I tend to agree with John, and it is my impression that consumers are most interested in hands-on experience than any other possible qualification. I remember finding difficulty overcoming the marketing disadvantage of being and looking young when I first started out in the home inspection business. Having no grey whiskers was a horrible disadvantage. Had I attempted to overcome this handicap by touting that I passed this or that exam, it would have backfired on me and made me look even less experienced. When it comes to anything construction or inspection related… consumers seek out experience, not good grades.
Then that tells me that CMI should be based on hands on experience.
Anyway, ask any law partner if they would want a new hire who passed the bar exam with flying colors to represent their firm’s client in an actual court room, having never been in one.
We could all debate this forever. Each person has to do what they feel is right for them. Good luck to everyone.
It is my experience that customers are most interested in the competence of the Home Inspector they hire. At this time the bugs in the CMI program are not entirely worked out to ensure that the customer will get what they desire/deserve, time will tell.
**“I will go out of my way to explain to clients, potential clients, and Realtors my views on meaningless designations.” **
Lew, just help me to understand your position:
Would you please post here what your concept of a meaningful designation would be?
Thanks!
Russ
The CMI will never remove all the bugs that may get through the screening process.
I know an inspector who has certifications, licenses, and CE’s that make for a
dazzling list, and is even the president of well known inspector association.
Yet he has the moral weakness of writing “easy speak” reports to please
the realtors and maneuvers special deals, behind the scenes, to make $$$
generated from his findings.
So far, all of his experience, CE, membership in various associations, and
even becoming the president of an association… has not revealed his
lower nature that bleeds through into all of his work. Not even the FBI
can purge every bad apple.
I think the “bugs are out” and have been. CMI’s requirements came after years of discussion on this message board and proposals (including making a CMI exam www.nachi.org/cmi.htm and a CMI formula http://www.nachi.org/cmiformula).
It is a professional designation based on actual practical experience and inspection related education. Clean.
Absolutely; Right on Bro:D
</IMG>
Yes, it is possible to become ICC Certified without any construction experience, it would be tough but possible. I’m not saying that ICC = CMI, what I am saying in a general way is that for the sake of the CMI designation in the eyes of the public something beyond someone’s stated affidavit must be in place to screen those who would sully both their own integrity and the respect those of us have given to CMI.
In my opinion, without the respect of the truly better, more experienced, trained inspectors it will be hard to distinguish the CMI inspector from any other inspector. To be of any great value the designation must be respected and held up from ridicule from within the profession by the inspector community prior to being announced to the public as the answer to shoddy inspections.
I believed that Michael Rowan had a similar vision for CMI and that is why I chose to give it my respect, if in the future CMI becomes just another marketing tool available to anyone with $375 and a questionable background I will withhold my respect for CMI and those who use it to its detriment.
I concur with the late (CMI) John McKenna. In all regards.
Sure miss you buddy.