[CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of Michigan,Ann Arbor)

[David Ilvedson]

Is there still a German Meister test?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
To: caut at ptg.org
Received: 10/12/2007 2:49:02 PM
Subject: [CAUT]  CAUT Endorsement (was Re:  Job Opening, U. of Michigan,Ann Arbor)


>Hi David

>I of course dont remember the Craftsman test... but I know a bit about 
>the German Meister test... and you sure as heck have to show you know 
>and can a whole lot of things pianowise.  A fair share of bonified math 
>and physics university level is required along with all the rest.  But 
>to be sure... I tend to agree with you that American wise... the RPT 
>test was in general an improvement if only for no other reason then to 
>bring a minimum set of standards that are more or less equally applied 
>in all instances.  Fairness was one of the primary goals as the story 
>has been told to me.

>Still Jons post points out the weakness in the scheme... namely that the 
>RPT designation has led to a all to often false sense of authority when 
>in reality it is a very good journeymen designation... but not more.  I 
>really dont think there should be much to dispute about that statement. 

>We end up where we always have... some wanting some kind of 
>credential... others prefer the keep educating line without such 
>certification goals... yet all wanting to find a way of reaching the 
>University Administration and public at large with our appeals as to how 
>important our work is and how well the <<deserving>> tech should be paid 
>and treated. 

>The problem is that we provide no tangible transferable method or means 
>of telling them who the <<deserving>> techs are and arent... we 
>essentially leave that up to them to figure out.

>So... perhaps here is something... a route we can pursue with a greater 
>chance of finding agreement.  How about  coming up with a document that 
>simply recommends to University administrations what a Head of Piano 
>Technology Department should be able to do.  We wrote this huge thing 
>describing how much time so and so many pianos requires to keep serviced 
>at a so and so level.... I wonder how many Admin types got past the 
>first page ?  Yet a one page document that describes what the tech 
>should actually be capable of... that might get read seriously... might 
>set a standard for all these job listings... and might be a place to 
>start all this.

>Just a thought.

>Cheers
>RicB

>    I don't buy that...PTG is us.   RPT or Associate.   The whole idea
>    was improve the overall quality of piano tuners.  If a tech becomes
>    a member he is more likely to go to meetings and conventions and
>    upgrade his skills.   I remember my Craftsman test eons ago...I
>    tuned a horribly out of tune piano and the "Craftsman" said OK, you
>    in.   This was in North Dakota.   When I took the test the 2nd time
>    California, I just had to do a few repairs, file a hammer and I
>    can't even remember if I tuned a piano...I was established...sort
>    of.  I finally took the RPT test and it was a much improved test of
>    skills.   

>        "it used to be that you had to actually prove skills via a
>        rebuilt or restrung piano with a new block and attending finish
>        work. RPT is paperwork albeit tuning skills."

>    Does anyone else remember this testing for Craftsman?  I sure don't.  

>    David Ilvedson, RPT
>    Pacifica, CA 94044

>    From: "Jon Page"


>         "Our consensus is that we should test for the skill level
>        appropriate for a concert tuner."


>    What does this mean? In simplest terms:

>    These tests are good for proving one's ability but when you stop and
>    look at it,who's going to say they want to jump through these hoops
>    for half pay. It's like asking how long can you hold your breath
>    while standing on you head in 2 feet of muck., so the guy who holds
>    it longer gets the job.   OOooooooo sign me up for qualifying.  It
>    only proves that one has a high threshold for BS.

>    I don't mean to sound negative but an improved skills test is a
>    result of the 'dumbing-down' of the classification "Craftsman" from
>    by-gone years.  RPT is (pardon the expression) just to keep 'asses
>    in the seats'. When I started, the requirements to attain this
>    status was far beyond what qualifies for RPT. it used to be that you
>    had to actually prove skills via a rebuilt or restrung piano with a
>    new block and attending finish work. RPT is paperwork albeit tuning
>    skills.

>    Personally, I have no desire to attain RPT status because I do not
>    like to or want to tune pianos. So why take a test to qualify me for
>    something I am not interested in??  Heck, some of my workload is
>    fixing the work of RPT's!!!!!

>    The Happy Associate,

>    Regards,
>    Jon Page