ANST - Big fish/small ponds, classes, and disgusted newcomers

[Casey&Coni]

Kihe Blackeagle wrote one of the most lucid and pertinent responses I've
seen on the net to date...

He did scan me incorrectly at a few junctures, however... to wit:

>Dieterich, I must take some exception to this concept -- at least in part
because of setting the "expert" measure as being a Peer of the SCA.  Datum:
"once a Peer, [almost] always a peer" -- we've still got a lot of  SCA-Peer
folk out there who have so often given the appearance of being at research /
ability / personality / interaction levels that have so soured "mundane"
authorities in a field from taking any SCA member at less than face-value.
>

While I agree with much of the sentiment here, I must say that with a
safeguard of three of them in one place reviewing the material there is
little or no chance that you will get all three with no academic acuity.
You don't have to *be* a teacher to know good teaching when you see it and
since undeniably these people's duty in the sca is to judge just that in
another forum, I think it follows that it would be valid here as well.  I am
not asking peers to be the "expert" measure; rather, I am simply asking them
to be competent judges of quality and instructional ability.  I don't need
to be a first chair violinist at the Met to tell if a person is competent
with a violin... the truth will out when they lay down their list of
credentials and instructors and walk me through one of the highlights of A
Midsummer Night's Dream.

You continue:

>(We also have far too many Peer-wannabee types who have set themselves up
as local "authorities" on the basis of titles and proven their incompetence
by opening their mouths.  I pray that I do not appear as one of these, and
that I will never descend to such a level.)
>

You have struck on the nerve that got me going on this rant in the first
place.  You have nothing in common with the folk you speak of, sir.  Of
course, we're debating issues which are not marshal in nature, so am I
really qualified to judge? ;P


>Datum:  this vetting procedure really does not encourage research into
"fringe" matters, or topics which may have distinctly (sometimes vehemently)
differing opinions / fact-sets, or classes which are really outlines for
participatory discussion.
>

If the judges duty were simply to insure preparedness, valid research, and a
semblance of 'teacher fu', I don't see how this is so.  I don't need to
*agree* that your research on full-welted soles is an accurate depiction of
pre-16th c. footwear; if you have the documentation to shore up your
opinion, the skills to reproduce it, and the requisite educational ability
to get your method accross to others, so be it.  Round table discussions
will still be round table discussions and fuel themselves without need for
quality control.

You go on:

>Datum: this *really* wouldn't work for newcomer's forums in smaller or more
remote groups (hey, yeah, may be a quibble, but...) Datum: what would this
approach imply for "guest lecturers" drawn from academia or professional
life? (Academics are, well, academic -- how about farriers, costumers,
blacksmiths, artists, mechanics, bookbinders, etc.?)
>

Okay, here is where my method admittedly breaks down.  Concerning
professionals, I think either an exemption clause or an annotated remark in
the course listing is in order. (*class will be presented by Dr. Henry
Snockbottom, noted archeological expert on ear spoons in Byzantium and
curator of the Hagia Sophia Ear Spoon Honorarium Collection).

As for the small groups... maybe another similar listing in the course book:
1. != fully checked out class; given before and passed 'official' stamping
process.
2. @=class given before but not yet had the super duper stamp of spiffiness.
3. ?=class being given for the first time and not yet checked out for
spiffability.

A system for ease of the students, that's what I'm after.

You spoke of a terrible class you recieved from someone who was later
elevated... and what I'm suggesting here is that even our own peers seek to
validate their classes to avoid this; perhaps even twice the requirements of
a non-peer (and none from your own area!) to avoid any back-patting ideas.
Will it work?  I dunno, what do you think?

Any of you laurel teacher-fu types out there wanna comment on this?  You've
been surprisingly quiet and I fear a lynch party is gathering for me...


signed,

ummm... Hanse Schneider



============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.