There has been alot of chatter lately about the bid to remove the APR requirement for Board positions on the PRSA National level. There are strong arguments for both sides. Personally, I’m against removing the requirement (you can read my reasons at my response to the discussion on the PRSA National LinkedIn Discussion group page). However, below are the main points for each side of this debate.
Arguments to Keep the Requirement
- APR is a standard for our profession
- Shows commitment to the profession and to PRSA
- How can we expect others to respect the APR if PRSA doesn’t?
- PR professionals enter the field from many areas – the APR ensures common knowledge
- Standard test similar to CPA exam and similar
- It is NOT a barrier to entry – minimal time requirement
Arguments to Remove the Requirement
- Barrier to entry
- APR does not guarantee leadership
- PRSA has many strong leaders, many of whom do not have their APR
- Only small percentage of PRSA members have their APR
The PRSA Northeast District presents an argument for and against (kind like of a “He Said, She Said”) on their blog. Since this is sure to be a hot topic at the PRSA National Assembly on October 16, where do you stand? Are you For or Against removing the requirement for only APRs to hold Board positions on the national PRSA level?