tbloomer in gray, my old stuff in brown, really old stuff in italics, bf mine

In regards to the practical portion of the exams, until the web site was changed last year, the published guidelines for evaluating farrier certifications and competitions were one and the same.

Nossir, they were not.

Does this mean that the practical portion of the test and the judging of competitions is judged on different criteria?

While the criteria for judging the AFA contest and that of practical portion of the AFA Journeyman test are similar, they are neither alike nor interchangeable.

Ok. So ability to deliver is not synanamous with knowledge of what, when, why, and how to deliver. While knowledge can be objectively quantified, ability to deliver requires human judgement and quantification.

The ability to perform relative to a standard requires a specific skill set; however, knowledge does not imply a particular skill set; the converse is also true.

In regards to human objective quantification of practical application, far as I know the judgeing guidelines haven't changed.

If you're still trying to compare the AFA's competition with the AFA's CJF test, you're still wrong because they have different criteria by which they are quantified.

So the emphasis placed on the practical application aspect of farriery by competition is illogical?

Since the criteria for the practical segments of the AFA's farrier competition and those of the CJF tests are different, any attempt to equate one with the other is illogical.

For some incomprehensible reason, you appear to have forgotten that the AFA Journeyman test is not only a test of a testee's mechanical ability to forge and shoe to a standard, it also includes a standardized academic segment which is designed to objectively quantify a testee's knowledge of equid anatomy, biophysics, common pathologies affecting the hoof, etc.

I haven't forgotten a thing.

Evidently you have.

Especially in regards to your emphasis on the credibility and objectivity of the scoreing and judging portion of the practical portion of the exam.

The criteria for scoring and judging the practical portions of the AFA competitions and those for judging the CJF examinations are not the same! Since the criteria are not the same, your argument is apples-to-oranges illogical.

Grading a written exam requires an answer key. Judging the practical application requires human judgement, is subjective because the humans doing the judging must be experienced and educated, and has no more or less credibility than the repeatability, reproducability, and consistancy which can be expected from a given group of judges when asked for an opinion.

All true, but your original argument ("The contests are judged using the exact same criteria as the certification.") attempted to compare the value of the AFA's shoeing contest with that of the CJF test. After I informed you of the untenabilty of your original position, you limited your argument to attempting to equate the practical criteria of the AFA competition with those of the AFA's CJF test, based on the premise that the criteria for the two are exactly alike. However, because the criteria are not the same, your premise is still invalid and your conclusion remains illogical. As the Good Sisters were fond of telling me quite often, "Ergo cadit quaestio." (Therefore, the argument collapses.)

In regards to your emphasis on the credibility and objectivity of the scoreing and judging portion of the practical portion of the exam . . . nice try.

My argument regarding the credibility and objectivity of the scoring and judging of the practical portions of the AFA's certification tests has consistently been that since the standardized, published, criteria are exactly the same for every testee and the tests are evaluated as objectively as humanly possible, they remain the only fair and meaningful means of evaluating a testee's knowledge and motor skills.

Please inform yourself of the various testing criteria by which the practical portions of the AFA's CJF exam and those of the AFA's farrier competitions are judged. On doing so, you will discover the criteria are not the same, a fact that renders your arguments specious - but hey, once again, nice try.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:Until the web site changed last year the "Guidelines for evaluating farrier certifications AND competitions" were published on the AFA web site under that wording. If the guidelines for evaluation were or are or have always been different, then it is a good thing that the web site no longer says they are.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:So are dressage tests evaluated as objectively as humanly possible.

Ronald E. Kramedjian in gray, my old stuff in brown

The AFA's tests answer questions every potential client should be asking, but the onus is on the AFA's for its failure to let anyone looking for a farrier know they have a choice between someone who has passed a difficult, standardized, test of knowledge and motor skills and somebody who has either failed the test or, for whatever reason, failed to volunteer for the test.

You say this over and over and over. You are attempting to equate two very different states of being.

Nossir, if one has neither taken nor passed a test, their "state of being" is unarguably that of someone who has not passed a test. The reason they haven't passed the test is not relevant to the accuracy of the statement.

Someone who has stepped up and taken the exam and for whatever been unable to pass the exam in that attempt is not a failure.

Nossir, since the AFA's exams are pass/fail, a testee who fails is, by every definition, a failure. Where I'm from, while the crowd may applaud your effort, your don't get paid for falling off.

They have guts and commitment because they laid it on the line yet they did not have the knowledge, motor skill or experience to master all of the elements. Now I’ll agree that they are failing themselves if they do not keep coming back until they do pass, but I’ll not agree to call them failures.

Forgive me, but I'm not much on political correctness, not keeping score, or equating participating with success.

Someone that does not make the choice to take an AFA exam has not failed a damn thing. They simply have not chosen to.

LMAO! Do you feel it's inaccurate to say they've failed to take the test?

The value of taking and passing the exam is not sufficient to entice these individuals into taking the time to take the exam. Frankly this is a failure in marketing the value of being an AFA Certified or Certified Journeyman Farrier. You have repeatedly and rather adroitly pointed out that the AFA has failed and is continuing to fail to properly market their certification program. If the program had value then farriers would flock to it.

True, until the AFA creates a demand for certified farriers, the tests will remain of little value save as mileposts on one's journey - but the tests have the potential of being being used to improve the quality of farriery available to folks in this country.

Frankly it is either the height of arrogance or ignorance to pillory anyone that doesn’t take and pass any certification exam regardless of who’s its author.

As advertised, I'm not much on giving every player a trophy so nobody's feelings get hurt. Similarly, if the public is made aware they have a choice between a farrier who has passed a test or someone who has either failed the test or failed to take the test, that awareness will create demand for AFA certification. With demand will come greater participation in the AFA's certification program, with greater participation in the AFA's certification program, and the overall quality of farriery will be improved. Doubtless, the folks who can't pass the tests will whine like fresh-minted Sicilan widows, but the overall quality of farriery available to the public will be improved, and that's the object of the exercise.

All it really does is leave a sour taste in the mouths of people you want to entice and create a wall that most independent minded individuals are unwilling to work to penetrate.

If fear of taking a test causes a "sour taste" in anyone's mouth, maybe they ought to consider why.

If the AFA wants every farrier to take its exam, then it needs to create compelling value.

Public demand is about as compelling as it gets, but I don't think the AFA wants every farrier to take the exam, I'd like to think the AFA's goal would be to create enough public demand so that a great many farriers would see the value in devoting the study and practice necessary to pass the exam.

If you want to see everyone take the AFA exams then you need to work to help the AFA create that compelling value.

Right now, with few exceptions, the only "compelling value" of the AFA's certification process is to oneself.

But it is a bit hypocritical to jump people for seeing what you see, a lack of compelling value, and choosing to not waist their time and money.

Hypocracy is more likely to be found in folks who denigrate the AFA's testing process after failing the test than in someone who advocates the tests as a means, but not the only means, of self-improvement.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
You might want to consult someone who knows test and measurement and re-evaluate that opinion.

tbloomer in gray

So are dressage tests evaluated as objectively as humanly possible.

To my knowledge, the criteria for every dressage test at every level are exactly alike and the tests are evaluated as objectively as humanly possible.

Your point?

tbloomer in gray

Until the web site changed last year the "Guidelines for evaluating farrier certifications AND competitions" were published on the AFA web site under that wording. If the guidelines for evaluation were or are or have always been different, then it is a good thing that the web site no longer says they are.

Are "guidelines for evaluation" synonymous with "criteria"? If you'll read a bit further, you'll find the criteria differ.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
Of course. "failed to take the test" implies obligation or desire to take the test.
Aside for the copious amount of pure conjecture on your part I, for one, will get through the remainder of my career as a farrier without the AFA come Hell or high water.
You're old enough to know better. I dare you to cross that line and you're a coward if you don't. LOL does the AFA create punks or just attract them?

Mike Ferrara in gray, my old stuff in brown, stuff deleted

Do you feel it's inaccurate to say they've failed to take the test?

Of course. "failed to take the test" implies obligation or desire to take the test.

Whatever the implication you feel attendant the statement, it's accurate as written.

Aside for the copious amount of pure conjecture on your part I, for one, will get through the remainder of my career as a farrier without the AFA come Hell or high water.

Your call.

If fear of taking a test causes a "sour taste" in anyone's mouth, maybe they ought to consider why.

You're old enough to know better.

I'm old enough to know.

LOL does the AFA create punks or just attract them?

As nearly as I can tell, the AFA mostly attracts folks interested in farriery and farriers interested in getting better at what they do. Evidently, it also attracts a few punks, but I've never seen one at an AFA function, so they must only be recognizable by their whining.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:Then why is the AFA unable to retain members? Absent death, retirement or the like, why, when the awarded membership numbers are in the ten thousands, are there only 2100 +/- full dues paying members of the AFA?

Rick Burten in gray

Then why is the AFA unable to retain members? Absent death, retirement or the like, why, when the awarded membership numbers are in the ten thousands, are there only 2100 +/- full dues paying members of the AFA?

I have no idea. I don't even know if the AFA's card numbers have any relationship to the number of dues-paying members.

If the AFA is having trouble retaining dues-paying members, it might have something to do with the economy.

Then again, it might be indicative of a conspiracy, a nefarious plot hatched by a taylorista sleeper cell, in which a rider will be attached to an economic stimulus bill mandating farrier licensing because the AFA's membership voted 7.900 to 2,100 in favor of licensing.

Who knows what evil lurks in men's minds?

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
It's not accurate as written. The implication of obligation or desire has nothing to do with my feelings but rather your use of the word "failed".

Main Entry: 1fail
Pronunciation: \ˈfāl\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English failen, from Anglo-French faillir, from Vulgar Latin *fallire, alteration of Latin fallere to deceive, disappoint
Date: 13th century
intransitive verb
1 a: to lose strength : weaken <her health was failing> b: to fade or die away <until our family line fails> c: to stop functioning normally <the patient's heart failed>
2 a: to fall short <failed in his duty> b: to be or become absent or inadequate <the water supply failed> c: to be unsuccessful <the marriage failed> ; specifically : to be unsuccessful in achieving a passing grade <took the exam and failed> d: to become bankrupt or insolvent
transitive verb
1 a: to disappoint the expectations or trust of <her friends failed her> b: to miss performing an expected service or function for <his wit failed him>
2: to be deficient in : lack <never failed an invincible courage — Douglas MacArthur>
3: to leave undone : neglect <fail to lock the door>
4 a: to be unsuccessful in passing <failed chemistry> b: to grade (as a student) as not passing

Mike Ferrara in gray, my old stuff in brown, stuff deleted

Re: To let anyone looking for a farrier know they have a choice between someone who has passed a difficult, standardized, test of knowledge and motor skills and somebody who has either failed the test or, for whatever reason, failed to volunteer for the test... Whatever the implication you feel attendant the [aforementioned] statement, it's accurate as written.

It's not accurate as written.

Yessir, it is. While you may presume to lecture me on skin diving, engineering, and any number of other subjects, you are clearly out of your depth when it comes to the English language.

The implication of obligation or desire has nothing to do with my feelings but rather your use of the word "failed".

Since you were kind enough to post a lexicon entry, please refer to your own post in order to clear up your obvious misunderstanding of my use the transitive infinitive, "to fail." To wit: 3: to leave undone: neglect <fail to lock the door>.

With your new knowledge in mind, it should become immediately evident that the phrase, "... or, for whatever reason, failed to volunteer for the test." refers to something left undone. There is literally no implication of any necessity for the doing of something, merely that whatever it was, it was left undone.

While you have your dictionary open, you might want to look up the term, "double entendre", taking note of the fact that a second meaning attributed by the reader to an ambiguous word or phrase is not always risque.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
When you say it in a sentence by itself, no. When you try to equate people that have taken a test and failed to pass, and people that have chosen to not take a test, yes.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:OK, I can agree with you as far as you go. But I can not agree with you when you try to label people that have chosen to have noting to do with the AFA or the AFA testing process because the AFA has failed to make a case for its value as failures. You do not get to have it both ways.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:OTOH considering that the number of AFA members only briefly cracked the 3000 plateau I would be more inclined to look elsewhere for reasons/answers.

And, the member number does indeed reflect how many numbers have been previously awarded.