"building blocks"

[Jim Busby]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Wim,
=20
"RPT" seems to mean little to most outside of the PTG. The test would be
the same. IMO while the PTG is the way it is, and as long is there is no
TRUE demand for an "RPT" (ie; industry recognition and demand of the
credential), all this is wasted breath.
=20
Jim Busby - BYU
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Wimblees@aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 10:34 AM
To: caut@ptg.org
Subject: Re: "building blocks"
=20
In a message dated 6/27/03 10:28:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
Cramer@BrandonU.CA writes:



Meanwhile, I would like to provoke my valued CAUT colleagues to do
everything possible to entrench the credentials of RPT in your
institutions,
to register endorsement of the new guidelines "yesterday or sooner" and
to
prevail upon all your colleagues to do the same.


While I am a great believer and supporter of the PTG, I am not sure if a
school can require someone to the a member of the PTG, much less be an
RPT. Yes, the being an RPT will show on paper that a tuner has the basic
skills to be a piano tuner, there are many technicians out there that
have the skills of an RPT, but have  for one reason or aother decided
not to be a member of the PTG.=20

The following might be outside the scope of this forum, but instead of
urging schools to hire just RPT members of the PTG, should the PTG
consider allowing non members to take the exam? (Charge three or four
time the fee).

Wim=20

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/23/c6/d4/d2/attachment.htm

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