<html 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="PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Hi Rick,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You're right. Allow me to retract the words "whole original idea" from my statement below and replace them with "primary motivation". All you say below is true though I wouldn't classify salary enhancement as merely a by-product. I believe the goals of improving service and compensation go hand in hand but there are many, many technicians out there already providing excellent service who are grossly underpaid for their skill level compared to the private sector. It is very difficult to “insist” on appropriate compensation in a State system. It takes a large amount of leverage to get any thing to change... a certification could well help in many circumstances.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> When I recently was able to get myself re-classified (promoted) here, the questions on the "position description questionnaire (PDQ)" I had to fill out all related to how my job had changed enough to require a re-classification. I had to convince them that my job hadn't changed and that I’d been performing duties that corresponded to the higher classification all along. They had to create the position in which to promote me because it didn’t exist before. Every little step towards getting institutions to recognize what we do is important not only to ourselves but also to others whose positions could well be compared to ours in equity investigations.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Eric<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Eric Wolfley, RPT <o:p></o:p> Director of Piano Services <o:p></o:p> Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music <o:p></o:p> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Cincinnati</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Richard Brekne Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:37 AM To: caut@ptg.org Subject: [CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program? <o:p> </o:p> Is this really the only goal here ?  Or even the primary goal ?  I would <o:p></o:p> think at best it should be seen as a by-product end result type of <o:p></o:p> goal.  The main thrust of any CAUT credential in my humble opinion <o:p></o:p> should be to increase the awareness of what a school should really <o:p></o:p> require from a technician. What it really requires in terms of <o:p></o:p> capabilities to reasonably maintain and run a piano technology <o:p></o:p> department, and what the benefits for doing so well are.  Any <o:p></o:p> administrator who understands whats involved here will understand <o:p></o:p> quickly we are talking about a fairly high value person, and understand <o:p></o:p> that such folks will insist upon appropriate compensation for their <o:p></o:p> efforts. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> THAT is PRECISELY why any such credential needs to be demanding enough <o:p></o:p> reflect a broad based and high level of experience. If it does not <o:p></o:p> reflect a person who is <<in demand>> by the very nature of aquired <o:p></o:p> skills and experience... it will be of marginal worth at best and <o:p></o:p> counterproductive at worst. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It needs to function in the minds of school administrators as a mark of <o:p></o:p> quality.  Something they can use not only to take care of their <o:p></o:p> instrument needs... but to hold up to the world around as a mark of <o:p></o:p> their own dedication to quality. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p> RicB<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>     The whole original idea behind the CAUT credential was to push salary<o:p></o:p>     levels up. The question was (and is) how do we get institutions to value<o:p></o:p>     the skill level needed to adequately perform the duties expected. This<o:p></o:p>     won't necessarily be for entry-level positions, though if you can push<o:p></o:p>     the salaries higher for the senior techs it should help the entry-level<o:p></o:p>     salaries as well. Most job postings still seem to cling to the "3-5<o:p></o:p>     years experience in the field" requirement no matter how demanding the<o:p></o:p>     job may be.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>      <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>     Eric<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>