Wise Men, Good Men, Wild Men, Grave Men Dear
ASTE: What is this new GD&T certification test all about?
Dear Writer: In the early 1990's a guy named Walt McGee wrote an article that outlined his concerns regarding the poor state of dimensioning and tolerancing in the world. His article led to the formation of an
ASME/ANSI committee (Y14.5.2) headed by Frank Bakos of Kodak. The committee was created to write a test that would be administered to all those seeking a higher authority to bless them as qualified as a geometric
dimensioning and tolerancing (Y14.5) user or master. Those taking the exam would be certified by this committee as a GD&T Technologist or a GD&T Senior (not necessarily an old guy).
In order to qualify for the Senior level exam you not only would have to pass the exam, but be able to document five years of experience in the GD&T field. 85% would be required to pass the tests
overall and at least 50% in each of the categories.
The categories for the technologist exam are:
1. Scope,
Definitions and General Dimensioning (10% of the exam) 2. General
Tolerancing and Related Principles and Former Practices (20% of the exam) 3. Symbology (10%) 4. Datum Referencing (20%) 5. Tolerances of Location (20%) 6. Tolerances of Form, Profile, Orientation and Runout (20%).
This exam will be 4 hours long.
The categories for the senior level exam are: 1. Topics from the Technologist's Level exam (20%) 2. Datum selection (30%)
3. General Tolerancing and Related Principles, Tolerance Calculation/Accumulation; and Knowledge of the Y14.5 Appendices (30%) 4. Modifiers in feature control frames (10%) 5. Composite Positional Tolerancing (10%).
This exam will be 6 hours long (they're trying to wear you down).
The first of these exams was given on November 8, 1997, and will continue to be given until enough
of those who thought themselves knowledgeable have been sufficiently humbled to either admit they don't know everything under the sun, or to resume studying until their head explodes. The cost of the
exam is not only your self-confidence but also $245. If you are lucky enough to be certified, don't get too cocky, the certification isn't lifelong. It expires after 3 years, at which time you must either commit suicide or be
recertified.
Recertification may be renewed to the same standard (Y14.5M-1994) without retesting if you can prove that for 2 years of the 3 years since certifying you have been involved with GD&T (as if your life isn't complicated enough as is).
If you want more information on this exam, go to the internet at
http://www.asme.org/ or write to: GDTP (Y14.5M) Examinations at ASME 345 East 47th Street
New York, NY 10017-2392
or call ASME at (212) 705-8465 or FAX them at (212) 705-8599. See the last letter in this issue for comments from one who has taken the exam.
Dear
ASTE:
My boss says I don't amount to a pimple on his backside. First of all, I can't take that as a serious insult. I would be more outraged if he had said I do amount to a pimple on his backside. It would at
least prove he is, even in his own opinion, flawed in some way. I have to say, though, that it is humbling having your entire existence reduced to being compared to a skin eruption on someone's
posterior. I have two masters degrees, four patents and twenty years of engineering experience. I have a great wife, two wonderful kids and a few really good friends. I do charity work in my spare
time and am a good father, husband and neighbor. How is it we get into these situations in life where all we think of ourselves as is what our boss writes on our evaluation form each year? I am...
Depressed in Detroit.
Dear Depressed:
You sound like your life amounts to more than a pustule. In fact, most of us would love to accomplish all that you have. Unfortunately, most people have a boss. Sometimes these bosses aren't
nice or smart or diplomatic. They are capable of ruining your career on the basis that they either don't know what you do, because they don't understand the technical side of the business, or they
don't like you. Maybe they don't like you because they are jealous of your accomplishments, or the recognition you receive from others in your company, or the fact that you have a happy home life and
the boss has three or four ex-spouses and kids he/she hasn't seen in a few years. I don't know.
A person has to consider the source and analyze the criticisms they receive. If there is something you
can do to improve yourself, then do it. If there is some way to educate the boss on what great things you contribute to the job every day, then that is worth pursuing as well. But you might just conclude
that your boss is simply all backside, and if people could see the essence of the person, they would be staring at one who revels in the misery of others, one who feels it is easier to make all those
around him/her smaller and therefore will feel larger by comparison. Who knows what makes someone like that tick. But I have learned as I get older, that if you keep in good health both mentally
and physically, you can often watch those who have devoted a good deal of their time to making you and others suffer die a horrifying, writhing, chest clutching, agonizing death. Believe me, its worth the wait.
Dear ASTE: The people in my company have started an E-Mail campaign against the institution and usage of Dimensioning and Tolerancing per the ASME Y14.5 standard and ANSI approved standards in
general. They say it causes almost every evil thing that has ever been visited on mankind. Confusion, higher product costs, frustration and job dissatisfaction. It's the most concerted effort I have ever
seen to destroy what could be a great tool. Any suggestions?
Dear Writer: I'm surprised they didn't blame GD&T for tooth decay and pot bellies in middle-aged Americans. It
appears from the copies of their E-Mail that you sent to me that they have put more effort and time in trying to bad mouth GD&T than it would have took to actually learn it, and certainly more than they
have put into doing their jobs lately. It really is impressive; the most intense war against standardization that I have ever seen.
People fear what they don't really understand. They see new ideas, especially good ones, as assaults on the knowledge that they possess. And maybe they're correct about that one thing. It is a threat.
Because let's face it, what many of them pass off as knowledge just doesn't happen to be true or even of the least value. They pretend they know how to tolerance complex geometries with the
anemic language of plus and minus tolerancing and a few indecipherable drawing notes. I especially liked the one I saw a while ago that said, "This part must function regardless of the dimensions and
tolerances shown." They pretend that they understand completely ambiguous, vastly incomplete drawings by saying things like, "Look how much simpler that looks compared to all those geometric
characteristic symbols." Of course it looks simpler. There isn't any real information there. It's so ambiguous it could be an airplane or maybe just a recipe for a lemon meringue pie. Who knows?
They don't care, as long as they don't have to learn anything new.
I sort of feel sorry for them in a way. They are so very afraid, so insecure, so worried that they will
be exposed as not knowing everything in the universe. But you are the light that glimmers in the shadows of their ignorance. Beware, you are also the beacon that they will try to snuff out. Even
though you only want to improve the quality of the product and the knowledge of your peers, they will try to destroy you. So, you have to decide.
Should you give up and become one of them, or do you risk their wrath to do the right thing. It really is a moral dilemma and a test of your courage. If you succeed, the professional rewards may be slim,
and if you fail you may lose your status, even your job. The truth of the path you follow is that people you teach aren't usually grateful. They often claim what they actually learned from you, they already
knew. And eventually they will even say they taught you everything you know. History is rewritten with the passage of time. So, your quest may be simply one of doing what you know is right, so you
can stare at yourself in the mirror in the morning and not be tempted to use that razor to slit your throat with. Ain't life grand?
The following is by Dylan Thomas. I think it
applies: Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light
And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Dear
ASTE:
I recently took the GD&T certification exam given through ASME's Y14.5.2 committee. I thought it was just me, but after the exam I overheard a few of the others who had taken the exam saying the
test was purposely tricky. Like it had been devised to either not list the most correct answer, or had two answers that could be correct and you had to guess which one the writers of the exam wanted
you to give, or that the question itself was worded poorly and left a lot of room to figure out what it was they were asking. Many of the questions were clear with one good answer, but far too many
were of the variety that my colleagues were discussing.
Wasn't it the intention of the Y14.5.2 committee to find out what the test takers knew and not to be
tricky? Isn't a good test one that is clear and simply gauges one's knowledge of a subject. One person said it reminded them of a test written by someone who had never been a teacher, or who
had been one of those teachers who thinks of a test as a way of extracting revenge on the students. One of the most frustrating things I found was that the people administering the exam knew nothing
about the exam or the topic, so there was no way to get a clarification, and believe me clarifications were needed. If the exam is to stand alone, as would seem to be the intent since it is administered by
no subject matter experts, it needs to get a whole lot better.
Dear Writer: I expect that if others feel as you do, it will eventually get back to the Y14.5.2 committee, and the
exam will be improved. Still, I don't guess that makes you feel much better |
