hearwhac at netins.net
Tue Jan 21 21:28:37 EST 1997
Glen R. Meier wrote:
> Almost all audiologist's are members of ASHA, not all, but almost all.
You pose an interesting question: If "almost all audiologists are
members of ASHA" which is probably true, why do so few attend the annual
ASHA meeting or actively participate in ASHA other than to send money?
It is my understanding there were 4 - 5,000 at AAA but maybe only 1/10th
that many at ASHA. What does this tell us?
My point is that private professional associations should not define
"audiologist." For instance, the Iowa legislature refrains from naming
private professional associations in any law simply because a
legislature has little or no jurisdiction over them. It is for this
reason that they establish "licensing agencies" which, even though they
come under the administrative branch of government, the legislative
branch does have some control because they furnish the funding and they
also can vote the agency out of existence. You will NOT find ASHA, AAA
or ADA named in any way in any section of the Iowa Code.
> You caught me Paul :) I was being lazy and figured I would just ask
> Mikey as he post very frequently here.
Hey, Glen, I'm just sticking up for Mikey. Someone has to. <g>
> As far as your reference to congratulating an audiologist on not being
> in ASHA: My response is "A 10 foot pole is not nearly long enough to
> touch that question!!!"
Hey, Glen, I'm not afraid of ten foot poles. It's the big ones that are
As you know, Glen, I've sent a lot of money to ASHA to pay for you
audiologist's CCC's. But in all honesty, I regard the CCC's to be a
consumer fraud (no continuing requirement of any kind to prove ongoing
competency) and a "crutch" for the audiologist's lack of self-esteem. I
believe you'd do just as well in life without the C's. Maybe Mikey will
tell us how he is doing.
More information about the Audiolog