Yeah, I figured it might be something like that.

How many of those taking that test had done any training to get into the home inspection profession before they took the test? You don't know, do you?

How many of them didn't know anything about home inspection or construction, had never had any training in the subject, and shouldn't have even been taking any exam to get into this business in the first place? You don't know, do you? All you've got is a failing score with no data to compare it to.

How many of those that passed were retakes that were retaken immediately or within a day or two, by the same persons, after they'd done a little bit of studying? You see, if your statistics are to be accurate, since it's an unprocotored exam, you need to reflect in those statistics all of the retakes that were done immediately or within a specified time period - say a day or two.

How many of those who passed sat there with a home inspection text open on the desk or had someone there to help them answer the questions? That's one you'll never know, will you?

For the past four years, I've taught a 32-hour introduction to the home inspection profession course for realtors, appraisers, investors, property managers, and an occasional wannabe home inspector at a local community college. This past fall, before any of them had ever had a single class to try and understand what it is that we actually do, I had all 26 of my students go to the interNACHI site and take the vaunted interNACHI entrance exam as their first homework assignment. They were told not to crack even one of their texts before taking it and were to take it one time, cold turkey, without any help, in order to see how they fared.

Now, to interNACHI's credit, all 26 of my students took it and none of them passed it. So, if they'd really been trying to get into the home inspection business, the test would have prevented 26 people, who had no business trying to do home inspection, from getting into interNACHI....once. I say once, because to interNACHI's discredit I think that most of them, after having taken it once, probably would have passed it on the second attempt, after getting a feel for how it was structured.

19 of them scored between 76 and 79 correct answers when, according to the website, they only needed 80 to pass. All except one of them said that they'd felt confident, after taking it one time, that they could have passed it if they'd had one of their texts open on the desk, had someone else sitting there helping them, or did a little reading about the business before taking it again.

IACHI gets a kudos for not just accepting anyone as a client before cashing their checks. However, that test is a long way from a test of even barely adequate competency or so many folks without a clue wouldn't have come so close to passing it.

I say that because the student who got the highest score - a 79 - is a property manager who'd once worked for a roofer in college. The next highest score was a middle-aged woman who works for a house cleaning service and was taking the course as part of the real estate license course. She said she'd gotten 78 correct answers. The next highest score was a 22 year old single-lady who was learning as much as she could about the real estate process before trying to buy a home - she got a 77. Sixteen of the students scored a 76, five of them 75, one got a 73, and one got a 58.

I think the fact that interNACHI has an entrance test is a good thing. What I think is bad about it is that interNACHI hawks it as if passing it means something, which it really doesn't. Many of the people who pass that test and get into this business are exactly like all of those that join the other associations, the ones that the interNACHI folks say have joined "diploma mills;" which is to say they are inexperienced and don't have any training to be home inspectors. Just like those who join another association by paying a fee and not taking a real test - like here in Washington - many are still doing inspections on homes completely unprepared and without any experience whatsoever.

Yeah, I know that before a lot of folks get into this business they do a lot of research and most attend some kind of training before they kick off their business, but unless you've captured those numbers and compared them to those who have absolutely no training the numbers you are throwing around are really meaningless. They certainly don't prevent unqualified persons from getting into the business, because, as you are fond of pointing out, they can join one of the associations instead of signing up as one of your lord's clients. Their choices are limited, though, because two of the other associations will require that they go through some training and take tests before they can even join and the other won't even acknowledge them as an experienced inspector until they've got at least 250 inspections under the belts and passed the NHIE. I wonder which one that is? One thing I know is; it isn't the public relations firm that calls it's clients "certified" inspectors the minute they fork over a check, regardless of experience.

Could it be that you are so against the NHIE because so many people who do a little bit of research on the internet will look beyond the alleged "certification" awarded to inexperienced people that are clients of your buddy's public relations firm to see whether the person they're thinking about hiring has passed the NHIE or the NAHI CRI exam? Hmmm?

So, after all of that, EBPHI does serve a purpose after all; in at least 19 states when an inspector claims to be a "certified" inspector, consumers are able to say, "Yeah, way kewl Dude, I'm happy for you; now what's your state license number again?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike