Certified Golf Course Superintendent

[Deucie Bies]

Is there a list of Certified Golf Course Superintendents that can be accessed online? 

[Anthony_Nysse]

You can see who is and who isnt on the gcsaa website, but you have to be a member. I do not know of any lists.

[Steve Okula]

I'm here if you need one.

[Jim_Kennedy]

DB,

This may help:

http://www.gcsaa.org/education/cert/certificationdirectory.aspx

Fill in a state, country, then hit search. 

[Ron Farris]

Certification is one thing - - Common Sense will trump certification everytime.
Notwithstanding, the best supers I know are certified.

If you relate it to architecture,- Has Tom Doak been a member of ASGCA?
Good work is better than a piece of paper on the wall.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Certification is one thing - - Common Sense will trump certification everytime.
Notwithstanding, the best supers I know are certified.

I believe it to be the other way. While having the CGCS title is a great achievment for a Superintendent, MANY of the best DO and DO NOT have the CGCS title. I think it's about preference. At this point in my career, I do not have any intension of become a CGCS.

[Ian Larson]

It just seems it's too easy to gain certification. A ton of superintendents are certified. And on the other hand there are a ton without that get compensated very well and are excellent superintendents. At least they get the free luncheon at the GIS every year!

[Steve Okula]

Nobody's allowed to say it's easy until they've done it.

First of all, to qualify for cetification, you have to have been a superintendent for at least five years.

Most people who try don't even get that far.

And yes, some of the very best supers choose not to become certified.

[Ian Larson]

Superintendents with 5 years experience are a dime a dozen. And the difference between the ones who are and who are not is the necessity of just taking the time to do it. How many guys seek certification, go through the hoops and just can't get in?

[Sean McCue]

Certification is one thing - - Common Sense will trump certification everytime.

How true!!

[Steve Okula]

Superintendents with 5 years experience are a dime a dozen.

Yes, and the guys who never made it to GCS or didn't last five years are several times cheaper than that.

[Ian Larson]

I t

Superintendents with 5 years experience are a dime a dozen.

Yes, and the guys who never made it to GCS or didn't last five years are several times cheaper than that.

I think there are a ton of guys in the industry who could easily argue against that.

[Steve Curry]

Deucie,

Why?

Thanks,
Steve

[Steve Okula]

I t

Superintendents with 5 years experience are a dime a dozen.

Yes, and the guys who never made it to GCS or didn't last five years are several times cheaper than that.

I think there are a ton of guys in the industry who could easily argue against that.

Steve,

Argue against what? The first statement, the second statement, or both?

[John Gosselin]

I was certified for 10 years and the last way I would describe the process is easy. Although it certainly not needed to be a successful super, I am glad I went through the process. If nothing else it qualifies me to comment on it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Its sort of like college, I suppose. Those guys can go through all the continuing ed and testing to get the paper, or to learn something new to improve their skills.

The theory is that the tests ensure they know their stuff. And Continuing Ed makes sure they know the new stuff regarding environmental issues, water conservation, etc.

It may not be 100% perfect, but in most cases it should show a greater breadth of knowledge and skill.  I know the Audubon program recommends you hire certfied supts. as do many clubs.  At most places, it might be a distinguisher, but these days, if it carries another $25K in salary, it might distinguish the wrong way at some cash strapped places.  but, again, striving to be the best and continualy improve is generally a good thing for any professional.

[Bradley Anderson]

When I embarked on certification I thought it was mainly about getting the title, but along the way I was exposed to so much that I didn't even know was out there. I would strongly recommend certification for everyone.

I may be one of the few guys who has taken the test three times - because I never bothered to register my seminar points for renewal.  Anyways, I can definitely say that the new test is harder than the original test that I took in 1996. You really do have to study hard for this one. 

[Eric Morrison]

It is not easy by any stretch with the new setup to become certified...I know, becuase I am in the middle of the process right now. Bradley - why was the test harder this time around? When did you take it?

[Ian Larson]

At a dinner last week at the GIS with several CGCS' the general opinion was that after the basic experience and education requirements were met...it was only time consuming, so let's say "not hard" unless putting in the time is hard for you. Most professionals these day already have a portfolio put together and ready for the next possible job. It was said that as long as you ran a organized and efficient golf operation fulfilling all city, state and federal requirements (who doesn't)...that the golf course assessment was a breeze. And the test was likened to nothing more than the average college exam or pesticide test in terms of difficulty. And having seen a copy of the test before myself I wouldn't disagree. Another thing mentioned about the test was that you only needed a 67% and had multiple retakes if needed. It's not that it's something that should intentionally not be done. It's that at this point it's "not hard" enough to prevent most in the industry from achieving it if they desired.

In my opinion it should be made more mandatory for a GCSAA superintendent member to become certified. If they don't want to be certified they shouldn't be able to have a GCSAA membership with it's benefits representing the GCSAA. All superintendents should be "certified". There needs to be something that truly seperates the CGCS from the non-CGCS. At this point I don't see a difference and the requirements to be met are things that good superintendents should already be doing and have knowledge of. Once the bar is raised and made mandatory to be a member then the CGCS title will not only be "certifiable" it will be "distinguished".

[John Gosselin]

Ian could you please list the CGCS you were talking to? Have you ever been a super? Are you a member of the GCSAA? Could you list your last 5 jobs and reason for leaving?

[Mike_Young]

At a dinner last week at the GIS with several CGCS' the general opinion was that after the basic experience and education requirements were met...it was only time consuming, so let's say "not hard" unless putting in the time is hard for you. Most professionals these day already have a portfolio put together and ready for the next possible job. It was said that as long as you ran a organized and efficient golf operation fulfilling all city, state and federal requirements (who doesn't)...that the golf course assessment was a breeze. And the test was likened to nothing more than the average college exam or pesticide test in terms of difficulty. And having seen a copy of the test before myself I wouldn't disagree. Another thing mentioned about the test was that you only needed a 67% and had multiple retakes if needed. It's not that it's something that should intentionally not be done. It's that at this point it's "not hard" enough to prevent most in the industry from achieving it if they desired.

In my opinion it should be made more mandatory for a GCSAA superintendent member to become certified. If they don't want to be certified they shouldn't be able to have a GCSAA membership with it's benefits representing the GCSAA. All superintendents should be "certified". There needs to be something that truly seperates the CGCS from the non-CGCS. At this point I don't see a difference and the requirements to be met are things that good superintendents should already be doing and have knowledge of. Once the bar is raised and made mandatory to be a member then the CGCS title will not only be "certifiable" it will be "distinguished".

Ian,
How old are you?    Are you into unions?  Or State licensing? 

[Steve Okula]

Certification is one thing - - Common Sense will trump certification everytime.

How true!!

Hence the five year qualifying rule. Nobody lasts that long as a super without common sense. How else could you test for it?

[Ian Larson]

I've been a member of the GCSAA since 1999 up to a class C and a current student member while I am attending UCLA for Landscape Architecture. All of my employers have been CGCS' and 2 of them are past presidents with a combined 6 years working under them. The CGCS process is not foreign to me.

I don't think I need to be a CGCS to have the opinion that every GCSAA super should be "certifiable". It's only good for the industry. If some of you are offended that I think every super should be certified, why is that? Is it because it levels the playing field and it becomes less of an honor or achievement? If so then the bar needs to raised to make it a more distinguished achievement to have achieved a higher level of greenkeeping.

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I am sure certification is great.....who came up with it?  An ASSOCIATION....have you ever seen an association mow grass?  Who makes money from it?  An ASSOCIATION...  who benefits the most from it?  A good supt that passed it or a bad supt that passed it?  The bad...(for a while)
It is the epitome of what is wrong with golf and other industries right now....it's great to do it but no way it should ever be required....we're not building rockets to go to the moon...it's frigging golf courses and grass....
cheers

[Ian Larson]

If having all superintendents that are members of the GCSAA be certified is wrong, then why? Is it better to only have the 25% minority be certified? Why? Wouldn't the industry be better if you knew that ALL superintendents with a GCSAA card were tested and are found competent (certified) by a governing body (GCSAA)? How is it possible that could be a bad thing?

The only reason I can think of is because it may take the luster away from the title? If that's the case then I feel the bar should be raised, or a higher bar should be established for those who want to be in a separate minority category.

It is growing grass Mike but it's also being responsible for millions of dollars in budgets, equipment and staff. When building a golf course, would you plant it with uncertified seed?