[CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?

[Richard Brekne]

I have to on the whole totally disagree with the below. Mainly because 
it misses the point entirely.  Just as with any form of education... the 
education itself does not guarantee a better result.  It does however 
relieve the individual of any excuse for not achieving. Secondly, a 
<<mechanic>> well versed in the operating performance and parameters of 
the product he/she is working on is clearly better equipped to quickly 
and efficiently relate to the end user then the mechanic who simply 
speaks a completely different language.  Most certainly if your job in 
the pit crew is to just change the tires... then you dont need to have a 
clue. But if you are the chief technician responsible for making that 
Formula 1 car perform at peak maximum level for the driver... then you'd 
damned well better be able to relate to the driver on his terms as best 
as possible... and being able to drive reasonably well yourself most 
certainly fits in that picture very well.

Bureaucratic nonsense abounds one way or the other and none of this will 
change that or have any impact on it one way or the other.  If there is 
a logic error here, I would submit is in the assumption that any test or 
credential is tied to any form of guarantee of quality.  It is simply 
one of several evaluation tools that both the possessor and those who 
wish to know something about who they hire for a job can use.  Used 
correctly it has significant value.  Anything can be misused... that in 
itself is not a reason to reject something.  They tried that in the days 
of prohibition I believe :)

Cheers
RicB


    When people assume I must play if I tune, I tell them I'm a
    mechanic, not a performer, and the guy in the pits isn't the
    one driving the race, but we in the pits make the race
    possible. And yes, I see and classify myself as a mechanic
    with no more exotic or self-aggrandizing a description. The
    techs with the degree, or even "just" those who play, largely
    insist that a tech can't be effective unless he's them,
    essentially. Meanwhile, the techs who don't play and aren't
    possessed of the academic and pianistic performance
    credentials and capabilities generally fail to see how they're
    sub-standard as a technician because of it. As I've pointed
    out in probably altogether too many other instances, anything
    this ostensibly critical ought to be obvious in practice. In
    other words, those who have music degrees, or those who play,
    should be producing piano work that is clearly if not vastly
    superior to those who haven't, and/or don't. If they aren't,
    detectably, (your call) it strikes me as a non-issue anywhere
    beyond the realm of academic pretense/prejudice and into
    objective real world performance requirements. We are what we
    can or can't do, whether the bureaucratic mind can grasp it or
    not. This is just another echo of the age old logic error
    implying that if there are high function individuals in an
    organization, then everyone in the organization is high
    function by association. It's ok to be good at something. I
    think it's essential that we aspire to just that to whatever
    degree we're able, but it's a personal worth thing, rather
    than a membership association thing.

    I've considered lobbying for an Agnostic PTG classification,
    but I expect it'd be in committee for a very long time without
    ever getting to the testing criteria. Too bad. It could make a
    cool T shirt.
    Ron N