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

[Russell Kinder]

To all who are concerned with the idea of somehow "accrediting" teachers in
the SCA.

To begin with, I find the whole idea vastly offensive. Just what exactly is
the coin we're paying these people that they should have to submit to such
scrutiny? What exactly are the students paying that they have a right to
expect professional quality instructors at every turn. If the student at a
collegium finds the instructor boring or incompetent, they are free to leave
at any moment. And what would the criteria for judging a potential instructor
be? What would you say to an instructor you were rejecting?

My second point would be, I have never, ever seen this to be a problem
anywhere that I've been in the SCA. If someone cares enough about a topic to
teach a class, they at least know something about it. Even if it's just "See
this cool thing I made? I'll teach you how to make it, too." Even if the
instructor is wrong, we have all learned from the ensuing discourse, and from
the sources cited. So, it sounds like you're willing to offend teachers, who
are kind of hard to come by sometimes, to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Some people aren't good teachers. They are vastly outnumbered by the good
ones, and almost all of us are smart enough to figure out who is who. I just
don't see a need to offend people willing to give of their time and skills
because you once took a badly taught class at an event. And exactly how much
did that class cost you? This is just a hobby done for fun, folks. Let's not
take ourselves so seriously.

Lord Guillaume de Troyes
Mooneschadowe Seneschal
------------------------

Casey&Coni wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >±
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.