Humes and Diefendorf have made several statements and recommendations, some of which are either inaccurate or misleading. I would like to address some of them.

The authors argue that the CCC-A, not the degree, be the primary identifier of professional qualifications. This argument has no precedent in the health-care field and is seriously flawed from several standpoints. The graduate degree in one form or another dates back to the Renaissance and is the universal health-care credential. The curriculum culminates in a degree leading to the legal right to practice. Consider any other profession: medicine, dentistry, optometry, chiropractic, psychology. Their primary designators are their respective degrees; various certifications are secondary identifiers. Let us not be self-delusionary. CCC-A, after 30 or so years, has not achieved name recognition or widespread credibility. How many of your neighbors know what CCC-A is? The profession of audiology is embarking on an ambitious plan to upgrade educational requirements and training so we achieve greater parity with other professions. Respect, credibility, autonomy, and the ability to bill third-party payers are dependent on educational credentials, not an obscure acronym. The very nature of the document CCC-A connotes mediocrity rather than excellence. When one is in need of professional help, one seeks excellence, not merely competence. “Competence” certainly does not increase consumer confidence. As Humes and Diefendorf state, CCC-A requirements encourage mediocre training. Why perpetuate such a ridiculously low perception with an apt title? One may note that other professions use distinguished secondary designators such as “Fellow,” “Board Certified,” and so on.