<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> One problem I see in all this is that at all levels the requirements are different and it renders the classification somewhat meaningless—certainly for those of us on the inside.  There are RPTs who took the tests some years ago and haven’t worked on a piano for ages, preferring now to spend their time as dealers.  There are others who only do simple house call type work and then there are those who can build you a piano out of a pile of lumber and some scrap iron.  There are those who manage rebuilding shops with many employees, inventories, buy and sell and do concert work and there are those who do nothing more than dealer service calls.  Similarly, there are CAUT’s who manage all levels of inventory, rebuilding, purchasing and employees and others who simply do simple service work on demand.  Unless you differentiate by some sort of subcategorizing method, adding various subtests like boy scout merit badges, a separate CAUT classification would be no more helpful in defining someone’s skills than the RPT classification.  I don’t see that happening nor do I think it would be an easy thing to administer.  <div> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com </div> -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Kent Swafford Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:47 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?     <div> <div> On Nov 1, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Jim Busby wrote: </div> <span style='orphans: 2;text-align:auto;widows: 2;-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0;word-spacing:0px'>This one sentence is what I want to comment on “If an RPT/ CAUT is to be something "more desireable" than an RPT status, then different standards should be established”.  I don’t see the CAUT credential as something “more desirable” or higher, better than, etc. It seems to me like it’s just “different”, or “in addition to” RPT. My understanding of a “CAUT Credential” is that it will help CAUTs focus on things that non CAUTs may not need. </div>   <div> Sounds like a "specialty" to me. CAUTs are "specialists", aren't they? </div> <div>   </div> <div>   </div> <div> Kent </div> <div>   </div> </div> </body> </html>