I wasn't suggesting anyone give up Robert. I agree certification would be useful as would continuing education. Testing would be useful, even necessary in conjunction with continuing education. Maybe I misunderstood the original post. I thought it was from the Certification Committee? Or are they the same?

It seems to me that certification be a prerequisite to continuing education and not the other way around.

I agree with you that national standards need to be set and that NALTEA is the organization that can best set these standards. However, I think these standards should address the level of service provided not the details of the process which will vary dramatically across the country. For example, setting a standard on what should be included in a Current Owner Search. Or a policy for acceptable turn times. While the requirements would also vary locally, perhaps an acceptable baseline could be established.

I might suggest that any standards set by NALTEA should first be set and published and then tests could be given to test knowledge of and agreement with these standards.

Insurance companies base their rates on experience. Did you ever price car insurance for a teenager with a new license? If you want reduced rates for NALTEA members, shouldn't the members meet the criteria the insurance carriers require? Certifying abstractors by test will only raise the carriers risks. They will set the rates according to their assesment of the risks involved with insuring the inexperienced. Can you blame them?

Continuing education is another matter and their are probably many carriers who might offer discounted rates to experienced abstractors who continue to improve their skills and knowledge.

I do support the education committee and am trying to help them get something started. I offered 5 questions to their request but they served to illustrate the difficulty of designing a uniform national test. I rather enjoyed the excercise and learned from it. I am looking forward to questions others may offer.