Posted By Swis Not a long ago, when I finished my level 6 diploma in OSH, I asked my tutor, why is it that this part time diploma which can be completed in one year is ‘classified’ to the same level as lower degree where you spend three solid years (5 days a week)? His answer was that it’s not the contents (quantity of reading/writing material) but ability of this diploma to teach transferable skills & application of knowledge in different scenarios – Fair point. Now most qualifications such as degrees, Diplomas, are your achievements and remain so for the rest of your life (or beyond maybe). However, a lot of courses and I’m afraid I’ll have to mention IOSH’s working safely/Managing Safely courses have to be refreshed every three years or so. Otherwise your certificate gets expired and you’re not ‘officially’ certificated for such courses. Reason given are the fact that as times goes by your skills get ‘rusty’ and you need to retrain your self to revive those skills. What is your opinion on this?

Posted By wsd Regs change. New Regs arrive. Not everyone will go out and read them without having to. The refreshers at least do force you to keep current.

Posted By Bob Youel this is what CPD is all about And more and more people are being asked to prove their competence in courts; where a degree was passed 10, 20, 30 etc years ago but no update competence has been gained i.e. the degreee passed years ago may not now be relevent! Expert witness should comment please

Posted By Swis Some good comments with solid reasoning’s, some maybe off the topic completely. Wsd, ‘Regs change. New Regs arrive. Not everyone will go out and read them without having to. The refreshers at least do force you to keep current.’. Whilst agreeing your comments, I must say that lawyers don’t have to do LLB/LLM/ LPC etc every three year or so and yet who knows more laws than them. Again, I’m not discussing the value of these refresher courses but the expiry dates of certificates issued once you attend those courses.

Posted By Colin Reeves My professional qualification has to be revalidated every five years. To get this done there are four main options. 1. Prove that you are currently employed in a post that requires this qualification to be practiced 2. Prove you are in a support post which requires knowledge and use of the contents of the qualification 3. undertake three months in a supernumary role 4. Undertake a refresher examination This method seems to cover most of the concerns mentioned above - these requirements are not voluntary but required under statute. Colin

Posted By TonyB I can't see real issue. IOSH MS is a course for non-H&S people. Its main benefit is to give an overview of what H&S is all about and the implications, both on the company and individuals of getting it wrong. None of the areas covered are designed to give a full understanding but the general approach. Therefore, although some specifics - like Regs may change, the general requirements are the same. So why refresh, other than to remind people about these general requirements. Also, it is not statutory training and employers should congratulated for recognising the benefits of this training and not criticised for failing to refresh it! As for the technical training (Diploma) this is designed for practitioners and these people need to keep up to date to function - therefore formal refreshers should not be required. IMHO TonyB

Posted By martinw Managing. Need to concentrate.

Posted By D H Swis - I have just completed BOSIET - offshore survival and escape training. That requires renewal to show that you can still do it. In the same vein - how would a resit of your NEBOSH exam compare? Also - if there was a accident in the workplace and the HSE got involved, they would be asking when refresher training was given - yes or no? Martin - as a practitioner, no I would not list IOSH MS on CV, unless it was the highest qualification I possessed. Dave

Posted By Ron Hunter Toe, Back in the dim and distant past, I did a 3 year HND in Mechanical & Production Engineering. At that time, the HND was widely regarded (inc by employers) as the equivalent of an ordinary degree. These days of course, and HND is a two year course and well short of a Degree (and no disrespect intended to those who have done or are doing this level of qualification). My point being (in response to your post, Toe) that I am proud of that achievement all these years ago, and perhaps more importantly what I went on to do thereafter. OK, you have an "old style" Pt 1 Diploma. That doesn't mean that you, your current employer or any future employer should think less of it (or you for that matter).

Posted By Ian Blenkharn I regularly accept instruction as an Expert Witness in my chosen speciality, and have done so for over 20 years. As a microbiologist, higher degree qualifications for me are an absolute necessity. I also need membership of a number of different professional organisations and a full and comprehensive CPD programme (I am in 3 of them!). I would not get anywhere without this as an absolute minimum. The Courts expect an analytical approach to my work, and probably everything else that is dealt with under the title Expert Witness. This is where the university education is really important, to analyse and dissect the deeper issues, as well as being fully up-to-date with the subject, and with the history of the subject (ie, be up to date for something that happened x years ago and be able to consider an issue by the standards of that day). For myself, and most of my peers, the essential key is a research-based career with an ever-growing list of peer-reviewed medical and scientific publications. It is this work that 'proves' ability and secures the essential peer approval. That would not be obtained from a succession of basicaly technical training, no matter how many update courses are used to supplement that. Some may have technical skills, and could no doubt trot out chapter and verse of current legislation, but that is not always the point. Can they reliably disect the more complex issues involved, and do so with confidence? I take my hat off to those with the technical and practical skills in their subject, who may keep up to date with legislation and COPs etc but in Court, they will surely fail dramatically without the additional knowledge-base that supplements current awareness. In this arena, the bitter truth is that many get a great kick out of a little bit of Expert Witness work, and may survive for a while, but without a deep, very deep, understanding of their subject, and an critically analytical mind, they will fall from grace dramatically and often painfully. I have witnessed this on several occasions. They are generally the hired gun type of individual who will be persuaded to say what an instructing solicitor wants them to say. They may add a liberal scattering of 'facts' lifted from COPs, technical guides and the like, but will fall apart under cross-examination. If they are lucky, they wont be asked back again and can put it behind them. But if they are really bad, or just plain unlucky, they may experience the wrath of the Courts, or of a particularly irascible High Court judge! It's not a pleasant event, but happens to those who are slap-bang up-to-date with their subject area but without the depth and breadth of knowledge to supplement the information that they spill out by rote.