I have to express my concern about this.

When IBLCE chose to do the research study to see if those not studying (but
using--presumably) their experience after 10 years could still pass the
certifying exam, they were operating on a faulty assumption: that before
these people TOOK the exam, they would not study.  Ha!  I know of far too
many who went for the research path (guaranteed a pass if they would take
the exam) who ALSO studied like fiends--thereby negating the assumption and
thus making for an outcome similar to what happens when researchers do
this:  breastfeeding = any time baby put to breast (1 to a million times)
compared to
                                bottle-feeding = anything OTHER than
breastfeeding.

Comparing two such groups is comparing two bowls of fruit salad.  WHile
there may be more marachino cherries in one bowl than the other, the
differences are unlikely to be statistically signficant.  The result? the
researchers then reported that BREASTFEEDING did NOT protect or was NO
DIFFERENT from the other group/ feeding method.  ARGGHH

If you compare a group of first-timers who are studying like crazy with a
group of 2nd timers (or more), some of whom study and some of whom don't,
what is the lieklihood there will be much of a difference between the two
groups?  Not much, in my book.

Therefore, I have been praying HARD for the past several years that the
IBLCE will NOT eliminate the 10-year exam requirement.  Sorry, folks, but I
feel it is a major mistake for the profession.  Too many other professional
groups that have no recurring exam find that the people do NOT stay
current.  Sad but true....

     mailto:[log in to unmask]

"We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly
disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Ferndale, WA USA) [log in to unmask]
WEB PAGE: http://www.telcomplus.net/kga/lactation.htm
LACTNET archives http://library.ummed.edu/lsv/archives/lactnet.html