Master Inspector - THE DEFINITION

[Leonard E. Ungar]

Joe F;
You know as I do that in New York a home inspector cannot inspect commercial only homes, P/E and Architects can do all as long as they have there HI license.

[pcarter-old-04]

One other thing I just thought of for above and beyond, is the inspectors ability to question an issue but also has the ability to provide a valid solution that resolves the issue that reflects and promotes professionalism of HI's.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by pcarter

One other thing I just thought of for above and beyond, is the inspectors ability to question an issue but also has the ability to provide a valid solution that resolves the issue that reflects and promotes professionalism of HI's.

Joe Farsetta, and Jim Bushart

[James H. Bushart]

Here is what I submit for your consideration for the CMI program.

"CMI", just like BA, BS, or phD, can be an educational level.

A certain number of credits in a variety of areas (electrical, structural, communications, etc) are established as a standard.

Educational providers meet to agree to and provide a standardized educational requirement for this designation...CMI.

Applicants for the program who feel that their life experiences should waive them from training provide a written application detailing their experiences. These applications are reviewed - not by politically appointed people - but by the providers of the training who are best suited to compare apples to apples (experience in resumes to what is being taught in the course).

Those acquiring this level of education are called "CMI"s.

Those already possessing this designation...keep it. Period.

Get rid of Hoopy and the baloney of "peer review" or testing. All CMIs will have comparable transcripts reflecting credits earned (by classwork or experience that is reflected on their transcript). No one loses. Everyone gains.

[jmichalski]

I believe that notion was previously proposed well over a year ago by either John B. or Blaine and called the "GCMI". (See recently granted copyright, and previous thread on such).

[jmichalski]

It was Blaine on 1/1/06 (so just under a year) - here is the text and a link to the thread:

Most of us agree that CMI will be a marketing advantage, and I believe in some of the minds of those who wholeheartedly support it see it in the same light as the Realtor GRI designation, so I have proposed the following:

Instead of worrying about all of the logistics of who can and who can't attain the CMI, how many years and inspections, who does and who doesn't have enough time in the business, or number of inspections to even take the class to take the test to get the designation, let's make CMI a designation of higher learning.

Anyone who is a full member can take the course, which should be challenging, thorough, and certainly a huge step above the basic HI courses most of us took to enter the business in the first place.

At the successful completion of the course and exam, the inspector gets to use the initials GCMI (Graduate of Certified Master Inspector course) which simply is a designation that the Inspector has completed an advanced course in home inspection materials and techniques. The logo could be easily changed to add the G.

The course could be taught by schools, and at least part of it at the convention each year. It would demonstrate the things that most of us want CMI to be; a yearning for more education, a commitment to the business, more knowledgeable home inspectors, a marketing advantage, and yes, more people coming to NACHI for membership.

Any Takers?

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthrea...highlight=GCMI

[James H. Bushart]

Omit all references to NACHI and its convention and add the opportunity to apply for credit for life experience, and it is much the same. I think it will work.

No politics. Everything quantified and recorded on a transcript. Neat, easy and clean.

It is accessable to Old Timers and Doogie Howsers, alike.

[jmichalski]

Or perhaps let this stand as an educational milestone, while adding a separate designation based on experience and in-field accomplishments.

(When the original idea was posted by Blaine, NACHI still owned the CMI - I am not sure who currently owns it.)

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

(When the original idea was posted by Blaine, NACHI still owned the CMI - I am not sure who currently owns it.)

Nick owns it. CMI can still remain the title.

[Joe Farsetta]

CLEP is a program which allowed college credit for life experience. I think that the idea of experience trumping education may be back*****wards. Perhaps those with lots of experience can trade it for educational credits toward CMI. In business, where college degrees are required, many employers dont care what experience you have. They want the diploma. Some will allow experience as an acceptable substitute for the educational requirement. The model never puts experience over educational requirements. So, we need to put the experience in proper proportion.

I also believe that you either qualify as a CMI or you do not. I was never in favor of GCMI.

To me, its a designation for those who lack experience in a program which requires it. I think the experience part is subjective, and GMCI is the same as "candidate".

Both suck.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Nick owns it. CMI can still remain the title.

didn't Nick post that he was transferring the rights to it to the MICB?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

CLEP is a program which allowed college credit for life experience. I think that the idea of experience trumping education may be back*****wards.

I also believe that you either qualify as a CMI or you do not. I was never in favor of GCMI.

To me, its a designation for those who lack experience in a program which requires it. I think the experience part is subjective, and GMCI is the same as "candidate".

Both suck.

Agreed. The last thing we need are two levels of CMI.

Set the standard using an educational model. Allow credits to be applied toward that model for experience, when deemed appropriate by the education provider. CLEP is an excellent model for that.

Take the politics away from the designation and you will have a meaningful designation.

[jmichalski]

ICC credentialing is also education oriented, yet many in the profession find it to be a worthy goal and it is fairly widely respected. This could be the type of thing that the GCMI might equate to.

HAving spearte designations allows the individual to choose for themselves which is the more desirable. For those who believe that education takes a back seat to experience, and don't wish to be equated to a newbie with a lot of book knowledge who has never inspected a single home, they have a designation to pursue.

For those who think education is paramount (as I'm sure all the ed vendors will) then there is an educational equivalent.

Ultimately, if the bar is set high enough both could be respected designations. If not, it will be what CMI is now....

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

ICC credentialing is also education oriented, yet many in the profession find it to be a worthy goal and it is fairly widely respected. This could be the type of thing that the GCMI might equate to.

HAving spearte designations allows the individual to choose for themselves which is the more desirable. For those who believe that education takes a back seat to experience, and don't wish to be equated to a newbie with a lot of book knowledge who has never inspected a single home, they have a designation to pursue.

For those who think education is paramount (as I'm sure all the ed vendors will) then there is an educational equivalent.

Ultimately, if the bar is set high enough both could be respected designations. If not, it will be what CMI is now....

I disagree. One designation is all that is required to achieve the objectives to distinguish an inspector and to market him to the public as being certified "master". Additional designations simply dilute and confuse.

Experience can be taken into account in this model by quantifying it in comparison to an educational model. It is already being done in colleges and universities throughout the world. There is no reason to believe it would not work here.

Without an objective quantifier, you are left with Hoopy.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I disagree. One designation is all that is required to achieve the objectives to distinguish an inspector and to market him to the public as being certified "master". Additional designations simply dilute and confuse.

Experience can be taken into account in this model by quantifying it in comparison to an educational model. It is already being done in colleges and universities throughout the world. There is no reason to believe it would not work here.

Without an objective quantifier, you are left with Hoopy.

OK - so, no change to the current formula, then, since experience can already be substituted for education and vice versa?

Oh- except that we are putting Ed Vendors in charge....oh wait, they currently are.