certificates?????

Re: certificates?????

Virginia Campbell — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:15:32 GMT

Thank you for all the answers. I am a locum, which is why I pay for my own CPD, although the practice I am with at the moment have kindly given me some CPD allowance. Other than the London Vet show though, all of the rest of my CPD has been cheap or free regional meetings, which I find very good. I realise that studying for a cert would be difficult whilst locuming (hard to get case followup etc) and I really want to be sure it's worth it before I plough several thousand pounds of my own money into it.

Re: certificates?????

plantagenet — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:36:24 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]Ok, employers, over to you. If you were hiring a new assistant, and you had two identical suitable candidates, one with cert AVP and one without, how much extra would you be prepared to pay the one with the cert? [/quote]

I doubt one would ever meet 2 sufficiently identical candidates to be able to answer that, but as a GP practice there are quite a few other things I would rate higher than a cert.

the ability to commincate with the cleint their expectations, wishes and financial limits
the abilty to understand how tough it is financially at the moment for a lot of practices
sense of humour
flexibility
hard working
DIY skills
willingness to keep learning

Then if all were equal will their cert earn me more money, if not, I would probably have to go for the cheaper one then wouldn't I?

Re: certificates?????

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:52:04 GMT

Virginia I'm not thinking of employing an assistant at the moment,but if I was I would be actively looking for someone with a Cert AVP (designated ) A designated Cert because that assistant would have extra concentrated knowledge in a smallish area and would have shown committment to improving standards, and Cert AVPas opposed to an old-style Cert,or one of the BSAVA Certs as they would have had to study practice economics Lack of awareness of profitability, lack of awareness of how narrow margins are, and total lack of interest in improving profitability was what put me off all 3 assistants I employed

Wynne

Re: certificates?????

Lorna McHardy — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:39:44 GMT

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]

The only reason to do any further qualification is because you want to do it for yourself - if making more money is your primary concern then it is your confidence that you need to enhance, not your competence!

Malcolm N

[/quote]

When do I start, and what was the pay again?

Re: certificates?????

Judith Joyce — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:37:04 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]So I am perhaps more likely to be hired than some who doesn't have a cert[/quote]

Not necessarily. In our practice you would, but others see things quite differently.

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"].is it worth extra cash money? I will have to fund my own CPD[/quote]

Your first move should be to a more enlightened practice! Like many practices, we fully fund all CPD and put no limit on it. Currently we have two vets part through certs, two others waiting to start the BSAVA masters, one vet finishing an ECVS/RCVS surgical residency, a couple of nurses doing diplomas and one doing an MBA. Investing in staff is one of our key policies - I can't say that every pound we invest is returned in cash value but that is the way we prefer to work and we do have higher than average expectations of our staff. The only reason to do any further qualification is because you want to do it for yourself - if making more money is your primary concern then it is your confidence that you need to enhance, not your competence!

Malcolm N

Re: certificates?????

Julian Earl — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:27:28 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Really?? Then, why:

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

whether they are in-depth "enough"

about whether the CertAVP is trying to fit too much in to a syllabus rather than focussing on a more specific area?

So, yet again, the CertAVP appears to be a qualification in less depth than a more specific old-style certificate.

generally a full-time occupation and a fixed time (although ten years as opposed to the earlier five) for completion, there is only a certain amount that can be covered is there not?

[/quote]

So, let me get this crystal: you think the new style certificates are too broad, too superficial, not in depth enough when compared to the old style certificates. You base this opinion not on critical comparison of the different syllabuses (freely available on line), but rather an opinion gained from some CPD. You add into this some confusion regarding the A module which for some reason (largely because of your evidence base, I imagine) you use to label the new certs 'too broad' and 'jack of all trades', whilst conveniently ignoring any comparisons, examinations or otherwise of the new certs C modules with the old style certs. What I would politley suggest is that you compare old with new, and by that I mean the C modules that can be combined to form a designated cert CertAVP(SHP) for instance with CertSHP. [/quote]

Almost but not quite. My opinion is based on written information supplied on CPD last year. Oh, and the RCVS site. Not forgetting the publicity and information in the veterinary press. And informal conversations with a few people. So your repeated assertions of uninformed opinions are nonsense quite frankly. My questioning of the CertAVP is and was based on knowledge of old and new-style certificates but not on such "knowledge" whereby sheep certificates can supposedly be obtained by using "80% cattle work" or whatever your assertion was. If you have evidence of that, please cite it but it is the first time I have heard that suggested.

[quote user="David Mills"]

The A module and B modules are a broad base, yes, no-one disagrees with that. I think they are useful, (especially, ironically for someone who thinks that GTPC and ethics can be learnt and packaged in the lecture theatre - surely the whole point of these are their applicability to and enaction in practice? It would be similar to saying that hearing a lecture on a bitch spay means you can go out and do one: evidently naive and rather silly) and cover topics that are not taught elsewhere. [/quote]

I don't think that you have thought your comments through. GTPC can easily be taught in the lecture room - exactly what hands-on skill do you need to learn about certification, professional etiquette, the cascade and so on? Similarly ethics - this is a subject which is probably (emphasis on probably) best discussed in a lecture room or discussion group rather than via discussions with a case right in front of you. Far better to have thought through in advance the rights and wrongs of, say, euthanasing a healthy animal, or discussing whether amputation is better than chemotherapy for a bone-tumorous dog as another example, rather than in a consulting room with an owner waiting. Practical skill sets such as surgery are not comparable with the examples you suggest.

[quote user="David Mills"]

Some will disagree, and the new certs aren't for everyone. I saw the old certs as prescriptive and narrow, yes, and I think it sad that so few vets did them (have a look at the back of the RCVS register), but can understand why - terminal exams, big blocks of learning etc. The new ones are manageable, course-work based largely with exams on modules and one synoptic oral. Also, the choice one can make - stress here if want to be a generalist or jack of all trades - is remarkable and can only be conducive to more participation; we shall see. [/quote]

Maybe we actually agree on something. I do not know whether the modular approach is better or easier or more conducive to practice. I do know that the old-style sheep certificate was a mixture of voluntary courses with a lot of home-based learning following a syllabus and with oral, practical and written exams at the end. Quite a straightforward approach for anyone who's been through veterinary college. The welfare certificate was more modular and probably more difficult to fit around work because of the courses that had to be attended. Which is likely to attract more people? Hard to say.

[quote user="David Mills"]

But, please, for God's sake, if people are going to disagree then at least as intelligent people can we not do it with full recourse to the facts available and an opinion based on primary examination of them rather than this anecdotalist claptrap "jack of all trades". It's a conservative profession at the best of times but for old cert holders to start rubbishing the new ones out of hand and without a shred of apparent evidence apart from misinformation about their structure and dogmatism is a bit much, and I think reveals something about the profession's ego somewhat - experience over evidence, we've always done it this way...[/quote]

Anecdotalist claptrap? Misinformation? You're having a laugh. Clearly and obviously one does not have to have enrolled for the CertAVP to know more or less what is required - all you need to do is check the RCVS website, maybe read information supplied by CPD providers, read the veterinary press and speak to other vets, who knows - yet you are intent on dismissing any questioning about the depth of knowledge required.

As for "rubbishing the new ones", if by that you are again referring to my use of "hobby" then that is clearly explained by the "discussion" we had about whether an achieved qualification is of use to a practice; if not, then it has been studied for personal interest i.e. it is, to all intents and purposes, a hobby. If it is a practical, useful, helpful qualification that encourages extra work, it is not. That is exactly what I said before. You either get it or you don't.

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"] You're forgetting things; let me help you:

[quote user="David Mills"]An issue with expression or a retreat? Hobby to any reasonable person implies a special interest, a pasttime, a lesiure activity. Model railways are a hobby, DIY, walking. Sheep/cattle medicine? Very very peculiar expression if you ask me. [/quote]

Are you now suggesting that that was not intended as belittlement?

[/quote]

See above.

[quote user="David Mills"] I happen to value very highly sheep and cattle vets, having been one in the past: but my, you really are sensitive for a sheep man or is there some hidden chip on a shoulder somewhere?[/quote]

Just remind me who was slagging off old certificates in apparent ignorance (80% etc)? Who then has reacted angrily to any questioning of the CertAVP? Not sensitive at all mate and no chips round here, but you could do with having a word with yourself and using the following words: mote, plank, eye, remove, etc., etc.

Re: certificates?????

Virginia Campbell — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:12:01 GMT

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]I would certainly give preference to a candidate with a Cert AVP - I have heard lots and lots and lots of vets expressing an intention/desire/hope to do a cert but talk is cheap. Anyone who has actually passed a cert is a proven "doer" and that is worth a lot.[/quote]

This makes sense - I am one of the many who would "quite like to do a some sort of cert, some day"....but as you say it takes a bit to start - and finish - a cert.

So I am perhaps more likely to be hired than some who doesn't have a cert. Good to know. Can I be a bit more pushy and ask....since you say it is worth a lot....is it worth extra cash money? I will have to fund my own CPD so I would like to know that I would be likely to be paid more. I can see that if I was able to take referrals then yes; but a cert AVP with a few specialist modules...hmmm...don't think I'm going to set myself up on the strength of that for allcomers to send me orthopedics,derm cases etc....therefore I probably wouldn't earn a practice more money. So I suspect it may be more a case of saying "I've got a cert" "Jolly well done "Can i have more money then?" "No"

Re: certificates?????

Judith Joyce — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:10:38 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]do it with full recourse to the facts available[/quote]

Regrettably, those who were politically active in foisting the new certificate upon the profession set the rules of engagement with regard to ignoring the facts. They made out that vets in practice were unable to pass certs and further that the old certs were biased in favour of academics and against practitioners. Almost everything that was said in criticism of the old certs could have been shown to be untrue had the proponents of change taken "full recourse to the facts available"

[quote user="David Mills"]can only be conducive to more participation; we shall see[/quote]

There has already been time enough for the new certs to show their sucess through the marked increase in practitioner participation that was promised. Perhaps things will improve with time but the last time I looked at the numbers, there were disappointingly few new cert holders.

Having helped a couple of assistants with their new cert studies, I am of the opinion that though the A and B modules are entirely worthy in their intention, they are actually pointless, esoteric drivel.

That said, and in response to another recent post, as an employer, I would certainly give preference to a candidate with a Cert AVP - I have heard lots and lots and lots of vets expressing an intention/desire/hope to do a cert but talk is cheap. Anyone who has actually passed a cert is a proven "doer" and that is worth a lot.

Malcolm N

Re: certificates?????

David Mills — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:26:53 GMT

Really?? Then, why:

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

whether they are in-depth "enough"

about whether the CertAVP is trying to fit too much in to a syllabus rather than focussing on a more specific area?

So, yet again, the CertAVP appears to be a qualification in less depth than a more specific old-style certificate.

generally a full-time occupation and a fixed time (although ten years as opposed to the earlier five) for completion, there is only a certain amount that can be covered is there not?

[/quote]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

You're forgetting things; let me help you:

Are you now suggesting that that was not intended as belittlement?

[/quote]

Not belittlement in the slightest. I think it's called bathos: the comparison of two extremes, with one built up immediately before, for amusing effect - I was merely illustrating how ridiculous your use of the word 'hobby' when applied to further veterinary education was (remember that? What are your hobbies out of interest?). I happen to value very highly sheep and cattle vets, having been one in the past: but my, you really are sensitive for a sheep man or is there some hidden chip on a shoulder somewhere?

Re: certificates?????

Virginia Campbell — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:08:24 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"] Considering all things equal other than cert/non-cert, I would have thought someone with a cert - of any description, not just RCVS here - to be deserving of higher pay than one without[/quote]

Ok, employers, over to you. If you were hiring a new assistant, and you had two identical suitable candidates, one with cert AVP and one without, how much extra would you be prepared to pay the one with the cert?

Also a question for those of you who did a cert of any kind - did you do it on your own dollar or out of your practice CPD budget? If you were a self employed locum paying for all your own CPD, would it be worth paying for all the cert and associated CPD out of your own pocket (as opposed to making up your CPD requirement with mostly cheap/free CPD supplemented with the odd conference/wet lab or two?)

Re: certificates?????

Julian Earl — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:44:08 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"] Are we living in a parallel universe here? ...Notional study time per module is around 100 hours, but I'm sure some will take longer. It ain't a competition if the stuff you've got to know is the same.

[/quote]

Blimey, obtuse was the right word wasn't it? The exact time is largely irrelevant; the point is equal time on a narrow subject versus a broad range of subjects. You have stated:

[quote user="David Mills"] Old style certificates were too rigid, prescriptive, and in some cases esoteric.[/quote]

followed by: [quote user="David Mills"]

They cover various areas including business, welfare, communication and the like, as well as a large chunk on GTPC. They are no bad thing at all, and indeed prevent the insular self-congratulatory 'specialism' that the old certs falsely gave.[/quote]

In other words you were clearly slagging off the older certificates in comparison to the post-2007 version(s) and then stating that the newer ones covered areas outside of clinical studies. So, yet again, the CertAVP appears to be a qualification in less depth than a more specific old-style certificate. Whether this is a good thing for practice is another discussion, but the facts are that, with only so many hours in a day, generally a full-time occupation and a fixed time (although ten years as opposed to the earlier five) for completion, there is only a certain amount that can be covered is there not?

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

...not generate extra income for the practice, then exactly how and why should your demand for a "wage" rise be funded?

[/quote]... your point about zoological medicine is perverse, if rational. I'm not advocating that all certificates in all circumstances = pay rise. I may be, in retrospect, made the mistake of missing out some steps in the argument 'as read' - for which I can only apologise; I evidently misread my audience.[/quote]

I think you misread posts not your audience. I clearly stated:

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

The example of the zoo medicine is not perverse at all - it is a good example a certificate that may well be extremely demanding to achieve, but of no relevance to a given practice (such as this one for example). The same principle applies as I mentioned with the orthopaedics whereby a certificate can generate work to justify your demand for a pay increase.[/quote]

It is not perverse, it is an example; I could equally have chosen a cattle certificate for someone in small animal only as being a subject that might be interesting but of no practical day-to-day use.

Re. wage rises:

[quote user="David Mills"]For that, I would expect to be paid more having completed it, and so should everyone else. [/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"]As to remuneration, as with any further professional qualification, one should expect to attain a wage increase following completion - you are more qualified than someone who hasn't done a certificate, and such should be recognised [/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"]Considering all things equal other than cert/non-cert, I would have thought someone with a cert - of any description, not just RCVS here - to be deserving of higher pay than one without. [/quote]

There's no equivocation there. Just because you don't like being pulled up about statements that you appear not to have thought through properly, doesn't mean you should not expect to be challenged on clear-cut statement such as these. The other comments after the last of these three quotes re. differences with "just" CPD are fair enough though.

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

(a) how can a broad-ranging certificate be of adequate depth in comparison to a specific clinical area, [/quote]

This is the crux, really, isn't it. You don't think the new certificates are in depth enough, from the position of a casual observer, without any apparent involvement with them, knowledge of the syllabus or anything else, and largely because of the 'other bits' that have been tagged on. [/quote]

Not having completed a CertAVP I would not like to categorically say whether they are in-depth "enough" but my question still stands – although you have partially answered it – about whether the CertAVP is trying to fit too much in to a syllabus rather than focussing on a more specific area? It is true that practice management, employment, business practice are worthwhile areas for us to learn about, but GTPC? Ethics? Surely those should be well covered before one steps out of college?

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

On the other hand it is belittling to those in large animal work with sheep and cattle certificates to suggest that they are a hobby. That is belittling.

[/quote]

I have no idea where this has come from. Is that Quantum Leap playing in the background?

[/quote]

You're forgetting things; let me help you:

Are you now suggesting that that was not intended as belittlement?

[quote user="David Mills"]

I imagine the impetus was to make study more attractive to GPs by allowing them to pick modules with interest and do them free-standing. If this works, then it can be only good for the profession, despite the negativity from the old guard. Change is terrible sometimes, isn't it.[/quote]

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, it depends on how one sees the profession going. Towards more specialisation and greater depth of clinical knowledge, better business, or probably both. It just depends where you draw the line about the level of detailed clinical knowledge required in general practice.

You are however confusing negativity with a failure to accept that all change is necessarily for the better. That is not related to being or not being old guard, more related to common sense.

Oh, and to hopefully nail the coffin: I attended surgical modules that could contribute to a CertAVP last year but have chosen not to enrol. There was plenty of information on how the Cert functions, so not total ignorance TY.

Re: certificates?????

Andrew Kent — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:03:17 GMT

I think there are some crossed wires in your 'discussion' - there is a difference between a general CertAVP and a designated CertAVP in surgery or medicine. The designated certs are virtually identical to old style certs whereas the general ones are much broader. Andy

Re: certificates?????

David Mills — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:59:07 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

You can suspect what the heck you like, but you fail to address my point: how can a certificate of AVP be equivalent to a more specialised subject where equal time is spent on a more specific subject? One hundred or one thousand hours, if the same time is spent on a lot of subjects versus one subject, which of the two is studied in more depth? So, the obvious question is whether the AVP is trying to become a sign of being advanced/specialised at everything?

[/quote]

Are we living in a parallel universe here? Have you even looked or compared the syllabuses of the old and new, like for like e.g. dermatology and dermatology? They're almost identical. So, it took you 1000 hours to do yours. Congratulations. Notional study time per module is around 100 hours, but I'm sure some will take longer. It ain't a competition if the stuff you've got to know is the same.

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

not generate extra income for the practice, then exactly how and why should your demand for a "wage" rise be funded?

[/quote]

Perhaps I should get my spoon out. I imagine most people studying a certificate in practice will do so with the blessing of their employer, because it is an investment in them with a view to a longer term reward. So your point about zoological medicine is perverse, if rational. I'm not advocating that all certificates in all circumstances = pay rise. I may be, in retrospect, made the mistake of missing out some steps in the argument 'as read' - for which I can only apologise; I evidently misread my audience.

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

(a) how can a broad-ranging certificate be of adequate depth in comparison to a specific clinical area,

[/quote]

The B modules require around 5-10 case reports of 2000 words each dealing with small/equine/farm (whichever you choose) and different aspects therein. You might think this irrelevant but I actually think is gives a great base for integrated medicine (or surgery or both), hence my original post about restricted old certs. I would think, if anything, that employers would welcome this widening of the syllabus. Additionally, there are practice management, employment, ethics and the like covered by 10 x 15000 word essays (mainly) in the A modules - again would have thought this was attractive, and is something unique in that its not taught anywhere else.

Then comes the specialisation - if you want. So there are subject-specific modules giving designated certs whose knowledge requirement is very similar to previous old certs. Yes one can become a generalist by taking various different modules, but to tar the whole CertAVP with jack of all trades is insular, dogmatic, and uninformed.

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

On the other hand it is belittling to those in large animal work with sheep and cattle certificates to suggest that they are a hobby. That is belittling.

[/quote]

I have no idea where this has come from. Is that Quantum Leap playing in the background?

Re: certificates?????

Julian Earl — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:14:13 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="David Mills"] [/quote]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

[/quote]

Gentlemen, my Mum has a rather fine pair of antique duelling pistols which I would be happy to lend you.

Can we meet in Hyde Park at dawn, please?

Seriously, it does seem from my outsider's-no-axe-to-grind-perspective that you could go around in circles arguing about the old-style vs the new style certs, and I'm not sure anyone is going to win.

As regards the other point, which seems to be whether a qualification automatically confers the right to a higher wage, SHIRLEY NOT.

Surely your salary is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as everything else, and whether or not your additional qualification in dermatology will (all other things being equal) command a greater salary depends on the number of pet owners in the area that will buy that expertise, and the number of similarly qualified practitioners there are in the area (fighting for the same custom).

Or am I being very thick here?

[/quote]

I have no criticism of new certificates, I have merely been questioning whether too broad an area of study leads to a jack of all trades qualification. Simples, innit? On the second point, we are clearly of the same opinion.

As for the pistols, I'd prefer the Queensbury rules tbh but that's another story...

Re: certificates?????

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:51:59 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"] [/quote]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

[/quote]

Gentlemen, my Mum has a rather fine pair of antique duelling pistols which I would be happy to lend you.

Can we meet in Hyde Park at dawn, please?

Seriously, it does seem from my outsider's-no-axe-to-grind-perspective that you could go around in circles arguing about the old-style vs the new style certs, and I'm not sure anyone is going to win.

As regards the other point, which seems to be whether a qualification automatically confers the right to a higher wage, SHIRLEY NOT.

Or am I being very thick here?

Re: certificates?????

Julian Earl — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:13:52 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

No experience other than what I have read of it, with the suspicion that studying the whole AVP area is trying to be advanced/specialist at everything.

[/quote]

Hmmmm. As I suspected.

[/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

Re. the last option of an employer against new certificates, you have failed to understand my use of the word "hobby".

[/quote]

An issue with expression or a retreat? Hobby to any reasonable person implies a special interest, a pasttime, a lesiure activity. Model railways are a hobby, DIY, walking. Sheep/cattle medicine? Very very peculiar expression if you ask me. I think we both know you were attempting to be sarcastic, caustic, CertAVP belittling, it didn't work, and now the sounds of retreat are defeaning.

Of course, I could be wrong. People may well have shepp flock plans as a hobby. Strange world.[/quote]

Of course you could be wrong. You are. If a certificate, new or old, is irrelevant to the work done in the sense that it does not generate extra income for the practice, then exactly how and why should your demand for a "wage" rise be funded? If it, the certificate, does not generate work, then yes you have studied it for academic interest - something that may indeed be called a hobby. If you study orthopaedics and carry out extra surgery for the practice, then fair enough, a wage would be expected and fundable. It's quite simple really.

Also, you seem to have a bizarre reasoning ability: "Retreat"? My position, as stated above, is exactly the same as my original post: (a) how can a broad-ranging certificate be of adequate depth in comparison to a specific clinical area, and (b) where does your wage rise come from without extra work? You haven't answered the first nor justified the second.

Thirdly, it is challenging, not belittling, to ask someone to justify their unconditional demand for a wage rise simply because the person has more letters after their name. That is arrogant, ignorant (of business), and naive. But I forget, you changed your unconditional demand in response to Neil. Silly me for not realising that you did not write exactly what you meant.

On the other hand it is belittling to those in large animal work with sheep and cattle certificates to suggest that they are a hobby. That is belittling.

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

One could study and achieve huge knowledge of, say, zoo medicine (notwithstanding the requirements for enrolment) and it be of no use whatsoever in small animal practice. That would not entitle anyone to a salary rise. Achieving a dermatology certificate, or cardiology maybe, does have potential but the potential depends on other factors just one of which you mention (referrals). However, the zoo medicine qualification would indeed be a hobby in the example given, no matter how impressive it looked on one's CV. If a certificate does not generate work then it is professionally satisfying to have but, like it or not, of no benefit for a practice.

[/quote]

When your argument looks frail, move the goalposts quickly. Whoever said anything about wage increases just for a certificate? Your example is perverse, and a wilful misrepresentation, and again adds to the sounds of retreat. Is this really the best defence of your position? If you're cynical about the new certs, fine, but I would have thought someone so passionately cynical, and well educated, could at least have produced a better argument than 'suspicion', 'hobby' and 'no wage increase for a zoo cert in SA practice'.

[/quote]

Again, "who said about wage increases...?" Huh? You did. Then you changed what you meant. Who is actually retreating moving the goal-posts back-pedalling here? Not me. Quite a feat when you're being so obtuse.

The example of the zoo medicine is not perverse at all - it is a good example a certificate that may well be extremely demanding to achieve, but of no relevance to a given practice (such as this one for example). The same principle applies as I mentioned with the orthopaedics whereby a certificate can generate work to justify your demand for a pay increase.

And who said anything about other "new certs"? This communication has clearly been about the CertAVP alone.

Re: certificates?????

Niall Taylor — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:04:26 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]You're perverting the argument with extremes (it is silly season I suppose), and some canny stereotypes thrown in[/quote]

No extremes, no stereotypes, just an everyday scenario giving a possible reason that a certificate holder might not warrant a pay rise simply by virtue of having qualification x, y or z. Or do you think every single certificate holder has impeccable inter-personal skills and bedside manner?

[quote user="David Mills"]Considering all things equal other than cert/non-cert, I would have thought someone with a cert - of any description, not just RCVS here - to be deserving of higher pay than one without.[/quote]

If everything, including individual turnover and level of commitment to the practice, is equal why would the cert holder deserve more pay than the equally commited non-cert holder?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this one

Cheers,

Niall

Re: certificates?????

David Mills — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:36:42 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

[quote user="David Mills"]My apologies. There is obviously a 'relevant' missing there. But I'm sure most people got the jist.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification David, I wouldn't be sure though that most people 'got the jist', it was rather a fundamental omission and still doesn't really change the fact that even a certificate which on paper might appear to be relevant wouldn't automatically qualify for a 'wage' increase (are you really getting paid weekly?).

For instance someone could have reams of qualifications but if their interpersonal skills were so poor that they upset clients and colleagues then increased remuneration would be totally unwarranted. There is more to being a good practitioner than simply having additional academic qualifications.

Niall

[/quote]

You're perverting the argument with extremes (it is silly season I suppose), and some canny stereotypes thrown in. Let's talk economics - the average man - or RCVS - the reasonable man (or woman). Considering all things equal other than cert/non-cert, I would have thought someone with a cert - of any description, not just RCVS here - to be deserving of higher pay than one without. For, brass tacks here, there is a fundamental difference between atrending CPD courses, keeping generally up-to-date and dedicated, structured study with terminal examination, assessed work and a whole range of different skill tests: one hell of a difference, in fact, and the knowledge it imparts is likely to be deeper ingrained and more accessible than someone without those academic trials - it would, therefore, be of greater value to a practice to have that person with that knowledge present: there are all sorts of marketing opportunities around this asset to a practice

If I were to be employed somewhere who subsequently didn't offer a wage increase following completion of a certificate then I would walk: this isn't to say one does certs purely for financial gain (or at all). Same way in which if I were, say, the only person doing orthopaedics in the practice and thought I was being undervalued, I would do so. Let us not forget how we all cry foul at our services generally being undervalued by the populus.

Re: certificates?????

Niall Taylor — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:06:43 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]My apologies. There is obviously a 'relevant' missing there. But I'm sure most people got the jist.[/quote]

Niall

Re: certificates?????

David Mills — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:49:38 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

[quote user="David Mills"]Whoever said anything about wage increases just for a certificate?[/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"]As to remuneration, as with any further professional qualification, one should expect to attain a wage increase following completion - you are more qualified than someone who hasn't done a certificate, and such should be recognised[/quote]

Niall

[/quote]

My apologies. There is obviously a 'relevant' missing there. But I'm sure most people got the jist.

Re: certificates?????

CatherineThomas — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:42:28 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

Making a certificate or any additional qualification useful is not achieved by getting the letters after your name. One could study and achieve huge knowledge of, say, zoo medicine (notwithstanding the requirements for enrolment) and it be of no use whatsoever in small animal practice. That would not entitle anyone to a salary rise. Achieving a dermatology certificate, or cardiology maybe, does have potential but the potential depends on other factors just one of which you mention (referrals). However, the zoo medicine qualification would indeed be a hobby in the example given, no matter how impressive it looked on one's CV. If a certificate does not generate work then it is professionally satisfying to have but, like it or not, of no benefit for a practice.

[/quote]

Why does a zoo med certificate have less benefit than a dermatology one? If you have a zoo med certificate you are going to attract more clients who are looking for a vet to deal with their collection of exotic pets. So therefore bringing in more clients to a practice. Therefore making more money for the practice.

Although some of the exotic pet owners have no money there are also some who are prepared to spend a lot on their pets. I don't have a certificate yet but I have an interest in exotics and that has attracted several clients to the practice since I've started here, some are even prepared to travel for nearly an hour to get here. Quite a lot of people come in and say they are so pleased they've found someone who actually knows what their pet is and shows an interest in it. There are also lots of reptile/exotics forums where the dedicated owners will spend a lot of time. If you read these forums they do talk about finding a good exotic vet and they know what it means for a vet to have a zoomed certificate.

Re: certificates?????

Niall Taylor — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:20:27 GMT

[quote user="Louise Alexander"]Has anyone completed/currently undertaking the Improve CPD? I'm interested in the Feline medicine one, what are everyone's thoughts on Improve certs?

Louise[/quote]

I completed the 2 year ESVPS GPCert(SAM) with Improve a few years ago and found the whole excercise very useful. Obviously it's much more of an 'entry level' qualification than the other qualifications under discussion here but there were some excellent teachers and for a practitioner like myself it was an ideal way of keeping on top of current thinking. It grates somewhat that RCVS won't recognise the qualification though and it has to be tucked in after the MRCVS. I've since done the surgery course (also extremely useful) but didn't sit the exam.

If I had my time over I would do the BSAVA certificate - Frances Barr's presentation about it at congress last year was excellent (thanks Frances!).

Cheers,

Niall

Re: certificates?????

Niall Taylor — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:06:02 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Whoever said anything about wage increases just for a certificate?[/quote]

Niall

Re: certificates?????

David Mills — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:30:42 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

No experience other than what I have read of it, with the suspicion that studying the whole AVP area is trying to be advanced/specialist at everything.

[/quote]

Hmmmm. As I suspected.

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

Re. the last option of an employer against new certificates, you have failed to understand my use of the word "hobby".

[/quote]

Of course, I could be wrong. People may well have shepp flock plans as a hobby. Strange world.

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

[/quote]

Re: certificates?????

Julian Earl — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:24:33 GMT

[quote user="Mark Rowland"]

Slopes off to cry into his cup of tea at how he has wasted his life

[/quote]

Oops. Have five stars as compensation.