| March 1st 1999 |
|
| The day after. I'll describe the interview as fully as I can. But, first I should say that the outcome for me was pretty good. In essence the Panel said that my formal NLP training hours of 290 are short by 110. So, I need to get to them a programme that will make up these hours over the next 12 months and get this proposal to them by March 14th. This NLP Panel meets with the external UKCP panel on March 27th to decide who will or will not be accredited. All I have to do is sign up to agree to complete this training and show the courses that I intend to take and hopefully this will satisfy the UKCP panel. I cannot see any problems with this. The interview itself was held at Regents Park College in London and lasted about 40 minutes and did have a certain "job interview" feel about it. I was sat behind a table and in front of me - at distance of about 10 feet was a much longer table with the five panel members sat behind it. Hence the "job interview" feel to the environment. Interestingly, I was facing a large window, happily it was a dull overcast day. Had the sun been shining ....... The first issue to be addressed was that of recording the interview. I was asked if my request to record the interview still stood. (Not, did I want to record it but did my request to record it stand). I said that my request still stood. For a number of reasons my request was declined. I decided that the time to argue this point would be in the future, so I accepted the reasons as given. I'd like to go into them in more detail in a future entry. One reason given was that the meeting was confidential. This was a statement, not an issue to be discussed, argued or the subject of a contract. A statement of fact. Again I decided that I would argue that point also at a future date. Which does put me in a bit of a quandary about describing the interview here. I am relying on my own rather sparse notes and memory - and we all know what memory can be like. I've not included any names or attributed questions or statements to any member of the Panel. From a previous entry you will know that Gaile Rowland is the Panel Chairman. So, for the rest of this description I'll just given the basic outline. The feel of the interview was very friendly and supportive. I did not notice any trick questions or comments that might lead me to incriminate myself. I was asked:
I am conscious that there were questions from one Panel member and I cannot remember what those questions were. I did notice that each Panel member had before them a sheet with a table drawn upon it - so I would surmise that they were looking for particular responses and recording what they heard. My only question to the Panel was to ask what they felt my chances of accreditation were. They said that they would need to discuss that amongst themselves. They didn't say if or when they would convey that to me. So, I assume that the Panel are both supportive and positive. All in all the interview experience was somewhat stressful but exciting. I did not feel that it was an examination or an interrogation but an inquiry into how I was to achieve accreditation. I left feeling a little disappointed that I could not be given a decision there and then about my chances, but I do feel that when the Panel meet with the UKCP they will at least be advocates for my cause. This is what I can remeber of the interview. I would guess that I've missed a few things but I hope that it provides a flavour for you of the event. Do feel free to mail with any questions about the interview and I'll do my best to answer them. |
| |
| |
|
|