Could this be a first order error of the PDC course concept and
design? It seems to me that the problems, extant and potential, that
are being discussed and worried about are a result of the naming and
structure of the PDC course as it currently exists. A 72-hour course
and one is handed a design "certification" with the somewhat vague
exhortation to please not call yourself a designer without spending
some time interning, volunteering, etc., etc? Certainly I know of no
other field of endeavor in which one can get a 'certification' after
a scant 72-hours. Years of study are spent in other design fields
which have nothing like the breath of information and sub-topics
permaculture encompasses (not to mention the significance and
imperative immediacy of permaculture). Perhaps it was the pressing
demand to 'get permaculture out there' that led to the flawed
structure of the 'certification' aspect of the course, but I wonder
if building further structures on top of this flawed foundation is
the best solution. Why not fix the foundation- admit that, well OK,
a 72-hour course does not a permaculture designer make, and therefore
the designer "certification" element is somewhat meaningless.
Assumptions were made at the time the model was created that have
proven to be less than accurate and the time is arriving when those
inaccurate assumptions are undermining the overall structure. If we
take the stand that the PDC course as it is and has been named/
structured is now institutionalized and permanent (calcified?) are we
not violating some of the basic permaculture principles and spirit?
Further institutional structure as a means to remedy flaws in the
foundation strikes me as problematic and unstable. Renaming the PDC
course to reflect what it really is- an intensive foundational
introduction to permaculture concepts should be considered. Then
additional requirements, etc. can be considered for true permaculture
'designer' certification.