Kathy, I think we are talking here about the initial qualifications for the exam. I agree that 30 CEU/CERPs for sitting the exam in the three years prior is far too little. Someone could go to one ILCA conference and one other conference, have 2500 hours of questionable practice, read a bit, and still pass the exam. The NOCA (National Organization of Certifying Agencies) wants to decrease barriers to exams, not increase them. IT would take years to prove that we have better practitioners if they have longer education programs and if their practice hours were after their ed. programs. Those people may do no better on the exam, which is IBLCE's criteria, but they may make better practitioners - which is "our" criteria. There is a major difference between passing the exam and functioning as a good LC. I know of an LC who worked for years in a pediatric office as an RN, took a course, took the exam & passed it. Never touches the baby or the mother - only talks to them to tell them what to do. But, she fulfilled the criteria and is now an IBCLC, so now this pediatric clinic can claim to have an LC on their staff (which they do). But she really doesn't do any more than she did before she became certified. IBLCE can only look at exam scores in setting the criteria necessary for taking the exam. We all know of super exam takers that can read some material, have no experience whatsoever, and still pass an exam. I'd love to see criteria that states you have to have a certain number of practice hours AFTER taking a comprehensive LC course, but the criteria doesn't even require a comprehensive course - which no one can agree on what constitutes a comprehensive course - so there you are. It will take time to sort out, but it will be sorted out eventually. Not in the next few years, however, I'm afraid. Jan B.