Qualified or Certified - Which is more important?

I always tend to search the web for interesting articles and this one struck me like a brick. It really made me think and there was no answer given. So I am asking out to you:

Qualified or Certified - Which is more important?

Tags: certified, firefighting, qualified, tactics, training

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jdeangelis2452 on December 15, 2008 at 9:48am: anyone can get a paper saying they took the class but it takes a qualified person to know what the hell they are doing; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Christopher Lukens on January 20, 2009 at 12:08pm: You need to have a balance of both. There are plenty of people out there that can wallpaper there house with certs and not know a thing. The key is to be able to utilize what you learned. With todays sue happy society that piece of paper can make or break you and your department in court.

The next thing is keeping proficient over your career. Issues that can come up are time and money. Career departments can run into budget issues for overtime and price. Volunteer departments are looking at budget and the personnel being able to have the time away from family and work to go to the class.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ethan on January 22, 2009 at 10:15pm: Neither...Only competency matters.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris Freeman on January 23, 2009 at 4:12pm: Well this is a question I have been asking for years around my department. Even a person with absolutly no fire service experience can sit through a class reading the news paper and not even comprehend the first thing being said and still become certified. You can see this first hand at any state given class where people show up, show no intrest and even if they don't stay to the end of the class become certified in a subject.

Qualified kind of represents that a level of understanding has been reached and demonstrated. I truely don't put much faith in a piece of paper. When I take a class or hire an Instructor for a class I have to look at three things 1) The Piece of paper that states this person has a background in the subject matter. 2) The experience level of the person that is looking to teach or be certified in a subject. 3) Feed back from people that have taken a class or worked with the person that is trying to pass themself of as CERTIFIED or QUALIFIED.

My final thought on this is, the biggest problem with the Fire Service today is that there are more classes out there then ever before. Anyone can can take a class and become certified or qualified, but unless they can take that classroom knowledge and combine it with real life fire ground experience you will always have people talking the talk with out ever walking the walk and that can be DEADLY!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Moltenbrey on February 10, 2009 at 2:34pm: The problem is with the definitions. Why should certified and qualified mean anything different? If you are taking a class that certifies you for a task but fails to assure you are qualified then the class doesn't meat it's needs. The best solution in my humble opinion is to have differing levels of training on the same subject; ie awarness, operations, and technition and specialist as in haz-mat or rescue disciplines. What these classes taught me as I took them was what I didn't know about these various subjects.

Also training people for the skills they will use on a regular basis will promote proficiancy which is what I believe you mean by qualified. If you use a haz-mat team as we do in my town, I am more assured of getting people who are not just certified, but also are qualified to activity preform those skills and duties.

Many of the practical skills used in the fire service are use dependent. You don't use it you loose it. This combined with the All Hazard approach in many todays fire departments mean that we very well may be qualified to use a skill right after we were traininged to do it, but without regular use we fall to the level of being "certified" without being proficient at a given skill.

The EMS side of my job requires re-certification on a regular basis, all though this is by no means perfect it does mean that some of the seldom used skills are practiced every re-cert cycle. So perhaps recerting Firefighting skills will mean more actual "qualification" instead of certification.

These are just some random thoughts on the subject and are by no means an expert opinion.....; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jason adam on February 21, 2009 at 9:56pm: certified is what counts when it comes to getting a job, yet as i am finding it has to be the right certs. For example the company I just started working for only looks at FF1 and FF2 certs. All my other certs I have gained over the 12 years mean nothing to them.
As a firefighter who has worked for 3 diffrent companies I prefer Qualified. I want to know that they can do the job not just they sat threw classes and have done it once or twice.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Erica Jacoby on February 22, 2009 at 4:26pm: Certified AND Qualified ... and nothing less!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brian J Roth on May 10, 2009 at 2:17am: Wow.... where to start this paragraph at. I have been saying this for years I'd sooner have 3 qualified personnel thern 6 "worthless" people on a secen of a fire call. Cause I know they'll acomplish more with less and also less likely to have injury. But at the same time those people need to have a "piece of paper" to C.Y.A. in the court room. Also if you have members who are twittlein there little fingers in training an not applying their selves to learn new an updated material maybe they need to get the boot an not ride the rigs. The few loopholds this brings us too that I see is; how do new members get hands on experiance when our certifing systems is lititure oriented. I have friends who can't read CAT IN THE HAT but whom can build a house. So is it fair to say your not qualified cause you cant get certified for the simple matter you cant read or take a test? So my opinion is we beat ourselves in circles over a topic that's never going to get a a stright forward answer. Plus keep in mind I meet an autisic child the other week who cant write his own name but can name every single item on a pumper/engine. The kid is 9 years old an will probablly never have the chance to be a firefighter like his father, due to his physical abilities. I have members in my deptament who have been there for 10 plus years an still dont know where all the equipment is located or the name of it. So theres my sides of this debate.

PS: My mother once told me this quote, "not everybody can be hero's, somebody has to wave as the parade goes by."n; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by E-2_LT_FFD on September 14, 2009 at 1:36am: Both..

First, You take the applicant. Teach them fundamental skills ( PPE, Chain of command, Radio etiquette etc). and then utilize them in support roles. All the while measuring their ability to cope with the job. I.E climb ladders, react under pressure, and demonstrate general common sense. Secondly, You begin with more advanced training (certifications) leaning more to a FFI criteria ( ropes/knots, Fire behavior, NFPA etc.) After FF I, You can then increase their roles on the fire ground (Qualify Them). While rounding out their training to a FF II. Which is our departments SOP's for a full fledged FireFighter.

In conclusion, By "Certifying" your FF's to most states standards. You will intern build a "Certified" and "Qualified" Firefighter. Here you can't get FF II without two years of experience and two years around here will defiantly "Qualify" you... NFPA says you can't go interior without "Certification" So yes, We must Certify our troops.. We engage in a dangerous game every time the bell rings, A game where knowledge is power.. So for those who got a "Worthless piece of paper", Either your instructor sucked or you didn't pay attention.

My question is....

How do you measure "Qualification"??

Stay Safe...

.; ▶ Reply to This