<HTML>Which brings me to the point I have been trying to mak= e for years. If the piano technology industry really wants to get serious about increasin= g the amt. of Associates upgrading to RPT status they need to implement the = following: l. The PTG would be point themselves in a much better direction if they cons= ider having a paid staff of CTEs  (say a yr. part time job assignment) = who would do nothing but give exams from state to state. You would have more= CTEs who would justify the amount of time needed, plus the examiners would = become more efficient at maximizing their time. If they would have a rotational staff of 12 who agree to make themselves ava= ilable for so many dates and locations, a systematic approach to offering th= e exam could begin taking place. CTEs would justify their time because it wo= uldn't interfere (as much) within their earning power. 2. Put a time limit on the grace period one could remain as an associate, sa= y 3 yrs. After that point put up - or shut up. 3. Raise the exam fees to respectable levels associated with a professional = certification.  Let the fee reflect the importance of the upgrade. Obviously this would never fly as their would be a drastic drop in membershi= p and the Guild would probably end up shooting themselves in the foot. = The Guild is far too fragile to make such a leap. But if there were to be a= drastic revamping of the current system, that would be my call. Point being, I think in the long run, you would have dictated a new order of= progressing up through the ranks. Then RPT status would have some clout beh= ind because it would be one the hurdles many would HAVE to go through. There are many ways to shoot holes this plan, but if you the industry is rea= dy to get serious, this is one of the possibilities they'll have to consider= . Tom Servinsky, RPT</HTML>