What I can tell you, is that if she is happily performing in her current role and is comfortable in continuing to build her experience, that the extra qualifications will not hurt her case if she waited to apply in the future. Becuase, the designation does also come with an higher annual membership too and a reward for achieving it. (bit of sarcasm there)

While I have a lot of respect for the HRPA, I am personally a little critical when it has come to the wavering of requirements for the designation(s) over the past 10 years – from the tiered exams plus experience, to the NKE & NPPA, to CHRM, CHRP and SHRP, the requirement for the BA, etc, etc, etc. It seems to be a moving target, and it is probably about time they tried to settle down a bit. I know I am oversimplifying the scope of efforts to try and standard the designation nationally – but, in the end, it has created a lot of confusion and uncertainty.

I would suggest your wife get a hold of the registrar directly and describe her situation and get and answer. If she does it verbally, I would suggest that she have them follow up with her in writing with what they recommend as her course of action (but, you would already recognize the importance of written documentation in your profession).

Best of luck to your wife in her continued pursuit of her designation!

Geoff.

You actually raise a good point in reference to CA’s. While I do believe
standardization is important for the CHRP, if you look at financial designations, there are actually different governing bodiest that oversee CGA, CMA and CA designations. Each designation with its own merits and skill sets associated to it.

If you recall back in the day, I believe that the HRPAO officially used the CHRM and the CHRP to signify varying stages of completion on the certification process. Perhaps the solution would be to have more than one recognized level of certification where the CHRP is the top tier indicating proficiencies in knowledge AND experience, while there is one or two levels below (perhaps a CHRM) that might indicate technical competence, but without the experiential component.

I agree that is still needs work, and that flip flopping around frequently with little warning is not good for the profession or for the individuals pursuing their designations. As someone who hires and has hired HR professionals, the CHRP designation has never been a must have for me. I’ve never looked away from solid candidates who have not had it. But, when assessing more experienced candidated who are equal on all other terms, it can be a differentiator.

As far as “relocating” to another province to write an exam, I know that each of the provincial associations has stringent rules on out of province exam writers. They would not let someone just write, and if somebody wants to use a fake address (or one of a relative in another province) to become an association member in that province, and pay the memebership fees for a year to write the exam, not to mention travel and acomodation expenses, then I guess that is a judgement call on his/her part. That does, however raise ethical issues – and I can tell you that I would rather hire a solid person with experience and no CHRP than one who has displayed questionable professional ethics by skirting around or findling loopholes in the certification process just to achieve the designation earlier in his/her career. Maybe not grounds for dismissal if disclosed or discovered after the fact during employment, but definitely would make me consider character.

As a younger person in the field (student, actually!), I’m feeling inclined to post my thoughts on this change.

Taken at face value, I’d have to say that an experience requirement is a great thing. Most other professional designations have similar experience requirements, and I don’t see any problem with the CHRP being in line with other professions.

That being said, I’m quite disappointed with how the HRPA has handled (re)implementing the assessment.

A few criticisms..

1. The reinstitution of the experience requirement appears to be an Ontario-only change. Given that the CHRP is supposed to be a national designation, I find it a little odd that any one province’s HR association can implement such a change. In fact, one of my friends working within the field has mentioned how they are considering temporarily ‘relocating’ to another province to write the NPPA, and then returning to Ontario as a CHRP. While this is a bit ridiculous and I doubt most would do that, it does serve as an example. If an experience requirement is meant to show that a CHRP has a level of professional experience, wouldn’t migrating CHRPs from other provinces (who had no such requirement in their certifying province) essentially cheapen that?

2. The requirements that the HRPA has set down are incredibly vague. From the HRPA’s website:

“Human resources experience at a professional level refers to work activities where an individual exercises direct responsibility and accountability for the strategy, design, implementation or co-ordination of one or more human resources functional areas for an extended period of time with limited or minimal supervision.”

What would encompass this? Would 3 years as an HR Assistant suffice? Generalist? Manager? If it’s the latter, then I have serious reservations about this change. Most other professional designations (CA, CFA, etc..) have stringent requirements, but not the sort of requirements that would exclude anyone without a decade of experience in the field.

3. Personally, I was not too happy about the amount of notice given by the HRPA before this requirement is instituted. Given that the last NPPA sitting is in May 2010, that amounts to approximately a year of notice before this major change is put into place. Given the fact that other such changes (I’m thinking of the degree requirement), were given literally years of notice, I can’t help but feel like this is something of a jab at younger HR professionals.

Whew! That was quite a lot. Hope to hear your thoughts on these points!