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.