CAUT credential was Let's cut to the chase was Re: Guidelines comments

[Bdshull@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
I see three important areas the CAUT credential threads are touching on:

1.  Certification of advanced technical skills

2.  Credentialing an increased body of specialized knowledge in the CAUT 
field

3.  Successful marketing of the CAUT PTG.

I haven't neglected the $ issue - see below.

Frankly, we are not doing so well in any of these areas, and as long as we 
continue to argue the chicken/egg, we will never get started.  

There is no doubt that a CAUT credential will not be primarily an advanced 
technical certification.  But I believe it should require attendance in a broad 
range of technical classes which ensure exposure to the subject areas (both 
PTG Annual Institute and mfg's workshops, as Fred noted).  That is why I made it 
clear that the CAUT credential would qualify the technician to spec 
rebuilding work and supervise the vending of rebuilding work.  Not necessarily to 
actually perform that work.
The certification of a higher technical specialization is something 
different.  This is a huge challenge which up until now has not had any takers, but is 
a cause which I believe in;  if the PTG ever develops specialized 
certification, the CAUT would benefit.  The Long Range Planning Committee is taking the 
right approach here, which is to address the broader, underlying issues of PTG 
identity and purpose first, then work with the organization on how to implement 
these in our organization.

But the body of CAUT knowledge and the quasi-administrative skills required 
for effective college and university piano service - these things are essential 
to being a CAUT professional.   The credential coursework will provide this.

And consistent, persistent marketing of the CAUT RPT has not yet taken place. 
  Of course we know that word-of-mouth is a primary means by which techs are 
hired;  but not the only one, and it doesn't happen in a vacuum, nor is it 
always reliable, either.  As I previously mentioned, schools hire dealers with 
less experienced tuners, they hire tuners without training and experience, etc - 
it is up to our profession to address these problems and work to upgrade the 
standards in universities and their state administrations, and this won't 
happen until we start the ball rolling and keep it rolling.

$?  We have been extremely resistant, as an organization, to any discussion 
about this.   But I agree that it should be on the table for the CAUT committee 
to address in the next few years, at least as a study - Wim, I know you won't 
let us off the hook on this one.  We are premature to discuss it seriously 
now.  Let's move forward with a CAUT credential, a CAUT PTG curriculum, and a 
successful marketing of the CAUT RPT to the universities.   Regional and other 
economic forces will still prevail, as they do in general to skew salaries and 
contract figures across the country.  But I can't imagine piano technicians 
forming a labor union, nor would it be likely to succeed if we did (though there 
is something primitively appealing to me about the idea).  It seems to me the 
best way to address the salary issue is to address the credentialing issue 
and successfully market the CAUT over a period of time.

Bill Shull

  The greater challenge of providing advanced technical certificationIn a 
message dated 6/14/03 1:39:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Tompiano@aol.com writes:


> Yes, but without the accredited recognition equivalence of a BS, MBA, or 
> Ph.D. degree, this will never impact the way (in which) schools evaluate one's 
> performance and salary ladder. Look at any school's systems pay scale and it 
> is very clearly spelled out for faculty members with BS degrees, compared to 
> MBA, and Ph.D. degrees. Professional staff degrees go into this foggy area 
> which is nebulous at best.
> Lets face, we work in a profession which has no entry level standards and 
> extremely vague references with regard to professional standards..other than 
> RPT. Which I argue still doesn't impact the public to the degree in which we 
> think it does.
> Don't get me wrong I would love no love nothing more to see our profession 
> elevated to heights more deserving. But we have a long way to go to convince a 
> public which still views this profession, in general, as a so-so way of 
> making a living.
> As long as someone can read the first page of a piano tuning book, get some 
> business cards made, hang a shingle, and then charge the same amt. as the 
> most experience tech in the area, you got a problem.
> On the upswing of this argument is the serious piano playing public does 
> understand the training needed in order for us to work at the level that we do. 
> They do appreciate the fine nuances a good tech can bring to a given piano. 
> It's another issue altogether to be able to establish accredited credentials 
> which can be used across the board to evaluate one's performance.
> We have a long way to go on this one.
> Tom Servinsky, RPT 
> 


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/40/d9/24/d8/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--