Which is the problem that I was speaking about, or at least the problem from my point of view. These are common denominators for you and you share those with others, but there are also people who do not view it that way. Which was the reason for my example. It is not really fair or respectful to try and influence other people's choices or viewpoints about a certain school using ambiguous terms that are not clearly defined (in my opinion). You have a very clear definition of what you consider a McDojo but that is your definition in which some parts are part of another's definition and other parts are not. So, let me respond to the post you quoted and I'll show you where I disagree with some things and agree with you in a way (like I said I do not like the term McDojo but there are things that I do not like to see in a school I train at):
There is a problem with a businessperson trying to be profitable? All for-profit businesses should be striving to be profitable. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit. This is where having integrity comes in. You can have a profitable school and not compromise the integrity of your art. While everyone has a concept of how long a black belt should take to achieve, it varies widely. Systems differ, standards for black belts differ. The business person in me actually says that from a profit standpoint it would be smarter to lengthen the time required to become a black belt and then use other means for student retention. Do some people shorten the time required for a black belt to keep motivation high, I'm sure they do. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily. If I'm not training in their art or at their school I really have little interest in it. It's their school and they set the standards, their reputation based on the students will speak for itself. Short-changing their art and producing highly ranked students that do not meet the technical requirements of that art is a travesty and does hurt the arts overall. But does that need a label beyond unethical? What is the problem with an emphasis on achieving a black belt or a graduation for it? From my experiences most people that begin training have attaining their black belt as a goal. What is wrong with focusing on attaining a goal or celebrating once it is accomplished. In most of the arts I've studied the black belt was a graduation of sorts, not to expert or master but of having accomplished an understanding of the fundamentals and ready to pursue mastery (never to achieve it, but to pursue it). I could live without testing fees but am not really bothered by them either. I have heard of some testing fees that seem crazy to me, but if others are willing to pay them then so be it. Often when I see testings done the student is receiving their new belt, certificate, sometimes a new uniform top, and often have outside instructors at the testing. All of which do cost the school owner money. I'm also not averse to them making some profit from the testing, it just doesn't bother me. If the students who are actually paying the money are ok with it, what exactly is the problem? Children are a major part of most martial arts school, nothing really new here. People fall into different camps regarding child black belts, some are ok with it and others are appalled. It is a matter of opinion. I would use a different system if it were my school. But as far as training at a school, I am not a child and so it is mostly irrelevant to me. What is important to me is the adult training. Schools have colored belts, no real shock and not really new. Sure the number have belts have grown but is that really a big deal? When I first started TKD there were not many belts (White, yellow, green, red, brown, black). This is how it should be for some not these 15 different colored belts that we see nowadays. But there were 2 stripes for each belt and we tested for each stripe, I spent 9 months as a white belt going to on average two classes per night Monday-Thursday. What I see now is that rather than having stripes, students receive a new color belt and earn their stripes within normal classes as a means of marking their readiness to test. I really don't see much wrong with this. Is it something that a lot of ultra-traditionalists can't stand? Sure it is I've heard many of them complain about it at length. I don't think it is all that bad of a practice. Goal setting is an important skill that people are lacking. When you study goal setting you see people recommending having long-term, near-term, and short-term goals. Black Belt: Long-term; Next color belt: near-term (can be called other things); Next stripe (short-term). It's a motivation tool, which does help retention rates. People want to make progress towards their goals and be recognized for their accomplishments.
Each of which are and should be considered optional add-ons. I've never been to a school (not saying they don't exist) that had these and made them mandatory. Take them or leave them. If you go to a department store and buy a dress shirt and want a tie to go with it do you expect it to be free? If you go to the mechanic for an oil change and then decide you'd like your brake pad changed, do you expect it to be free? If you go to a restaurant and decide you want a slice of pie, should it be free? If you go to a gym and want an hour with a personal trainer, should it be free (yes, I know that Planet fitness offers free personal training but that is known as part of your monthly payment with them and is not common practice that I've found). I don't see many students at martial arts school worry that much over these different clubs. It always seems to be the traditional guys/gals or people who train at schools without them that take so much offense to them. Perhaps some of the people bothered by it are ones that think they should get for free what others pay for. They don't want it bad enough to pay for it and then think it should just be part of the package. Life isn't an all-you-can-eat buffet, sometimes you have to pay for extra. It comes down to different philosophies. I personally tend not to like equipment to be purchased only from the school, but for me is rarely a reason to dismiss a school. Sometimes it is purely profit-motivated and a poor business decision in my opinion. I have, however, known instructors who had this rule in place because they did not want students buying the cheapest thing they could find and it turn out not to be safe. After school programs should be license if required by their state. Some of that depends on what takes place during the program. It is, however, a bit of a weak argument considering that martial arts schools in general lack licensing and certified personnel for interacting with children. I don't really follow the whole summer camp thing because I attended a lot of them growing up and they surely did not have licensed childcare providers and every one of them cost money. Once again these are added services you can choose to pay for or not pay for.
No meaningful instruction in weapons that were designed based off farm implements to be used in a different era? Just pointing that out, I am well aware that the principles of these weapons can be applied to sometimes readily available everyday items (pool cues, sticks, etc). But is it really your or my place to judge the value of weapons training for other people? I choose to train in the weapons I carry with me or feel I can acquire in most instances. Predominantly my interests are in knives and firearms because I am rarely far from either. But I also enjoy more traditional weapons regardless of their day-to-day self-defense availability. I've seen a lot of schools that have weapons as part of the curriculum, traditional schools, that teach a handful of kata for each weapon, and don't practice them beyond kata. No practice or discussion of their practical application. It never seemed to bother the students. Were I teaching weapons would I want to teach practical applications? Absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily detract from the value of another school. People are enamored with weapons, they want to train in them, as a kid I wanted to train with them and not because I wanted to know how to use them to beat other people up, it was enjoyable. When you watch some of the "extreme" empty-hand and weapons forms that people create for competition that are designed to look good not be deadly do you think that they are wrong for doing so? If they find enjoyment in it, then so be it. Quality is important, but enjoyment is also important. If whatever depth you teach weapons, you are giving quality instruction in what you do teach then what is the problem? Teaching poor quality can be unethical, but we also have to remember that quality is subjective in everything including the martial arts. As far as your last statement, if an instructor adds something to their curriculum that is usually not there but that their students enjoy then this is bad? Back when I went through paramedic school my instructor made all of us learn the full medical school physical assessment that was above and beyond what was required of the curriculum. This made me a worse paramedic, yes? I bit of an extreme example, sorry. But the martial arts students learned a little bit extra about martial arts (even if not to the depth you would prefer or to be experts in the practical applications of that weapon) that they enjoyed learning and this is a qualification for a label?
Almost every truck-stop bathroom I've ever been in had a similar look and business practices. A vague statement that honestly says nothing about the quality of instruction. I'm generally not a fan of long contracts with no outs other than moving over 30 miles away. However, I have trained at schools with mandatory contracts that had great instruction and at schools without contracts with poor instruction. Pricing is subjective. It is based upon perceived value on the part of both the school owner and the student. Some students are unwilling to pay $150/month and others will do so happily. It the student feels that what they are learning is worth at least what they are paying, what is the problem. Price is irrelevant, competing on price as a small-business owner can be fatal as often as it's successful. If you charge too much based on the value of what you're providing and you'll probably go out of business. Charge too little and you surely will. What always tickles me (and this is not directed at you) is the student who won't go and pay this high fee to the "McDojo" but then grumbles that all the schools that charge the $50/month they're willing to spend will give them tetanus. I already mentioned my thoughts on billing companies, there has got to be a decent one out there somewhere. Already spoke about number of belts and testing fees. Guaranteed passage kind of depends on how and why its set-up. There are some very good instructors who use a rotating curriculum and for the first several tests will basically guarantee passing as long as the student is making progress. They essentially have looser initial standards that get stricter and stricter as the student progresses. This is not necessarily bad as it does offset discouragement that students will feel as they are learning something new. Anyone who thinks that when they took their very first rank test that they had to and did perform the perfect front kick because their instructor did not accept anything less than perfection is probably kidding themselves. You expect a different level of technical competence at different levels. If simply paying money is all that it takes to receive a belt without any progression or skill, then yes this is bad and unethical in my opinion.
So when you started off as a white belt your instructor taught you everything that was required all the way through the highest level in your system as a white belt, yes? What you described is the nature of teaching and learning. It is the same experience I have had from pre-school to the PhD program I'm in now and every time I've ever learned anything in a formal setting. Heck I can argue that it is the way I've gained anything I've ever learned. Everyone has different definitions of fantastical and it starts getting too close to my art is better than your art. I believe that some arts teach self-defense better than others, but it is solely my opinion where individual arts or schools within arts lie. Some people's goal is to compete, maybe they're better off at a competition based school? Oh yea, back to first statement. Almost every formal curriculum that you pay to take is geared towards keeping you paying to some extent. Colleges and universities spend absurd amounts of money studying and trying to improve student retention.
You are an expert on adult and child educational theory and application? Mediocrity is subjective and I'd argue that most teachers of anything are mediocre as teachers. Teaching is both art and science, the ones that we tend to classify as good are really skilled in the art of teaching but know little about the science, few have a decent about of skill/knowledge in the art and science, and probably only a handful are really skilled in both. There is a pretty close comparison between martial arts teachers and university professors. They are both considered experts in their field and the honest truth is that neither group tends to know a whole lot about learning and teaching. We equate expertise in a field with teaching ability, which is far from the truth. The "good" ones tend to get by on natural aptitude but could be phenomenal if they received a solid foundation in education. I've already talked about contracts and I don't believe they are fantastic but they do serve a purpose which is not always the one attributed to them. And I have agreed that there is an ethical concern to trading a black belt for money without the skill required for your art. Though I also do not claim to be an expert it what is required of every art and organization out there, certainly not enough to go around judging schools or arts. I know what I am looking for in my training and search out schools that will provide it, those that don't I move past. The key is that what I am looking for is not necessarily the same as what you or someone else is looking for. What is a good fit for me, may not be for you. What is a good fit for you, may not be for me. If I'm not going to train there why should I care about labeling it this or that? I have no need to prove myself as some expert in the martial arts by passing judgement on other schools or instructors
The whole concept of "a McDojo can be a good school, the focus on profitability places teaching in the back seat, so the level of instruction falls to the norm of mediocrity" is subjective and ridiculous. It doesn't even make sense. A good school at the level of mediocrity because of profit? Is mediocrity the definition of a good school? According to this line of reasoning every for-profit business, and most non-profits, are McDojos. The government is a McDojo. I trade time for profit, heck I'm a McDojo. You probably make money doing something, you're a McDojo. I still don't get why everyone is so afraid of someone else being a successful martial arts school owner. I really do think its some weird, twisted concept of what we believe about Asian notions of honor or integrity or whatever. Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Nintendo are all just trying to break-even right? The only honorable martial arts instructor is the one who worries how he's going to pay the light bill for his 200 square foot run-down school and lives off three packs of Ramen noodles and half a snickers bar a week? And if he's extra-special honorable he donates two of those packs of Ramen noodles to a food bank.
Physical ability is not important in a physical activity? Are there better times to test physical abilities such as general endurance or strength than at a testing? Perhaps, I've seen tests done both ways and it has never really bothered me either way. For some a black belt test is a grueling ordeal that is meant to test your mental willpower as much as your physical ability. Which is a concept that the U.S. military uses every day. They don't just do endless PT to make their recruits more physically fit. The people that go into selection for various special forces groups are already in pretty top notch shape and then even after selection they are constantly pushed to their physical limits to test their mental ones. I will say that quality should be demonstrated in a test and most of the tests that did have pretty heavy fitness tests along with it actually expected a certain level of degradation of technique as the test went on. I'm sure there are cases where you are right and PT is used to mask technique flaws, but it is also possible that you do not agree with incorporating any type of PT into testing and so any school that does isn't doing it right and is, therefore, a McDojo.
Traditional school, instructor with legitimate accolades, lousy? I guess you mean that a well qualified instructor can have a lousy school and I agree wholeheartedly. That has nothing to do with whether they are making a profit or not. Not every champion is a teacher. Not every good teacher is a champion. Price is no more of a guarantor of quality than anything else you've mentioned other than where you have explicitly stated quality is bad. You cannot legitimately say that using a billing company means the instruction is bad. Or that having a contract means the instruction is bad. Or that having lots of colored belts means the instruction is bad. Or that any combination of these three with anything else you listed (other than explicit quality problems) means that the instruction is bad. Not trying to be rude or offend you, but when I read this what it seemed to scream at me was if the instructor wants to make money teaching martial arts they must be a McDojo. I contend that you can make money and maintain the integrity of what you teach. If you are providing value to people and they are willing to pay you for it then you are obviously doing something right. Some people expect pushy sales and really couldn't care less one way or another, some see it as a game, and some will walk if presented with it. The best salespeople aren't push at all from my experiences. Asking for the sale is not bad or wrong or evil. The martial arts teacher is selling a service and to get the sale you have to ask for it.
So, based on this statement if I were to own a school a McDojo would be exactly what I wanted to own. To be an owner that still loved their art, had a good school with a solid curriculum, that was profitable and didn't have to worry about having to close when times are lean-- I'll take it. Profit at the expense of the art is bad, profit while maintaining the integrity of your art is not.
This I completely agree with. It is the individual schools and instructors. Just like what a McDojo is or isn't all comes down to individuals. I would hate to miss the opportunity to train at a place that had something that really filled a gap in my training because of some arbitrary rules that did not necessarily impact the quality of the instruction at all. That was the point of my example in my first post, I found great training at a place that would be labeled a McDojo by most and not so great training at another place that most would not call a McDojo. I would be rather upset if I went to a martial artist friend who I respected and asked him about XYZ school only to be told "it's a McDojo" based on their own personal arbitrary definition. To me it is a bit close-minded as I've seen any number of discussions about whether this or that school is or is not a McDojo on the internet about schools that no one involved in the conversation is anywhere close enough to go check it out on their own. I would have much greater respect for someone that told me specifically what the problems were. "I don't know much about that school but I went by and checked it out and thought it was too expensive." or "I didn't feel the style was a good fit for me, but it might be for you." or "They do front kicks differently than I've been taught and I don't know that I agree with how they do them or that I could adapt to that."
And ultimately, I go back to my main point from before. You don't try and pick out whether a school is or is not a McDojo but you have a detailed list of what constitutes one based. What you have is a detailed list of what you feel constitutes the derogatory label of McDojo. Though based on at least one statement of yours it is exactly the label most business consultants would tell you to strive for. Which is the key, a McDojo is whatever the individual believes it is. There is really no standard to compare it against. If you ask me is Joe's Modern Tae Kwon Roto Rooter a McDojo, I'd have to say maybe, whose definition do you want to compare it against? Daniel's? Watergal's? Balrog's? PhotonGuys? Just reading this thread shows a variety of definitions. Well does Joe's sell rank? If it does then according to PhotonGuy it is a McDojo. It might also be according to Daniel but he has a rather large list of criteria but is a little unclear on how many of those criteria you have to meet, I'm pretty sure that selling rank is an automatic qualifier though so I would feel safe saying that it probably qualifies as a McDojo for Daniel but we might want to call him and see how to score each criteria and what overall score we have to make to meet the qualification.
Once again it is all my .02. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Also, I am not attempting to attack you or be argumentative, just laying out my point of view in comparison to the post of yours you quoted. You have every right to believe a McDojo is whatever you believe it is. It just so happens that I dislike the term and care more for quality in instruction than whether the owner makes a profit or not.
-D. [/B]
. I was just pointing out examples of red flags that I have heard used before, some of which had been used in this thread, as part of the overall example. The point I was trying to make there, apparently not very successfully, was that I attended three schools. One which, based on this and other conversations I've had over McDojos that have helped form my personal thoughts, was most likely to be considered a McDojo, one that could go either way, and one that I felt would typically not be considered a McDojo. And where I to move back to Texas I wouldn't hesitate re-joining the first two and probably would not join the last. Now what if I'd asked a friend about going to the first school and he told me "Naw, you don't want to go there," and his opinion was based on nothing more than his belief in what a McDojo was and his feeling that it met those criteria. What if I had listened to him and actually missed out on a fantastic place to train? Would I just go with his recommendation without asking him why? No, of course not. But there are those that would because they don't know any better.
helped clear up where I was coming from or my intentions or just gave a little insight into the way I write/speak that can be taken the wrong way. I truly was, and still am, interested in understanding your point of view and do feel you have as much a right to yours as I do to mine.
