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

[Ed Sutton]

It seems that several of the regional seminars are having trouble making the 
tradition "hotel-based" seminars pay their way.
A university based seminar, held perhaps on the week-end of Fall break might 
be able to offer new ways to learn.  All those practice rooms could be used 
for extended hands-on repair,regulation and tuning classes, maybe leaving 
the school better off for the deal.
Ed Sutton
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred S Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of Michigan, 
Ann Arbor)


> Hi Richard,
> Good post. I agree with you about trying to get classes out into 
> regionals. That has certainly been in the works, and has happened at least 
> a few times. Takes a lot of energy and work to make that happen. Also 
> agree about "experience based." That has been the focus for the most part 
> as we have developed classes. And the aim has been to develop a series of 
> classes to be offered regularly.
>
> As for Guidelines and tests/endorsement/certification, I would like to 
> present the notion that these are tools. As such, they have many uses. For 
> example, The Guidelines "Workload Formula" that people seem to focus in on 
> is really designed as a tool to organize your work. If you go through and 
> answer those questions for each piano, you will set priorities, decide 
> about future planning (rebuild, replace, etc), evaluate the humidity 
> control situation, etc, etc. That use is far more important than its use 
> to come up with an ideal range of staffing, IMO (though I don't think it 
> does a bad job of that, either).
>
> Testing and whatever we want to call "caut certification" (the term 
> endorsement is currently preferred) is another tool. If a system of 
> testing is developed and put into place, it will create a meaningful 
> measurement of skills that pertain to caut work. A caut who passes those 
> tests and obtains that endorsement can use that tool to sell him or 
> herself to a college or university. A music department can use that tool 
> as a way of finding a qualified technician. A music department and its 
> current employee (contract or employed) can use it as a way of upgrading 
> and measuring the upgrading of skills, and potentially job description and 
> salary. SOmeone thinking about caut work can use the tests to see if he or 
> she has the skills to enter the field, and can use the skill set and 
> levels as a goal to attain.
>
> Now whether or not the organization as a whole wants to undertake this is 
> perhaps another question, and one that will be debated intensely I am 
> sure. But even just the process of discussing the creation of tests will 
> help us in the long run, as it will force us to focus on just exactly what 
> skills a caut needs to have. Which leads to answering the question of what 
> training needs to be offered.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:44:24 -0500
>  "rwest1 at unl.edu" <rwest1 at unl.edu> wrote:
>> I would like to weight in with a few thoughts.
>>
>> 1.  Education--CAUT has been doing well in recent years to develop 
>> classes and I believe that should be the highest priority, not only 
>> classes at the convention, but classes at every regional seminar and  at 
>> local institutions.  The classes should become more or less standardized 
>> and repeated annually.  What CAUT should be asking is:   What core 
>> knowledge can be taught across the country, not just at the  annual 
>> convention.  Nationwide distribution/availabiltiy  should be  paramount 
>> since many technicians will not be able to attend the convention annually 
>> or even regularly.
>>
>> 2.  Experience--How does anyone get the experience to do advanced  work? 
>> Unfortunately most of that comes from seat-of-the-pants, in- the-field 
>> work.  When I started at the University of Nebraska, I had  been a piano 
>> technician for only 3 years with practically no experience in voicing, 
>> and no knowledge of harpsichords or other  historical keyboards.  I 
>> learned on the job. That first 5 years was  hell.  The 25 years after 
>> that were great.  CAUT classes/materials  need to be experience based. 
>> We already have books that provide general knowledge.
>>
>> 3.  The Guidelines--One goal of the Guidelines was to inform 
>> administrators about what the job includes so that they would  appreciate 
>> the intricacies of the job and the pay scale would rise.   This hasn't 
>> really happened; our document is seen as self serving. Therefore the main 
>> value of the document is to inform technicians  about what they're 
>> getting into when they apply for university jobs.   CAUT education needs 
>> to continue to inform all technicians about the  nature of university 
>> work so that when the interview comes around, they'll be able to 
>> differentiate what we do from what all other staff  people do.  You can't 
>> expect a higher pay scale when your immediate  supervisor may be a staff 
>> person that isn't making as much as what  you're asking. Administrators 
>> don't see us as any different than a stage manager, administrative 
>> assistant, or, yes, a specialized  custodian.  Until that perception 
>> changes, or until applicants refuse  jobs that don't pay  wages that are 
>> competitive with private concert  work, then university techs will 
>> continue to be underpaid.
>>
>> 4.  Testing--Until RPT is an accepted nationwide standard, I would  put 
>> testing at a low priority.  If testing is the current priority,   the 
>> cart is being put in front of the horse.  The problems we have  with RPT 
>> testing are IMHO greater for a CAUT standard.  The test would have to 
>> provide a better way to address testing problems like  nationwide 
>> availability, qualified and experience examiners, testing  that is fair 
>> and objective (using ETD's when ETD's can be problematic  as repeatably 
>> accurate), length of time to give the test, using volunteers vs 
>> developing paid examiners, etc.  A complete tuning, for  example, sounds 
>> good as a goal for a testing standard, but  implementing that seems to 
>> hark back to the good ole boy days.
>>
>> Richard West, retired (more or less)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 12, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Fred Sturm wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Richard Brekne wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just a thought on the tuning test idea.  The present RPT test is  to my 
>>>> mind of thinking absurdly time consuming to set up and  execute.  Nor 
>>>> do I believe it should be necessary to have it  such.  A tuning 
>>>> standard can be easily defined in terms of what  decided upon sets of 
>>>> coincident partials behave like when tuned.   As a banal example, one 
>>>> could simple ask the examinee to execute a  bass tuning from say D3 
>>>> downwards in terms of exact 6:3 types.  This is extremely easy to 
>>>> measure afterwards and requires no prior  set up... outside of a 
>>>> reasonably detuned instrument. It doesn't  take much imagination to see 
>>>> how this principle could be applied  to encompass a real tuning that is 
>>>> quite acceptable in real life  terms.  One added benefit of this 
>>>> approach would be that the  examinee would know ahead of time exactly 
>>>> what is expected of him/ her.  This is far from always the case in the 
>>>> present system.  I  would think it would be nonproblematic to extend 
>>>> this approach to  a very demanding test.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> RicB
>>>
>>> Hi Ric,
>>> This is, in fact, very close to the current concept for a caut  tuning 
>>> test. We analyze a sequence of coincident partials for  consistency. It 
>>> could, of course, be 6:3 octaves as you mention.  And there are many 
>>> other possibilities as well. Our initial plan is  to look at double and 
>>> triple octaves, the 4:1 and 8:1 partial  matches, and see how evenly 
>>> they progress. If something is out of  kilter, it should show up pretty 
>>> clearly.
>>> But we don't, in this early draft version, plan to ask the  examinee to 
>>> do anything but tune "your best concert tuning,"  explaining that we 
>>> will look particularly for crystal clear and  rock solid unisons, and 
>>> for evenness of stretch in the outer  octaves. IOW, no artificial 
>>> constraints, just do what you normally  do in that circumstance.
>>> I think the requirement that all unisons be within 0.5 cents  tolerance 
>>> after pounding is pretty demanding, though well within  what I hope most 
>>> of us are producing on a day to day basis. Beta  testing will reveal 
>>> whether or not this is so, and whether we might  need to fudge a little 
>>> to, say, 0.6 or something, and possibly more  in high treble where ETD 
>>> resolution can be a problem.
>>> How the analysis of partial matches will work: well, it is at  least an 
>>> intriguing concept, and seems worth exploring. On the face  of it, it 
>>> seems like it should work like a charm, but proof is in  the pudding.
>>> Regards,
>>> Fred Sturm
>>> University of New Mexico
>>> fssturm at unm.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>