Few Points from the RID Conference

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bryon Rowe on August 18, 2009 at 8:28am

I went to the Strategic Challenges / Bylaws Review Task Force (jokingly called BOB for short) forum. One concept SCBRTF is considering is membership categories. One idea proposed to SCBRTF was to have a membership category for organizations like VRS companies and Interpreting Agencies. The fear is that RID's nonprofit tax exempt status would be lost if RID in any way tried to "control" in any way other companies or organizations. I still support a membership category that companies can VOLUNTARILY join and by joining they agree to follow RID code of professional conduct. This needs greater discussion to see if we can find a legal way that does not hurt RID and helps Interpreters.
I also went to Thursdays Board forum of the NIC review task force. MANY people shared similar comments about people obtaining a level of NIC that was wildly askew from what they felt they should have received. At the NIC TF meeting it was discussed collapsing the NIC into a pass fail test and then generating criteria for obtaining advanced or master level. The criteria suggested needed to include experience. The concept about the decisive nature of one test creating tiers of quality and the terms Advanced and Master needs to be corrected.
Bryon

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Leo Yates on August 18, 2009 at 8:38am

You're fortunate to attend the NIC forum. I so wanted to go, but had to miss it for travel reasons. Did the coordinators pass out any handouts? I contacted RID about any minutes or summaries, however, the coordinators haven't submitted any.any other tidbits from the forum?

Thanks,
Leo

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bryon Rowe on August 20, 2009 at 7:41am

The NIC forum did not hand out any documents. Their focus was on receiving membership input. You can still email comments and suggestions to prodrigue@rid.org

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Risa O on September 12, 2009 at 2:57pm

I'm completely in favor of everything Dennis said, but it can probably only happen in an ideal world. I just don't see how you can walk in and tell these people to stop any practices that don't constitute fraud. I do suggest, however, that people who care about video relay/remote issue join the Video Interpreters Member Section (VIMS) of RID. Anyone who is interested should let me know, and I will put you on our discussion group. As for the code cracking, Stanley Kaplan did it, and although it may not be right, he basically felt that he had proven something about the test by figuring out a way to do this, and it wasn't something good. For some reason, I had no idea that they were going to make a test with levels. Maybe I just wasn't keeping up. I attended forums and sessions where they talked about the test and took feedback and comments from people. I don't know how I missed this. Back when they invented the CI and the CT (the certificates I have) they were touting the pass/fail system as though it were our very salvation. Although I normally object to being constantly compared to other professions, I remember liking the idea. Maybe I wasn't liking it for the same reasons as I would have in another profession, but at least the complications of this person got this level and that person got that level and I can't believe it would be a thing of the past. I think it has made things messy to bring it back. It doesn't really tell us anything about the interpreter, it's driving everybody crazy, and everybody keeps trying to "NIC up." What's the point? A master craftsman needs years of experience and a portfolio in addition to excelling at the craft. If we really wanted that, we could've done it, maybe not exactly that way, but in a way that fits our profession and denotes a true master at the same time.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Barb Hughes on September 26, 2009 at 4:32am

I went to the workshop of the presenter who advertised he had "cracked the code" of the NIC interview. All he did was take the fear of the test and bring it down to size. Nothing more threatening than that. He stated, "The raters' goal is to check things off a list. Your goal is to move their pens." He also stated, "Keep It Simple You Fabulous Intelligent Person." In other words, a NIC Master-level answer does not have to be long and complex and drown the raters in information overload. He advised us to just get to the point, and gave us an outline format with which to accomplish that.

And as a matter of fact, he was a "person of quality" giving this workshop.

As for new ITP graduates being required to have 1000 hours of interpreting before they can sit for the test: and just WHERE are they supposed to get that experience? Many start in Educational Interpreting because that has traditionally been the only door open immediately post-graduation. Even that is getting harder now, with states requiring passage of the EIPA with scores ranging from 3.0 or 3.5 to 4.0 before you can even work as an Educational Interpreter in their state.

So again, just WHERE do you propose "newbies" get that 1000 hours before they can even sit for the test?

Personally, I think that is ridiculous. Any given person on any given day can "nail it" and get a good score on the test. It is a standardized test, and maybe that is the major malfunction. I took the test in May, and it is now late September. I can still remember that the subject matter was not all that terribly taxing. I believe that if a recent ITP graduate has gone to a good quality ITP, then why should they not be able to pass the NIC with a high score right off the bat? The level of "experience" has nothing to do with whether or not an interpreter will pass the test.

I have heard stories of VERY well-experienced interpreters who haven't passed the NIC, or the EIPA in some cases. That is the issue, I think, with standardized tests. Some days you can "nail it" and other days you might bomb. And then, when it is on a day you "bombed it" that you are judged as "not ready or not qualified" to interpret, that is very frustrating.

All that being said, I do think it would be good to just have the test as "pass or fail" and worry about "levels" later. In my case, I waited nearly 2 years to the day from ITP graduation to take the NIC. I had spent the interim working as an Educational Interpreter. I didn't pass *that* day, but I do know I am a good interpreter. In fact, I was shocked that I did not pass. It was just for whatever reason, that particular day, I didn't "nail it." Then I found out about some people who did pass, and I was VERY surprised about them. So I know the test does not really say much about a person's skills in truth. It's just that, on that particular day, other people "nailed it."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Risa O on September 26, 2009 at 2:10pm

I'll agree on the levels thing. Why did they bring those back? Using a standardized test to determine whether can someone can interpret a language is challenging enough. I think that having the levels just makes it worse.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Christie on September 28, 2009 at 9:17am

I am not sure what is to be gained by handing the oversight of Interpreter Agencies to the RID.

The major (or minor) accounting firms do not report to the American Institute of CPA's. Neither Law firms nor independent attorneys report to the ABA. Only about 30-40 % of physicians are members of the AMA. NONE of these professions require its' practitioners to be members of those professional organizations, either. No lawyer, accountant, nurse, veterinarian, physician, dental hygienist, tree surgeon, optician, pilot, psychologist, social worker, teacher, or massage therapist has to be a member of ANYTHING to maintain their credentials: which may have been granted by one of their profession's organizations. Many professionals are tested by a private organization, but their credentials are subsequently held and monitored by a state licensing board.

Have you EVER interpreted or been interviewed (for something outside the interpreting profession) for a position for which you or a consumer were required to present a membership card in anything? Go interview for an interpreting position and see if the agency doesn't go to the RID website and click on "Find an Interpreter/Member" to see if you are in the database. They have to see if you are a member.

If I own "Christy's Sign Language Interpreter Agency and Fresh Bait Shop, LLC", my incentive to join another agency is for a more favorable advertising rate or perhaps to monetarily support a professional organization. What authority does a private membership organization hold over me as a private business? None that I am aware. The only power for a membership organization to wield over another, without legal intervention, would be to refuse to advertise for them or list them as providers on the membership website.

I understand the argument that there is no oversight over interpreter agencies or interpreters unless there is a state licensing body that holds oversight authority. Perhaps that is where our efforts as so called "professionals" should be, to encourage licensing within our states.

The RID could be the testing organization, and our credentials could be kept by the state.

C'ya
Paul C

▶ Reply to This