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

[Mike C. Baker]

> From: Casey&Coni <weed at sage.net>
> Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 1:29 AM
> Regarding potential paperwork where screening classes is
concerned, this
> thought crossed my mind:
> 
> Rather than have some complicated system where we essentially
create another
> office (the instructor general) how about simply posting a
standard whereby
> anyone who intends to give a class is required to give it to at
least
> three(or another arbitrary number... no more than 5) peers- the
variety
> pertaining to the subject matter: laurels for arts classes,
pelicans for
> service issue classes, and knights for fighting issues.

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. (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.)

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.

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.?)

Personal Datum: one of the least interesting / most
chaotically-presented
SCA classes I ever endured was presented by an individual who was
created 
a Laurel less than six months later. You would make such an
individual 
a judge of other courses merely by virtue of awarded rank?
(Not everyone is a teacher. Every Laurel / Knight / Pelican is
expected to 
teach or at least support the future candidates, though. No, I
don't have 
a solution to this point.)

Personal Datum: I've taught or lead sessions on several subjects of

interest throughout my participation in the SCA. I believe I have
done 
relatively well throughout. I don't particularly look for the
accolade of 
other teachers or the Peers, however. I most desire to see the
response 
and hear the feedback from those who came to my presentation in 
order to learn. Or, at the least, hear another viewpoint /
developing 
material / additional research in an area of interest to *them*.

I've not been turned down any time I offered to lead an SCA class,
and 
have been invited to return.  In a non-SCA related venue, but
drawing upon 
material developed for Collegium Gradium here in Steppes, I was
even 
called upon to repeat my material for a second class.  I will leave
it to 
those who have seen me actually teaching / leading discussion as to

how well I performed in that and more informal settings.

Opinion: yes, for formal settings such as King's College, it would
help to 
have evaluated courses and evaluated course presenters -- but we
are 
still very much a voluntary organization. 

Conclusion I: Maybe there is a venue which calls for some form of
advance 
review of classes. Informal sessions conducted as an adjunct of
other 
events may not be the best example for an Ansteorran model,
Academies
and King's College could be encouraged to grow in this direction.
However, review of the printed outline / paper is insufficient to
properly 
vette presentations in advance.  

Observation: the level of classes typically improves when Peers or
other 
recognized "authorities" make the time to attend them (or are
permitted 
to escape from their other duties and find a place to sit for a
spell <gryn>).
Especially and particularly if they allow themselves to participate
fully in 
the discussion: I've seen more than a few situations where one or
more
Peers did not speak up during the Q&A or other discussion even when

their input would have significantly improved the quality of
information being
presented -- when approached later, one statement I received was
(and this
is liberal paraphrasing) "didn't want to make the [person] look
foolish". 

Conclusion II: I don't have a better solution which would maintain
or improve 
the quality of courses presented in all SCA venues.  I'll continue
to do my 
part by putting energy into research and performance, not always
with 
the two intersecting perfectly. I'll take my lumps and the
expressions of
gratitude equally as they come, and gladly receive criticism.
(Helps when 
it is _constructive_, of course!)

Mike C. Baker
SCA: (al-Sayyid) Amr ibn Majid al-Bakri al-Amra (Steppes,
Ansteorra)
"Other": Kihe Blackeagle (the Dreamsinger Bard)
My opinions are my own -- who else would want them?
e-mail: kihe at ticnet.com OR kihe at rocketmail.com


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