Or, it has nothing whatsoever to do with either of those terms. Rather, a teacher might have little interest in spending time on someone whose attention is scattered and likely to not learn as a result. Why waste everyone’s time? As a business owner, he would be doing the student a favor: don’t spend your money here, you will not get the results you want because you are not focused on the process required. If your interests are elsewhere, go spend your time and money there.
I agree, it does not worry them and sending a student away whose interests are shifting, is simply recognizing the situation for what it is, and saving everyone a bunch of wasted time and saving the student wasted money. This isn’t selling a “product”. It it teaching a method and that requires some level of focus and attention and committment, in order for success. When a student is actively looking elsewhere, if that is where his interests lie, then that is where he ought to go.
Or…isn’t. Why would you make this assumption? I don’t know why people assume their students will bring in things from elsewhere that is going to somehow improve the program. Sure, it might be possible in some cases but in most, I would say it is highly unlikely. I can only speak from my experience. The method I train has a specific foundation upon which it is built, and it does not improve it to simply graft things onto it from elsewhere. It has nothing to do with a sense of purity or tradition. It is all about functionality. What is not added to the method is just as important as what is.
Oh you misunderstand me: in no way am I suggesting that the teacher has the right to forbid a student from training elsewhere. However, any teacher has the right to not be that person’s teacher. He has the right to determine that dividing his focus and training is detrimental to the learning process, so he has the right to stop teaching the student if the student chooses to train elsewhere. This has nothing to do with “ancient Chinese secret crap”, as you put it. There is a very big difference between these two concepts.
I agree, it does not worry them and sending a student away whose interests are shifting, is simply recognizing the situation for what it is, and saving everyone a bunch of wasted time and saving the student wasted money. This isn’t selling a “product”. It it teaching a method and that requires some level of focus and attention and committment, in order for success. When a student is actively looking elsewhere, if that is where his interests lie, then that is where he ought to go.
I am to assume your school is on the smaller side and not really ran in any real business sense. No harm, no foul. Please tell if it is otherwise.
No, I do not consider the activity of practicing a martial art a product (is is a service), however when promoting it in a business sense, that are many actions that run in parallel motion, so it is hard to differentiate, especially for the average uniformed consumer. And consumer is a very key word here.
Question; does your school teach 24/7 and expect every student to be there full time? Does it violate some social contract when a student goes to their paying job to support their family. Or goes to high school/college to finish that commitment? Or goes to the gym to increase their strength? Or the mother/father who takes care of three kids all day.
Everyone has to split their time and their focus all day, every day. Knowing this as an instructor is a valuable tool to use to help people learn to focus in the moment, and how to split and increase their mental capacity efficiently and effectively.
Let's use grade school as the example. When a kid goes to school for the day, do they spend the entire day on one subject? No, It is split into 4-6 classes. Not to mention the extra-curricular program(s) they pickup.
Or…isn’t. Why would you make this assumption? I don’t know why people assume their students will bring in things from elsewhere that is going to somehow improve the program. Sure, it might be possible in some cases but in most, I would say it is highly unlikely. I can only speak from my experience. The method I train has a specific foundation upon which it is built, and it does not improve it to simply graft things onto it from elsewhere. It has nothing to do with a sense of purity or tradition. It is all about functionality. What is not added to the method is just as important as what is.
Who said anything about what they teach or even adding to what they teach? But when someone can show me a genuinely better way to do a technique in our system, or a better way to practice that movement, I am going to pay attention. Does the former every happen? I can count the times on one hand over the last 30-years.
But let's use the grade school analogy again. Nearly every subject is taught differently from when I went to school, some of the teaching are more effective, some I feel are not and at the end of the day
the kid's learn the same thing. What is different is the way they got there.
I don't know if you are familiar with Dr. Jeffery Lant but he postulated the rule of seven about 60ish years ago. In a nutshell, it says the average person has to see, hear, or feel the same message seven times before they really get it. I have tried and tested this my whole life and it is 100% accurate and effective. And I use this in teaching MA's every day.
Let's take a basic middle punch. How many are there? At face value, it sounds like a simple question with a static answer. In reality and application, I am not certain I have the correct answer yet because I keep finding new applications and ways to use a middle punch.
This point is irrelevant in my life. People can make a contract for whatever they want.
At the end of the day, people are free to do whatever they want. But it is a two-way street. A student may train in as many schools as he likes, but a teacher can refuse to teach if that becomes a distraction and interferes with the learning process.
If we want to make blanket statements to the effect that a teacher is insecure or egotistical for not wanting a student to train elsewhere, then we can equally make a blanket statement that a student must be a terrible failure, utterly incompetent, if he chooses to leave a school and look elsewhere. He must be looking for an easier path to get his black belt and will go to the school with the lowest standards just to wrap a piece of colored cloth around his waist.
Let’s be honest: some people fit both of these descriptions, but many do not. Neither statement is supportable as a blanket statement.
Absolutely, it is a two way street. The teacher is the school owner in many cases and is certainly responsible for who they do OR do not teach.
I heavily vet every person who walks through our doors. After talking a bit and explaining what we do, some people decide it is not for them. Sometimes, after a little training either me, an instructor, or the student realizes it is not for them. We have a discussion and again no harm, no foul, and sometime I am able to recommend another school that I think will better fit what they are looking for. I always try to make the separation as amicable as possible.
We also accept walk in's who just want to train for a class or two. If they end up being a knucklehead, they are politely asked to leave class. I can only think of one time this was ever a problem, and it is a story of it's own.
No, absolutely not can you make the blanket statement you wrote. You are taking this to extreme absolutes that I just cannot draw a parallel to.
Sure, one of the reasons a person may leave a school is that they are chasing rank and looking for a faster track. Or, the system simply does not fit their expectations (think SD skills vs. sport skills, etc...). Or they feel they can never master the curriculum based on physical or mental abilities.
I get much of your viewpoint is a CMA think, and I respect that, but let's be real, it is the exception, not the rule.
