I confess to being mystified that I hear so little about ASE certifications. My son is a mechanic, currently working on county buses, and he's just recertified in many areas. He also plans to add one or two based on his current work. It means $$ to him. This skillset testing seems so closely parallel to the piano service industry it amazes me that we aren't headed in that direction. Mind you, the tests are hard enough that one either has to be actively working on the subjects being tested, or actively studying them. The certifications also expire. I think I must have been not paying attention when the Guild decided to avoid this?? Doug On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Peter wrote: > What she said..... > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Dorrie Bell <dabell58 at earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Following up on Diane's point: >> >> There are actually a couple of models for professional "certification," >> neither of which is followed by PTG/RPT. >> >> One, which does involve the government, is the licensed professional. Like >> Diane, I have to document 15 hours of study every two years to keep my R.N. >> license active. (This is a public safety issue so it involves the >> government.) >> >> The second, which is not governmental, is the academic degree. I have a >> Ph.D., but no one would ever think of hiring me in that scientific field >> without finding out when I got the thing. Ph.D.(1987) gives a really clear >> picture: the candidate demonstrated excellence in problem-solving 23 years >> ago. So maybe she is capable and knowledgeable still, but maybe not. (This >> question is not a public safety issue and there is no need for regulation >> outside of the professional area.) >> >> It startled me when I first joined the PTG 10 years ago that there is great >> insistence on getting and having the RPT status but no insistence at all on >> either required continuing education or statement of date RPT was earned >> (the latter being especially important because not only to people and >> abilities change over the years, the tests themselves have changed over the >> years, so the "qualifications" of any individual are very unclear). >> >> So if I were hiring for a university, I would not use the RPT as a sorting >> criterion. And, given the ambiguity of its meaning, I would probably use >> the presence of the RPT as an indication that the candidate was involved in >> his professional association (works and plays well with others) rather than >> a clear indication of technical skill level. >> >> I know, I know -- requiring recertification or continuing ed or mandatory >> dating of RPT would be a horrendous political mess. But think about it -- >> does our present system serve the public the way that we say it does? Or >> does it serve our egos? >> >> Best wishes from an associate member, with therefore no standing in this >> discussion at all -- >> Dorrie Bell >> Boston, MA >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Diane Hofstetter <dianepianotuner at msn.com> >>> Sent: Jul 24, 2010 4:39 PM >>> To: Ed Sutton <ed440 at mindspring.com>, College and University Technicians >>> <caut at ptg.org> >>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Workload; was Position announcement >>> >>> >>> Something I've learned since becoming a licensed hearing instrument >>> speciaist, is that, to keep my license, I am required to obtain at least >>> 15 continuing education units per year. This is beneficial to everybody >>> concerned. >>> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC