<HTML>In a message dated 4/29/02 9:44:48 AM Central Daylight Time, fssturm@unm.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Personally, I prefer to build on the efforts of those who went before me. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico </BLOCKQUOTE> I appreciate your sentiments, Fred. They are admirable. But what makes them so valuable? Just because our "forefathers" came up with a formula, doesn't necessarily make them right. I am not saying they are wrong. But if we are going to pursue this matter to the fullest, we should look at every possible way of measuring a work load. I am sure when, whomever came up with the formula, got started, there were many mistakes, recalculations, etc. That is what I am doing with mine. I came up with something, and have revised it three times, to reflect problem others pointed out. I am not even sure if my latest version is the final one. But I think it needs careful consideration before it is dismissed.  As I said, I think the CAUT formula is confusing. You have already found one flaw in it. But I think the whole concept is working backwards. It starts with what is considered a workload, and then tries to justify it with different formulas. That, I think, is a flawed way of getting the results we are looking for. Mind you, I am not discounting your work, nor the work done by your predecessors. If it wasn't for the time and effort you and the others have put into this project, we wouldn't even be here to begin with. But just because you've worked on it for a long time, doesn't necessarily make it right. I just want you to be open minded enough to look at what I've put together, and consider the possibility that it might be better. Wim </HTML>