Categories - Paying examiners/Assoc. declassification

[Jim Busby]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Jon,
=20
Adding to that, if Jim Colman, Al Sanderson and Virgil smith (or the
likes) were on a committee to examine someone's tuning for
re-certification (Yes that's what I called it) how long do you think it
would take them to see if you pass? 5 minutes? Less? I agree with the
idea of re-certifying, and don't think it has to take 5 hours. A
"shortened" exam wouldn't be difficult. Those who didn't pass could have
the option of taking the full blown test.=20
=20
Jim Busby
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Jon Page
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 5:25 AM
To: caut-ptg.org
Subject: Categories - Paying examiners/Assoc. declassification
=20
caut:
><snip>$300 for credentials (if they really are
credentials) is not that high.
<snip> but if this is your profession it's not that much.=20
Dave
p-tech>
>Rgulation is not one of my strong areas.
Regards,
, RPT
=20
It damn well better be if one sports the 'qualification' of
"technician"!
=20
For it to be a true professional qualification one would need periodic
re-examination
to prove tuning/technical ability. Electricians and plumbers have to
re-license.
Granted there are not the same safety issues but still qualifying one's
ability
to tune and regulate is important for credibility.
=20
It seems by many statements I heard that the bar for RPT is too low.
=20
If retested, how many RPT's would not requalify or even want to pay to
have this
bonified certification.
=20
Jon Page

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/23/ff/6a/cb/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--