View Single Post
Old 10-27-2010, 01:49 PM   #55
Basia Halliop
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 711
Re: Is two Days a week enough?

I agree with so much of what you're saying... and love the idea of making higher rank promotions based on student progress -- clever -- but I'm still stuck on that days per week thing. If the testing standards were solid and designed as you propose, then don't people who don't train many days a week just take many many many years to reach any kind of ability or rank? If standards are high and not everyone can reach high levels, then there's not really much danger of someone who's 'not really trying to get excellent' becoming higher ranked than they've really earned, or ending up at the head of an organization. They will just reach whatever rank they earn in the time they have. Someone who trains 2 days a week for ten years has trained a lot more hours than any 4th or 3rd kyu and probably has better skills -- if you want ranks to be transparent and linked to ability, then to me it doesn't make sense to deny whatever rank they've genuinely earned to the 2 times a week for 10 years student...

I.e., I'm not convinced that the mere existence of 'hobbyists' threatens the quality of the higher levels or threatens the future of the art. If there aren't a certain number of people training very intensely and getting to a very high quality (note I didn't say a certain percentage -- 1 'future master' and 10 'hobbyists' vs 1 'future master' and 1 'hobbyist' is still 1 future master - you haven't gained any masters by getting rid of those hobbyists), THAT is a problem, but you don't create professionals by removing hobbyists or putting external pressure on them to train more than they're really interested in -- you create professionals by creating professionals.

E.g. in the analogy to music (or hockey or golf would work), most people who study piano a few hours a week will never go on to become professional concert pianists or teachers of other professionals. Does that mean we should try to discourage people who are interested from studying piano for a few hours a week, and say if you aren't interested in making it a career, go away, you insult us by pretending to be interested in music? NO! Every art, every sport, almost any skill has a range of hobbyists to serious amateurs to masters. They aren't somehow inversely related - an increase in hobbyists doesn't cause there to be less masters (usually if there's any relationship at all it's the other way around -- e.g. countries where a sport is a widespread popular hobby are more often than average the same ones that win olympics). If there's a problem with not having enough 'future masters' then deal with that problem directly...
  Reply With Quote