My point is that these schools are more of the exception than the rule.
Dude, quality anything
is the exception rather than the rule, and finding quality is the buyer's responsibility. Why would aikido be any different?
When someone goes to buy a new car, they do research, they kick the tires and test drive and figure out what this car does well, they figure if they like the people they're buying it from and who will service it. If they don't do those things and they buy a car that's a lemon -- or that's a perfectly good car, just not right for what they want to do with it -- then we may say, "Gee, that's too bad," but we also think that they should have done more than they did by way of due diligence. Or, if they buy a perfectly good car that they love, but then their needs and wants change -- say they bought a sports car, but then they get married and have six kids -- we understand that that's what happens when your life changes. We don't blame the car for not being what they really
want or for not changing into a station wagon if that's what they need now.
So why, when someone is considering martial arts, do we expect everything to be of awesome quality, and get all outraged when it isn't? When people leave their common sense in their Sunday pajamas, why are we surprised when things don't work out perfectly for them? Why do we indulge this notion that things in martial arts ought to be perfect? Above all, why -- when someone buys a "lemon", or lets wishful thinking get them to sign up for a martial art that isn't going to get them what they want, or goes through some changes and no longer wants what they used to -- do we say that aikido's at fault?
If you want quality, whether it's a steak, a car, or a martial art, you have to be willing to acquire some extra clue, do some extra work, and pay a higher price. That seems so braindead obvious that I'd think we could stop being astonished at the fact, but I guess not.