/employers understood the value of these new CIPD Level 3, 5 and 7 courses in relation to potentially already held education that people would stop buying them? Would it be logical to question whether the very organisation who created these levels and relevant courses, and gains revenue from them, has a conflict of interest in this regard? Applying this to my situation; why would the CIPD want to validate that my already held education is equivalent to Level 7 CIPD when they could get me to pay them or another organisation (which I’m sure shares the income with the CIPD) +£1000 instead to do the course instead? If you put this in another context, doesn’t this sound like a racket or a monopoly? To continue this theme could it be said that this is an abuse of their unique and unquestionable position of authority in our industry? Well that’s my opinion anyway, although I freely accept I’m probably exaggerating.

Then into this mess you can throw the Student, Associate and Chartered Memberships. Logically you would assume that Student membership would be held while studying and then when you gain Associate membership that it would be due to you gaining Level 3, 5 or 7 CIPD and vice versa. Also that if you have a Chartered Membership that this would surely mean that you have Level 7 CIPD, otherwise how would you be able to progress without the required knowledge? But no, the levels and membership are completely unrelated. You can be an Associate member Level 7, you can be Chartered Member with no level and you can me Level 3 Chartered Fellowship. Why? Why have two completely unrelated things employers look for? Can anyone become an Associate Member? If so doesn’t this diminish the value of said membership? Surely it’s all just adding to the confusion? Well again my source within the CIPD admitted as such. They told me that employers often confuse membership type with level (as I suggested above) and vice versa. Employers think that if an individual has progressed to be a Chartered Fellowship how could they not have Level 7? It wouldn’t be possible, would it? To be fair I can emphasise will employers in this regard because it’s a logical assumption to make. You wouldn’t normally assume that two things from the same organisation are completely unrelated. Unfortunately they are and it’s another example of the CIPD overly complicating things. It’s a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

I’ll make one final point which I hope encapsulates all of the above:

I find it equally impressive, baffling and ironic that the chartered institute of Human Resources is completely incapable of a consistent approach to administration and/or process! Think about it if your organisation created something like this would you be happy to let it be implemented or would you send it back to the planning stage? If the answer is: don’t implement, it’s probably because it’s inconsistent, vague and ambiguous (all words HR doesn’t like to deal with). Could it also be argued that implementing such a process would leave you open to complaints of discrimination or unfair treatment? I’m probably exaggerating/labouring my point (again) but you get the idea.

If anyone would like to correct me I’d love to hear from you but I think I perfectly understand the situation, as mad as it seems.