<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space;-khtml-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> Eric,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It’s much more (as you know). Off the top of my head;<o:p></o:p> <ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Increase our salaries by showing the institution they’re getting value<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Help us reach higher standards and keep us at the top of our game<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Set standards that are pretty much non existent<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Justify sending us to conventions (:-)<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Keep us on the “cutting edge” by continued education<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Give us an “edge” over non credentialed competition in job searches<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Encourage other techs to reach out to it (if it becomes desirable<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Promote world peace…<o:p></o:p></li> </ol> <o:p> </o:p> Now back to the lacqwuerr.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Jim Busby BYU<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Wolfley, Eric (wolfleel) Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:45 PM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> The whole original idea behind the CAUT credential was to push salary levels up. The question was (and is) how do we get institutions to value the skill level needed to adequately perform the duties expected. This won’t necessarily be for entry-level positions, though if you can push the salaries higher for the senior techs it should help the entry-level salaries as well. Most job postings still seem to cling to the “3-5 years experience in the field” requirement no matter how demanding the job may be.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Eric<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Eric Wolfley, RPT  Director of Piano Services  Cincinnati College-Conservatory of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Music</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Cincinnati</st1:City></st1:place> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div style='margin-left:.5in'> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 4:14 PM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> On Nov 5, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Jim Busby wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Hi Jeff,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I was mainly talking about RPT needing a time/experience requirement.<o:p></o:p> <div> You're right.  I see that now.  Sorry bout that.  The hot air was in my head this time.<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite> You’re right about the supply/demand though. You get the best you can get… That being said even our elusive “CAUT Credential” should have some kind of time requirement IMO. I can’t see some green tech getting the credential with only one year in the business. But today I’m just blowing hot air. Pay me no mind…<o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <div> I agree with that 100% as long as it would push salaries up.  If we're not going to somehow push to drive the salaries up with this "credential", then I think schools ought to get green techs for entry level money.  This endorsement should work both ways, not just for the school's advantage.<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Jeff<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> Jeff Tanner, RPT<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">South Carolina</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>