[David Kelly]

I believe the membership process is very objective and has been strengthened and made more objective through about twenty years of dedicated membership chairs and executive committees.  Of course, I was in on that process and its improvement, so I am biased.  But, a lot of thought went in to how to be fair to applicants and get qualified members (you would have to know all who applied to get a sense of what we deal with)

And your "black ball" statement is QUITE misleading.  There are over 100 voting members that vote on applicants.  Acceptance is technically voted on by a dozen or so board of governors by a separate vote. In NEITHER voting process can one member vote no and cancel an application.  Majority rules.

Jeff,

You keep mentioning the "design five courses" rule as the major qualification for membership but there must be more important criteria than just that if someone like Mike Young, who has designed dozens of courses, is denied membership.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

You cut me and I bleed red, blue and green Ross Tartan Plaid, so maybe I get riled.

Any professional society has the limted purpose of banding together wherever there is a common interest of all.  For the most part, we provide our members continuing educmacation (via playing courses at our annual meetings, and seminars there, at the GCSAA, at a mid year educmacational event, and now even via internet conferencing) which make us all better gca's.  We provide Contracts, RFQ's, Specs and other documents to the industry and general public related to gca.  We preserve the history of gca.  We work with other golf associations to promote golf in general and architecture in particular.  We learn from each other a few weeks a year and beat each others brains out the rest of the year competing for jobs.

Despite differences in membership processes with bigger organizations, this is what all professional societies do.  I think my above pp pretty much answers all of your initial questions about what ASGCA does.  As to being a rite of passage, yeah it was for me. I learned of ASGCA when I was about 15 years old and wanted to be a member from the first time I saw their materials.

I am not sure what you mean by heavily regulated membership, but the five courses as an absolute minimum has been basically in place (oft refined) since 1947 when Ross himself was honorary President and RTJ was the VP.  In some ways, we stick by the tradition as if it were our constitution.  If Ross thought five courses was a good benchmark, who am I to say much differently?  Yeah, we keep adding to the peer review to make the best effort possible to get qualified, enthusiastic and ethical members, since the group is in essence no better together than the overall performance of its members.  We have tended toward the motto of "when in doubt, leave 'em out" (with due respect to the late Johnny Cochran for the chant)

Would we benefit if younger, untested designers were members?  I dunno, but probably not as much as they would.  And, we do have a lot of young associates in the group, so I am not sure what we are missing by your reasoning.  We have made a point in recent years to interview and even get some of our new members to present some of their work so we can see what they are doing.  Of course, we miss young independents who don't seek to join our group, or don't have the experience to do so.  

I have to wonder if we were listening to someone who had done one course, but not five, just how much we would learn.  For every David Kidd who hits a homerun early in his career we might be listening to ten semi-duds, who are unlikely to know more than the guys sitting in the room, no?  In fact, most of us are almost as star struck as anyone else.  We naturally like listening to Faz, Jack, Pete (even though we have figured out that he has exactly seven stories/parables about gca) etc.  We like listening to historians like Whitten, Klein, and local experts wherever we go who can tell us about the courses there.  We like (or need to) listen to environmental, financiing, or other experts.

IMHO, I figure membership is worth the wait and is (for me) a reward, not a right, privilege, etc.  I tell young guys that I am pretty sure ASGCA will be here in five or ten years so work hard and get in.  (I tell old guys not to wait, if they are the kind that won't even buy green bananas!)

I have enjoyed every minute.  I wear the coat proudly. I just don't see the negative and sinister things in ASGCA that sometime pop up here, usually because a favorite son is not a member for one reason or another.

[John_Conley]

Ben, I'm not sure of your intent.  Are you just curious, or is ASGCA something you hope to one day join.  You initially stated that nothing confuses you more than the ASGCA, now your most recent post mentions that you are asking questions for yourself and others.

"trying to answer concerns"

There's a special place in heaven for Jeff.  He's stepped into the crosshairs and stayed there to respond to the questions asked.  At some point you could realize that ASGCA is set up the way it is and it will remain like that for a while.

Have your questions not been answered?  I understand you may not agree with the answer you've been given.  Doubtful that continuing to press on the issue will change their policies.  If we just point out that the five course requirement is too many, maybe they'll remove it.

No idea if Jeff's active on the model railroad chat rooms.  If he is, I don't know that it is in him to badger the people that know more than him.  According to you, there's a rather glaring conflict of interest and the process is jaded.  Jeff offered detailed responses, but now you seem to take a argumentative tone because things struck a few chords.  

Jeff will no doubt respond.  That's a reflection of his character.  But what more is there really to say if you are looking for the 'big ocean'.  Quibbling over minor points is always possible.  The answer is that ASGCA is an organization with rules and regs.  Golf course architects may or may not be members.

Smart people can join MENSA.  They don't have to.  Does a smart person really need to question how MENSA runs their group?

[Ian Larson]

NAMBLA

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

Direct questions begets direct answers and ultimately understanding.  Thank you for that.  Your writing seems to flow in a way that lets me know you've fought this battle before, no?  

John,

I am asking why it is set up the way it is.  A devil's advocate role if you will.  I wouldn't call answering questions from a guy like me "stepping into the crosshairs".  I am no Bill O'Reilly.  Jeff has however, been the guy that has taken on my questions and answered them.  If you think I'm badgering, move on to things that interest you.  I don't get off on how many times a topic has been read.  I just want to broach a subject that confused the hell out of me and based on my search of past info, others as well.

This has taken a turn I didn't intend.  But thank you to Jeff for explaining things.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

I re-read some of your posts, particularly the back scratching example.  Years ago, I was asked to sponsor a partner of a friend in the biz. Upon inspection of the applicant, I quickly realized that he wasn't meeting the minimum qualifications, despite being a partner of a friend and an all around great guy.  He didn't get in that year, but did eventually.  More importantly, it highlighted for me the problem you describe and set some changes in motion to the process.

Specifically, now you have a sponsor, who must have known you pretty well, and then four course reviewers, which you can suggest, but of which the ASGCA always names at least one.  The application has also been split into prelim and final phases to allow the membership committee and sponsers to determine if the applicant meets minimum quals.

Basically, by spreading it out, we can nearly shame any member who sponsors an unqualified applicant into never doing it again and provide "cover" for those who get into a sponsorship like I did and hate to tell a friend he has to back out.

So, I hope I have addressed what you percieve to be "concerns" (among who, I don't know).  As I said before, many smarter guys than me have been in ASGCA and over the years, we have tried to address all those problems that can arise, or moreso, can be percieved to arise.  Now, the biggest membership process question I feel we need to address is "Have we made the process to hard and time consuming?"  I know that for an unsuccsessful applicant, the answer is alway yes.  Surprisngly, even some successful applicants say they would prefer waterboarding to our process........

[Ben Sims]

Thanks Jeff.  Being a military school guy, it sounds like something I went through my freshman year.  Water-boarding was not involved however.  It's not fraternity hazing is it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

No frat hazing.  Its kind of funny but there is a sense of fellowship once a guy or gal gets in.  We do assign members (usually the sponsor) to kind of introduce newbies around and try to make them comfy.  I guess the closest thing to hazing is the threat that they might have to play golf with Brauer if they don't behave.........

[Jeff_Brauer]

I guess its true that I go to bed at night thinking Ross Tartan and I wake up thinking Ross Tartan, esp. when Ben asks some good questions.  Another perspective on the five course (and minimum number of years in the biz, which has raised from three to five) is that in setting these standards we accomplished a couple of things.

Our membership roster has been remarkably consistent over the years, in part because in setting the minimums so high, we ensure that we are getting someone who is active in the business and likely to stay that way.  If we set the bar at one course, we would get a lot of land planners, park directors, contractors and others who somehow managed to design one course, and that is not our vision of a good member.  Even when there is a clearly talented, passionate young gca, like a Mike Nuzzo, one course doesn't make a pattern of longevity.  While he will probably continue and eventually design five courses and be eligible for membership, we just don't know that, because in most cases, the need to make a living at gca forces many out of the biz.

We don't believe you can be a leading gca (as we like to call ourselves) if you aren't active in the business as a practitioner.  I am not sure what the value of the AIA Membership is, when if you look at the roster, all the young associates change in and out to a large degree every year because they have decided they can't afford the dues when between jobs, or whatever.  Our higher minimum standards have both discouraged the periphery guys, as well as contributed to a stable membership, which we think is better than an ever changing one.  (and I say that knowing that right now we perhaps face an unprecedented membership decline)

Like golf, we honor traditon, so if RTJ and co. set it up that way in the early days, and it seems to have worked, we see no reason to change it now.  The system doesn't work as well for everyone, but I doubt any system can.  Overall, it has worked pretty well and the membership roster comprises most of the active gca's in the country at any given time.

[Will Smith]

Thanks Jeff for taking the time to respond to the likes of Ben Sims and myself. I apologize if I "teed" you off.

I understand that ASGCA is a much smaller field than the AIA, but it seems to me that a lot of the ASGCA's  problems would be solved by creating more objective membership process. I do believe the field would still function if Jack Nicklaus had to have a licensed gca on staff to stamp the docs like in other fields. People would still travel to Florida.

I again apologize about the black ball comment. How does it work? Is is it a straight majority vote by the whole membership? That would be pretty democratic.

I do have to say that the ASGCA has done a much better job about providing information about the field in recent years. Your website is much improved and I was very impressed with what was on it when I visited recently.

Jeff, thanks again, for all your time on the subject.

- Will

p.s. I was dead sober when I wrote my original post.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Will,

I was a little harsh on the wine drinking comment and you didn't really tee me off.  Years ago I made a post about visualizing posters here in their bathrobes eating cheerios and the general consensus at that time was that most figured they posted with a drink in their hand.....

In essence, any tour pro does have qualified gca's like me behind them, whether via staff or contract.  Perhaps its just the Texas republican in me, but I don't see ANY need for govt to be involved in the gca profession via licencing or developing "design guidelines" which has happened at the state, county and city level.  How does some regulator know in advance of seeing a site what is going to work and how is that a better opinion than say, me or Pete Dye making that decision the traditional way?  And beyond perhaps some environmental regulations that would apply to any new development, and ADA accessibilty, what are the public issues with golf design that need regulation? 

Also, I fear that any licensing process might allow someone with no credentials to get a gca license based on passing a test.  Hell, many of you could pass a gca test, I think.  What is better, proving yourself through an apprenticeship, or paying a state to give you a card?

I guess I still don't know what you mean when you say the ASGCA process isn't objective.  As I have tried to describe, it started with RTJ and company sort of deciding in 1947 that to be an active professional you should have designed a minimum of five courses.  That is pretty objective.  Over the years, we have added a few layers of review to give every applicant whether he works for RTJ or himself the same process to go through.  That is pretty objective.  That process involves asking all involved in the projects reviewed just what went on, from the gca to the Owner, using members to ask the questions and make the evaluations.  Who is more qualified than an active gca to determine if an applicant, in essence, walks like a duck, etc.?  Its pretty objective and by having multiple layers, we can weed out or identify most subjective opinions any member might have unreasonably for or against an applicant.

And finally, applicants who get to phase II get a vote of all the regular and fellow members attending the annual meeting that year.  Of 160+ members, we usually get 70-90 voting members attend.  Then, it is confirmed by the Board of Governors in a separate vote.  Both are simple majority I believe, although I would actually have to look up the BOG regs on that.  That seems pretty objective to me.

On a few occaisions over the years I have fought changes to the process (or encouraged them) when a unique membership case has raised issues.  My general rule of thumb is that if we think we will informally name a membership rule after a specific applicant's case, (like the Dat Effen Golf Course Architect membership rule) that it is probably a pretty stinky rule.  Again, we put a lot of thought in that process to make it far more objective than far less, while maintaining our historical standards.  If we look at if from the perspective of someone who is rejected or doesn't yet meet the quals, I guess we would naturally find some problems, which is where I sense you and Ben are coming from.

So, I guess I do bristle, having been so involved in the process of trying to make the membership process more objective, to hear golf club atlas participants put it out there that we need to make it even "more objective."  Just what do you propose, after reading all my summaries of the process and filtering through those as best you can?  And just as importantly, what is your basis for proposing it?  Allowing a certain gca in?  Allowing all gca's in?  Generally reducing the membership standard for younger pratitioners to get in?  I guess we have our opinions/biases as to what constitutes a leading gca and I am just wondering how yours might differ.

[Mike_Young]

Damn..I told myself I was not going to get into this thread BUT....

I probably know as much about ASGCA as anyone on the outside.  And as Tom Doak said earlier I really don't have any problem with the different individuals that are members and a few of those including Jeff Brauer have gone out of their way to help me.  So I am not going to sit here and openly attack their organization.  But I will state a couple of facts for clarification....

1.  Yes you do need five courses minimum with three in the last 5 years etc....and the group will ask for random volunteers to go and evaluate 4 of those courses.  BUT- all of that can be fine and you still must get thru the interview.  In my case I gave a bad interview..mainly because I had the flu and was about half there and then when I walked in the room I realized that many in the room were from my area and could have evaluated my work but did not volunteer and these guys had also made insinuations in the past as to my work and that of other non members in the area.  So I was defensive instead of offensive...And that's my fault....but understand in the process they use hearsay.... and rumors can be used and you may not even know the source...man I have have heard things from "we don't feel like your owner got a good deal"  or I have accurate knowledge that he was sued on this job" when it may never have happened.....which brings me to the second point...

2. There is a double standard between associates and independents that have their own shop-  why do I say this?  The associate doesn't have the scars that come from competing against other members...he also doesn't have the liabilities involved with the everyday business....and in most cases he doesn't have to SELL the job....so the associate has much less controversy outside of the actual work done on five courses than someone that has been in the business competing.  Which brings me to the BIG issue I have with ASGCA, the organization, not the individuals....ETHICS....

3.  You may have a group of people that has never met you making a determination of your ethics based on random information.  And they may meet you for an hour.  And you may have been in business for 20 years and they can decide if you need to go to a vote or not....Associates don't have these problems.......they have had presidents threaten to quit because someone gets in and it is usually someone from their locale.  So even if one has the work requirement...there are a lot of subjective assumptions before one can get to a vote...

So my recommendation for anyone that wants in is to ...get in as an associate while working for a member firm...it is much easier....
Also, if you don't do a lot of drawings then make sure you have a few nationally ranked projects and members recruit you to join....don't ever ask to join without being asked.

Now here is where I see the future issues:
If the ASGCA maintains its same entrance requirements then there will be no applicants for a few years.  Which brings us to the question is the ASGCA there for the members or are the members there for the ASGCA?
How many members presently are no longer active in the business as they claim is required to be a member and what is the grace period and will it be enforced?  Or how many will choose to pay the 1500 dollars annually?

Now having said al of the above.....they have the right to do all of the above....but what do I think they are missing?
1.  The significance of being the principal

2.I think they miss the intangible of getting the course to opening day.  You have heard the old saying "the buck stops here"...so many members that are associates have not been exposed to that element and are protected by a larger firm.  If a US Open champion has gotten 5 or 10 courses in the ground and you find a reason to say he doesn't qualify such as how he interprets a drawing etc then something is wrong.  From what I have seen If Ford Motor Company was a golf design firm... an associate might have gotten in and Henry Ford may not have....and then again maybe he would have .  

As Jeff says the system probably works as well as it can under the rules they use.  That is their choice.  Just don't hold outsiders to a different standard than members and then promote ASGCA as the "best of the bunch".  

All the best to my ASGCA buddies,

Mike Young nonASGCA

[Will Smith]

I am traveling today, so maybe I can write a little bit more later. Jeff how does one get to Phase II

Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to us.

- Will

[Forrest Richardson]

"...The land swap at Merion is clearer to me than the purpose and membership process of ASGCA."

Oh, certainly that is not true! Reads like an attention getting post, which of course works well here in GCA-land.

Ben — Please don't always believe what you read on scorecards with regard to the golf course architect.

I have heard the debates on ASGCA being a "fraternity" organization and, as noted, the many posts by ASGCA members who defend the group as being a professional organization. In my view it is both for the simple reason that, compared to most professional-based organizations, it is so small. When you are considering just a few hundred professionals in the U.S. it is really not possible to distance the group from seeming, or ever approaching, a social group. To me the AIA would be a far better bargain if people could truly get to know and interact with Michael Graves and others — but, AIA has become a "mill" of professionals that only scratches at the true meaning of what it is to be an architect. Rather, AIA is now about credentials, standards and formulated contracts. Indeed, one of the most treasured directives of the AIA is their standardized contract. Good, but it likely does not produce better architecture.

Another dimension (of ASGCA) is that golf architecture is very different from building architecture, geotechnical engineering, landscape architecture or home inspection. Golf design blends landscape with a game. Each of the professions I noted has professionals licensed, and in all states involves technical registration. Golf architecture — thankfully — has avoided this. I believe it elevates the art.

---

Adam — I am not sure if "back channels" is a way to describe my encouragement of Tom D. or others to become involved with ASGCA. Over the years I have reached out (usually in a rather public forum) to a few selected individuals (selected by me) who I feel would add to the ASGCA and be productive. Tom D. is one of these individuals. It may well be selfish on my part ... but I am convinced that having Tom D. (and others) be a part of ASGCA would give me more access to thoughts and insights. This is one of the greatest aspects of the ASGCA — having the benefits of a forum (just like GCA, or at least sort of like GCA) and being able to "see" golf architecture through the eyes of other professionals.

As for the preservation of individualism...I can only tell you that there is no shortage of individualism within the ASGCA and I doubt that the DNA of most of our members could ever be damaged by the five Roman characters ... A, S, G, C or A.

[David Kelly]

Mike,

Thanks for answering my question that Jeff either didn't see or ignored.  The whole process sounds pretty subjective to me and seems like more of a club than a professional organization.

[Mike_Young]

David,
I think Jeff has made a very good effort to explain the ASGCA as he sees it and has not avoided any of the questions....he didn't have to give you any answers....it is sort of where one has to agree to disagree....remember there are 180 guys that could comment if they wished and he and Forrest usually do the talking so I don't think anything was intentional on his part....
Darn, sounds like I'm taking up for them huh? nah

[John_Conley]

Mike, the good news is that you have a career in the profession despite not being a member.  Lack of admittance did not prevent you from getting jobs.  Your comment about lead guys versus associates obviously is valid.  Still, I'm not sure the group can easily do much to change it.  Visibility does have the unintended consequence in this instance.

ASGCA is not an oligopoly capable of preventing someone from practicing.

[David Kelly]

Mike,

I wasn't casting any aspersions when I said he didn't see or ignored my question.  Either is ok, this isn't a deposition.

I'll just amend my statement to say that the process you described seems highly subjective.

[Michael Blake]

There was a sentence or two that I had read in one of Jeff's post last night or this morning that I now cannot find.  Maybe it was edited. 

But he mentioned that there have been instances where an applicant was denied membership because other ASGCA members felt they would feel more business competition in their regional market if that person were accepted as a member.

I'm sure (hope) that's a rare exception and not the norm but something like that certainly qualifies as a subjective process.

In theory everything that Jeff and Forrest describe sounds great, but like anything else can be something different when put into practice by real people who compete for the same business every day. 

The process it seems, as Jeff said in an earlier post is 'not perfect, but pretty damn good' seems true but probably could use some tweaking somehow, and I assume it's constantly being tweaked...or at least the tweaking of it gets discussed.

Thanks Jeff, Forrest and Mike for all the insight.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I think I answered all of your other questions and won't answer your question about Mike specifically or officially as an ASGCA member, other than to offer my opinions that I am dissapointed he is not a member. 

He is a friend, both to me and many in ASGCA.  He is a talented gca who, IMHO, entered the profession without an apprenticeship of any kind, basically learning on the job, thus creating some technical mistakes on his early courses, and as a consequence he had a few bad early references, some of which affected his app, even though he has now "graduated" as a gca.  I understand his point of view that outsiders have a tougher time of it, which was probably true in his case, while disagreeing that this is generally the case, or that the process is unnecessarily subjective.   Again, all IMHO.

M Blake,

Just saw your question as I went to post this.  All I can say is believe me, we spend a lot of time thinking how to make the membership process better and every year it seems a case or two comes up that seemingly justifies that.  We usually wait a while to make sure we aren't overreacting to a situation that may never happen again.  And we try to make it fairer for the applicants - and have addressed, we think, the possibility of a few members exerting undue influence on any application.  Of cousre, we will probably address it again, but not because you suggested it!

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jeff,
I agree with your point about not letting in the county sheriff for designing a single course.
I don't think I should be a member - it is your rules - I'm not suggesting the rules be changed.
My comment was in reference to being ignored until I've completed 5 courses.
That doesn't seem like a good idea.
If I were the ASGCA I'd engage with individuals that have a desire and projection to become a member one day.

Mike Young's points about principal on my own vs. associate are good ones.

My last project I was designer, project manager and grow-in super (with help from Don Mahaffey).
To me it was an incredibly valuabe experience.
To the ASGCA it wouldn't even count - it was only 12 acres.

Cheers

[Bill_McBride]

Yes, Jeff does a good job...and there are plenty of good guys in the ASGCA...truth be known..probably 99 percent of them...and some of us have applied ( the really stupid one like me ) more than once and been turned down more than once.   And always seems to be an ethics issue.  Makes me feel like Sara Palin....
I think it was something to do with minimalism and sheep

Whose ethics?

[Mike_Young]

Let me do some friendly jousting at Jeff w/o speaking of ASGCA directly but as to the definition of references and apprenticeships.

Apprenticeships- I never worked for a golf architect and do not regret it.  IMHO I think I got a better education than many associates would receive in an office.  I called on old golf courses, new construction, supts., and architects offices for a major equipment distributor.  I got to work the Masters every year for 5 or 6 years....I could come and go on all the different architect's construction sites as I pleased calling on contractors and supts...watching construction....learning irrigation and even working some summer vacations for supts and contractors etc...I would go in an architects office and see how they operated...and I got a pretty good network of contacts doing that...much more than I would have in an office....so when I talked a guy into letting me do a  course it probably aggravated the hell out of the guy that was an ASGCA member and did not get the work....that's human nature.....

References- I can still call that owner of my first project tomorrow with no problem and have a good reference letter from him....BUT what do we call references ?...I think I have remained on good terms with all my owners except the dead ones....Now management companies and contractors...are they references?  or even USGA guys?  IMHO satisfied owners are the reference.  When you build your own work you will not get references from general contractors that know they cannot bid your work.  If you build a sand green and a USGA rep comes to a site for a visit....you will not get a reference for him in favor of your greens method....I even had a supt that sprayed beer and pepsi on his greens every monday and they died every year until he was fired.  Was it my fault or his?  Believe me..it was mine in his eyes.....or let's say a contractor delivers 5000 bushels of grass to put out at a rate of 800 bushels per acre and he does a calculated 5 acres and you approve only the total acreage and not what he delivered....you think he will not be bitching....or a management companies that hires the cheapest supt they can find for a project....who do they blame?

Everybody has the same deals..whether ASGCA or not...I can show you courses by members where entire fairways have moved...or USGA greens had 3 feet of rootzone in areas....it's just different once one is inside....and I can obtain any type of reference I want on anybody in the business...Owners are what count...

Can you imagine this same scenario with say NCAA football coaches and all the recruiting issues etc....it just couldn't happen ..they would be kicking each other out daily....  



But I liked my "apprenticeship" Jeff

[Bill_McBride]

This has been a beneficially open and informative discussion.  Jeff Brauer, you are obviously very passionate abouit ASGCA and do a great job representing the group, explaining its policies and procedures, bleeding Ross Tartan all the while.  And yes, the Wilderness was a really good course on less than wonderful property!

Mike Young, you are living proof, along with Tom Doak, that ASGCA membership is not a prerequisite for success in the golf architecture field.  That wouldn't be possible in some professions.

Unless the economy revives soon and the demand for new courses returns, ASGCA is going to have a problem growing with new members.  Maybe having an associate membership could be a good idea, getting those young associates in the association without full membership.

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

I think Mike Young and Mike Nuzzo have helped scrape away my crappy writing and expose my earlier points.  If the ASGCA isn't interested guys that design courses like Long Shadow and Wolf Point, then are they really doing their best to promote their goal as a professional organization?  

I get it, the society has rules and the society lives by those rules.  It's just a question.  I am impressed by your ability to take fire though.

Forrest,

First this:

"...The land swap at Merion is clearer to me than the purpose and membership process of ASGCA."

Oh, certainly that is not true! Reads like an attention getting post, which of course works well here in GCA-land.

Then this:

Ben — Please don't always believe what you read on scorecards with regard to the golf course architect.

It seems that we are both equally adept at over the top statements.  I was playing a course this morning with a fellow officer and asked him, "who designed this course?"  He grabbed the scorecard from his pocket, flipped it over and said "Art Schaupter".  I then asked him what those five letters meant after his name, he said, "I don't know, is that where he went to school or his accredidation?  I really have no idea."   I reached into my bag and grabbed my scorecard from Stone Eagle and asked the same questions.  He's a Lt Col, pretty smart dude, and asked why one was accredited and one wasn't.  

You could choose not to believe any piece of advertising about any brand.  So where should it stop?  The irrigation tech, the shapers?  At what point do we say that there is ONE in charge and HE gets the credit.  I think many GCA's do a great job of recognizing their associates.  But there is a reason that the name is printed on a scorecard the way it is.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()