[CAUT] NASM review

[Fred Sturm]

On 10/17/07 6:34 AM, "rwest1 at unl.edu" <rwest1 at unl.edu> wrote:

> Fred,
> 
> You're absolutely right, Fred.  NASM reviews can be a great
> opportunity that piano technicians shouldn't pass up.  If a director
> doesn't solicit input as to the state of the university instruments,
> a tech should provide a report.  It may be a way of not only getting
> more money, but of winning some credibility with administrators.
> 
> Richard West
    And the flip side is that they are certainly "nothing to worry about" in
the sense that the evaluation team might come in and criticize your work.
That isn't going to happen. In fact, they will say nothing at all about the
pianos unless the department says something in the self-evaluation. NASM
accreditation reviews are mostly on academics. They require the department
to answer a lot of questions and document the answers. The focus is on
things like how many faculty have doctorates, and exactly what the course
requirements are for BM in performance. Pianos don't show up specifically,
but can be categorized under something like "facilities" should the
department choose.
    It is far more likely that a department would be raked over the coals
for out of date computers and software than for trashy pianos. Sad but true.
But if you want to take the initiative, and the chair or whoever is in
charge of getting it together agrees, you can make it an opportunity to
bring piano condition to the attention of the bigwigs in a noticeable way.
An accreditation "deficiency" carries a lot more weight than endless memos
and reports.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico