Rick, and Ron , I surely appreciate your Sour-Grape , point of view on the AFA, and it's certification process. Thank you for bringing all of the faults up, for discussion. Your point-of-view, has made me try harder to help guys that are interested in the certification process. You guys just keep trying to tear it down, It will make better people step - up and , take it forward!!

Jake Whitman wrote:Sorry, leave me out of your persecution fantasy. I am discussing Mr. Stovall's view of the AFA, not my view of the AFA. And I am significantly more supportive of those that step up to the certification process just for stepping up than is Tom.

Jake Whitman wrote:Good, it takes good men to help people through the process and a lot of support to put your butt on the line by taking the test. I'm proud of you.

Jake Whitman wrote:Criticizing weakness in a program is not the same as trying to tear something down. This is a common but highly flawed point of view that is used but many AFA sycophants, including you, that think they are helping the AFA by attacking anyone that renders a dissenting opinion. Frankly I believe that you would attack anything I said including that the AFA is the best thing since sliced bread simply because I say it.

As a member I have a right to expect the organization to expend my financial contributions as adroitly as possible. When I feel that it is not doing something as well as it should I have a right to express my feelings. If there was still a members only section I would do exactly that, there. But the leadership of the AFA in its infantine wisdom has taken that forum away from us so I’ll express myself here as I see fit.

I do have to let an organization that I am a member of have its way with me just because its leadership, if that is what they are, gets uncomfortable because they are on the hot seat for not fixing perceived problems.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
Nonsense. If the desired result is an unlocked door, you don't fail to <lock the door> bu not locking it. On the contrary, that's succeeding in leaving the door unlocked. To lock it would be a failure to leave it unlocked.

In this case, it's just disingenuous.

Ronald E. Kramedjian wrote:
It's a failure to take responsibility. AFA membership is low and their certification program has never really taken off with farriers or horse owners but it's not the AFA's fault. It's not because the AFA failed to make the sale but rather because everybody else failed to buy in. Since the product is perfect it must be a failure on the part of potential customers. Talk about whining and sour grapes...or as you put it "persecution fantasy".

The burden to make the sale is always on the seller.

Rick pointed out the number of people who have bought membership but are no longer members (I'm one of those). That's even worse. The sale was made. They had them but they blew it. They even fail amoung those who demonstrably wanted to belong to a farrier organization.

Logically, they should be asking why and looking to correct whatever is wrong but they won't because they are of the opinion that they do everything just right and everybody else is wrong.

What is it they say? Do what you always did and you'll get what you always got.

Jake Whitman wrote:
Good on you for trying to help up-and-coming farriers but, given past performance, trying to take the AFA certification program forward seems about like rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:The point is that the evaluation is subjective and that determination of pass, fail, score, good or bad is SUBJECT to the interpretation and decision of a human.

In a subjective evaluation like a dressage test, or ANY practical examination of skill, performance, meeting criteria, etc. the outcome is not determined by an object. If it was, then anyone, regardless of their knowledge, would be able to administer the test, AND the score, pass/fail, would be consistant, repeatable, and exact regardless of WHO did the scoreing.

objectivity = 0

Objectivity has nothing to do with credibility in regards to ANY examination where judgement is rendered by human opinion, except where it involves the BELIEF that the human making the judgement is turstworthy and impartial.

The credibility of the AFA certification comes from the fact that nobody ever got it without taking and passing the exams. The certification practical exams also get credibility from the belief that the organization chooses examiners and testers based on their track record of participation, working to establish trust, and earning that trust.

Far as I know the BWFA is the only national farrier organization that has ever "awarded" a certification without requiring the candidate to pass a test. Since they did that and publicised it, it is difficult to trust whether or not any of the folks having one of their certifications earned it or bought it. No trust, no credibility. Has nothing to do with their test. Has everything to do with whether or not their certificate means that the bearer actually earned it by taking and passing a test. The BWFA is the only national farrier organization that is not granted reciprocity for their certification in meeting the entry requirements for The Guild. Now you know why.

Mike Ferrara wrote:Goes well with "We've been doing it this way for 30 years."

and

"You don't know what you're talking about because you haven't been doing it for 30 years."

tbloomer

The point is that the evaluation is subjective and that determination of pass, fail, score, good or bad is SUBJECT to the interpretation and decision of a human.

The salient point is that unless the criteria for a test are the same, no matter how subjective or objective its evaluation, some testees get the gold mine, while others get the shaft.

Unless every testee is required to run the same distance, jump the same height, shoe to the same standard, poot the same chorus of Flight of the Bumblebee, etc., a test is pretty much meaningless in terms of evaluating performance because the results are inherently inconclusive.

Objectivity has nothing to do with credibility in regards to ANY examination where judgement is rendered by human opinion, except where it involves the BELIEF that the human making the judgement is turstworthy and impartial.

The credibility of the AFA certification comes from the fact that nobody ever got it without taking and passing the exams. The certification practical exams also get credibility from the belief that the organization chooses examiners and testers based on their track record of participation, working to establish trust, and earning that trust.

In addition to the facts you've mentioned, the credibility of the AFA's tests is based on the concept of, "Fair for one, fair for all." Every testee at every level takes exactly the same test and the testing criteria at every level are exactly the same.

In this country, the AFA's tests are unique in this respect.

tbloomer wrote:
The AFA apparently aims to base the evaluation on the physical properties of the object and the clock. If the parametrics are adequately specified and reliably measured, it could be objective...but it isn't.

Further, in order to be useful, the test must flag failure modes that of concerned to those who are intended to make use of the test results. This might explain why most farriers and horse owners don't care.

Oh well, they don't get it and they aren't going to.Yes. We might accept the judgment of someone we view as an expert. Since their judgment is not highly sought after, the AFA should at least consider the possibility that they are not viewed as expert.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
There are quite a few points in your post to disagree with but the bottom line is that the credibility of the AFA's test has not been established.

Mike Ferrara in gray, my old stuff in brown

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.

Nonsense. If the desired result is an unlocked door, you don't fail to <lock the door> bu not locking it. On the contrary, that's succeeding in leaving the door unlocked. To lock it would be a failure to leave it unlocked.

So if someone says, "When questioned, I failed to answer", you feel this implies some obligation to respond?

While you have your dictionary open, you might want to look up the term, "double entendre"...

In this case, it's just disingenuous.

LMAO! It appears you've been misled by your failure to fully understand the meaning of the word, "failed."

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
Yes, though I've never heard any one say that. They might say that they "declined to answer" or that they "refused to answer".

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:So Tom, one might imply from your stated position, that you, because you did not take the state boards to become a doctor, lawyer, accountant, plumber, electrician, etc ad naseum, you have failed, correct? One might also infer that since you no longer are a full time farrier, you have somehow failed, correct?

One might also infer, from your use of the term "fail/failure" that every person who is dead, while successful at dying, was a failure at living. And so it goes.

Rick Burten wrote:
That's the way I read it...and even though he is an AFA CJF he fails to shoe horses most days.

Rick Burten

So Tom, one might imply from your stated position, that you, because you did not take the state boards to become a doctor, lawyer, accountant, plumber, electrician, etc ad naseum, have failed, correct?

Incorrect. I'm not qualified by either education or experience to take any of the aforementioned tests. However, if I were, I could say, "I took the test and passed." Or, "I took the test and failed." Or, "I failed to take the test." Relative to the use of the infinitive, "to fail," any of these three statements would be correct usage.

One might also infer that since you no longer are a full time farrier, you have somehow failed, correct?

One might also infer, from your use of the term "fail/failure" that every person who is dead, while successful at dying, was a failure at living. And so it goes.

Such mistaken inference might be expected from one for whom English was not a first language, but they're not mistakes many native speakers or anyone fluent in the language would make. For conformation, please see the definitions of the verb, both transitive and intransitive, that were posted by Mr. Ferrara.