Minutus

Gabrielle Traub wrote:

Hi Gabrielle,
I see my words were misunderstood.....(ambiguously written?)
I did not wish to imply anything about being born to heal - but rather
to measure what was learned - and not how long someone studied.

My reasoning is due to experience. As a tutor at BIH, I see that my
students have a VERY wide range of backgrounds in terms of what has
already been studied, as well as a variation in maturity and in speed of
assimilating the material and knowing how to apply it. I would hate to
subject the veterinarians for example, to a repeat of their anatomy and
physiology classes, nor others with their specific background education,
to a repeat of their immunology, microbiology, zoology, biochemistry,
clinical experience, etc etc.

It's not only homeopathy that is this way. One of my jobs at a
college in USA was to assess foreign students to see what classes their
foreign training had covered well enough to exempt them from the local
ones. This caused a lot of high quality applications from foreign
students, as they realized their time would NOT be wasted by having
their "time taken to study" measured - instead of their "what I already
know" being tested. They would NOT need to repeat anything they already
knew well - wherever they learned it. That's important in modern life
where time (and tuition fees) are important not to waste,.

It was a slight disappointment of course to those who had studied a long
time and assimilated nothing - as they were told to repeat courses in
which they claimed proficiency but failed to prove it.

So my intention was to suggest measuring how good a homeopath the person
is - not how long they worked towards it. A "natural born healer" would
still have to test well in ALL of the relevant aspects - it is not
enough to have an aptitude or "5 years of study". Some people study 10
yrs and still I would not turn them loose on a sick lizard.
Exactly. That's why I prefer to test this than to ask how long they
spent reading it.

That is what I meant by:
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Maybe another useful possibility, as a step *toward* standardization
yet without being restrictive, would be to arrive at a test to be
suggested for the schools to administer their students prior to
graduation (or perhaps a couple of tests to accommodate different goals
and expectations, e.g. 3-year part-time versus five-year full-time!),
and to offer to compile (but yikes, who would do it...) and compare
those results with schools in similar category (e.g. not to compare
results of a 3-year part-time school with those of a five-year
full-time one). Not for purposes of "one-upsmanship", but so that the
*schools* can see what they are doing well and what they might want to
change tactics with.

Yet IMO it would be a shame to put *too much* emphasis on such a test,
since "book learning and test-taking" are truly not the final
determinants as to who makes a successful *practitioner*!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Shannon
Marvelous idea. To be honest, foresight of some homeopaths like you is a hope for Homeopathy circle. As you mentioned, taking test can not define who is the better practitioner because practising is a combination of theoretical knowledge about Homeopathy and practical skills in making correct relationship, interview skills, enough courage for making decision and accepting its responsibility.
So however having proper theoretical knowledge is not enough but surely necessary for a successful practising.
Suggesting this test as a part (Not all) of evaluation procedure should be our long term goal (after 5 years) and we need the statistic information of this competition for normalization and standardization of test. Fortunately the distinguished Homeopaths have felt the importance of this test and gave us a hand in providing of questions but we still need more contribution to convince the practitioners and schools about importance of participating in this event.
Do you think how we can promote your suggestion and our programme more?
Regards
Shaddel

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
Maybe another useful possibility, as a step *toward* standardization
yet without being restrictive, would be to arrive at a test to be
suggested for the schools to administer their students prior to
graduation (or perhaps a couple of tests to accommodate different goals
and expectations, e.g. 3-year part-time versus five-year full-time!),
and to offer to compile (but yikes, who would do it...) and compare
those results with schools in similar category (e.g. not to compare
results of a 3-year part-time school with those of a five-year
full-time one). Not for purposes of "one-upsmanship", but so that the
*schools* can see what they are doing well and what they might want to
change tactics with.

Yet IMO it would be a shame to put *too much* emphasis on such a test,
since "book learning and test-taking" are truly not the final
determinants as to who makes a successful *practitioner*!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Associate Professor in Organon and Principles
Academic Registerar, Pioneer University
Education Affairs Director CTCH
Administrator to HMA, UK in Middle East
-----------------------------
CTCH Administration Office
Tel-Fax: +44-1235-519465
Email: director@ctchdubai.com
Website: www.ctchdubai.com
Correspondance: 3 Exeter Court, Oxford, OX11 8UH, UK
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]