Gary, Newton and others: You are entirely correct in saying that NASM accreditation doesn't really address our situation in an appropriate way. My own take is that the accreditation process it provides an opportunity for us to raise issues and bring them to the attention of people who can make a difference. Especially in a large university, it takes a very loud squeaking wheel to get any grease. The key here is not to rely on NASM to have anything to say, but rather to make it an in-house effort. The self-evaluation is by far the largest part of the accreditation process. Most of the time (from what I have seen and heard) the NASM report is based pretty extensively if not exclusively on the self-eval. So if one of the biggest deficiencies noted is in the area of pianos (purchase/condition/maintenance, whatever), it will show up pretty loud and clear in the report - that gets read by the Dean, various associate provosts, the provost, and maybe other administrative types with budgetary responsibilities. And it has the added weight of being said by an outside entity. Another aspect is that my piano report will be read by various faculty members within the department, educating them, and making it part of their mix of priorities. Hardly any of them have the faintest idea of even how many instruments we have, let alone how old they are, how much care they get, etc. I look at these matters in the long term. I'm sure persistence will pay off eventually, but for all I know it may be another 10 years. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC