Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)

[Avery Todd]

Carl,

And there are no other classes from which you could learn? Just curious.

Avery

At 01:33 PM 07/19/02 -0700, you wrote:
>So, Ed, For every "RPT only" class taught I should as an associate get a 
>ten dollar reduction on my registration fee.
>Agreed?
>
>Carl Meyer  Assoc. PTG
>Santa Clara, California
>cmpiano@attbi.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <A440A@AOL.COM>
>To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 11:40 AM
>Subject: Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)
>
>
> > Del writes:
> > >Personally, I would like to see our conventions change some and focus more
> > >directly on those who are a bit more experienced- .
> >
> >    I agree.
> >
> > >This is the direction our organization has decided our conventions should
> > >take and as long as that is the case we're pretty much stuck with the way
> > >things are.
> >
> >    I see a circular logic there, and would hope that "we" aren't "stuck"
> > unless we want to be.  Changes come in pairs, so a task is waiting for 
> those
> > that want a different style of convention, (see below)
> >
> > >There is a strong motivation for leaving things relatively
> > >alone--the status quo does work for quite a few people.
> >
> > Ain't that the truth!  However, improvement requires change, so the status
> > quo is actually regressive, and that is something that is worth looking 
> at.
> >
> > > Changes are always uncertain.
> >
> >   yes, thank goodness.
> >
> > >And we know from experience that there will be enough folks
> > >willing to devote substantial portions of their time and energy throughout
> > >the year to provide a reasonably high level of technical content even if
> > >they are not compensated appropriately.
> >
> >   Agreed, but with a question.  Are the conventions as valuable as 
> possible?
> > I personally know of two instructors that presented work-changing classes
> > (for me), that no longer teach because of the cost.  There are probably
> > others, as well.  What quality are we missing because of this?
> >     There are also more than a few teachers at the convention that 
> teach how
> > to use their products, which is well and good, since they can profit in 
> more
> > ways than Guild compensation.  However,  what about those instructors 
> who can
> > bring knowledge that is of great benifit to the members but have 
> nothing to
> > sell?
> >     Without some tangible suggestions, not much will happen, so here is 
> mine:
> >  Since it is impossible to teach a topic at a level the beginner will 
> grasp
> > without boring the experienced veteran, there should be some classes
> > restricted to "RPT-only".   This will allow an instructor to target their
> > audience.  I think a higher quality of presentation could be had .  It 
> will
> > also provide some impetus to the associates to upgrade their status.
> > Possibly there could be associate versions of these same classes, 
> taught by
> > the same instructor but aimed at the tech with less background.
> >       I know that there are ratings in place to describe the classes, but
> > that doesn't stop the newbie from asking elementary questions in what is
> > supposed to be an advanced class, thus dragging the whole room 
> backwards.  A
> > class that is more equal ,(what a political word for me to use...) 
> allows the
> > instructor to go deeper into the specific area, without needing to give 
> all
> > that background.  A class on voicing the hammer that I attended several 
> years
> > ago comes to mind. This was a 90 minute class.  The first 50 minutes of 
> the
> > period was spent on filing hammers and leveling strings!!!  The next 30
> > minutes was spent on the regulation required,  then there was 10 minutes
> > spent on altering the hammer to alter the tone.  Beginners grasped the 
> first
> > half while the veterans slept, then they were lost in the last half 
> while the
> > veterans debated the various ways to regulate. <sigh>
> >
> >      Maybe it could be that we would allow the associates to "audit" the
> > course, but only the RPT's could take part in the discussion in these
> > restricted classes.  Yes, it will mean denying somebody's wishes, but 
> without
> > some kind of discipline, there is no way to focus the class.
> >     Teaching is a specific skill in its own right,  just because 
> someone has
> > done a beautiful job of rebuilding for 40 years doesn't mean that they can
> > transfer that knowledge to another, and having classes of mixed abilities
> > just makes the job that much harder.  I think it would be easier to 
> organize
> > the classes than it would be to train technicians to be teachers.
> > Regards,
> > Ed Foote RPT
> > (no, I got no flame suit,  I just sit there and smoke).