I recently had the pleasure of presenting at New Jersey’s ADR XI. And how great is at that not only is there sufficient ADR interest and practice to warrant a yearly state conference, but that it’s been running for 11 years now!
Anyhow, at the conference, I raised this ever-popular proposition:
But the thing is, I think that’s rubbish. Why on earth is the burden of proof on justifying a link between graduate education and professional conflict resolution practice? Law, medicine, accounting, psychology… we have precedent and practice of recognizing the value of linking education with professional practice. Professions benefit from better educated and trained practitioners, and education benefits because of the standards and real-world grounding that comes with a formal link to a practice.
I’m tired of arguing a case that shouldn’t need to be made in the first place. So here’s the alternative proposition, supporting the quirky status quo we have now.
If anyone really feels compelled to continue along the strange and dysfunctional path the field is on, let’s make it their burden to justify.
And in my next post, because I’m feeling a bit contentious and provocative in the summer heat, I’ll discuss the JD’s suitability (or not) as a qualifying graduate education background. Yes, I’m going there.