EMSAL

Well, since the beginning of June I've been out of the country for 9 days, generally traveling around for another 5, facilitating task force work, preparing and making presentations and trying to reconnect with my family, so I haven't had much of a chance to respond to Jeff De Cagna's recent post about the EMSAL (Executive Masters of Science in Association Leadership). I've been slowly working on this post for a few days now, so I suppose I'll let her fly now:

First, let me state for the record that I believe we need a masters program for association professionals. Not because the CAE is necessarily deficient. But because in order for association professionals to elevate their stature in their own industry, they must understand and implement a body of knowledge beyond the CAE. In my mind, I equate the CAE to an undergraduate degree and the EMSAL to a graduate degree (which it would be, in fact). I offer constructive criticism of Jeff's assumptions and assertions only to help him and everyone in the association community to evaluate and refine this idea.

On the topic of Executive Masters programs in general, Jeff writes...

I'm not precisely sure to whom Ben refers when he writes about the "many people" who join him in questioning the legitimacy of executive masters programs.

Try a Google search for "buy an MBA" and you'll see some of the others who have taken the time to air similar suspicions on the Internet.

And on the same topic...

For the companies who send students to them, it is a significant financial investment. Neither these learners nor their employers can afford to simply "purchase papers." They are interested in real learning that will broaden perspectives and develop better performance on the job.

If there is research to back this up, I'd like to see it. I suspect that many executive masters students are simply trying to pad their resumes and advance their careers at the expense of their employers. This issue could completely undermine the EMSAL. It cannot simply be ignored. How can this be addressed?

On the topic of the CAE exam, Jeff writes...

But since Ben brings it up, let me express my view that, in this context, passing a "psychometrically valid" multiple choice examination does not really establish a graduate's competence, merely his or her ability to recall and regurgitate the knowledge learned in preparation for the exam.

I can understand why those who haven't taken the exam might believe this -- but it is a misconception. Completely inaccurate. The CAE exam requires its candidates to apply many different and competing concepts to complex, real-life, nuanced scenarios and select the most appropriate answer. In many cases, the "right" answer isn't offered, and you have to select the least of four evils. In truth, the questions quite accurately reflect common predicaments that association professionals encounter. Straight definition questions are the exception, not the rule on the CAE exam. The exam isn't perfect, but it's far better than it is made out to be in the statement above. And frankly, any other final examination method would have its own drawbacks.

In respect to real-world experience, Jeff writes...

Genuine competence is established only through actual practice, which is precisely why new doctors must first serve as interns and residents, new architects must first serve in an apprentice-type role and even new attorneys typically do not fly solo on complex cases straight out of law school. They may have explicit knowledge that can be tested, but they do not yet possess the tacit knowledge that leads to effective real-world judgment.

No argument from me here. Indeed, you need up to 7 years of association experience before you meet just one of the eligibility requirements to sit for the CAE exam. This is one of the longer experience requirements I'm aware of. For example, you need no experience to take the bar exam and become a lawyer. You need just one year on the job to fulfill the experience requirement to earn a CPA license. I think one should be required to complete the CAE before becoming eligible for an EMSAL.

And finally, on the issue of continuing education...

In my experience, the truly committed learner does not require an external "mandate" to continue his or her own professional development. The pursuit of learning is an intrinsically motivated quest for understanding and insight, not the accumulation of CEUs.

Personal experience is indisputable, but to project this experience on to the population at large is pollyannish. Not every person who enters the EMSAL would be a "truly committed learner." In my view, the CAE should remain part of the association professional's academic journey, and the CEUs should remain part of the CAE program.

Another issue that has only been addressed tangentially is the overlap between existing masters programs (MBA, MPA, etc.) and what the EMSAL might eventually become. I think a viable option for attaining something like an EMSAL for our would be to take an MPA or MBA and add a concentration in association leadership.

Let's continue this conversation; I do hope more people will chime in with their opinions and ideas.