While I understand the concerns of more fees to be paid, and the argument that "work should speak for itself," I think an element of standardization would be far more beneficial than harmful to both the business of GD and its practitioners. While a lot of arguments are based on other certified professions, including doctors, lawyers, and accountants, I'd like to point out another type of certified occupations: optional certification.
While doctors and lawyers are REQUIRED to be certified in order to practice, there are many fields where certification is available, though not required. Such fields will allow a certified practitioner far more opportunities within their field than someone else who may have a degree or experience, but not a verified certificate. The two examples that come to mind are Mechanical Engineering and athletic officials, because both are personally relevant in my own life. While a skill set and some education is enough to get you a basic job in these fields, pursuing a certificate ensures a firm grasp on concepts beyond the basics and thus opens more and even bigger doors.
I suggest something similar for graphic designers. While certification would not be required to practice graphic design, it is another unit of measure for field practitioners. If you can build a solid reputation, and clients can look at your work and know you can deliver, that's fantastic. Don't worry about certification. But I see this as a unit of measure for others outside the design world who may not have the knowledge and experience to discern the educated, "legitimate" designers from hacks with an Adobe Suite.
I have seen this especially with freelance designers hired by smaller businesses or independent business wo/men. After all, most graphic designers aren't producing work for other graphic designers. We're working for others who don't have the education/understanding/skills to produce the work themselves. So how do THEY know who's legitimate and worth the price, and who's just throwing out adapted templates and padding their own reputation? Sure, there's extensive research to find a credible designer, but without the right background and foundation to start with, being able to understand our field as it now exists is often too much of an investment. That's when the cheaper, flashier hacks win out and both the client and the legitimate designers are losing. So what's so wrong with having a solid tool to benefit both honest designers and discerning, yet GD-uneducated, clients?
So, if it were up to me, what would I propose? Well, I think the Canadians have made a great start. Their certification is based on both a written test (exemptions are available for senior designers) and a portfolio interview. The test covers four topics, including:
- design history, principles and research
- business
- technology
- and Rules of Professional Conduct
So, to obtain certification in Canada, designers are required to demonstrate knowledge of the business and professional ethics, as well as the ability to deliver intelligently developed designs. The certification serves to distinguish educated, effective, and experienced professionals (at least 3-4 years industry experience are required) from anyone who just owns some software programs and calls themselves a "designer."
I am in full support of these credentials, though would not be opposed to some slight variations. For one, I see flexibility with the education/degree requirements. Though I did pursue a 4-year (and very expensive) education, I have great respect for those who are self-taught and able to receive equivalent education through self-motivation. If they can study for and pass the test, and support themselves through the questions of a portfolio interview, I think they are deserving of certification. I would also support a variation on experience requirements, perhaps including distinctions between an "educated apprentice" and experienced professional, to accommodate those who have pursued and completed a graphic design degree at an accredited institution. I also found no explicit reference to the duration of the Canadian certification, whether it is a lifetime qualification, or must be maintained and renewed every few years (I imagine 5 would be a good number here). I would be interested in arguments on this topic, as well.
As I said before, I have no problem with those who choose not to pursue a certificate still participating (and succeeding) in this business. I see the certification as an additional step to professional improvement, and a standard on which those less familiar with the field can base their decisions. I would image organizations with explicit understanding of design, such has established studios, would not require a certificate for new hires, as they are fully capable of determining merit based on individual portfolio reviews. But I think it is time for some definition and standardization of our field, especially to establish ourselves within the rest of the business world.