The CIPD are obsessed with strategy not practical stuff like applying employment law. They are not going to change.

Hi Charles 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'll see if I can get a reply for you in the New Year.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

These are the latest version of UK requirements for registration as a Chartered Engineer. Recall in the past asking how CIPD could justify their own peculiar ways of assessing professional competence in comparison with such as these, but as Peter observes, it’s a lost cause

www.engc.org.uk/.../uk-spec-v14-updated-hierarchy-and-rfr-june-2023.pdf

Charles

I couldn't agree more with you. As you say, academic study and academic writing shows only your ability to express your self in an academic way. You can say one thing but in practice you may do something totally different.

When I did my CIPD diploma at (**&(^^%$%$ college (a long time ago), I handed in one of my 1st essays on 'effective induction', The tutor tossed my essay back to me and said it was unsuitable, and it,  "looked like a consultant trainer's handout". Well it was almost, as I'd been running courses for people who wanted to improve their own inductions and I'd previously designed inductions for an organisation and the induction I planned prepared and carried out was  highly praised by the then, Man Power training Commission and published by them as an example of a highly effective induction. (No lectures, no trainer stood next  a white board, lots of discussions, quizzes, games/exericises and so on).

The college lecturers were for the large part crap. They were though very good at lecturing and had lots of theoretical knowledge on the various subjects.  Mostly they were capable at lecturing, although one or two obviously didn't care a toss and would have been a cure for any insomniac . They mostly had no idea how to teach. One of them even gave us a 40' lecture on why lectures are largely ineffective. I complained about one of the lectures so much  they removed the lecturer from out course............. Right I've got that off my chest.

Its a self fulfilling system. Academic teaching, academic assessments. Academic graduates, who then turn into academic teachers who then produce aca..................and so on. Why would they want to change??  Its much the same reason our education system is based on much the same curriculum since the middle ages times.  How many of you have ever had to use classical Greek?  Or work out the area of a circle?  Why do we spend ages learning about Egyptian history, Ancient Greek history and nothing about the history of  the Aztec or Inca empires both of which had much bigger and longer lasting empires ???

Good luck and keep smiling.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Thanks Steve, not necessarily expecting a response from the CIPD or anything but it would be welcome

In reply to Charles:

I have asked so will post here when I get it.

Oh wow I agree so much and I wish I could do the course you describe! I completed my L5 in February, I'm in quite a strategic senior position and hoped the course would equip me with both strategic AND practical skills in the areas I've not dealt with yet - no such luck! I've written a series of academic sounding essays and learned about proper referencing. My next career move feels like it needs to be a step down now, so that I can learn from a mentor, someone actually doing those bits of the role. Not what I was expecting.

In reply to Rosie :

A number of years ago now to be fair but I found my course (L7) was very concentrated on what "high performing organisations" may be doing. The fact that few of us worked in such an environment seemed irrelevant. I too had little teaching around redundancy, and zero on TUPE, with a result that I was scared of TUPE for quite a while until I got involved in one and realised that a, it wasn't scary, and b, some of it could have been covered in the course.

In fairness the course was mixed and I found some of it engaging and interesting but any development and learning I've had have been on the job. This is why I strongly advocate on here against the collection of qualifications in place of practical experience.

A (very) long time since I did my IPD qualifications (the C came later), What baffled me at the time (and hopefully has been addressed since) was the complete lack of employment law studied. While legislation was referenced I'm sure in each section, the proper framework of legal rights for employees was never covered. I know that it was when I did my law qualifications, many years after I started working in HR, that I properly understood contract law. I dread to think how many contracts I dealt with before then ...

In reply to Nina Waters:

I also did my IPM (!) post-grad diploma well over 30 years ago, though I did do a module on employment law; having said that, we were in the throes of the Thatcher union reform legislation, and SSP and SMP had only been introduced a few years before...... it does feel as if the qualifications have become much more academic. Indeed, when I started working in "personnel", there were no HR first or post-grad degrees, only part-time PG diplomas. However, there is nothing that can prepare you for actually undertaking a disciplinary investigation (my first was a night shift on a chemical plant investigating gross misconduct); speaking with very distressed staff who are at risk of redundancy, etc. even if we are armed with the best research about team working, leadership, behavioural tendencies etc. That's not to say there isn't a place for academic study, undertanding unerlying themes and principles, and undertaking research toenhance our knowledge; but there is a whole lot of difference between an excellent understanding of the academic principles and the practical application to stressed, emotional individuals. Not sure I've cracked that yet.....

Maybe....but as an alternate view as there haven't been many

It rather depends what you think professional qualifications are there for, in the same way it rather depends what you think degrees and the like are there for. My first degree is in Politics (and great fun it was ) a bit of philosophy, a bit of history, a bit of economics, some debating (well lots) etc etc. Not of course equipping me with the skills to become a Politician (heaven forbid) but giving me (I hope) research skills, a logical inquisitive mind, certain organisational abilities, reasoning, presentation skills etc etc. Some of which have been pretty useful I hope both to me and my many employers over the years.

Its similar (for me) with the CIPD framework. They are not designed (I believe) to give you the precise set of practical skills necessary to perform "X" role for "Y" organisation. Partly because that would be impossible to achieve in the time available and partly because different organisations and different roles need different X's. But what they are designed to do is introduce you to the broad concepts and issues that HR people should be thinking about and that we so rarely do. So for example motivation theory / engagement theory . Human psychology. etc etc. It should (and I do accept its a long time since I was there) give us the framework to construct a varied HR career rather than a predetermined set of skills. Giving people this foundation or framework is more important arguably in the long term than understanding what Clause 12 of the Equality Act says

Two other thoughts. One of course is that formal professional/academic qualifications are only one part of the triumvirate that we should be considering. The second part is the professional membership the person holds which isn't solely or entirely based on qualifications but on experience and demonstrating competence in increasingly senior HR roles (and I have seen far too many HR Bods equate an academic qualification with a professional membership level incorrectly) . The final part is experience and work placed knowledge, no academic or practical set of courses will ever replace that (and in an AI world actually this is probably more true than ever before).

The other and final thought is that we as HR bods are entirely (and uniquely) masters of our own destiny. CIPD Qualifications and indeed CIPD Professional Memberships levels are only important if we as HR Directors and Managers think they are. We are recruiting to our own teams and if we continue to put worth behind them they will continue to be important. As an unregulated profession (in the sense you don't have to be CIPD to become a HR bod) no one is forcing us to hire people with these qualifications but for some reason we do....

In reply to Annabel:

Thanks Annabel.

I agree with you in some aspects. When I did my level 3 back in 2017 it was at a college and it was great, a good blend of theory knowledge and we did practical bits such as doing a mock interview and also a short training session.

I started my level 5 in October and to much shame I'm still on my first assignment after 3 months. While I was looking forward to the course the first module is a chore, the assessment involves a bit of the CIPD profession map, 3 assessment criteria of ethics in the workplace, building inclusivity, and finally CPD (which I've always hated). It's far too heavily theory orientated and, as much as I'm disappointed to say, not an interesting topic.

As a side note, the learning modules I've had from my provider (DPG) haven't been sufficient to get me most of the way through the assignment.

In reply to Keith:

Keith, you have put into words far more eloquently than I did! Thanks! As one who came from a first degree in History, the skills I learnt then on assessing evidence and opinions and reaching balanced conclusions about what is "reasonable" to accept, has stood me in good stead alongside what I learned on the IPM course. And I do strongly believe there is a place for theory, new ideas and academic research as part of our qualifications and CPD. But many of us also agree that the "practitising" - putting into practice/gaining workplae experience are important. We see so many students concerned that they have Level 7 or even PhDs in HR but can't get a position as a practitioner without actual experience, and many conversations about whether someone should go for a lower grade role or study even more that we are maybe in danger of giving mixed messages, to relate to your final point. I'm not sure what the answer is but we are part of the problem/solution as employers wanting to emply accredited professionals with practical competence, who, if all they have done so far is study, will not be able to demonstrate their competence in practice. But then even before relevant degrees and professional qualifications, everyone had to start somewhere without experience.....

OK, mulling a bit further on this - when I did my law qualification, it was the conversion route - so I spent 2 years, part time, learning the theory and knowledge that underpins most of our legal system, and wrote essays and exam answers to prove that I had memorised lots of legal cases (useful to precisely no lawyer ever I'm guessing, because: the internet). However to become a practising solicitor or barrister you had to do a further course that demonstrated you had the ability to turn that knowledge into practical work - to study for the bar, or to do the legal practice course.

I wonder whether it would be overcomplicating things to do a similar process in the HR field? To learn the theory and underpinning law/knowledge that informs everything that we do, and then to do a separate course in applying it in difficult or real world situations?

Just a thought.