brian robertson wrote:Non-renewal of membership.

Jeeze Rick, had me worried there for a bit.

The credibility of any test where the answers are variable and must be evaluated by human judgement comes from those who choose to take the test. Every farrier who stands before his or her peers for any examination is demonstrating their belief in the credibility of the exam. If they didn't believe the exam was credible, then they do not have to take it.

Mr. Stovall is fond of pointing out the difference between equine competitions that are judged by stop watches and cameras and equine competitions that are judged by human judges. He points out this difference in related to athleticism and how it is qualtified in competition. People who show and compete in equestrian events that are judged by human judges do so knowing that they will be judged subjectively. If they had a problem with the credibility of events judged by humans, then they would not show in those events. If you want ribbons in dressage, you have to show (compete) in dressage.

If you want a farrier certification, peer review, show what you can do, you have to put your work in front of a human and have it judged.

If you don't think you can learn something from having your work judged by your peers, or if you don't think that having evidence of sucessfully passing a peer review exam has any value to anyone, then it isn't likely that you will participate in such events. Lack of participation on your part has no effect on the credibility brought to the event by those who choose to participate.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
Tom,

I am not being a smarty here, but I did not know that you have been a tester/examiner for the AFA. I had always been under the impression that you were never a member before you signed up a couple of years ago. This is an interesting piece of additional history.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
I think this is about the best statement about the quality of the AFA’s examination process as I have ever seen. There can be many arguments about the nature of the shoeing prescription, is it good for the horse and what it does and does not test until the cows come home, but I totally agree with you that the design of the examination process itself has been focused upon creating the opportunity for true objectivity.

tbloomer in gray

The credibility of any test where the answers are variable and must be evaluated by human judgement comes from those who choose to take the test.

I don't believe the credibility of a practical shoeing test has to do solely with the testees' perception of the test; rather, the credibility of a test in which the correct answers are variable or quantified by their degree of adherence to an ideal has to do primarily with the test's design (i.e., standardization and publication of requirements) and the surety of uniform grading in strict accord with published guidelines for quantification.

Every farrier who stands before his or her peers for any examination is demonstrating their belief in the credibility of the exam. If they didn't believe the exam was credible, then they do not have to take it.

Not necessarily so. Farriers seek certification for myriad reasons, not because they believe a test is credible.

Mr. Stovall is fond of pointing out the difference between equine competitions that are judged by stop watches and cameras and equine competitions that are judged by human judges. He points out this difference in related to athleticism and how it is qualtified in competition.

Not quite. To my knowledge, ALL equine competitions, including those in which winners are determined by cameras and stopwatches, have an element of subjectivity in which a human determines whether or not the stated criteria of the competition are met.

People who show and compete in equestrian events that are judged by human judges do so knowing that they will be judged subjectively.

True, to varying degrees. While a barrel race is a helluva lot less subjective than a WP class, both have an element of subjectivity.

If they had a problem with the credibility of events judged by humans, then they would not show in those events. If you want ribbons in dressage, you have to show (compete) in dressage.

To my knowledge, every dressage test at every level is EXACTLY like every other test at that level. Like the AFA's practical shoeing tests, the criteria for dressage tests at every level are published, the tests at every level are evaluated along rigid guidelines, and the evaluation ideally as objective as is humanly possible,

If you want a farrier certification, peer review, show what you can do, you have to put your work in front of a human and have it judged.

The less inherent subjectivity, the greater the credibility of any test. Thus, the object of the exercise is to reduce the amount of subjectivity as much as possible by designing uniform, standardized, tests that measure the testee's abilty to meet published standards while incorporating rigid guidelines for evaluation which enable a judge to evaluate the testee's performance as objectively as humanly possible.

If you don't think you can learn something from having your work judged by your peers, or if you don't think that having evidence of sucessfully passing a peer review exam has any value to anyone, then it isn't likely that you will participate in such events.

Folks participate in various forms of testing for a variety of reasons, not all of which have to do with education and self-betterment.

Lack of participation on your part has no effect on the credibility brought to the event by those who choose to participate.

Testees don't "bring credibility" to any farrier test; rather, a test's credibility is dependent on the industry's perception of its difficulty and uniformity, as well as the efforts of the testing organization to insure maintain adherence to strict guidelines of evaluation.

I'm not a big fan of dressage, but I kinda liked your dressage analogy.

Ronald E. Kramedjian

I am not being a smarty here, but I did not know that you have been a tester/examiner for the AFA.

Now, you do.

I had always been under the impression that you were never a member before you signed up a couple of years ago.

Your impression is correct. In 1985, there was no requirement for AFA membership in order to test at any level, CJFs were fairly scarce, and every CJF was also a tester. I've been a CJF since 1983.

This is an interesting piece of additional history.

Analogous to comparing a state bred stakes to an unrestricted stakes, I firmly believe a test open to all comers has a great deal more credibility than one restricted to members of an organization.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
Here, Here.

Sounds of cheering in the room.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:I can agree with that especially if membership in the organization is open to anyone who pays dues.

Some organization restrict membership by excluding those who have not passed some kind of test or met some kind of criteria. Far as I know you can't be a member of the bar without passing the bar exam. Far as I know you can't take the bar exam in most states without having a law degree. So the test is not open to all commers. The bar exam exists to exclude people from joining the bar. If the bar exam was an educational tool in and of itself, then it would be offered as such to anyone wanting to take it.

Similarly, membership in The Guild is restricted to those who met certain criteria (4 years full time) and have passed a test. The RJF exam is not an educational tool. It is a means of assesment (one of the excluding criteria) for membership in the organization. Sure as shooting it ani't the bar exam. But it would prevent a lawyer who can't shoe a horse from joining the Guild just as surely as the bar exam would prevent a farrier who hasn't read the law from joining the bar association.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:Yes. I could have put western pleasure in there, but I didn't want you spilling your coffee. :cool:

Since I started this thread I find it only fitting to say something here. I appreciate all the replies. I also understand that the AFA Certifications are as objective as humanly possible. When dealing with humans we bring in the unknown factor. The most important thing is that the testers do everything with in their ability to uphold the standards of the test. Without their dedication, drive and full belief in the system, it will not hold up.

I also agree with Tom, that if the AFA put more importance in advancing the Certification with in the horse industry, and opening it as it was before there would be more call for certified farrier.

tbloomer wrote:
These same people that enter these competitions also do a very good job picking what judge likes their horse or style, and they enter in the shows where those judges are so they can win and not lose any money.

I studied my butt off three years ago to take the CF but due to my back on a good day I might make time, on an average day I won't, I didn't want to take the chance of losing my money.

Having said that lets say hypothetically I know Rick Burten and he likes my work, but Tom Stovall on the other hand doesn't care a whole lot for it. Which one do you think I'm going to go take my test with. That to me diminishes all the credibility of the test. I have never taken a test in my life where scoring could be changed after the fact. I don't have any farrier credentials after my name, but I am a NCCO Certified Crane Operator, Certified Forklift Operator, and OSHA Competent Person in the excavating and building industry, not sure if their right on that one, but I passed the test:D, so I have taken a couple of different certification tests and you either pass or you don't.

Why can their not be a test where you determine what size shoe your going to use for the horse, and set standards of break over goes here, x amount of expansion, proper nailing and finishing, x amount of shoe past buttress, x-ray to see how close to balance they are, etc. and if your of x amount of millimeters either way you get deducted. And if that shoes not right for the horse you get to see how good they are at pulling shoes.

Justin Decker

cuttinshoer wrote:Justin, I suggested that as a new format for the Guild exam.

The arguement against it was thet farriers do not have access to radiographs in the field every day.

cuttinshoer wrote:

Hoof balance and objectivity on certification tests are like Pornography:

You can not explain it, but you know it when you see it!
________
Zx14 vs hayabusa

cuttinshoer wrote:

This scenario should not happen. If the tester can't be impartial then they should excuse themselves from scoring that person's horse.

Case in point, the cert. I attended a year ago had Dave Ferguson as the examiner and he ended up being the person scoring my practical along with another tester. Dave and I had a bit of a rough history before that time. We had argued quite a bit on here as well as the AFA site when it was working over leadership issues while he was president. I knew this going in but he didn't realize it until I had already started the practical portion. At that point he had the tester question me about the fact we had a history and if I liked, Dave would excuse himself from scoring my test and have another tester take his place. I said I didn't have a problem if Dave didn't, and that I expected him to do his job as it was suppose to be done per the AFA regulations for examiners. I figured that if he was a man of his word and really believed in the cert. process he would do an impartial job. That he did and low and behold I passed that section of the cert.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that if the examiners and testers can't be impartial and leave thier personal feelings out of the scoring process, then they shouldn't be examiners or testers.

ladyblacksmith wrote:,

I understand that, I have two jobs where I have to visualize and see what I am trying to acheive before I get there. I meant the use of x rays as a standard of judgeing ones eye for balance, I know different people can walk up and see balance to judge it, but a radiograph would be confirmation of their judgement so they wouldn't have to go back and adjust scores.

Justin Decker