PTG exams (was:Tuning in 1895)

[Israel Stein]

> From: TrptPlayer@aol.com

> Fred,  et al.
> How many of the current RPT's could pass the tests today?
> Until there is equity in the title RPT, I will continue to "boycott" the R
> exam.
> The exams are very well designed, and certainly can be a judge of a
> technicians ability.
>
> How about a classification of:    Registered Piano Technician  and
>  Registered Piano Technician ( Grandfathered in, and not tested recently)
>
> Tom Thompson,  Associate Member  PTG,  MPT

Tom,

Sorry, but I must classify your "boycott" as a copout. If you truly believe
that "grandfathered" RPT's should be retested, the only way to get this to
happen is to pass your tests, get a full PTG franchise and push for it from
within the organization. Hell, if you just stand on the sidelines and
complain, you'll be a grandfather yourself before your condition for taking
the exams even becomes feasible.

Of course your condition is practically impossible, if only for the fact
that there simply aren't enough examiners (qualified under whichever test)
to retest every "grandfathered" RPT - even if they would agree to be
retested. Hey, in six years as chair of my chapter's (Boston) technical
testing I barely managed to  bribe, cajole, blackmail or otherwise co-opt
barely enough examiners to test the associates wanting to be tested - never
mind retesting  superannuated RPT's.

So here's my challenge to you and others like you, buddy:

Pass your tests, become examiners and start pushing for what you believe is
right. If enough of you do this over the next ten years or so, retesting
"granfathered" RPT's might become feasible. (Whether it's advisable is a
different issue that I'm not too sure about).


Israel Stein

P.S.

I suppose if "grandfathered" RPT's in your scheme are supposed to acquiesce
to a change of title spelling out their "Not Tested Recently" status, I
suppose Associates should then have no problem with being called "Untested
Members" or "Unqualified Members", eh?