Assessing the Merits of an Instructor

[ted murphy]

The instructor should have a set of basic skills in his own personal toolbox. He should be able to hit what he aims out past 50 yards. He should be able to have a solid base of shooting strong and support hand, shooting on the move, shooting from odd positions, and handling ammunition management. Furthermore, his ego and confidence should be enough that he can demonstrate this to the class when the need arises. If he cannot put the bullet where it needs to go, he has to go back to school before he teaches others. If he will not shoot in front of his students, I put him in the "poser" category.

I hear this latter point all the time, and I do not agree.

First, there is disproof by counterexample. I can think of at least three, 25-35 year veterans of the training industry, who I consder to be "top shelf," who do not shoot in front of thier students. If they are "posers," then I don't know anybody would could possibly be other than a "poser."

There are good reasons not to shoot in front of students. Chief among these is that it's not supposed to be about the instructor. Showing everyone what one can do has the potential to incite competition with studens, or demoralize or intimidate individual students. Competition, demoralization and intimidation are all counterproductive when the objective is to teach.

And if you are ever going to screw up - and EVERYBODY screws up sometimes - it will be right there in that course. If it goes that way, it will undermine confidence in the instructor and the course material.

I'm sorry but if the situation arises that the instructor needs to demonstrate something then he better be able to do it. If he cannot or refuses to, I wasted my money.

You're right- it is not about the instructor. But just as every private wants to think his squad leader is the best shot in the company, students need to believe that the instructor can do what he is showing. This does not mean that he has to demonstrate anything, but he has to be able to do it if the need arises.

I do not go out of my way to instruct people but I do from time to time. Sometimes you need to make a shot or show a skill to the student. Most of the time this is to show the shooter that it is in fact possible to do what I had asked of him. It is not to show off, not to create competition, and not to demoralize. Sometimes you need to show what must be done so the student will understand and gain some confidence from seeing it done correctly.

If an instructor is afraid to fail in front of his students, then he should not be teaching.

I'll never forget John Scaggs from the Chapman Academy. We (the students) were all shooting prone from 50 yards. While we were pasting targets he had left a soda can on top of one of the target carriers. We went back to the 50 yard mark and shot the course of fire. While we where finishing up our prone shooting, he drew and fired his Delta Elite offhand, knocking the can into the berm. It did not demoralize any of us, we all cheered. Say what you want, but that was a hell of a demonstration of what you can become if you apply yourself. Chutzpah incarnate.


Ted

[PeteG]

I'm sorry but if the situation arises that the instructor needs to demonstrate something then he better be able to do it. If he cannot or refuses to, I wasted my money.

You're right- it is not about the instructor. But just as every private wants to think his squad leader is the best shot in the company, students need to believe that the instructor can do what he is showing. This does not mean that he has to demonstrate anything, but he has to be able to do it if the need arises.
. . . .

If an instructor is afraid to fail in front of his students, then he should not be teaching.
Ted

The trick is to know "when the need arises," and to define "afraid to fail."

Grandmaster Kyu Ha Kim here in Pittsburgh is 73 years old, and got a new heart about two years ago. He was the Korean National Judo Champion several years in late 1950's and early 1960's. When he walks into an auditorium at a national event, if he is noticed (he is very quiet and does not like to draw attention), all the joseki (judges) stand.

Grandmaster does not throw or compete any longer. There are probably many lesser practitioners in their 40's who could beat him now in an all-out competition. So, must he quit teaching? Is he a "poser"?

Bite your tongue! For him to quit teaching would be a HUGE loss for those of us looking to learn.

Everyone wants to make hard-and-fast rules, the simpler the better. I find life to be more complicated than that.

[TonyF]

If an instructor is afraid to fail in front of his students, then he should not be teaching.

Ted

I think this is the crux of the matter.

It isn't an issue of whether or not we're afraid to fail, it's rather a matter of "is this going to be one of those times I happen to flub a shot"?

FWIW, I have on occasion demo'ed a drill as an instructor. And as a student, I'm never pensive about being the first in the class to execute a drill or exercise. But the consequences in terms of the effect on my classmates is far different as a student vs. an instructor.

[Yoder]

The trick is to know "when the need arises," and to define "afraid to fail."

Grandmaster Kyu Ha Kim here in Pittsburgh is 73 years old, and got a new heart about two years ago. He was the Korean National Judo Champion several years in late 1950's and early 1960's. When he walks into an auditorium at a national event, if he is noticed (he is very quiet and does not like to draw attention), all the joseki (judges) stand.

Grandmaster does not throw or compete any longer. There are probably many lesser practitioners in their 40's who could beat him now in an all-out competition. So, must he quit teaching? Is he a "poser"?

Bite your tongue! For him to quit teaching would be a HUGE loss for those of us looking to learn.

Everyone wants to make hard-and-fast rules, the simpler the better. I find life to be more complicated than that.

He is not a poser since he has proven over and over that he truly is a master. Just because he's old a feeble doesn't mean he's not a great teacher. I think we are talking about joe shmoe's super tactical academy where your instructor is a guy with a bunch of black belts and super cool certificates but doesn't have anything to back it up. I would still take a class from a 90 yr old Todd Jarret that was too old to shoot before I would take a class from some douche with a bunch of certificates and no real experience.

[ted murphy]

Yoder: +1

There is a big difference between a Judo master who has seen and done everything but cannot physically do it AND a guy who just cannot do it.

I am starting to think that some of the posters are trying to say a lack of ability, experience, and talent is okay provided the instructor really knows the material.

Allow me to offer an example. I am very knowledgeable about diet and exercise. I have certifications from the weight loss classes I have attended. I could structure one very nice nutrition and exercise program for you. Sound good? Well when we meet and you see I'm built like Chris Farley will you really respect my expertise and believe I can guide you on the path of weight loss?

I didn't think so.

Ted

[PeteG]

He is not a poser since he has proven over and over that he truly is a master. Just because he's old a feeble doesn't mean he's not a great teacher. I think we are talking about joe shmoe's super tactical academy where your instructor is a guy with a bunch of black belts and super cool certificates but doesn't have anything to back it up. I would still take a class from a 90 yr old Todd Jarret that was too old to shoot before I would take a class from some douche with a bunch of certificates and no real experience.

The problem with this whole approach to determining the measure of a good instructor is that it presumes the conclusion.

"He's not a good instructor because he's 'joe schmoe’ or 'some douche'." As opposed to what? Not joe schmoe or not some douche? It is not helpful to first define one as no good, and then define no good as being like him.

Now tell me who is a "douche" and who is not? By what standard or criteria?

It's easy to define a good instructor by some vague, undefined criterion, like "he has real world experience" or "he has been there and done that." Been where and done what? Experience at what? Then tell me what whatever "what" is constitutes a necessary element of good instruction.

Ted at least put some precision into his definition: "can hit anything out to 50 yards and beyond, one-handed, weak handed, etc." That is a performance criterion. While I think that is a performance criterion for a shooter and not an instructor, it is at least something tangible, visible and measurable.

And from that he added that the instructor must not be afraid to do all that it in a class ("afraid" still not being clear).

Are you now saying that if he can't do all that now, he's still a good instructor if he could at one time could do it? In that case, does he get a pass on the part about not "being afraid" to do it in class?

And what do we do if the purpose of the class is to teach sight alignment, trigger press and the manual of arms for a particular weapon. Anybody who shoots a lot and has himself had even fundamental instruction knows those concepts. Does one also have to be able to shoot half-dollars out of the sky while lighting a cigarette and waiving at the crowd in order to effectively teach those fundamental things to a new shooter?

I submit that if the students of x instructor do not improve across the time frame of a particular course, the instructor is not very effective. If the students do improve across the time frame of a particular course, the instructor is effective. That is the measure with which I started.

I exclude from my definition what the instructor did in 1997, what kind of car he drives, what kind of beer he drinks, whether he's a sponsor on the latest gun forum, whether he's a funny guy, or pretty much anything else (with a couple of qualifications I added pertaining to safety and pain, because they pertain to responsiblities which attach to running a course in the civilian training environment.)

It is precisely because things become so confused so very quickly that I have attempted to work down to the most basic, axiomatic principle from which to start.

[PeteG]

Allow me to offer an example. I am very knowledgeable about diet and exercise. I have certifications from the weight loss classes I have attended. I could structure one very nice nutrition and exercise program for you. Sound good? Well when we meet and you see I'm built like Chris Farley will you really respect my expertise and believe I can guide you on the path of weight loss?

That depends upon how bright I am, and the objectives of the course.

A smart guy will recognize that because you are overweight does not necessarily mean that the information you have about diet and weight loss is incorrect or immaterial. Further, if you have insight you can impart about why you have failed to lose weight, or chose not to follow the program, despite your knowledge of diet and exercise (and I am presuming that is your implication), you might be just the right teacher.

But it is certainly a possiblity that your failure to lose weight might be a consequence of your knowledge being incorrect or immaterial. For that reason, given a choice between you and some perfect specimin with 50 perfect white teeth bouncing around in spandex short pants, I might to for the guy who looks like knows what he's doing. Or I might not.

So, your example is of how to predict whether a fellow is a good instructor, not how to measure whether he is a good instructor. Those are two different things.

[PeteG]

Just because he's old a feeble doesn't mean he's not a great teacher.

Just for the record, that old and feeble man can kick my wide butt any time he would take a notion to, and there would be very little I could do about it.

But he never would, under any conceivable circumstance.

Does that go on the list?

[Yoder]

Douche: Someone that can't shoot worth a damn that attends a class, gets a certificate stating he attended then starts charging people to "certify" them or somehow train them to be better shooters.

Would you rather take a class from someone who read about shooting or someone that actually can do it, or used to be able to do it? For example, I would rather take a shooting class from a World Champion IPSC shooter that lost his hands in an accident rather than someone who read a lot about shooting. Even without hands I know he could show me more about shooting than someone with below average skill with a bunch of B.S. certificates.

I don't know anthing about tactical training or martial arts but I do know shooting is not something easily explained without experience. Every moron knows you line up the sights and pull the trigger but there's a lot more to it than that and I don't think it can be taught effectively by someone without actual skill. Skill only comes through hard work and practice, not by reading about it or taking a class.

[PeteG]

Every moron knows you line up the sights and pull the trigger . . .

Would that it were so.