[CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?

[Fred S Sturm]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:40:15 -0800
  Alan McCoy <amccoy at mail.ewu.edu> wrote:
> I haven't been following this thread closely at all, 
>except to see that it has generated a lot of heat and comment.
> 
>FWIW, I think the best, though certainly not the cheapest 
>nor the most practical, way to measure or evaluate a CAUT for a 
>credential is an on-site "inspection" like a NASM visit. What better way to 
>evaluate someone than to see, feel and hear their body of work? And to see the 
>context within which they work - the budget, the number and quality of 
>instruments, the tools and workspace, the details of the contract or employment 
>they work under.
> 
> Neither testing nor class attendance come close as evaluative tools.
> 
> My 2c worth.
> 
> Alan
> 

     I like the concept, but there are at least two major 
problems:
1) Cost. You would need to send at least two people on 
site, I would think. Much of the time this means round 
trip airfare and per diem. I'd guess that $500 would be a 
very conservative estimate of direct costs, assuming the 
evaluators were donating their time. Who would pay that 
much?
2) Only works for a caut currently employed as such, and 
is limited to the conditions at the institution.
a) It makes more sense to have a credential someone 
entering the field could get. Or somebody with caut 
experience, but currently un-cautified.
b) The conditions can easily be so bad that no evaluation 
is possible. I know my first 11 years were that way. 
Average of 5-6 hours per piano per year. All I did or 
could do was tune (not nearly enough) and "fix what was 
broke."

Then there is the minor problem of coming up with a way of 
quantifying, of making an "objective" decision. I think 
this concept is a good one, but more from the point of 
view of evaluating a program than evaluating the chops of 
an individual.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico