![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More A&S class maunderings
May. 10th, 2010 10:03 pmMistress Sarafina and I have gone back and forth about trying to raise the level of instruction at RUM in such a way that the class list is not a conglomeration of intros.
That, and some other things, have gotten me thinking about the wheres and whyfores of A&S classes at events.
There seems to be an honest-to-goodness desire from the groups that run some smaller events for "basic" classes. Frequently in things that aren't even period in any way, shape, or form. And I've had people insist to me that there is a "need" to have classes in these very simple things.
Who needs them? Is the supposition that new folks are most likely to turn up at small events, and that they "need" to learn these things? Why? They're going to have to face now being told that some of this stuff that they learned at their first event isn't period. Possibly by a crabby Laurel. Why would you want to do that to a newbie? Why not teach them correctly from the start? And why assume that somebody new wouldn't be interested, or might be overwhelmed by something more complex or focussed? And all of these things also apply to the argument that it's where people learn to teach, too.
Some of it, I think, comes from the fact that at many an event, the A&S classes are an afterthought. No effort = no result.
More often, I think it's laziness. It's easier to get your friend to come teach a class on polymer clay perioid beads than to contact somebody a couple Cantons over who knows how to make glass ones. It's easier to just teach other people how to make the needle felted schnauzer you bought a kit for and copy the instructions than to learn to wet felt a hat.
There might be a some influence from the belief that "everything's been done before." (Go read the Attack Laurel's post today for an excellent discussion on why this isn't true). Why bother researching something new to teach when someone else somewhere has already done it?
Or possibly the belief that there are certain basic skills everybody needs. Now, there is some logic in teaching basic names, heraldry, SCA social skills, administrative stuff. But I cannot think of a single A&S skill that everybody needs to learn. Not a one.
(still crabby for various reasons. But utterly delighted with the faboo Steampunk Minnie Pin that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
alysten sent me. She's made of win. An actual birthday pressie. For me!)
That, and some other things, have gotten me thinking about the wheres and whyfores of A&S classes at events.
There seems to be an honest-to-goodness desire from the groups that run some smaller events for "basic" classes. Frequently in things that aren't even period in any way, shape, or form. And I've had people insist to me that there is a "need" to have classes in these very simple things.
Who needs them? Is the supposition that new folks are most likely to turn up at small events, and that they "need" to learn these things? Why? They're going to have to face now being told that some of this stuff that they learned at their first event isn't period. Possibly by a crabby Laurel. Why would you want to do that to a newbie? Why not teach them correctly from the start? And why assume that somebody new wouldn't be interested, or might be overwhelmed by something more complex or focussed? And all of these things also apply to the argument that it's where people learn to teach, too.
Some of it, I think, comes from the fact that at many an event, the A&S classes are an afterthought. No effort = no result.
More often, I think it's laziness. It's easier to get your friend to come teach a class on polymer clay perioid beads than to contact somebody a couple Cantons over who knows how to make glass ones. It's easier to just teach other people how to make the needle felted schnauzer you bought a kit for and copy the instructions than to learn to wet felt a hat.
There might be a some influence from the belief that "everything's been done before." (Go read the Attack Laurel's post today for an excellent discussion on why this isn't true). Why bother researching something new to teach when someone else somewhere has already done it?
Or possibly the belief that there are certain basic skills everybody needs. Now, there is some logic in teaching basic names, heraldry, SCA social skills, administrative stuff. But I cannot think of a single A&S skill that everybody needs to learn. Not a one.
(still crabby for various reasons. But utterly delighted with the faboo Steampunk Minnie Pin that
alysten sent me. She's made of win. An actual birthday pressie. For me!)
