Scary

[Harlie]

The ability displayed by a student of any art, craft or endeaver has no revelance to the instructors abilities. Some people are unteachable and are unable to achieve any level of competence. Therefore don't judge the quality of training, based on one individuals performance or lack of. There are those who teach and those that do. Mr clumsy may, himself, be able to pass along the knowledge required to allow a person to acquire great skills (?).

[impcmonk]

FYI, these were some instructors.

[Petrovich]

The ability displayed by a student of any art, craft or endeaver has no revelance to the instructors abilities.

Any instructor who believes that has no business instructing.

Some people are unteachable and are unable to achieve any level of competence.

The only people who are "unteachable" are those who don't want to learn.

[dan_sayers]

The ability displayed by a student of any art, craft or endeaver has no revelance to the instructors abilities.

Any instructor who believes that has no business instructing.

For stating something that is inherently true? Admittedly, my instructor's technique had a surprisingly effective impact on me. That doesn't mean that every single person has to do everything exactly as they were taught. If that were the case, individuality would not exist. Variety is the spice of life. That said, I think being selective with who you'll teach what is part of it on the instructor's side. Mine actually related stories with us of people he DID toss out because they were demonstrated they weren't taking it seriously.

[Petrovich]

The ability displayed by a student of any art, craft or endeaver has no revelance to the instructors abilities.

Any instructor who believes that has no business instructing.

For stating something that is inherently true? Admittedly, my instructor's technique had a surprisingly effective impact on me. That doesn't mean that every single person has to do everything exactly as they were taught. If that were the case, individuality would not exist. Variety is the spice of life. That said, I think being selective with who you'll teach what is part of it on the instructor's side. Mine actually related stories with us of people he DID toss out because they were demonstrated they weren't taking it seriously.

It's not inherently true...but mostly because I can't make sense of it.

What is the statement? "The ability displayed by a student of any art, craft or endeaver has no revelance to the instructors abilities."

Let's word it a bit more succinctly i.e. 'The abilities of a student are irrelevant to the abilities of the instructor.'

If that's the case, why are they even bothering to form a student/instructor relationship? In other words, they do not share a common learning goal...so why bother?

Now, had he said....'The abilities of the instructor are irrevelant to the of the success student'.. it makes sense....and I'd disagree. The ability of the instructor has a ton of relevance to the success of the student.

[Mad Duck]

Training can & is a two way street.
Just because one has the status of Instructor does not make them all knowing, if they are not receptive to new information, they really have no business teaching.
Students vary from those that know nothing, to people that really do know the score.
Instructors need to go slow enough for those students, that are starting out, yet fast enough, not to bore those who have knowledge.
They need to let the more advance students share their knowledge, (while keeping control of the class), to benefit the newbies.
Instructors have to may sure that the learning process is going on, by
inviting (there are no dumb question, if people don't know) & asking questions, reviewing how the students did both on the range & in the class room. (example; if 5 students miss the same question on the written test, the Instructor more than likely didn't cover the material correctly).The trainer has to make the student comfortable & keep the class enjoyable, otherwise learning stops. I really feel that the Trainer must have a professional attitude, they are being paid after all, & must deliver the best product & service they can.
If students are not doing well. it reflects the instructor is not doing his/her
job correctly.

[dan_sayers]

@p4g: For as long as the student is human, they have the free will to get everything or nothing out of instruction. They also have free will to apply all that they learned, nothing that they learned, or maybe even an improved way over what they were taught. For example, when I'm subtracting 2 numbers, I don't borrow a 1 if I need; I do it backwards from what I was taught because it's easier for me. This is the very definition of inherent. It's a fact and therefore cannot even be argued. I will admit that a student can only be as good as his education, but that's a statement of potential and not actual yield. If the instructor has done his part to make that potential as high as possible, the student can still aim low.

[Mad Duck]

I will agree, with that.
I push very hard the fact that students need to train, practice, condition,
& get good with their firearm, but I know of many that have not shot since they took the class.
That little olde license & a gun will get them by.

[Harlie]

Will introduce new techniques, methods, procedures. Only after much time and effort do skills develop. Many who have been "Trained", feel that at that point they are proficient and don't ever try to achieve any level of skill. There isn't sufficient time in most training situations to do more than introduce new skills, with very little time available allowing perfection. "Scary" probably met some who didn't, wouldn't or hadn't spent the required time developing beyond initial training.
Also not all trainers connect with all their students, some students think they already know more than what's presented in a course. Lastly not ever one has the place to practice after training with top notch instructors. Skills must be honed, or will deminish rather quickly.