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

[rwest1 at unl.edu]

Jim:

Let me think on this a little and then I'll get back to you in a few  
days.

Richard


On Oct 16, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Jim Busby wrote:

> Richard,
>
>
>
> I’m helping develop the curriculum and agree with all your points  
> below, but could you explain/elaborate on #2 below “CAUT classes/ 
> materials need to be experience based”?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jim Busby
>
>
>
>
>
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf  
> Of rwest1 at unl.edu
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:44 AM
> To: College and University Technicians
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of  
> Michigan,Ann Arbor)
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071017/0f631b8a/attachment-0001.html