Assessing the Merits of an Instructor

[Carnes]

Psychology teaches that confidence alone can improve performance significantly.

I agree. However, is it moral to instill confidence one knows to be unwarranted (false confidence), where the consequences can be so dire?

Well, I don't like blanket statements, but it is generally not moral to instill false confidence. But, of course, a little false confidence applied in the right place can get a student to leap to the next plateau.

It is very good marketing to have every student leave thinking they are Tarzan. It is also almost always a lie.

Yep, it's not about morals, it's about marketing and money. Same with snake oil salesmen. Sure some customers (victims) will think they have 'the cure' and actually improve due to the placebo effect, but the crook selling the stuff knows that he is not in it for the moral satisfaction, he is in it for the monetary satisfaction.

The thing is, there is nothing you can do about it. There is some new kind of 'snake oil' sold on a hundred different info-mercials every single night. People just lust after the 'hope' of an easy solution presented by a clever salesperson.

I would love to show the world the 'man behind the curtain,' but I don't think the world wants to see him, and I think it might be more effective to sidestep competition with the charlatans rather than trying to beat them at their own game.

The responsible answer, in my view, is to generously point out a student's genuine accomplishments (which better show up on a target and in thier overt expressions of an understanding of the process), but also point out what they do NOT yet know, and how to advance.

There's a line between realistic and cautious assessment and belittling. A good instructor knows where it is.

Does that go on the list?

Absolutely, that definitely goes on the list. It's tough to achieve in our society where every person is too precious to be allowed to fail at anything. I've been in classes where I did not feel that some of the participants should have been awarded the certificate at the end, but for one thing, I wasn't the one setting the standards, and the other thing is that it would be horrible for business.

It would take a major change in the civilian training community in order to allow instructors to seriously hold students' feet to the fire no matter how tactful the approach of the instructor may be.

[Carnes]

I look forward to when you do an analysis of how certain factors interact with others in the training enironment.

Why don't you do one?

Haha! Fair enough. I'll need some time to work on that.

[Shawn.L]

yes on the certificates.

I used to think I could blame, judge, or otherwise measure a student or instructor based upon either the students ceritificates or performance. Ive found that not to be true. The cert generally just means they managed to spend the length of the course without doing anything to get kicked out.

Id like to see maybe a qualifier at the end of a course with your score on the certificate.

[PeteG]

While I see that there is a lot of opportunity (and possibly compulsion) for corruption in a field as loosely defined as training the defensive use of weapons to apply lethal force, I'm curious about what would make you think it is necessarily corrupting.

Please do not misunderstand. I did not say it is; the question was whehter it is.

I have seen that much of the bovine solid waste, jealousy and back-biting derives from people trying to sell their product at the expense of everyone else who competes for that sale.

I have also seen one of the most careful, honest and understated trainers out there is one who makes his living at it.

As you can see, it does not take long to become mired when objective standards are so few and far between.

[PeteG]

Id like to see maybe a qualifier at the end of a course with your score on the certificate.

That would presume that the score really means something. Either the score would be a very subjective evaluation by the instructor/range personnel (like they did, and I think still do at Gunsite), or it would be a very narrow measure of one dimension, generally how fast one can shoot accurately.

In the former case, it would become very political very quickly.

In the latter case, people would start gaming the course to improve that one dimension that leads to the score that goes on the certificate. Next thing you know, it's just another gun game ... with rules and rules and rules obscuring the objective.

In Carbine I, I run a standard qualification course at the beginning of day two. Then I run it again at the end of day three. The targets are kept by the students, because it is done for the benefit of each individual. Nothing in the course mandates that anyone knows anyone elses' scores (except when someone shoots a passing score - an unusually good performance for a graduate of their first 3-day course - people tend to clap).

I've had two people 1n 15 years shoot perfect scores; both in Carbine II.

I have actually thought about a two-day course of evaluation. We would not teach anything; we would just measure.

Then I remembered: my life it tough enough already.

[Flash]

As you can see, it does not take long to become mired when objective standards are so few and far between.

Particularly in a matter so subjective as "Quality Training".

This thread is a good read, so far. Would it be fair and not thread-hijack to suggest that an objective look at the training, per se, (as differentiated from "The Trainer") might be how many potential students/consumers may asess the decision on which training they might utilize? Pete's earlier references to the "egos and proprietary methods" seem to indicate a tacit understanding of this, while maintaining the focus on the trainer.

Flash

[PeteG]

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.

Sure, an instructor should certainly be able to "put the bullet where it needs to go" on demand. But why should he be doing that while teaching a class? Just to prove he can? In that case, let's start with a qual course. Otherwise, how do you know he's not just taking the shots he's good at to impress the line?

All three of the aforementioned "old hands" will take a few shots here and there, to demonstrate something. But they are smart enough to understand it's not thier shooting skills that are at issue, and they don't have anything to prove.

There are many who agree with you, though. I just don't see it that way. Chuck Knoll could not throw a football like Terry Bradshaw, but he was still a great coach.

[PeteG]

There is also a disconnect. Some BTDT people may have had fighting experience that is different than teaching individual Self Defense tactics. A Cop who spent 20 years on a SWAT team might not be as good an instructor for 1 on 1 self defense than a Cop who walked a beat for 20 years. Both will have experience, but of a different sort.

Yep.

I got to shoot a spec ops guy a few years ago.

OMG!! Me too!!! Did you kill yours?

A friend once told me that you can learn shooting and skills from a lot of people, but to learning fighting and mindset was pretty much something you had to learn on the fly and as a pass/fail real world course . His direct quote was, "If you want to learn to fight, then take a retired Marine Gunny out to the bar for the night." There is some truth to that. You can explain mindset to people, and give them the path to learning what it is and how to implement it, but that is rather difficult to fully impart on the square range.

I do not think anybody ever learned to fight taking firearms courses. The only way to learn it is to do it. Firearms training is just not the same thing as martial arts training; the courses are just too few and far between, and the "full-contact" matches can be killers (pun intended).

I have this in very much in mind when someone shows me how fast they can shoot.

[PeteG]

Particularly in a matter so subjective as "Quality Training".

This thread is a good read, so far. Would it be fair and not thread-hijack to suggest that an objective look at the training, per se, (as differentiated from "The Trainer") might be how many potential students/consumers may asess the decision on which training they might utilize? Pete's earlier references to the "egos and proprietary methods" seem to indicate a tacit understanding of this, while maintaining the focus on the trainer.

Flash

It is a different subject.

Excellent instructors sometimes find themselves forced to teach rubbish, because that's what "the agency" prescribes. They can make it fun, and they can make it interesting, but that can't make it any good.

[TonyF]

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.

Ted

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 have an interesting piece of data in regard to this issue.

I read an AAR of a class taught by a tier 1 instructor wherein he was demonstrating a head shot to a few of the students during a water / ammo break.

He must have mashed or jerked the trigger because the POI was 6 O'clock low. He immediately fired a follow up shot that hit dead center in the ocular window of the option target.

The student's comment was "what a terrific instructor" this fellow was to have missed a shot but to have immediately rebounded and addressed the "miss" with a solid follow up shot.

This brings up two points. One in support of the premise that even the best of us can throw a shot once in awhile and that if it occurs in front of one's students, does it indeed affect their confidence in him?

The other is whether or not some students who happen to view their favorite instructor as "omnipotent" are even capable of submitting an honest, objective AAR.