[CAUT] Uniform Formal Education

[Jeff Tanner]

On Oct 21, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Willem Blees wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Israel Stein <custos3 at comcast.net>
> To: caut at ptg.org
> Sent: Sun, Oct 21 11:08 AM
> Subject: [CAUT] Uniform Formal Education
>
> <Ah, yes, Cy. You have introduced a very important principle into  
> this discussion. "Uniform" does not mean "one-dimensional". It is  
> the height of folly to think that in order to get to a uniform  
> educational standard one needs to teach "a uniform way of tuning:  
> how to sit, hold the hammer, even setting a temperament" as  
> somebody here seems to be advocating. That's nonsense.
>
> snip
>
> In my opinion, one of the bigger problem with much of the  
> instruction offered by the PTG - in classes, chapter meetings, some  
> of the publications - is precisely this "one size fits all"  
> mentality.>
>
>
> I agree that there are many different ways to accomplish a task,  
> whether it is settinga temperament, tying a string or regulating an  
> action. But in order to pass the RPT exam, there is only one way  
> that is correct.

No no no no.  Each task has a defined goal, but there may be many  
quite different ways to achieve it.  We are not graded by our  
methods, but by our results.


> And it is that correct, uniform method that needs to be taught to  
> beginning students if the PTG expects them to become RPTs.  Once a  
> technician has learned to do it the "correct" way, then hes/she  
> shoudl be encouraged to learn as many different ways of doing things.
>
>
>
> <How many times I hear people argue over whether this or that is  
> "best" or "correct" or whatever - when essentially they are both  
> right (depending on the specifics of a given situation. I have seen  
> students bat their heads against a wall trying to do things "the  
> way they have been taught" - unsuccessfully, and then being  
> introduced to another method - and picking it up in a flash. Not  
> that the second method is "better" than the first - they are both  
> used successfully by many people. Just that for some reason the  
> student can relate better to method B than to method A. Trying to  
> force a unitary way down students' throats is a sure way to retard  
> learning for many people. >
>
>
> And perhaps that is one of the reasons we have so few people taking  
> the RPT exams. Maybe because the exams have become so annally  
> uniform, without a slight bit of lee way, (other than the  
> tollerences), Assocaites are just giving up trying to become an RPT.
>
>

I think there are many reasons.

First, the government does not require anyone to take any exam to  
become a piano technician.  There are many non-members and non-RPT  
members doing quite well with no reason to take any exam.  We must  
remember that this is, after all, an occupation.  The foremost goal  
is to offer a service in exchange for money.  If a technician is  
offering a good quality of work and has a reliable customer base  
which keeps referring him more business, that is the goal of his  
pursuit.

Taking the RPT exams does not make anyone a better piano technician.   
It simply evaluates his/her skills.  If a technician is confident of  
his/her skills he/she has no reason to pursue the RPT exams except  
political ones.

Some folks just aren't interested in joining organizations.  Some  
avoid the exams for the sole purpose of being a rebel against the  
"establishment".  Some are mentored by highly skilled, proven  
technicians who just aren't interested in PTG and that rubs off.

The exam setting is not consistent from location to location  
(especially tuning).  The difficulty level of the exams is over hyped  
and literally scares potential examinees away.

There are many many reasons to not pursue the exams.

There are also good reasons to pursue them, but I was addressing your  
point.

>
> <There are many more issues that I will not vex you with at this  
> point. A printed curriculum can go a long way in at least offering  
> the possibility of correcting such problems as the above. The rest  
> is up to the individual - and there is no way to make sure that any  
> given individual will make good use of whatever tools are made  
> available. >
>
>
> Like a leading a horse to water. etc.  But isn't a curriculum  
> basically making sure instruction is "uniform", from one instructor  
> to another?

No.  It means task goals are consistent.  Not methods.

Jeff



Jeff Tanner, RPT
University of South Carolina



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071022/651d2cdd/attachment.html