<HTML>In a message dated 6/27/03 10:28:59 AM Central Dayligh= t Time, Cramer@BrandonU.CA writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Meanwhile, I would like to prov= oke my valued CAUT colleagues to do everything possible to entrench the credentials of RPT in your institutions,= to register endorsement of the new guidelines "yesterday or sooner" and to<B= R> prevail upon all your colleagues to do the same. </BLOCKQUOTE> While I am a great believer and supporter of the PTG, I am not sure if a sch= ool can require someone to the a member of the PTG, much less be an RPT. Yes= , the being an RPT will show on paper that a tuner has the basic skills to b= e a piano tuner, there are many technicians out there that have the skills o= f an RPT, but have  for one reason or aother decided not to be a member= of the PTG. The following might be outside the scope of this forum, but instead of urgin= g schools to hire just RPT members of the PTG, should the PTG consider allow= ing non members to take the exam? (Charge three or four time the fee). Wim </HTML>