Tarot Certification Board of America - a critical appraisal

tmgrl2

Oh dear....I don't know how I missed this thread! My computer crashed last week, so guess it slipped in under the radar.

jmd, I remember all of our discussion threads on this topic since I joined AT.

I started one of the the threads. I believed then and still believe now, that for a board to set itself up as a Tarot Certification Board of America, is a euphemistic way of garnering validity and equality with other boards in our country that certify professionals (or license them) in various fields that are overseen by other State and local boards, as well as by National Boards.

This Tarot "board" appears to be a "self-designated" board.

Also, I find it so difficult to see a comparison to the SATs (a Standardized Achievement Test) in the U.S. taken by students as part of the their "package" for entry into colleges and universities. In the SAT's (not the SATII's which require more "subjective" review of writing samples, e.g.) the test is divided into verbal and non-verbal areas....

Whether or not the SATs have some cultural biases that may present difficulties to young people with good innate intelligence, but weak exposure, e.g., to the math skills required to pass the math portions at a higher level, the test itself is based upon quantifiable, mostly objective material.

Granted, there are always a few questions in the SAT tests that may have answers that readers of the tests find difficult to accept (often in the verbal areas...where interpretations of passages and/or vocabulary are required).

However, we know that in the area of Tarot History and Tarot interpretation, there are widely accepted views as to origins of Tarot (although Dummet, Decker, Place, and O'Neill, among many others) have taken us leaps ahead in our understanding of where Tarot DIDN'T come from and pointed out the discrepancies in views that at one time claimed to be "the one true path" or "the one true origin" or "the accepted meanings for" .....Tarot...

I feel that we are nowhere close to moving into the areas of offering "certifications" of various levels up to Masters .....nor do I believe that we should, at least in our lifetime, consider such a need viable.

jmd.... Thank you for including me in the short list of "professional" readers....

There are people in medical professions who somehow obtained licenses, a few perhaps, but some still, who should not be practicing....but to take an area with as much subjective content and, in fact, esoteric content and pack it into a program with multiple levels of exams in order to become "certified" is, I feel, not only premature, but presumptuous.....

It does seem that Timothy's intent and the amount of work that he obviously places in this endeavor is, perhaps, well-meaning, but at this point, I feel that such a "board" is misleading to those who feel that getting a level or many levels of certification, somehow makes them more "qualified" to work in the field of "Tarot" whether it be as a professional reader or as a mentor/teacher.

Enough said.

Also, I live in New York and I find the disclaimer distasteful as well.

My flyers say:

My readings are for your enchantment, enlightenment and entertainment.

My lawyer and justice relatives have assured me that this "covers" the legal requirements in New York State.

terri
 

jmd

Congratulations on the opening of your art gallery, Timothy - fortunately for the Art world, no certification board seeks to certify there! Likewise, I presume (perhaps erronously), that the belly dancers, drummers, tree planters, and poets were not certified by respective 'certification boards'. Of course, in post-revolutionary USSR, this was indeed the case that poets, dancers, and indeed all art, had to be approved, certified or properly endorsed by the mechanisms within the ruling party.

I would suggest, Timothy, that you again check your records with regards to the establishment of the TCBA (not to be confused with the TCB, the organisation that was dissolved, according to the TCBA's own statements). You will find that, if your organisation's own prior statements are to be taken as truthful, an establishment date of 1st June 2002.

As a registered organisation, an easy way to of course prove me incorrect in this is to scan an image of the TCBA's registration, which I will happily attach as an image-attachment for all to see. What easier way is there to set the matter straight, and for my own errors, if errors they be, to be set aright in this part of the matter (I'll send you my email address should you no longer have it).

So already, at least, we have an acknowledgement that the list of 'Grand Masters' did NOT obtain this category of registration by the stated means claimed as the requirements by the TCBA, but rather by granting these by honorary acclamation. To say 'that they didn't need to recertify with the new board at further expense' assumes that they had so certified with another 'certification board' at their expense, rather than likewise having been awarded the title in an honorary manner by those now defunct organisations.

I also agree that 'These days everybody has a list and it is difficult to be on all of them'. Or even, really, to even want to be on all of them. In regards to the list mentioned, however, during 2001 TarotL remained not only the largest, but undoubtedly at that time the best regarded list or bulletin board around, until, in my personal opinion, overtaken in certainly membership and postings, by Aeclectic.

On TarotL, it should perhaps be noted that one of those highly regarded Tarot authors to whom your organisation has granted an honorary Grand Mastership says of the organisation that you seem to want to claim as a 'predecessor' that:
'[...]any group which sets out to create a reputable, successful Tarot certification organization would certainly have to:

o Read the well-known, well written public letter signed by numerous responsible Tarotists which justifiably took the now defunct TCB to task for its corrupt practices, and then read it again'​
[(my emphasis) posted my Mary Greer on TarotL on Tuesday the 27th of August 2002]

What this shows, of course, is that there are well known individuals, and highly respected ones, that may certainly differ to myself with regards to supporting the very idea of certification.

Nonetheless, what this shows, I would hope, is that this is not a case of merely somebody that 'got disgruntled and spouted in 2001 or some other past date and nobody questioned his/her words', as I have to assume would be well known by many on the TBCA committee of management.

If, to take another point made by Timothy above, it is in any way true that the people who certify with the TCBA a the level of CPTR (Certified Professional Tarot Reader - the third level of certification with the TCBA) 'stay mechanical', then I would again question what it really means to be a 'certified tarot reader' (even without that additional word of 'professional').

To me, this only again shows that certification can only do damage to the world of Tarot, and I beseech individuals and organisations such as the ATA not to support such any longer.
 

Fulgour

The ATA Code of Ethics
http://www.ata-tarot.com/ethics.htm

ITEM # 3. I will represent honestly my Tarot qualifications,
including educational credentials and levels of certification.

ATA reserves the right to take action, including revocation
of membership, if the Code of Ethics is violated, subject to
grievance handling procedures.


*

The above statements are taken from the website (link provided)
of the ATA and are posted here, not as my views per se, but for
general consideration in regard specifically to this discussion. :)
 

tmgrl2

I just read the list of "Grand Masters." Interesting...

Mary Greer's "link" is not to a functional page...

Rachel Pollack's name has no link.

I am assuming they know they are on this list....I wonder what their thoughts on this would be.

terri
 

cybercat

web site fix

Ok so none of the board can do it. Then hire someone that can. Or is it that you really want to have it that way.... It does not cost that much and I am sure you KNOW enough people that could do it. Everyone one knows someone that is a computer geek and loves the web. Heck go to the local High School and talk to the computer clininc teacher to recomend one of the students. It is That easy.

Cat

(quote)
These questions are fairly simple and yet underline some internal frictions. The frictions lay in the fact that none of the Board Members know how to change a website. The Website remains a thorny problem with its low tech and poor graphics. There are also spelling mistakes and that list of members.
 

Gwynne

cybercat said:
Ok so none of the board can do it. Then hire womeone that can. Or is it that you really want to have it that way.... It does not cost that much and I am sure you KNOW enough people that could do it. Everyone one knows someone that is a computer geek and loves the web. Heck go to the local High School and talk to the copmuter clininc teacher to recomend one of the students. It is That easy.

Cat

(quote)
These questions are fairly simple and yet underline some internal frictions. The frictions lay in the fact that none of the Board Members know how to change a website. The Website remains a thorny problem with its low tech and poor graphics. There are also spelling mistakes and that list of members.

Exactly! It's not hard, and honestly it's not expensive either! You can get a better looking site done for $35! I know that for a fact because I've had one done before!
 

tarotbear

Wow - I got refered to as a 'shining example' ! That's more confidence than any certificate hanging on a wall could ever mean.

I probably missed this thread when it was started because I dislike the idea of Certification Practices and argued with John Gilbert and the ATA many times. In fact - the reason I wrote my book was because at one point in the ATA - if you wrote a book and could show that it taught 25 or more people to read Tarot then you could become a CTM without having to do the rest of the steps in the program. Of course, by the time I got my book published the ATA had long changed many policies. I wrote it to prove that certification was unnecessary because of this clause. Of course, if the ATA or Tarot Certification Board were to give me CTM status because I have published my book (and have sold over 8,000 copies) I might think better of the process ... but there are no guarantees.
 

goddessof1967

jmd said:
Rusty Neon, you may very well be correct that 'in the public's eye' a money scam by a charlatan may give Tarot users a bad name. Yet I am confident also in the general intelligence of the public in recognising that such a character is in fact a charlatan.
Surely not! If so, you have an unrealistic view of the general intelligence of the public! Working in a job where I am continuously faced with the public of all levels of education, intelligence and socio-economic backgrounds, I know that the majority don't have a highly developed sense of discrimination.
 

reagun ban

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes....

Tarot qualification?!?

Who qualified and appointed you?

What are your legal qualifications, you have education degrees from your local governments no doubt?

What are your control mechanisms?

What are the appeals proccesses for examinations?

As raised earlier Tarot falls strictly under Divination so where is your mandate from (the) God(s)?

But the real question I want to ask is "How can you standardise and test for something, using scientific methods, when the ENTIRE premise of Tarot is ENTIRELY unfalsifiable and therefore SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID?*" Put twenty different, but very gifted, readers in a room and give them any of the minor arcana cards and ask them to write the key themes. You'll get twenty different answers. That's the way it works. (hyperbole here)

Your site said:
You are entitled to full and complete answers to the questions covered in your reading.
Rubbish. "Is my boyfriend cheating on me?" Who the hell are we to invade his privacy.



* Ok, this may cause a reaction from people who don't understand what I mean. The concept of scientific validity has solely to do with science. Religion is scientifically invalid, reiki is scientifically invalid, magic is scientifically invalid, prayer is scientifically invalid. I'm a Pagan who has a degree in Reiki (getting degree two after I deal with my anger issues), practices magic, reads tarot and has regular conversations with my Gods. For more on this, read This wikipedia article
 

firecatpickles

reagun ban said:
But the real question I want to ask is "How can you standardise and test for something, using scientific methods, when the ENTIRE premise of Tarot is ENTIRELY unfalsifiable and therefore SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID?

A-men to that, sistah!

As a professional educator I can tell you from first hand, yearly experience that there is no such thing as an unbiased, or fair, standardized test! I am against any form of testing whatsoever at this point, on principle alone. [Do we realize the ramilfications for having a high-risk test for 6-year-olds? I guess we will in 10 years time!
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/retain.strategies.heath.htm ]

And don't even get me started on the SAT and LSATs! I digress. Sorry, you were talking about Tarot (ahem) certification...