Jim, my criticism is not of you personally, it is of IPEM generally, unless "you are IPEM", rather than a representative, that is. Actually this may come as a shock to you but many are critical and sceptical about IPEM - especially those working in EBME departments - probably due to a lack of information and misunderstanding. They cannot be blamed for information not being made available and the institution failing to "market itself" more proactively to non-member technologists.
I am an IPEM member on the VRCT, who only knows about IPEM and VRCT because I worked for a long time in Medical Physics, and I find it difficult to convince my EBME colleagues that there is "something in it" for them i.e IPEM hasn't really given me any "tools" or a "lever" for me to help "push" VRCT and promote the ideas of state registration. Of course you should be given fair dues and credit for your involvement and hopefully your hard work is bearing fruit - I for one am glad to see it. However this is a forum - a place where comments, information, views and opinions (including criticism) should be welcomed and tolerated in my opinion.
However there is no monopoly on commitment - irrespective of whether it is to an institution promoting a profession or technicians and engineers just working hard and getting on with it the best they can. I like to think I've helped at least some of the people I've worked with giving basic knowledge or assistance beyond the call of duty and spreading the word about IPEM, VRCT and state registration whenever I can. We can't all be "at the front-end" or at the "top of the tree". Have you read my previous postings in this thread - the ones that promote IPEM, VRCT and state registration? Would someone disinterested spend their own time posting this?
I don't think I should personally be criticised just because, like many others, I am not that involved (because of personal and work circumstances). After reading your response fortunately I am not that involved so I take offence, when my institution is criticised on an issue, anyhow. Precisely because of the time that VRCT has been established I think that information on VRCT could have been more widely released through the "members network" and then onto non-members working in EBME and other non Medical Physics but related areas for example. Don't forget we are not all in a position to promote the profession (and sometimes expose it, warts and all).
Many of our employers are not even aware of IPEM or not yet convinced of the benefits of IPEM and VRCT precisely because I think IPEM has not pushed it hard-enough to non-members e.g. EBME departments particularly. A point raised recently by the Chairman in an IPEM circular recently.
The fact is that you chose to respond to a posting originally asking for information on the VRCT way down a thread after it had been started to "clear up misconceptions" yet responded very quickly to my criticism of IPEM perhaps demonstrates my point. Maybe if you had responded to the inital question rather than choosing to point out the misunderstandings that occurred later on - i.e. clarifying the issue; then there wouldn't have been as many misunderstandings. One last thing - this is a talking-shop Jim - it's a forum, an oppotunity to share views, information and have a discussion whether it attains some individuals personal high standards or not, I suppose.
