[CAUT] CAUT Endorsement

[Jeff Tanner]

These (below) are three excellent and important posts which well  
reflect my thoughts, but written differently than I seem to be able  
to do.  This first one by Dave Porritt might be the closest to my  
thinking, but I have written several different posts along these  
lines I have deleted without sending, trying to come up with the  
right communication of my thoughts.

Israel also wrote an earlier excellent post about different ways  
people learn.  He highlighted two examples of technicians who had  
learned on their own having basically read a book.  I think that is  
highly important fodder for our consideration and goes well with  
Dave's words here.  There is a lot about perspective that is important.

On Oct 23, 2007, at 5:12 PM, David M. Porritt wrote:

> I’m beginning to feel that we are trying to objectify something  
> that can’t be nailed down.  There are football players who have  
> natural moves that coaches will say “that can’t be coached” they  
> just do it naturally.  That’s a talent that can’t be quantified,  
> tested and proved like skill in algebra.  Many players who have  
> been measured, tested, agility tested, inspected, probed etc. and  
> didn’t get drafted but turned out to be stars.  Dallas’ Tony Romo  
> comes to mind.
Yogi Berra was a prime example.  He was before my time, but I  
understand he failed at coaching for this very reason.  This is a  
most excellent point.
>
>
> I think college administrators have to interview, check  
> backgrounds, do their do-diligence but I really have my doubts that  
> any testing PTG could do would do as well as a good college  
> football scout can do and they miss a lot.  (Please excuse the  
> football metaphors – it’s the season!)  The skill set of the  
> successful CAUT technician are so varied.  I can see a curriculum  
> and a certificate on finishing the curriculum but the more I think  
> about it, the less impressed I am of the value of testing.
>
>

On Oct 23, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Israel Stein wrote:
> I can think of several tuners who do a wonderful concert tuning -  
> and wouldn't last a week in a University environment. Different  
> kind of chops. But that's neither here nor there...

No, Israel, that is exactly what is here and there.

>
> But then, folks, let me see if I can get this straight. After  
> having mocked those faculty search committees for their penchant  
> for demanding concert tuning from their applicants, we are now  
> going to duplicate what they do? Are we perhaps thinking that once  
> they see the CAUT credential they will just dispense with their  
> concert tuning and take our word for it? Dream on... So now we are  
> going to use up lots of PTG resources, manpower, time and effort -  
> to duplicate what already is being done and will continue to be  
> done by the hiring institutions themselves? Something just doesn't  
> add up here, for me.

Doesn't work for me either.  I'm not seeing how there will be a  
benefit to the process.

>
> If I want to know that someone has a certain array of skills, I  
> would want to see them demonstrate those skills directly. And,  
> believe me, there are plenty ways to do that - objectively and  
> reliably.
>
>


On Oct 23, 2007, at 10:00 AM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote:

> I think we have to be careful when we evaluate "people."  There's a  
> dark side to any evaluative process, and it's something that needs  
> to be figured into any testing or curriculum development.  That  
> dark side is making judgments without taking into account the  
> subjective side of the person or persons making the judgments.  I  
> think there's a tendency to ratchet up expectations to higher and  
> higher levels, not to raise standards but to somehow prove no one  
> is really worthy of the high standards that I/we believe are the  
> "real" standards.  We've all seen this in many emails that deal  
> with RPT standards.  So I raise this issue with the hope that it  
> will be taken as constructive criticism.  Food for thought, as it  
> were.  Or just a friendly reminder with the hope to be reassured  
> that, yes, we're on the same page on this.
>
> The fact is there will always be people who do not live up to  
> standards.  Our problem, then, is not to be overly judgmental, but  
> assume the best in people and build a program that is based on the  
> belief that if "we build it, they will come."  We need to try to  
> find ways to not only encourage people to get better, but to  
> somehow open their eyes.  I remember when I was first out of school  
> I went to some PTG tuning classes and thought the teachers were  
> using too many checks and were obsessing with minutia that really  
> didn't make much difference in getting a decent tuning.  I was  
> deluding myself that a decent tuning didn't require more than what  
> I was doing at the time.  After all, I had just graduated from a  
> real tuning school (Western Iowa Tech).  I knew better.
>
> How do we get people to see the light without either appearing to  
> be or actually being too obsessive?  I don't know how big a problem  
> this is in PTG, but I have a feeling that it is behind much of our  
> failure to reach Associates and get them to upgrade.

Richard, you have written some very good posts full of lots of  
wisdom.  This and your first post are on the money.


Jeff Tanner, RPT
University of South Carolina



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071024/062d86d5/attachment-0001.html