<HTML>The CAUT Committee did a very cursory survey of NASM institutions while working on the Guidelines document.  (There were some 1400 music departments at the time, although I'm not sure if that many were NASM members.)  Knowing that administrators are besieged with requests to answer surveys, we kept it very short and easy.  Primarily we were trying to identify the technicians so that we could follow up and ask the techs the real questions.  Predictably, the response was not very satisfying: not many questionnaires returned, not much information gained. There should be an ongoing effort to obtain and maintain this information since it is important for communication, and for enhancing the credibility of any resulting recommendations.  However, if past experience is any indicator, we may find that it is difficult to identify our 'hidden' colleagues.            -     Tom McNeil     - Vermont Piano Restorations "All men are equal before fish."   -   Pres. Herbert Hoover In a message dated 3/15/01 6:30:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, Bdshull@aol.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">There are several ways of gathering data, each useful.  1.  The annual PTG membership information sheet could include a supplemental sheet for CAUTs making surveying possible (and including some tabulatable data with the suppl. sheet);  2.  the aforementioned collection of schools on the 'net could be surveyed;  3.  Official lists could be reasonably bought and used for surveys:  the actual NAMM and College Music Society school lists could be surveyed.   In these different ways of gathering data, two types of data are considered :  1.  actual databases of technicians/schools of music/piano service programs, and 2.  statistical/survey data taken from samplings of lists. </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>