Yes, the certification does have meaning and but I do not believe it is completely correct to give up the student exemption. After all, we can’t use the letters until we have worked and submitted proof of 2 years work experience at the Exempt level. Did I pass? YES – Was it less meaningful because I utilized the student exemption? NO Can I tell people I passed? Most certainly, I just cannot put the letters after my name. What I can say is that I actually do have a handle on the knowledge or at least where to find the answers to perform my job to the best of my ability.

I see both sides of the other requirement changes. I can see that by making the time requirement longer and the certifications more exclusive they hold higher value. I can also see the side that says just because you’ve been in an HR role for a number of years it doesn’t necessarily make you any smarter, better, or more knowledgable then someone with less experience. It depends “what” the experience involves not “how long” it was. You can’t do a detailed analysis of each candidate’s job history though in deciding if they should be able to sit for the exam so again I can see the reasons behind the change, even if I don’t think they truly accomplish the overall goal of only certifying top notch HR people.

That being said, here are my thoughts:
1. I concur that “If some “upstart” can take the exam after college and pass without any exempt level HR experience, then that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re as qualified as someone who has years of HR experience before deciding to take the exam.” However, as @adowling noted, there are already restrictions in place for student who pass the exam. Students who pass the exam are NOT allowed to claim they are certified. They MUST get 2 years of exempt-level experience in five years after passing the certification exam before being allowed to use the PHR designation.

2. One concern stated by HRCI was that students had a lower passing rate than HR professionals (57.2% to 71%). First, that should be expected. However, that is still a majority able to pass the exam. Further, if, as @Lori noted, “a certification exam touts its value on an experiential level,” and a majority of a group of individuals are able to pass it without the experience, shouldn’t the focus be on changing the exam than the eligibility requirements? Why aren’t HRCI and its question writers being held accountable for an exam that doesn’t reflect that experiential level instead of punishing students who may demonstrate a strong understanding of the HR knowledge base?

3. Why is exempt experience held as the end-all, be-all of eligibility? One can take the exam without ever having taking an HR course. One can even take the exam without ever taking a single college course! A siginificant number of students walk into the exam with a wealth of HR “experience”: they have taken several HR and management courses, participated significantly in their student SHRM chapter, participated in HR internships or job shadowing or mentoring, conducted HR research, competed in the HR games, and attended SHRM professional chapter meetings and state, regional or national SHRM conferences. Many of these activities count toward recertification, but are not seen as important enough to qualify for certification.

4. In a similar vein, no effort was made by HRCI/SHRM to examine the “quality” of student passing rates on the PHR exam based on academic program. Do those students who come from a program that follows the SHRM curriculum perform significantly better on the exam? If true, wouldn’t this have been a tremendous selling point for SHRM on the quality of their academic initiatives?

5. If experience is seen as critical, many academics have taken and passed the PHR and SPHR exams, and can claim being certified, without having worked a single moment in an exempt HR position. Should a similar constraint be placed on academics?

6. If the concern is that students who pass the exam are taking jobs away from more “qualified” HR professionals who have the experience, but have not passed the exam, one has to wonder about the true signal of certification and what it represents. If certification is so critical, why do so few HR jobs require it or use it in their advertising. A 2005 study by Aguinis, H., Michaelis, S. E., & Jones, N. M. in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment analyzed each of 1873 HR job announcements available over a 1-week period on http://monster.com, http://hotjobs.yahoo.com, http://careerbuilder.com, and http://shrm.org. Results showed that only nine (i.e., .48%) job announcements stated that there was a requirement and only 70 (i.e., 3.73%) job announcements stated that there was a preference for job applicants with any type of HR certification.