"We Got Better"
Cynthia Virtue
Dagonell wrote:
> I have seen some classes that have made me
> cringe and walk-out. I would be willing to be evaluated if it meant
> improving the learning process.
I expect that some sort of broadband evaluation is very difficult. Another
way of addressing it would to write a few guidelines for students to encourage
critical thinking about what people tell them. This would aid in general SCA
life (would stop some of those old myths, like no buttons before 1500, etc)
and even better, in "real life."
I'm thinking of things like:
1. Does the teacher provide sources, quotes, or photocopies of period works to
support the class?
2. Does the teacher leave room for doubt of their conclusions, or (as
Tangwystl posted a while back) is able to say "I don't know?"
3. Does the teacher have examples of whatever they are teaching, that they
have produced recently themselves? Are these items or works good quality?
(For real life, substitute "authority" or "politician" for "teacher.")
--
Lady Cynthia du Pre Argent, Minister of Silly Hats, Crosston
In the wide world, most people are content with mediocrity.
"After all," they say. "Who'll know?" -- MaggiRos
Heather Senkler
On Wed, 27 May 1998, Duane Brocious wrote:
> how about:
>
> 4. education and/or experience on the subject outside the SCA.
> For example, a person giving a class on medieval carpentry who is a
> modern carpenter might (there are never guarantees) might know a tad
> beyond the SCA experience. Also, even a four year degree would indicate
> that said person might have a clue about research (again no gaurantee).
This is one of the reasons why the classes at the College of St. Giles
(University of Victoria) can be really facinating.
> There are alot of indicators that one could look for besides what seems
> to be a common thing in the SCA "they've been doing this SCA stuff for a
> while and have a good reputation". Not that there aren't knowledgeable
> people in the SCA, but to rely on the SCA reputation and involvement
> creates a self-contained educational system that doesn't have contact
> with anything else. It is one of the reasons Universities usually hire
> professors from other institutions, to increase the knowledge base and
> bring in new ideas.
>
> Ferret
You may have enjoyed the Ithra and Rapier Academy held in Seagirt last
November. We had instructors from Texas, California, Washington, Oregon,
and all over British Columbia. It was marvelous to talk about differences
in the SCA and in society in general with people from all over.
This is one of the ways we try to avoid being insular.
(Funny for us since we live on an island.)
YIS
Lady Ekatarina Borisovna,
Chatelaine of Seagirtshire
sal...@niktow.canisius.edu
Matthew Pius (piu...@umdnj.edu) wrote:
: Heather Senkler <wl...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
: >On 15 May 1998 sal...@niktow.canisius.edu wrote:
: >> My question is to those people who help arrange
: >> classes and instructors. How critically do you review the qualifications
: >> of the instructor?
: >As far as I know at the University of Ithra in An Tir it is up to the High
: >Reagant. An instructor must submit two copies of all materials used in the
: >class. Each student completes an evaluation, if they so choose. And the
: >instructor is asked for their opinion of how well the class went,
: >what would they change, and would they teach it again. For many of the
: >survey classes and required classes there are established handouts and
: >regular teachers.
: Wow. I'm impressed. For most schola-type events around here and
: even for East Kingdom University sessions, all you have to do to teach a
: class is say you want to. And to answer the original question, there is
: no formal system for evaluating someone's qualifications to teach on his
: chosen subject.
This was my concern. I _have_ taught at EKU and various other scholas.
I think there should be some system of evaluating lecturers so that we're
not teaching nonsense. I have seen some classes that have made me
cringe and walk-out. I would be willing to be evaluated if it meant
improving the learning process.
-- Dagonell
______
/ | INTERNET : sal...@niktow.canisius.edu
/ | WEB-NET : http://www-cs.canisius.edu/~salley
________/ | USNAILNET : David P. Salley, 136 Shepard Street,
|* | Buffalo, New York 14212-2029 U.S.A.
/ Rhydderich Hael | ICBMNET : 42 55 32 N / 78 51 10 W / Alt 600
|______________ | PERSONA : Dagonell the Juggler
AEthelmearc `_ | COOKBOOK : "It Came From Hael's Kitchen" $2 + $1 p&h
Kingdom `__| DETAILS : Check the website under SCA, Feasts
Duane Brocious
Cynthia Virtue wrote:
> I'm thinking of things like:
how about:
4. education and/or experience on the subject outside the SCA.
For example, a person giving a class on medieval carpentry who is a
modern carpenter might (there are never guarantees) might know a tad
beyond the SCA experience. Also, even a four year degree would indicate
that said person might have a clue about research (again no gaurantee).
There are alot of indicators that one could look for besides what seems
Mark Schuldenfrei
Duane Brocious made a number of suggestions for better teaching.
Right up front, I am all for better teaching.
BUT... Ferret's arguments above start to discuss perfect teaching... with
ideas like wide outside experience, and four year degrees. What do we
sacrifice if that becomes the MINIMAL standard?
I think we sacrifice too much. Because we are not just an institute of
higher learning, but a functioning organization. And one of the wonderful
things about any organization, is that is shares its goods with its members.
If I (with my high school diploma) spend a few years studying heraldry and
vocal projection, and I decide to teach a class in it (and I have)...
that's a good thing. There are LOTS of ways in which the less than formal
expert can contribute.
I'm more and more convinced by Tangwystl's statements. (I think it was
her.) The best way to teach in the SCA, is to teach people HOW to evaluate
sources and resources. The argument by authority is weak, whether that
authority is a collegiate textbook or a Laurel somewhere.
As a wonderful example, I have taught classes where my undoubted superiors
in the topic were present in the room. It was a delight to have them there,
and to have them bring up other opinions, potential errors of mine, and so
forth to the audience, and have us all together work toward solutions and
ideas.
Ferret, I agree with the goal. But I still wonder: if we took that advice,
would the organization flourish, even if he teaching became more limited but
better?
Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@math.harvard.edu)
"Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably
would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin
Cynthia Virtue
Tibor wrote:
> BUT... Ferret's arguments above start to discuss perfect teaching... with
> ideas like wide outside experience, and four year degrees. What do we
> sacrifice if that becomes the MINIMAL standard?
If we encouraged critical thinking, and classes were held on a moderately
regular basis (twice a year, say) then the combination should slowly get
people realizing that some teachers teach well and accurately, and some do
not. Those that do not teach well will gradually have lower attendence, and
will either fix the class, because they like teaching, or stop teaching for
lack of interest. It is a very long range solution -- but far less trouble
than building a self-perpetuating scholastic bureacracy.
It would not be unlike the school system in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by
Heinlein, actually.
Heather Rose Jones
Cynthia Virtue (cvi...@ricochet.net) wrote:
: If we encouraged critical thinking, and classes were held on a moderately
: regular basis (twice a year, say) then the combination should slowly get
: people realizing that some teachers teach well and accurately, and some do
: not. Those that do not teach well will gradually have lower attendence, and
: will either fix the class, because they like teaching, or stop teaching for
: lack of interest.
Unfortunatly, this doesn't address the question of teachers who teach
"well" (in the sense of being interesting and communicating well), and who
teach things that people are interested in learning, but teach things that
just ain't so. (Or simply, things that have nothing to do with period.)
People _will_ eventually stop going to classes that aren't interesting,
but unfortunately, they won't necessarily stop going to classes that teach
them bunk -- if that bunk feeds their fantasies about the Middle Ages.
Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn
I. Marc Carlson
<spp...@aol.com (SPPKSP)>
>....At the class, everyone says "Oooooh!". Then, however, it's
>pointed out by a super-laurel that the embroidery style being used
>mixes periods and geography. And that one of the tricks of the
>trade may not have been used when and where the teacher thinks.
>(Maybe there's even a question & answer debate!)
>What's happened? ...
You mean, besides the "super-laurel" (or "other knowledgable peer/
noble/oldtimer" who also couldn't keep from showing off how much
they think they know in class), who a) was not asked to teach the class,
and b) may not know any more than the teacher on the topic, BTW, has
just done their darnedest to destroy the credibility of the teacher
in front of that class, and possibly just lost the Society another
person willing to teach publically.
There is a difference between showing a solid interest in the subject,
or even asking a question to make sure the teacher covers something in
class, and if that fails, asking permission to express a different
perspective to the class, and shooting your mouth off. I have attended
far too many SCA classes where Mistress So-and-so, and/or Duchess
This-and-that brought everything to a halt trying to show that they knew
more than either the teacher, or each other (Conversely, I have also
seen peers and scholars *politely* leave a class when they realized it
was covering things at a more elementary level than they were interested
in).
Certainly, we can turn this back on blaming the teachers for letting
things get out of hand if we want, but that does seem to return us to
Ferret's suggestion that we get better trained teachers.
Marc/Diarmaid O'Duinn
lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
Deloris Booker
I have been following the discussion about what constitutes
good/useful/desirable teaching in the SCA context with some interest.
First, May I introduce myself and my connection to this matter? I am
Aldreada of the Lakes, and among other things I have, for the past 4 years
been a Chancellor of the University of Ithra in the Kingdom of An Tir.
My responsibilitites include organizing classes, finding teachers and
keeping the good ones coming back.
1) on the question of qualifications to teach - this is tricky and a
policy of "you can only teach if you have serious mundane qualifications"
can deny you some really good teachers. For example, I have 3 academic
degrees. Do these qualify me to teach a class on "Autocrating and how to
survive it"? No, but successfully autocrating a dozen or two events over
15 years does qualify me. Does my peerage qualify me to teach "courtesy
and ettiquette in the SCA" or "Intro to the SCA"? Well, technically, yes.
But my personality, SCA experience and local reputation are better
indicators to a Chancellor of what I could contribute to the class.
What are the qualifications for a good teacher? Well, in no particular
order :
1) the ability to organize and communicate information in a useful way
2) a firm grasp of a body of knowledge - whether it is "five basic
embroidery stitches for the complete beginner", "advanced chain mail
construction techniques" or "the 12 worthies as icons of medieval
chivalry" (nb. must find someone to teach the last one).
3) a sense of humour and the recognition that teaching a class at Ithra
does not confer instant god-hood (gods/esses need not apply for teaching
positions).
You will note that rank, # of years (alive or as member of the "clique du
jour") or your personal relationship to me are not on that list.
Advice to those who want to teach a course for the SCA.
1) Develope a course outline, methodology, handouts, etc.
2) Practice a couple of times : first time, teach it to the african
violets or your aunt's portrait, second time, teach it to a couple of
patient friends.
3) After 1 & 2 find the Ithra chancellor or equivalent in your area and
propose the course. Give him/her a copy of your handout and attach a list
of requirements for space, resources, size limit, lead time, etc, plus
address and phone number - this shows that you are 1) serious, 2)
organized. I've gone with a lot less from people, but this is what I
like.
Advice for those who take classes and want to improve them.
1) if there is a "critique sheet" provided, take the time to fill it out.
Be constructive, courteous and brief.
An example of why this is useful from my own experience :
One of the classes I teach is "Survey and history of Medieval and
Renaissance Books and Libraries" which covers about what you would expect.
The first time I taught the class, I did enormous amount of research,
assembled vast amounts of data, no-shit stories, etc., winnowed it down to
5 pages of single space, compressed outline pointform notes plus
bibliography, assembled about 120 slides, and went at it for 4 hours,
including break. When I got the comment sheets back, they were full of
lovely praise about the quantity and organizaton of the material, the
instructors enthusiasm, etc.. I was feeling pretty fine, I can tell you.
Then I came to one where it said in the"other comments"space "I really
enjoyed it and learned a lot, but I still don't understand the difference
between parchment and velum." I was hugely embarassed when I checked the
notes and reviewed mentally what I had said to discover that I had left
this out -assuming I guess that everyone would know such obviously basic knowledge.
I ammended my handout and vowed never to make that mistake again. I
haven't and I always read the comment sheets - you never know what you
will learn.
2) if you are taking the class and feel an overwhelming urge to kibbitz or
introduce your alternate theory of reality/example of how to do it better,
etc. ask your self this question :
Is my point really important, or do I just want to show how much
better informed I am/ more important I am/ etc. than this person? Quite
often, when I ask myself this question, I find an overwhelming urge to
shut up and listen to someone else. Just because what they are saying
does not agree entirely with my knowledge/experience does not mean that
they are stupid, corrupt or lazy. Sometimes, it means they are honestly
mistaken, sometimes it means they have done a little more research than I
have. If you believe them to be mistaken, it might be more useful to
discuss it with them after the class - after all, if they are right and
you are mistaken you don't want to look silly in front of everyone, do
you.
Where all this is going :
I think that the thing we want to remember is that we are doing this for
fun and to learn stuff, not for counting coup. The class you take at
Ithra (or local equivalent) may introduce you to a lifetime of enjoyable
activitiy. Or it may confirm your deeply held suspicion that this is
something you have no interest in or aptitude for at all. Either way, you
haven't lost anything. Either way, this class is not the be-all and
end-all of the topic. Go away and learn more. That's the really important
thing.
Yours in service
Aldreada of the Lakes OP, etc. (Chancellor of Ithra for the Principality
of Avacal, Kingdom of An Tir)
Yumitori no Kiyoshi
Haifuku!
> You mean, besides the "super-laurel" (or "other knowledgable peer/
> noble/oldtimer" who also couldn't keep from showing off how much
> they think they know in class), who a) was not asked to teach the class,
> and b) may not know any more than the teacher on the topic, BTW, has
> just done their darnedest to destroy the credibility of the teacher
> in front of that class, and possibly just lost the Society another
> person willing to teach publically.
The example assumes an actual error was being presented as fact, and a
more knowledgeable person politely points out the mistake.
You assume the second individual is not more knowledgeable, and is not
polite.
Why are your assumptions more valid?
> There is a difference between showing a solid interest in the subject,
> or even asking a question to make sure the teacher covers something in
> class, and if that fails, asking permission to express a different
> perspective to the class, and shooting your mouth off. I have attended
> far too many SCA classes where Mistress So-and-so, and/or Duchess
> This-and-that brought everything to a halt trying to show that they knew
> more than either the teacher, or each other (Conversely, I have also
> seen peers and scholars *politely* leave a class when they realized it
> was covering things at a more elementary level than they were interested
> in).
Fair enough, so have I. There are ways of dealing with this sort of
problem as well, but the original example assumes a real mistake is
being made.
> Certainly, we can turn this back on blaming the teachers for letting
> things get out of hand if we want, but that does seem to return us to
> Ferret's suggestion that we get better trained teachers.
>
> Marc/Diarmaid O'Duinn
> lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
How do you suggest one should correct an error that is being presented
as fact? Or do you propose allowing the mistake to go unquestioned?
Yumitori
SPPKSP
>You mean, besides the "super-laurel" (or "other knowledgable peer/
>noble/oldtimer" who also couldn't keep from showing off how much
>they think they know in class), who a) was not asked to teach the class,
>and b) may not know any more than the teacher on the topic, BTW, has
>just done their darnedest to destroy the credibility of the teacher
>in front of that class, and possibly just lost the Society another
>person willing to teach publically.
A fair point, but a little off the mark. I'd assumed this all happened
politely and during one of those end-of-the-class discussion sessions. Please
consider the assumption corrected. (Hey! Maybe a thread should start on how
to be a good SCA student . . . 8-)
>There is a difference between showing a solid interest in the subject,
>or even asking a question to make sure the teacher covers something in
>class, and if that fails, asking permission to express a different
>perspective to the class, and shooting your mouth off. I have attended
>far too many SCA classes where Mistress So-and-so, and/or Duchess
>This-and-that brought everything to a halt trying to show that they knew
>more than either the teacher, or each other (Conversely, I have also
>seen peers and scholars *politely* leave a class when they realized it
>was covering things at a more elementary level than they were interested
>in).
You make some good points about how to deal with the situation of a new teacher
making a mistake. But that is a somewhat different thread. Can I take it you
understand the point I was making about wanting to have inexpert teachers as
well as professional-level teachers?
Thanks,
Brion
Duane Brocious
Yumitori no Kiyoshi wrote:
> How do you suggest one should correct an error that is being presented
> as fact? Or do you propose allowing the mistake to go unquestioned?
IN the SCA one usually needs to "out cite" the error which does always
work, one can find a thousand books claiming a "flat earth" medieval
paradigm to every academic work debunking the falacy. In academia simply
asking "upon what do you base that assertion" works well. Academics can
also weigh the sources (Bois vs Duby can be a draw :-) )
Ferret
I. Marc Carlson
<Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu>>
>...Choosing and evaluating teachers is never a simple task. While a
>prospective instructor can provide an impression of knowledge it may be
>impossible to tell if it is "good" knowledge...
I agree. But, as you say, trying to verify that information with
those who are also knowledgable can be a major help towards determining
who knows what's what.
Marc/Diarmaid O'Duinn
lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
I. Marc Carlson
<spp...@aol.com (SPPKSP)>
>A fair point, but a little off the mark. I'd assumed this all happened
>politely and during one of those end-of-the-class discussion sessions. Please
>consider the assumption corrected. (Hey! Maybe a thread should start on how
>to be a good SCA student . . . 8-)
My mistake, and my apologies. I've seen enough instances of the other
that my first response was based on that assumption. And actually,
teaching people how to be good students might not hurt the SCA's
sometimes quite poor image in Academia as well.
>You make some good points about how to deal with the situation of a new teacher
>making a mistake. But that is a somewhat different thread. Can I take it you
>understand the point I was making about wanting to have inexpert teachers as
>well as professional-level teachers?
If I didn't think that inexperienced teachers didn't have anything to
contribute, I'd teach a *lot* fewer classes :) [For example, I'm certainly
not a professional level leatherworker or shoemaker]
Marc/Diarmaid O'Duinn
lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
I. Marc Carlson
<Yumitori no Kiyoshi <yumi...@montana.com>>
>> You mean, besides the "super-laurel" (or "other knowledgable peer/
>> noble/oldtimer" who also couldn't keep from showing off how much
>> they think they know in class), who a) was not asked to teach the class,
>more knowledgeable person politely points out the mistake.
>You assume the second individual is not more knowledgeable, and is not
>polite.
>Why are your assumptions more valid?
Having discussed this already with the person who had made the point
I was responding to, I will say quite simply that the example as given
was open to interpretation. For example, his assumption was that the
knowedgable person would politely wait until the end of the class.
Perhaps you have never been in a class that has been disrupted by such,
for the lack of a better term, rudeness, in which case, you are quite
fortunate. Secondly, the phrase "may not know more about the teacher
doesn't mean that they *don't* know any more than the teacher, but
simply *may* not. When encountering someone who is "rude" enough to
disrupt a class in this fashion I have found that all too often they
*don't* know any more about the topic, but are simply parroting
misinformation under the guise of trying to show off or be "helpful".
>...How do you suggest one should correct an error that is being presented
>as fact? Or do you propose allowing the mistake to go unquestioned?
As I said in my message, there are ways of politely suggesting that
there are alternate explanations that do not require interrupting the
class or costing the teacher their credibility.
Marc/Diarmaid O'Duinn
lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
Matthew Pius
In article <356B93...@psu.edu>, Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
>4. education and/or experience on the subject outside the SCA.
>For example, a person giving a class on medieval carpentry who is a
>modern carpenter might (there are never guarantees) might know a tad
>beyond the SCA experience.
Conversely, though, someone who has been trained in modern
carpentry will have modern techniques ingrained. Whereas someone whose
entire knowledge of carpentry was gained through the SCA might have a
better grasp of period methods. I have certainly found, in making
clothing, that I'm sometimes better off forgetting all I know about modern
fitting and patterns in order to get a period look and fit.
-Ibrahim al-Rashid
(mka Matt Pius)
ste...@faculty.unipissing.ca
> The argument by authority is weak, whether that
> authority is a collegiate textbook or a Laurel somewhere.
There are certainly enough mistakes, overgeneralizations, and outmoded
interpretations in textbooks.
As for mistakes, I found in the ancient history textbook I'd just ordered fro
my students, at the end of a long section on Socrates, the statement that
"Sophocles was executed by the Athenians in 399 B.C. for corrupting the
youth."
Oog.
Finnvarr
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
ste...@faculty.unipissing.ca
> far less trouble
> than building a self-perpetuating scholastic bureacracy.
Especially since your tax dollars have already built up such a system. Why
try to duplicate what already exists with less resources?
The very uneven quality of Complete Anachronist over the years seems to show
that the SCA is not well constructed to build a systematic educational system
comparable to what the pros have already built (for good or ill).
Duane Brocious
Matthew Pius wrote:
> Conversely, though, someone who has been trained in modern
> carpentry will have modern techniques ingrained. Whereas someone whose
> entire knowledge of carpentry was gained through the SCA might have a
> better grasp of period methods. I have certainly found, in making
> clothing, that I'm sometimes better off forgetting all I know about modern
> fitting and patterns in order to get a period look and fit.
The point is that a person with modern carpentry experience will usually
have more of an understanding of the basic principles _and has
demonstrated that knowledge_ in a varifiable way. This is better than a
"pig in a poke" methid of anyone who "says" they are qualified are
accepted as qualified.
As I also said (over and over) it is easy and fairly cheap to take
college courses to learn things outside the SCA esp, approved research
methods and historical methodology.
I don't see why so many SCA folk balk at actually getting academic
training and actually requiring more than a popularity contest for
credentials (yes I am being sarcastic). Do we accept chiurgeons without
formal training ? Then why not push for minimal training for all
"authorities" in the SCA ?
Ferret
I. Marc Carlson
<Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu>>
>The point is that a person with modern carpentry experience will usually
>have more of an understanding of the basic principles _and has
>demonstrated that knowledge_ in a varifiable way. This is better than a
>"pig in a poke" methid of anyone who "says" they are qualified are
>accepted as qualified.
Exactly. If I may offer another example: I am reasonably familiar with
both modern and medieval leatherworking techniques, designs, and processes.
One of the areas I have studied fairly closely is Saddlery, and both
modern and medieval saddle construction. And I regularly get compliments
for my skill levels in leatherworking. Fair enough. However, we have a
tack shop not too far from where we live where I go when I start to feel
cocky. The Saddlemaker keeps his "Masterpiece" on display there, and
while I can tell you every technique, material and tool he probably used
to create that thing, and have, at one time or another, used every one
of them myself - there is *no way on Earth* barring utter Divine
Intervention that could turn out work of that had that much quality,
and that much experience behind it. There are *many* things he could
teach me (if I could ever convince him it would be worth his while :) ).
>...As I also said (over and over) it is easy and fairly cheap to take
>college courses to learn things outside the SCA esp, approved research
>methods and historical methodology.
Or even learn from mundane experts NOT through a college environment.
>I don't see why so many SCA folk balk at actually getting academic
>training and actually requiring more than a popularity contest for
>credentials (yes I am being sarcastic). Do we accept chiurgeons without
>formal training ? Then why not push for minimal training for all
>"authorities" in the SCA ?
I believe it is a combination of many things, starting with a belief
that the way modern people do things has no relation to the ways used
in the past (which is only marginally true in some cases, I believe),
but more importantly there is an anti-educational subculture in the SCA.
By this I mean there is an interesting educational caste system in place
where those who are insecure about their education are so convinced
that the "educated" will criticize them, that they will proactively
seek out opportunities to pre-emptively strike with their own criticisms
and denigrations, keeping them in submission with "politics", lies,
insinuations and so forth. Now, in some cases, there may be some
grounds for this, as I also know a great many "educational" people
(academicians, re-enactors, and such) who will automatically dismiss
and denigrate someone or something simply because it has the marks of
the SCA-pariah on it (encouraged ignorance and misinformation, and
a self-important belief that partially dressing in funny clothes and
playing in a fantasy world that bears little or no resemblance to the
actual "Middle Ages" can actually teach you anything about history).
As you can see, it's an unpleasant little circle. No one wants
to be criticized, or to place themselves in a position where they
are going to be dismissed. Therefore, SCA people in Academia, as a
rule, don't tend to advertise the fact, and those who feel that they
are uneducated are certainly not inclined to work to get themselves
information that will certain bring them distain, or if they have it,
they tend to keep it to themselves.
Of course, both groups *do* have things to bring to the table, if they
could only learn to not automatically criticize and denigrate those who
don't agree with them.
Marc/Diarmaid O'Duinn
lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
Morgan E. Smith
The problem with setting the structure up so that we get
better-trained/better credentialed teachers is: Where do we get them from?
My own suspicion is that the end result would be LESS teaching going on,
and a further escalation of the "Educational" status debate.
OTOH: The drive towards more credentials has, in an SCA sense, led to
some truly silly goings-on. A few years ago, a Chancellor from another
area questioned my ability to teach a Survey of Medieval Art class,
because she'd never seen me teach it. This person had no mundane
qualifications to be a "chancellor" - but I have four years of intensive
art and art historical training, and have taught first year art history
classes at post-secondary institutions. This, apparently, wasn't enough
for the Chancellor.
I do sympathize with those who suspect they are getting a secondrate
education out of SCA classes. My advice would be to take a little time to
acquaint yourself with the subject if you think the class you just took
wasn't terribly accurate.
Morgan the Unknown
David Friedman
>I don't see why so many SCA folk balk at actually getting academic
>training and actually requiring more than a popularity contest for
>credentials (yes I am being sarcastic). Do we accept chiurgeons without
>formal training ? Then why not push for minimal training for all
>"authorities" in the SCA ?
For one thing, academic credentials in the very limited sense we could
judge and require them aren't worth very much; there are lots of people
with, say, a bachelor's degree in a field who are not competent in it.
Schools vary enormously, and most of them eventually graduate most
students--whether or not they end up knowing very much.
For another thing, one of the SCA's important resource is the effort of a
lot of enthusiastic amateurs--who would be eliminated by such a
requirement.
More generally, I think the greater society relies too much on
credentialism, and would hope we can do better. I may be biased on the
subject, given that I teach, at the university level, in two
fields--neither of which I have any degrees in, and in neither of which I
have ever taken a course for credit.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property
while the legislature is in session"
Greg Lindahl
Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> writes:
> While "I" prefer a PhD's lecture it is impractical in the SCA (although
^^^^^^^^
> IMHO after 30 years it shouldn't). The SCA is amateur yet some amateurs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> are better than others and can usually document their excellence in
> quite a few ways.
Many of the PhD's that I know in the SCA don't teach within their
fields. You see to have a pretty bizarre idea of what PhD's might be
interested in for their hobby activities.
-- gb
(astronomer by academic training, musician/dancer in the sca)
Morgan E. Smith
Keeping up the "carpentry" theme: it is untrue that a modern carpenter
will have the expertise to assist in ANY material way a person attempting
to make something out of wood in a period fashion.
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ALERT!!!
When I was at art college, we had a terrific woodshop. It was run by a
guy who was a carpenter/cabinet maker with absolutely hordes of
industrial/commercial expertise. He knew modern carpentry backwards and
forwards. He knew the equipment. He knew techniques. He knew wood. But
everything he knew was based on the last twenty years of modern
techniques/materials/methods.
One of my projects involved making a folding screen. (Don't ask. It's
long and complicated. Just suffice to say that this project was given for
the particular class every year, so Doug had helped build a few hundred
folding screens.)
I decided to make a folding screen using woodpeg construction.
Doug disbelieved the efficacy of this method. He told me it could not
possibly work. That the screen would fall to pieces within seconds. That
no one had ever made anything like this in the history of woodworking,
because wood pegs and friction fit was impossible to do properly. ( I am
not kidding about this. He really said these things. ) He told me that
"screwed and glued" was the only way the screen could be constructed.
I ignored Doug. I said that I actually had made stuff using woodpeg
construction before, and that it was possible. He refused to assist me in
any way (no serious problem here. My dad used to make me spend hours in
the basement, doing things like this.) I made my screen, using no metal
bits at all. It works just fine. (I gave it to some friends as a wedding
present, ten years ago.)
Doug was amazed. I asked him, after all this, just what he thought
people did before there were metal screws extruded out by their thousands.
Doug didn't know. He'd never thought about it, and couldn't really get his
brain around the idea that people had been making things from wood for
thousands of years before cheap metal screws and nails and woodglue from
the Elmer company existed.
My point is this: we aren't experts, in the main. But modern/academic
expertise doesn't necessarily confer any kind of analytic ability in and
of itself. Just think of all those loom weights that non-weaving
archeologists listed as "ferilityobjects" or some such, before a
self-educated weaver came along and told them what they actually were.
Morgan the Unknown
SPPKSP
Coming at it from still ANOTHER angle . . .
In many cases academic knowledge is not what we're about or after. For example
- I love to cook, and I do it well. (For crying out loud, we make demi-glace
at home!)
What interests me in SCA cooking is penetrating the mind of the medieval chefs,
not collecting or re-creating their recipes. Cooking is an art, every bit as
much as painting, and you can see into a chef's soul through his food in much
the same way you can see into a painter through his canvas. But this isn't an
"academic" approach! (Getting subtle now, please forgive any lack of clarity).
The "academic" approach would be to collect and translate recipes and receipts
& so forth in an attempt to nail down specific, real facts. What I do is a
matter of applied imagination, trying to say "what would I cook for a medieval
audience" or "what would a medieval chef do with modern ingredients" or "if I
were a medieval chef with these ingredients, what would I make?" I want to
*create* in a medieval manner more than I want to study medieval creations.
There's obviously a great deal of cross-seeding here (and I'm ignoring it
deliberately, so no flames please), & I'm wandering off point. What I mean to
say is that scholars do one thing and recreational re-creators do another. At
the same time, however, I think we learn something about the medieval soul by
doing that an academician CAN'T learn by studying. And that's what SCA
scholarship is truly about.
Only by doing can one realize how crippling it is from a modern viewpoint to
cook without yesterday's stock; without tomato products, hot peppers and other
ingredients; with different types of wine; without refrigeration; etc., etc.
Only by doing can you say "that book is wrong! They *must* have had this
technique"; or consider what it would be like if they really didn't have it
and you, as chef, have to make the dish come out "right" nevertheless.
Sorry, I'm babbling. Gotta run. If someone would take the effort to clarify
the thoughts in this post I'd appreciate it. It's going out unedited, as I'm
sure all of you can tell.
Brion
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <199805281453...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
spp...@aol.com (SPPKSP) wrote:
> There's obviously a great deal of cross-seeding here (and I'm ignoring it
> deliberately, so no flames please), & I'm wandering off point. What I mean to
> say is that scholars do one thing and recreational re-creators do another. At
Better not say that to some of the mere "scholars" I know...
> the same time, however, I think we learn something about the medieval soul by
> doing that an academician CAN'T learn by studying. And that's what SCA
> scholarship is truly about.
Yeah, and archaeologists and historians *NEVER* do applied archaeology or
applied historical technique research.
I am sick to death of this "scholars only study history but *we* live it
attitude". Back when I started in SCA, more than a decade ago, I actually
believed such nonsense, but that was before I realized that men like S.
Anglo or E. Oakeshott existed.
Oh, and of course, there are the mere scholarly archaeologists who were
behind the brewing of the Ninkasi beer from Sumerian texts. And what
about that Egyptian brew?
Greg Lindahl
DD...@best.com (David Friedman) writes:
> More generally, I think the greater society relies too much on
> credentialism, and would hope we can do better. I may be biased on the
> subject, given that I teach, at the university level, in two
> fields--neither of which I have any degrees in, and in neither of which I
> have ever taken a course for credit.
Unfortunately the SCA already has a bit of creeping credentialism --
people assume things about the competance of Laurels when they should
instead attempt to assess their qualifications. I find this funny,
but I, too, work as a researcher in a field in which I have taken only
one course for credit.
-- greg
Don Levey
And to continue even further:
Most modern carpenters and woodworkers are experienced in the use of
Kiln-dried, or perhaps air-dried wood. Much of the woodwork in period
was done on green wood. The techniques are quite different, because
with green wood one must design and work taking into account the
racking and checking (twists and cracks) that wood will do when
drying. Most modern woodworkers never learn this stuff, because they
work with rather dry wood.
-Don
On Thu, 28 May 1998 08:40:59 -0600, "Morgan E. Smith"
<mes...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
> Keeping up the "carpentry" theme: it is untrue that a modern carpenter
>will have the expertise to assist in ANY material way a person attempting
>to make something out of wood in a period fashion.
> ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ALERT!!!
>
> When I was at art college, we had a terrific woodshop. It was run by a
>guy who was a carpenter/cabinet maker with absolutely hordes of
>industrial/commercial expertise. He knew modern carpentry backwards and
>forwards. He knew the equipment. He knew techniques. He knew wood. But
>everything he knew was based on the last twenty years of modern
>techniques/materials/methods.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation. All nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent
to this address is construed as being sent to a fax machine and subject
to a $500 fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| By sending me unsolicited commercial email you agree to pay my |
| standard consulting fee of $250/hr for examining your message (a |
| minimum charge of one (1) hour). The bill for my service will be |
| sent to you along with my analysis of your message. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <DDFr-28059...@ddfr.vip.best.com>, DD...@best.com (David
Friedman) wrote:
> In article <356CF3...@psu.edu>, dnb...@psu.edu wrote:
>
> >I don't see why so many SCA folk balk at actually getting academic
> >training and actually requiring more than a popularity contest for
> >credentials (yes I am being sarcastic). Do we accept chiurgeons without
> >formal training ? Then why not push for minimal training for all
> >"authorities" in the SCA ?
>
> For one thing, academic credentials in the very limited sense we could
> judge and require them aren't worth very much; there are lots of people
> with, say, a bachelor's degree in a field who are not competent in it.
> Schools vary enormously, and most of them eventually graduate most
> students--whether or not they end up knowing very much.
Furthermore, the formal training of chirurgeons is not required for the
purpose of training other chirurgeons. They are not chirurgeons in order
to teach medieval medicine, they are chirurgeons in order to provide
modern first-responder care until professionals arrive.
I. Marc Carlson
I'm going to combine some responses here in a vain effort to save
space.
<"Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca>>
>The problem with setting the structure up so that we get better-
>trained/better credentialed teachers is: Where do we get them from?
We do it the way we do anything else. We make from scratch those
teachers we can't bring in from the outside, and try to encourage those
educated, trained people who've long since given up trying to make a dent
to come back and give it one more try. We train people with decent material
and they in turn teach others.
>My own suspicion is that the end result would be LESS teaching going on,
>and a further escalation of the "Educational" status debate.
For a while, perhaps. The question then becomes which is "better", fewer
classes, but that are of a higher quality; or a lot of questionable
classes that may just be a waste of time?
========================================
<spp...@aol.com (SPPKSP)>
>Coming at it from still ANOTHER angle . . .
Are you actually discussing the topic from your perspective or are
you playing Devil's Advocate?
>...The "academic" approach would be to collect and translate recipes
>and receipts & so forth in an attempt to nail down specific, real facts.
>What I do is a matter of applied imagination, trying to say "what would
>I cook for a medieval audience" or "what would a medieval chef do with
>modern ingredients" or "if I were a medieval chef with these ingredients,
>what would I make?" I want to *create* in a medieval manner more than
>I want to study medieval creations.
That is, of course, your option. And it's a fine option. But don't
try to tell me that it will actually teach me anything about history.
Learning by doing is a great thing, and I'm more in favor of it than
I can truly express. But unless that learning by doing offers a valid
model of what was, or what might have been (as controlled by those
"specific, real facts") it is, *to me*, a total waste of time.
>...At the same time, however, I think we learn something about the
>medieval soul by doing that an academician CAN'T learn by studying. And
>that's what SCA scholarship is truly about.
To suggest that you can learn about something without actually *studying*
it, stripping it to its bones and then reassembling it, testing the material
you have available, without adding a lot of other crap to it, learning
all there is to know about it BEFORE you start playing with it is, again
*to me* (and I don't pretend to speak for anyone else) GARBAGE. Some
scholars, who happen to be in the SCA, do that sort of thing, and I
applaud them for it. "SCA scholarship", OTOH, does not hold itself to
those standards. Whether it should or not really is not my place to
say, but I would prefer it if these myths were stopped when they showed
up.
=============================
<bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)>
>> the same time, however, I think we learn something about the medieval
>>soul by doing that an academician CAN'T learn by studying. And that's
>>what SCA scholarship is truly about.
>Yeah, and archaeologists and historians *NEVER* do applied archaeology or
>applied historical technique research.
(In case anyone missed Bryan's point:) they didn't used to, but (Thank
God!) that is starting to go by the wayside. To my mind, Archaeology,
Ethnology, History, and Experimentation are the legs that support the
table of Medieval Study.
>I am sick to death of this "scholars only study history but *we* live it
>attitude". Back when I started in SCA, more than a decade ago, I actually
>believed such nonsense, but that was before I realized that men like S.
>Anglo or E. Oakeshott existed.
What he said.
>Oh, and of course, there are the mere scholarly archaeologists who were
>behind the brewing of the Ninkasi beer from Sumerian texts. And what
>about that Egyptian brew?
BTW, if anyone has the recipes for those, PLEASE tell me.
============================================
<"Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca>>
>...Just think of all those loom weights that non-weaving
>archeologists listed as "ferilityobjects" or some such, before a
>self-educated weaver came along and told them what they actually were.
And that was *when*?
Archaeology, and archaeological knowledge is changing and growing
every day. As a rule, Archaeologists *learn* from the past, and that
includes learning by their own mistakes.
Marc/Diarmaid
lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
McLean1382
In article <6kk614$kkf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ste...@faculty.unipissing.ca
writes:
> I found in the ancient history textbook I'd just ordered fro
>my students, at the end of a long section on Socrates, the statement that
>"Sophocles was executed by the Athenians in 399 B.C. for corrupting the
>youth."
>
>
That'll teach him.
Galleron
Matthew Pius
In article <356CF3...@psu.edu>, Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
>Matthew Pius wrote:
>
>> Conversely, though, someone who has been trained in modern
>> carpentry will have modern techniques ingrained. Whereas someone whose
>> entire knowledge of carpentry was gained through the SCA might have a
>> better grasp of period methods. I have certainly found, in making
>> clothing, that I'm sometimes better off forgetting all I know about modern
>> fitting and patterns in order to get a period look and fit.
>
>have more of an understanding of the basic principles _and has
>demonstrated that knowledge_ in a varifiable way. This is better than a
>"pig in a poke" methid of anyone who "says" they are qualified are
>accepted as qualified.
However, it is just as easy to verifty the worksmanship of
articles made by someone in either case. If two people produce equally
good chairs (for example) would the fact that one has learned all his
carpentry within the SCA and the other is a professional carpenter make a
difference in your decision to let them teach a class?
>As I also said (over and over) it is easy and fairly cheap to take
>college courses to learn things outside the SCA esp, approved research
>methods and historical methodology.
I would contest your claim that taking college courses is cheap
and easy. Location, work schedule, and personal finances could all
contribute to making it very difficult indeed. However, I think it is
entirely possible to learn research methodology without taking a college
course. There are those in the SCA who know and are willing to teach.
>I don't see why so many SCA folk balk at actually getting academic
>training and actually requiring more than a popularity contest for
>credentials (yes I am being sarcastic). Do we accept chiurgeons without
>formal training ? Then why not push for minimal training for all
>"authorities" in the SCA ?
Putting aside whether or not chirurgeons are "authorities"...as
has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, things taught at classes in
the SCA don't always correlate to an academic field. As Chancellor
Aldreada mentioned, having successfully run a dozen or so events is a
more compelling qualification to teach a class on how to run events than
having a college degree. The types of classes taught in the SCA are a
bit too diverse for us to set a rational standard that could apply to
them all. This is not to say the I don't think prospective teachers
should be evaluated by those running scholas. Just that I think things
will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Jay Rudin
Duane Brocious wrote:
> I don't see why so many SCA folk balk at actually getting academic
> training and actually requiring more than a popularity contest for
> credentials (yes I am being sarcastic).
You have put two different things together and then treated them as
one. Nobody balks at anyone in the SCA with the time and money getting
academic training. Academic training is wonderful. We do balk at
restricting the availability of willing teachers. No resemblance.
> Do we accept chiurgeons without formal training ? Then why not push
> for minimal training for all "authorities" in the SCA ?
Because an incompetent hem won't kill me; incompetent medical care
might.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
Jay Rudin
Bryan Maloney said:
> I am sick to death of this "scholars only study history but *we* live
> it attitude". Back when I started in SCA, more than a decade ago, I
> actually believed such nonsense, but that was before I realized that
> men like S. Anglo or E. Oakeshott existed.
I'm tired of the "My way is good, so your way must be bad" attitude in
either direction.
Duane Brocious
I. Marc Carlson wrote:
> Of course, both groups *do* have things to bring to the table, if they
> could only learn to not automatically criticize and denigrate those who
> don't agree with them.
Anthropologists have been drifting toward the "do it" methodology and
are perhaps closer to what the SCA folks seem to be striving for.
Historians and archaeologists tend to keep everything "academic". I did
note that archaeologists and historians seem to hold each other in
lowered esteem (at least those I have encountered) but there seems to
be a fusing of the disciplines recently by some adventurous PhD's (
wait until your tenured though :-) )
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Greg Lindahl wrote:
> Many of the PhD's that I know in the SCA don't teach within their
> fields. You see to have a pretty bizarre idea of what PhD's might be
> interested in for their hobby activities.
My scholarly and recreational areas are the same, as are many other
scholars I know. I pity the poor sod who spent years learnig and a
lifetime doing something that doesn't interest him.
Ferret
David Friedman
In article <356E33...@psu.edu>, dnb...@psu.edu wrote:
>David Friedman wrote:
>> For another thing, one of the SCA's important resource is the effort of a
>> lot of enthusiastic amateurs--who would be eliminated by such a
>> requirement.
>
>First I don't suggest it be a requirement, rather an encouragement.
>The attitude that " I am an amateur and don't want to learn any
>"academic stuff" " is pure rubbish. It sounds more to me like " I don't
>want my delusions of grandeur shattered by an education".
I think you may be confusing "education" with "schooling."
I agree that people in the SCA should try to use scholarly
resources--books, articles, and the like. I am much less confident that
the sensible way of using them is by taking university courses.
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
>Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
>
>> BUT... Ferret's arguments above start to discuss perfect teaching... with
>> ideas like wide outside experience, and four year degrees. What do we
>> sacrifice if that becomes the MINIMAL standard?
>
>I suggest looking at "teachers" via a resume' approach. I do not
>recomend any of this as a "minimum" or "pre-requisite". Just information
>for making sound decisions for instructors of classes.
>
>While "I" prefer a PhD's lecture it is impractical in the SCA (although
>IMHO after 30 years it shouldn't).
Why shouldn't it? How many PhDs in, say, 12th century fighting
techniques are there? Alternatively, even the "experts" can get it
wrong on SCA-specific subjects.
My favorite example is in "The Annotated Shakespeare" by A.L. Rowse.
Rowse was supposedly the foremost Shakespeare scholar of his day, yet
in his notes on "Romeo and Juliet" he footnotes a dagger's "house" as
a wound, even though it is clear from the text that it's a scabbard.
Sigh.
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
C and E Zakes
Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence)
and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward)
moon...@bga.com
Duane Brocious
David Friedman wrote:
> For another thing, one of the SCA's important resource is the effort of a
> lot of enthusiastic amateurs--who would be eliminated by such a
> requirement.
First I don't suggest it be a requirement, rather an encouragement.
The attitude that " I am an amateur and don't want to learn any
"academic stuff" " is pure rubbish. It sounds more to me like " I don't
want my delusions of grandeur shattered by an education".
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> Furthermore, the formal training of chirurgeons is not required for the
> purpose of training other chirurgeons. They are not chirurgeons in order
> to teach medieval medicine, they are chirurgeons in order to provide
> modern first-responder care until professionals arrive.
And the you want people to "pretend" to teach in a medieval style,
rather than actually teach ? Or di you mean to say that an EMT requires
no formal training ?
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Morgan E. Smith wrote:
> not kidding about this. He really said these things. ) He told me that
> "screwed and glued" was the only way the screen could be constructed.
> I ignored Doug. I said that I actually had made stuff using woodpeg
> construction before, and that it was possible. He refused to assist me
And I know modern mechanics who don't know how to fix a car without a
computer connector ! I would still prefer one of them to check my
transmition than someone off the street. You are correct that a modern
tradesperson might be at a loss in archaic methods, yet isn't he
preferable to someone with no qualifications ? To me he is. If your only
carpentry claim is " I made stuff in the SCA" I would believe the
caprenter until you showed me some of your work (like the screen).
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Jay Rudin wrote:
> I'm tired of the "My way is good, so your way must be bad" attitude in
> either direction.
The problem in my mind is that the SCA claims to _do_ history and
applied methodology, yet it isn't what Historians, Archaeologists and
Anthropologist call History and applied methodology.
If you wish to call it such things then _do_ such things (and I must
note many in the SCA do), if not then quit calling it that.
I can _say_ all day that I _do_ mechanics because I drive a car on a
daily basis, yet most mechanics would say I am moron for making such a
claim.
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Jay Rudin wrote:
> Because an incompetent hem won't kill me; incompetent medical care
> might.
>
because nobody gets hurt ?
Hell, just let anyone teach anything they want. How about offering a
lottery for Laurels (hmm, might be an improvement). It doesn't matter.
I think I get it now, it has nothing to do with teaching and learning
medieval studies topics. It is about making it "look like" we are doing
educational things.
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Matthew Pius wrote:
> and easy. Location, work schedule, and personal finances could all
> contribute to making it very difficult indeed. However, I think it is
> entirely possible to learn research methodology without taking a college
> course. There are those in the SCA who know and are willing to teach.
People have spent more for a tent than a 3 credit course costs (cheaper
if you simply audit). And many courses at a local community college are
very cheap and available in evenings too.
How do you know that they know anything ? Do they know proper
methodology (and the pitfalls)? Do they understand statistical analysis
? Are they aware of the major researchers in the field ?
Sorry, I used to buy this B.S. until I traded the B.S. for a B.S.
> has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, things taught at classes in
> the SCA don't always correlate to an academic field.
Everything I've seen in the SCA can use history, anthroplogy and
archaeological methodologies as well as other academic instruction.
FErret
Duane Brocious
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:
> My favorite example is in "The Annotated Shakespeare" by A.L. Rowse.
> Rowse was supposedly the foremost Shakespeare scholar of his day, yet
> in his notes on "Romeo and Juliet" he footnotes a dagger's "house" as
> a wound, even though it is clear from the text that it's a scabbard.
And because of his education he made a "fencing" error while his
background is in Elizabethan Literature instead of botching everything.
I suppose as a "fencing" expert you can read Chaucer in the original ?
You mix apples and oranges.
Ferret
Lady PDC
>People have spent more for a tent than a 3 credit course costs (cheaper<BR>
>if you simply audit). And many courses at a local community college are<BR>
>very cheap and available in evenings too.<BR>
><BR>
>How do you know that they know anything ? Do they know proper<BR>
>methodology (and the pitfalls)? Do they understand statistical analysis<BR>
>? Are they aware of the major researchers in the field ? <BR>
><BR>
>Sorry, I used to buy this B.S. until I traded the B.S. for a B.S.<BR>
>
While I agree with much of what you said, I must take exception to the fact
that you only answered two portions of the problem stated and ignored the
third.
While it may be relatively (in comparison to a tent) inexpensive to take a
course, and it may be possible to find convenient evening classes in a larger
population center, having spent much of my life in a town which did not have
many college courses and those only offered through adult ed. And having
spent that time in a town which was two hours drive through blizzards most of
the year. I must tell you that it is entirely possible to live too far away
from the possibility of college courses.
However, I have found very competent and knowledgeable people in those same
small towns who were willing to share their expertise. To say that that
sharing is less valuable simply because it is not associated with a college or
because that person doesn't have symbols behind their name would be ridiculous
in the extreme.
I treat the "purchase" of knowledge the same as I treat any other purchase. I
look to the method of teaching, the subject being taught, and the expertise of
the teacher. If all of these are valuable, then I will "purchase the
knowledge". If they are not there then I will refuse the purchase even if the
teacher is highly touted and comes from the very best of schools.
Constance
Greg Lindahl
I know lots of people who love what they do at work, but they still
have different hobbies. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons a
bit.
-- gb
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
Funny you should mention that...
I just started reading the "Canterbury Tales" a few weeks ago. It was
a facing pages translation: left page in the original, right page in
modern English. I didn't find the original all that hard to
understand, and soon stopped bothering with the translation.
No, I don't attribute that to my knowledge of rapier-play per se. I
think it has more to do with my preference for reading Elisabethan
primary source material, instead of secondary or tertiary sources,
which *is* an outgrowth of my study of rapier fighting.
Ullam
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> I am sick to death of this "scholars only study history but *we* live it attitude". Back when I started in SCA, more than a decade ago, I actually believed such nonsense, but that was before I realized that men like S. Anglo or E. Oakeshott existed.
>
Get a grip. None of us actually "live" history. We live the present
with one degree or another of historical flavor. Some of us like our
present a bit spicier than others.
eat up
Ullam
I. Marc Carlson
<moon...@bga.com (Chris and Elisabeth Zakes)>
>>...And because of his education he made a "fencing" error while his
>>background is in Elizabethan Literature instead of botching everything.
>>I suppose as a "fencing" expert you can read Chaucer in the original ?
>>You mix apples and oranges.
>Funny you should mention that...
I'm pleased that you found it an easy transition, since reading the
originals is (IMO) much better than relying on someone else's translations
if you can do it. Of course, not everyone can.
I think, however, that in shutting Ferret down by your exceptional
ability, you've ignored his point, which was that not even scholars can
be expected to know everything. You may be able to read Chaucerian
English, but how's your brain surgery? Can you answer the metalworking
question that came up receently about casting bronze? This is not meant
as a challenge, these are simply rhetorical questions intended to point
out that some place, some time, you are going to run into things you
don't know anything about (Heck, it happens to me all the time). This
means also that it's entirely possible that, with the best of intentions,
you will pass along misinformation, or at the very least, information which
is of a questionable or debatable nature. So what? To me, one of the
responsibilities of the "scholar", and one of the best techniques of the
scholastic method is to constantly re-examine what you know in the light
of new data and, if not correct past errors, try not to make old errors
over and over again. There are some people here in this forum that do
this (I'd compile a list, but I'd probably leave someone out, and I'd
rather not inadvertantly offend anyone I respect), and there are also
a great many who follow the medieval practice of blindly accepting what
authorities say and pass that along as the gospel. As a member of the
former category, I would have assumed that you would have known that some-
times even the experts screw up. It happens. That's why it's good to
practice "safe scholarship" and keep the protection of discernment and
simple skepticism handy.
The reason that I have directed this in this fashion is that I'm not sure
you really intended on using a rhetorical device to discredit Ferret and
his point, but that's what it looked like to me that you were doing.
Specifically, by emphazising a small flaw in a larger picture far out
of importance to its reality, to wit - a single error in the Riverside
Shakespeare. which in turn implies there are more errors than just that
placing your comments of it being [not an exact quote] "the paramount work
in its field" into a light of sarcasm, and thereby implying that even the
best scholars are utter morons and their works are crawling with errors
like maggots through a corpse.
Personally, I think that you were just trying to point out that even
the best sources can screw up, which I happen to agree with. But that's
because I happen to think a great deal of you and what you've done. I am
just wanting to point out how these sorts of things can get started.
Marc/Diarmaid O'Dhuinn
lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
Mark Schuldenfrei
Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> writes:
My scholarly and recreational areas are the same, as are many other
scholars I know. I pity the poor sod who spent years learnig and a
lifetime doing something that doesn't interest him.
I pity the poor sod so narrow as to have only monomaniacal interests.
For example, I adore my chosen profession (software engineering). I also
like cooking, music, woodworking, and so forth. I work out often. I enjoy
home repairs. I read about law and business. I care for history.
I may never be an "expert" in all of them. But I am pleased that there are
many paths to pleasure.
Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@math.harvard.edu)
"Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably
would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin
EddieEffie
>> Keeping up the "carpentry" theme: it is untrue that a modern carpenter
will have the expertise to assist in ANY material way a person attempting
to make something out of wood in a period fashion.
Hence the difference between "New Yankee Workshop" and "The Woodwright's Shop"
(one usually follows the other on PBS near the "This Old House" show).
After watching Norm on New Yankee build a huge fancy desk in one afternoon with
the shop of the gods (every power tool known to man), I'm stunned watching the
dude on Woodwright, who does EVERYTHING with hand tools. Takes him forever, but
it's traditional...
Effingham
JULIE ELAINE SIERACKI
Duane Brocious (dnb...@psu.edu) wrote:
: Jay Rudin wrote:
: Ferret
Some people in the SCA research and teach at a professional level. Some
don't. Some people in the SCA are interested in research and recreation,
others (to use a personal example) are interested in swinging a stick at
people. Just because we aren't a 100% pure research and recreation group
is no reason to remove these goals from our stated reason for existence.
I'm not an accredited teacher or an expert in any field, but I do have
good presentation skills and I enjoy sharing my interests with others. So
I write articles (that rarely see the light of day) and teach when the
occasion arises. I let my class know my qualifications (none) up front
and invite them to discuss things at the end of the class. And I always,
always try to give everyone a long list of my sources so that they can go
out and learn for themselves.
Jester of Anglesey
posting from my wife's account
please address any e-mail to:
jjo...@dhha.org
EddieEffie
>>My scholarly and recreational areas are the same, as are many other
scholars I know. I pity the poor sod who spent years learnig and a
lifetime doing something that doesn't interest him.
When I was younger in the SCA, the standard joke was, "BA in computer science,
MA in medieval English lit."
Effingham
EddieEffie
>>The very uneven quality of Complete Anachronist over the years seems to show
that the SCA is not well constructed to build a systematic educational system
comparable to what the pros have already built (for good or ill).
Well, true. In the year or so I edited CA, the quality of the mss (to say
nothing of the proposals) was all over the place. Of the CAs from my tenure, I
only keep four on my desk: my own on Japanese miscellania, the CA on period
poetry (actually primarily edited by Mistress Frida), the CA on coats of
plates, and Master Brustan's CA on period games.
Effingham
EddieEffie
>>Oh, and of course, there are the mere scholarly archaeologists who were
behind the brewing of the Ninkasi beer from Sumerian texts. And what
about that Egyptian brew?
That always sounded like a project begun by grad students.... <G>
Efffingham
Bryan J. Maloney
A chirurgeon need not be a full-fledged EMT. Depending upon locale,
first-responder training is all that is needed for a SCA chirurgeon. An
EMT is far and away much more trained than only having first-responder.
SCA chirurgeons are not required their training in order to teach medieval
topics. They are required their purely modern training in order to be
able to *USE* it should the situation arise.
OS2 User
In article <356e2737...@news2.bga.com> in rec.org.sca, dated Fri, 29 May 1998 03:17:54 GMT, Chris and Elisabeth Zakes (moon...@bga.com) wrote:
: Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
: >Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
: >
: >> BUT... Ferret's arguments above start to discuss perfect teaching... with
: >> ideas like wide outside experience, and four year degrees. What do we
: >> sacrifice if that becomes the MINIMAL standard?
: >
: >I suggest looking at "teachers" via a resume' approach. I do not
: >recomend any of this as a "minimum" or "pre-requisite". Just information
: >for making sound decisions for instructors of classes.
: >
: >While "I" prefer a PhD's lecture it is impractical in the SCA (although
: >IMHO after 30 years it shouldn't).
: Why shouldn't it? How many PhDs in, say, 12th century fighting
: techniques are there? Alternatively, even the "experts" can get it
: wrong on SCA-specific subjects.
: My favorite example is in "The Annotated Shakespeare" by A.L. Rowse.
: Rowse was supposedly the foremost Shakespeare scholar of his day, yet
: in his notes on "Romeo and Juliet" he footnotes a dagger's "house" as
: a wound, even though it is clear from the text that it's a scabbard.
But it's not just on SCA-specific subjects that experts bobble the
ball.
My specific favorite is an edition of Chaucer's _Canterbury Tales_,
in which the editor footnoted "And for his crest he bare a tower/
And in it stikked a lillie flower" as "His crest was as high as a
tower". The plain reading of it, that Sir Thopas had a crest of a
tower with a lily stuck into it (as into a vase), turns out (no
surprise here, I'm sure!) to be the correct one, as the editor
later admitted to me in a letter.
Similarly, in one edition of _The Tres Riches Heures_ published by
Geo. Braziller, the editor described musical instruments in one
illumination as trumpets, when they clearly were shawms (with reeds,
pirouettes, and fingerholes), and has since changed the descriptive
text for the next edition.
The problem in both cases is that these experts in one or more fields
(Chaucer and illuminated 14th-C. French books of hours, respectively)
were having to deal with matter in quite different fields (heraldry
and musical instruments) in which they turned out to be less competent
than the matter demanded, and that they failed to recognize this
deficit and seek competent help. This is by no means uncommon in
academe (or, indeed, in industry), but it seems to be very much
more common in the SCA.
Perhaps this can be referred back to earlier posts in which someone
(Tibor?) wrote about becoming comfortable with our ignorance, or
something very much along those lines. I'm still a bit uncomfortable
about becoming comfortable with my ignorance. I _do_ think it is
extremely important to be aware of the areas and fields in which
I am ignorant and/or incompetent, and to seek help from folks I
know to be (or have good reason to think) competent therein.
This started out to be my two cents worth, but has inflated to
rather more. I apologize for the length of the post, but I don't
have time to make it shorter.
--
--
Mike Andrews / Michael Fenwick Namron, Ansteorra
mand...@fd9ns01.okladot.state.ok.us
Duane Brocious
Greg Lindahl wrote:
>
> Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> writes:
> > Greg Lindahl wrote:
> > > Many of the PhD's that I know in the SCA don't teach within their
> > > fields. You see to have a pretty bizarre idea of what PhD's might be
> > > interested in for their hobby activities.
> >
> > scholars I know. I pity the poor sod who spent years learnig and a
> > lifetime doing something that doesn't interest him.
>
> have different hobbies. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons a
> bit.
Having been able to combine my hobbies of medieval history, anthroplogy,
archaeology, robotics, industrial technologies, music, archery and
computer technology into an enjoyable scholarly and professional
enterprise you think I need more to do ? Did I mention I was also an
aerospace technician at one time ?
These are all hobbies and interests that I enjoy. Just because I can
make money at them I am supposed to be miserable ? Hell, I'll quit if it
comes to that (and have done so).
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
> I pity the poor sod so narrow as to have only monomaniacal interests.
Let's see, history, education, anthroplogy, music, robotics, aircraft
...
All hobbies that I also happen to have made into a money making and
scholarly adventure. That is monomania ?
Ferret
Duane Brocious
> >
> >> Rowse was supposedly the foremost Shakespeare scholar of his day, yet
> >> in his notes on "Romeo and Juliet" he footnotes a dagger's "house" as
> >> a wound, even though it is clear from the text that it's a scabbard.
> >
> >background is in Elizabethan Literature instead of botching everything.
> >I suppose as a "fencing" expert you can read Chaucer in the original ?
> >You mix apples and oranges.
>
> Funny you should mention that...
>
> a facing pages translation: left page in the original, right page in
> modern English. I didn't find the original all that hard to
> understand, and soon stopped bothering with the translation.
You and I are in the minority there, last year there was a thread on
this about how difficult middle English is :-)
Had that literature expert had also been into fencing he wouldn't have
made the error though, it doesn't detract from his literary knowledge no
more than our ability to read Chauser in the original makes us
Literarture PhD's.
Ferret
I. Marc Carlson
<dsda...@DSDAPC03.okladot.state.ok.us (OS2 User)>
>...Perhaps this can be referred back to earlier posts in which someone
>(Tibor?) wrote about becoming comfortable with our ignorance, or
>something very much along those lines. I'm still a bit uncomfortable
>about becoming comfortable with my ignorance. I _do_ think it is
>extremely important to be aware of the areas and fields in which
>I am ignorant and/or incompetent, and to seek help from folks I
>know to be (or have good reason to think) competent therein.
Exactly. For example, I've been trying to track down the meaning
of the term (translated from the Norse) "blackened linen". I don't
have a clue what it means, and neither, it seems, does anyone else.
However, "Blackened linen, thoroughly softened" is what _The King's
Mirror_ (c.1245) says that gambesons should be made from. I think
that at some point someone will figure it out and I'll look like
an utter boob because I just didn't *know* something that mundanely
obvious :)
OTOH, I -expect- that information to be worked out eventually, just
as I expect that someday someone's going to come along and produce
a work that will make my shoe page look like the work of an incompetant
amateur (and do so by surpassing it, not by simply discrediting it -
there are people doing enough of THAT already :) ). And you know what?
I'll be delighted, because knowedge will be advanced, even if just a little.
Certainly I don't enjoy being made to incompetant, or ignorant, but I
am a LOT more happy when I am -shown- by new evidence and new information
that my previous assumptions were fallacious than when someone just
comes along with a simple "Nope, that's wrong", or worse, the modern
trend of calling into question an entire work by singling out a single
point that's easy to shoot down.
>This started out to be my two cents worth, but has inflated to
>rather more. I apologize for the length of the post, but I don't
>have time to make it shorter.
Yeah sure....
Marc/Diarmaid O'Duinn
lib...@centum.utulsa.edu
Bryan J. Maloney
Specifically quote exactly wherein I said that I was of the opinion that
people in SCA "live history". I said that I was tired of an anti-academic
attitude that is all too common in SCA. I have run across people who
evince that attitude, that SCA is somehow "superior" to mere book larnin.
In fact, I've had it thrown in my face by people who were just too lazy to
do some actual research to put some historical backing on practices.
In fact, even on this newsgroup I was once told, in reference to brewing
matters, that if I wanted to "just read about it", I could go somewhere
else, because in SCA people actualy did things. As somebody who brews,
but who insists upon actual historical research whenever making claims
about historical brewing, I found such a statement ludicrous, but all too
common an attitude in the SCA.
Evidently, even *DARING* to think of opening an actual historical book or
primary source is beneath some in the SCA...
Duane Brocious
JULIE ELAINE SIERACKI wrote:
> I write articles (that rarely see the light of day) and teach when the
> occasion arises. I let my class know my qualifications (none) up front
> and invite them to discuss things at the end of the class. And I always,
> always try to give everyone a long list of my sources so that they can go
> out and learn for themselves.
A very good thing you are doing ! Not everyone is as up-front or
reasonable as you are though. It is when amateurs in a field make claims
beyond their actualities that is a problem (academics do it too).
Your approach seems very apprpriate to me.
Ferret
Jay Rudin
Duane Brocious wrote:
> Having been able to combine my hobbies of medieval history, anthroplogy,
> archaeology, robotics, industrial technologies, music, archery and
> computer technology into an enjoyable scholarly and professional
> enterprise you think I need more to do ? Did I mention I was also an
> aerospace technician at one time ?
> These are all hobbies and interests that I enjoy. Just because I can
> make money at them I am supposed to be miserable ? Hell, I'll quit if
> it comes to that (and have done so).
Duane, he didn't start pitying you for your combination of fields of
study; you pitied others for theirs. Remember:
Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> Many of the PhD's that I know in the SCA don't teach within their
>> fields. You see to have a pretty bizarre idea of what PhD's might be
>> interested in for their hobby activities.
And you replied:
> My scholarly and recreational areas are the same, as are many other
> scholars I know. I pity the poor sod who spent years learnig and a
> lifetime doing something that doesn't interest him.
What he did is called a reductio ad absurdum argument, trying to show
you that pitying somebody for such things is silly. You've gotten half
the point -- yes, his response to you was silly. Consider, perhaps,
going on to the next step: if his discussion of your hobbies was silly,
and it was phrased as a direct analog of your own discussion, perhaps
your discussion of other scholars in the SCA is also silly, and should
be modified or withdrawn. Frankly, it came across as a sneer at those
of us whose course of study is different from your own. While you're
trying to get people to care more about academic credentials, sneering
at those of others is, at best, inconsistent.
There's also the question of logic. To get from Greg's comment to yours
requires the assumption that if I study Operations Research at work and
school but fencing and poetry on the weekends, I must have no interest
in Operations Research. This is a false assumption and invalid logic.
If you only want to win or show how much better you are than us "poor
sods", you'll ignore this suggestion, of course. But if the point of a
Rialto discussion is to learn as well as to teach, you might wish to
back up a couple of steps.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
Mark Schuldenfrei
D...@psu.edu>, Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
The problem in my mind is that the SCA claims to _do_ history and
applied methodology, yet it isn't what Historians, Archaeologists
and Anthropologist call History and applied methodology.
Ferret, I think you are indulging yourself in over-statement and loose
thinking.
The SCA rarely makes claims, and even more rarely does it monolithically
make claims. I cannot think of a place where the SCA claims to "do history"
(whatever that means). I *can* think of places where it promises to promote
research and education. In fact (and I was just astonished to learn this
by doing a textual search) the word "history" appears nowhere in the
governing documents!
I'd like to think that in our better days, our re-creation work is done in
an historically informed fashion. A fashion which compliments the style of
education performed by the academic minded, but which is fundamentally
different.
The other flaw in your argument, of course, is that academe has its own
definitions, which may or may not apply to endeavors outside of their own.
So if the SCA doesn't conform to their definitions (which it probably never
cared to, anyway) that is hardly proof of your cause. [I don't enjoy
word-game arguments, and I hope this isn't one of them. I don't think,
however, that just because they have a technical term, and we use the same
one, that either of ours is right for the other.]
I can _say_ all day that I _do_ mechanics because I drive a car on
a daily basis, yet most mechanics would say I am moron for making
such a claim.
You *do mechanics"? Statistical or Quantum? (:-) This tease designed
purely to illustrate my point.
Jay Rudin
I wrote:
> > Because an incompetent hem won't kill me; incompetent medical care
> > might.
And Duane Brocious responded:
> So what you are saying is that poor teaching or teaching nonsense is
> OK because nobody gets hurt ?
No, I'm just saying it's not as bad as somebody dying.
> Hell, just let anyone teach anything they want. How about offering a
> lottery for Laurels (hmm, might be an improvement). It doesn't matter.
From "an incompetent hem won't kill me" to "It doesn't matter" is an
absurd jump. I reject the implicit assumption that nothing matters if
it doesn't kill me.
> I think I get it now, it has nothing to do with teaching and learning
> medieval studies topics. It is about making it "look like" we are doing
> educational things.
That's a weird conclusion to get from my willingness to accept more
mistakes made to clothes than to my body.
Ferret, that's three paragraphs I didn't write, that you ascribe to me
and then blame me for.
You asked a specific question: why not push for the same level of
training for all "authorities" in the SCA as for chirurgeons. I gave a
specific answer: we insist on formal training in medical care because
not doing so is potentially life-threatening. You then applied that
logic in areas and ways that I never suggested. If you ever really do
start consistently applying academic methodology to the SCA, you'll stop
taking writing out of context.
For the record: I never said, implied, or intended that teaching
nonsense is OK. I do believe that the occasional teaching of nonsense
is a trade-off we get from our willingness to let everybody teach what
they know (or, more accurately, from our unwillingness to set up an
authenticity police for teachers).
You seem to believe that the people arguing in favor of the SCA's
enthusiastic corps of amateur teachers are opposed to doing research.
It's simply not true. Lined up against your position at present are,
among others, Cariadoc, Tivar and myself. All three have studied period
activities in college, all three have also studied on our own, within
the SCA, all have both academic and SCA credentials, and all have
travelled to more than half the SCA kingdoms specifically to teach at
SCA events.
None of the three of us can reasonably be accused of disapproving of
historical research, authenticity, or college courses. You might want
to reconsider some of your assumptions.
You said the following to a Ph.D.:
> The attitude that " I am an amateur and don't want to learn any
> "academic stuff" " is pure rubbish. It sounds more to me like " I
> don't want my delusions of grandeur shattered by an education".
Dr. Friedman was not arguing at the time, and has never argued, against
research, authenticity, or "academic stuff".
Duane Brocious
Jay Rudin wrote:
> What he did is called a reductio ad absurdum argument, trying to show
> you that pitying somebody for such things is silly.
My original comment was a response to a post about someone doing for a
hobby something different from their work (which they seem not to
enjoy). I responded that many scholars choose their fields because they
enjoy it thus my statement pitying those whose work is something they
hate (unless one thinks that hating their job is enjoyable and not
pitiable).
The response to _that_ post inverted the statement to pitying those
whose work and hobby was the same and I took it to inply (as another
posted stated explicitly) that I was a monomaniac that had a single
interest. If I was wrong in that assumption I apologize.
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Jay Rudin wrote:
> No, I'm just saying it's not as bad as somebody dying.
Duh.
So only doctors of medicine require an education ?
> Ferret, that's three paragraphs I didn't write, that you ascribe to me
> and then blame me for.
What three paragraphs are you talking about. I only posted a couple
sentences that you wrote ?
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Mark Schuldenfrei wrote:
> I cannot think of a place where the SCA claims to "do history"
> (whatever that means).
As in "engage in" as stated in the SCA Inc. Articles of Incorporation.
That is an activity as in _doing_ research.
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Tim of Angle wrote:
> It is undeniable that some in the SCA like their present "spicier" than others;
> the problem is the provenance, not the presence, of the spice.
Truth and beauty in a single sentence. You are truly remarkable.
Ferret
Morgan E. Smith
Somewhere in John Kenneth Galbraith's memoirs, there's a story about a
fellow professor who used to bait the department head with totally
ficticious citings along the lines of "Say, have you read Wolverham's new
article on debasement of coinage?" and get the poor man to make some kind
of pronouncement on utterly frivolous and mythical data etc., just to
avoid saying "I don't know. I didn't read it." The longing to seem
omnipotent and all-knowing is a temptation for everyone.
In addition to an enjoyable anecdote by removal, I think it's pretty
obvious that the problems of accuracy, misinformation, and howling
blunders is probably as widespread in academia as in the SCA. But we're a
microcosm - we see the problem, I suspect, as larger than it really is.
The fact that we can dredge up on short notice so many factual errors and
mistakes on the part of recognized "authorities" says to me that the
published ones are just the tip of the - er - iceberg. (God, I'm sick of
Titanic references. Aren't you?)
Just as a sidenote, my first year art history professor was convinced
that the Venus of Willendorf and similar figures were just a form of
portable pornography. He's been teaching this "fact" to hundreds of
gullible frosh for a dozen years or so - and most of them believe it
implicitly. Makes you wonder about what other gup you've swallowed over
the years, doesn't it?
Morgan the Unknown
Tim of Angle
Scripsit Jay Rudin <jru...@nortel.ca> :
> > I don't see why so many SCA folk balk at actually getting academic
> > training and actually requiring more than a popularity contest for
> > credentials (yes I am being sarcastic).
>
> You have put two different things together and then treated them as
> one. Nobody balks at anyone in the SCA with the time and money getting
> academic training.
On the other hand, everybody in the SCA (with statistically insignificant
exceptions) feels free to ignore that academic training when weighing opinions,
particularly in areas that have a fairly firm connection to the historical
middle ages. Hence the SCA's existence as a costume party with a thin veneer of
hypocrisy, rather than an actual historical re-creation group.
> Academic training is wonderful.
unfortunately, far to many people in positions of authority in the SCA find it
threatening ... with good reason.
> We do balk at
> restricting the availability of willing teachers. No resemblance.
Certainly there is no resemblance between the availability of willing teachers
and the availability of *qualified* teachers -- in fact, the two characteristics
appear to be inversely proportional.
> > Do we accept chiurgeons without formal training ? Then why not push
> > for minimal training for all "authorities" in the SCA ?
>
> Because an incompetent hem won't kill me; incompetent medical care
> might.
I'm certainly up for a discussion of the damage done by the prevalence of "The
problem is what you 'know' that ain't so" in the SCA....
Tim of Angle
Scripsit Ullam <gore...@aol.com> :
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> > I am sick to death of this "scholars only study history but *we* live
> > it attitude". Back when I started in SCA, more than a decade ago, I
> > actually believed such nonsense, but that was before I realized that
> > men like S. Anglo or E. Oakeshott existed.
> Get a grip. None of us actually "live" history. We live the present
> with one degree or another of historical flavor. Some of us like our
> present a bit spicier than others.
What "grip" would you have him get, Ullam? He wasn't claiming that any of us
"actually 'live' history", he was criticizing the attitude, held by many people,
that what people do in the SCA is more conducive to appreciating the realities
of the Middle Ages than traditional scholarship. Sometimes it is, but most times
it isn't, and there are a lot of people who are unwilling or unable to make that
distinction; that's what he was criticizing, and you completely misinterpreted
it.
More to the point, the "flavor" that SCA life has isn't historical at all; if
anything, it's literary (ranging from period literary to modern fantasy
literary) ... and often quite deliberately so -- our notions of "courtesy" and
"chivalry" are based on what was written in period far more than on what was
practiced.
It is undeniable that some in the SCA like their present "spicier" than others;
the problem is the provenance, not the presence, of the spice.
================================================================================
Fra Tadhg Liath OFT ta...@bigfoot.com
The Grumpiest Pelican
Duane Brocious
Morgan E. Smith wrote:
> In addition to an enjoyable anecdote by removal, I think it's pretty
> obvious that the problems of accuracy, misinformation, and howling
> blunders is probably as widespread in academia as in the SCA.
While academia is imperfect, it does have safe guards regarding
methodology, publication, credentials and certification. While academia
strives for excellence (though never getting it completely) the SCA
members in general seem to refuse to strive for even mediocrity.
Comparing the SCA to a University is like comparing mid-wives to
pediatric hospitals. Both have their place (IMHO) but a mid-wives are
not (usually) M.D.'s and certainly bot OB-GYN or pediatricians, further
if they made such claims they would end up in prison.
Ferret
Morgan E. Smith
Frankly, I think the original post pitying people who can't make a
living doing what they love was bourgeois, spoiled arrogance in the
extreme. Many, many people are unable to afford to go to university (or,
indeed, a trade school) and of the thousands who can, many of them will be
unable to sit around on welfare waiting for the economic climate to change
so that there are jobs in their chosen field. Many people take their
obligations to support themselves seriously, and most of us don't have
rich parents who will shell out big bucks to keep us in beer and busfare
while we look for "the perfect job".
I found Ferret's original post distateful, to tell you the truth. Do
those of you who do have university educations and good jobs automatically
look down on anyone who doesn't? And what does that say about you?
Just for the record: I didn't go to college until I was well into my
thirties. I've had jobs I loved and jobs I hated. Some of the ones I loved
were completely outside my interests (or so I thought) and some of the
"dream jobs" turned out to be the most ennervating or aggravating
employments ever devised by man. And being a "Rennaissance man" with
myriad interests might be seen by some as simply the inability to
concentrate.
Morgan the Unknown
Jay Rudin
I wrote:
> > No, I'm just saying it's not as bad as somebody dying.
From this sentence Ferret deduced:
> Duh.
> So only doctors of medicine require an education ?
I repeat:
That's a weird conclusion to get from my willingness to accept more
mistakes made to clothes than to my body.
Please stop ascribing ideas to me that aren't mine. I have not
commented on whether people “require” an education; I have only
commented on why the SCA needs to insist on one for health care
providers.
"People need an education" is not the same as "The SCA needs to enforce
an education". People need to eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom. That
does not mean the SCA needs to keep track of whether they did, or set
minimum standards for it. Likewise, an academic education is very
useful, but the SCA doesn't need to enforce it either.
> > Ferret, that's three paragraphs I didn't write, that you ascribe to
> > me and then blame me for.
> What three paragraphs are you talking about. I only posted a couple
> sentences that you wrote ?
These three, which comprise the body of the post I was replying to, and
which I had just quoted above that comment:
> So what you are saying is that poor teaching or teaching nonsense is
> OK because nobody gets hurt ?
> Hell, just let anyone teach anything they want. How about offering a
> lottery for Laurels (hmm, might be an improvement). It doesn't matter.
> I think I get it now, it has nothing to do with teaching and learning
> medieval studies topics. It is about making it "look like" we are
> doing educational things.
Please stop accusing me of these ideas, which are not found in anything
I wrote. *You* wrote them.
Tim of Angle
Scripsit "Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca> :
> Just as a sidenote, my first year art history professor was convinced
> that the Venus of Willendorf and similar figures were just a form of
> portable pornography. He's been teaching this "fact" to hundreds of
> gullible frosh for a dozen years or so - and most of them believe it
> implicitly. Makes you wonder about what other gup you've swallowed over
> the years, doesn't it?
Only if one is the sort to believe everything one is told by professors (or
Laurels, for that matter). Perhaps some of this is due to the fact that most
products of public schools (and far too many products of private schools) have
been fed nonsense masquerading as knowledge for over a decade by the time they
get to college, and so are naturally inclined to believe nonsense. But the fact
remains that, whatever its flaws and failings, the academic world has a regular
methodology for determining when knowledge is genuine and when it is not, and
the SCA has no such metrology -- you're an "expert" whenever you can convince
other self-selected "experts" that you are, and it has nothing whatever to do
with whether what you "know" bears any relation to the real world.
Tim of Angle
Scripsit "Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca> :
> I found Ferret's original post distateful, to tell you the truth.
A natural reaction.
> Do those of you who do have university educations and good jobs automatically
> look down on anyone who doesn't?
Pretty much.
> And what does that say about you?
That we're educated and successful, and hence demonstrably better in some ways
than those who aren't? That's just a guess, mind you....
Turning the question around: What does your apparent willingness to engage in
automatic rejection of education and success say about *you*? Granted that many
saints have been ignorant and/or poor, but ignorance and poverty don't
automatically make one a saint.
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
"Morgan E. Smith" <mes...@calcna.ab.ca> wrote:
(snip)
> Just as a sidenote, my first year art history professor was convinced
>that the Venus of Willendorf and similar figures were just a form of
>portable pornography. He's been teaching this "fact" to hundreds of
>gullible frosh for a dozen years or so - and most of them believe it
>implicitly. Makes you wonder about what other gup you've swallowed over
>the years, doesn't it?
Well there *is* a distinct similarity between the Venus of Willendorf
and male bathroom-wall "art": exaggerated breasts & genitals, and
minimal head & arms/legs.
Is it parallel evolution? Racial memory? Maybe your prof was partially
right? *I* don't know--my "art" degree was in filmmaking.<G>
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
C and E Zakes
Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence)
and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward)
moon...@bga.com
Linda
Tim of Angle wrote:
> Do those of you who do have university educations and good jobs > automatically
> look down on anyone who doesn't?
>
> Pretty much.
so by that token, those of us that are self-educated and have good
jobs are still tarred by the brush of disapproval?
Eridan
self-made geek making in excess of $70K a year, without having to pay
off any of those annoying student loans...
(punchline is, i know graduate students in my field that can't get
$30K a year WITH the piece of paper...)
David Friedman
>Only if one is the sort to believe everything one is told by professors (or
>Laurels, for that matter).
A foolish thing in both cases; so far I agree with you.
...
>But the fact
>remains that, whatever its flaws and failings, the academic world has a regular
>methodology for determining when knowledge is genuine and when it is not, and
>the SCA has no such metrology -- you're an "expert" whenever you can convince
>other self-selected "experts" that you are, and it has nothing whatever to do
>with whether what you "know" bears any relation to the real world.
Here I disagree.
If someone is proposed for a laurel in cooking (to take an art I know
something about), the chance of his getting it has quite a lot to do with
whether what he knows bears any relation to the real world. The system is
certainly not perfect; I can think of at least one case, quite a while
back, of someone who got a cooking laurel despite having done essentially
no period cooking. But, at least in kingdoms I am currently familiar with,
I think that is the exception, not the rule.
But then, there are people with PhD's in my field who don't know much
about it either. I remember many years ago, at a university that shall
remain nameless, discussions of two different candidates for the PhD in
economics. One had done some interesting and original research; I
suggested ways in which he might be encouraged to expand it further. The
response from the professor then dominating the department was that the
student currently had an ABD teaching position and we ought to simply give
him his PhD without pressing for any more work, so that he could convert
it into a regular position.
The second had done some work in institutional history with no economics
content at all. I suggested ways in which he could expand the work to make
it economically interesting. The same professor responded that the student
was not very able, was never going to do any real economics, and we should
simply give him his PhD and send him on his way.
The logical problem with Tadhg's argument is that he ignores the symmetry
in the situation. Professors are "self-selected" in the sense of being
selected by other professors, who were selected by still other ... just
as laurels are. On average, the system works better for professional
academics than amateur medieval hobbyists--but it is basically the same
system. In both cases, as Tadhg pointed out at the beginning of his post,
prudent people will approach all sources of authority, academic and SCA,
with a reasonable degree of scepticism.
David/(Cariadoc)
Tim of Angle
Scripsit Linda <lhu...@vnet.net> :
> > Do those of you who do have university educations and good jobs > automatically
> > look down on anyone who doesn't?
> >
> > Pretty much.
> so by that token, those of us that are self-educated and have good
> jobs are still tarred by the brush of disapproval?
Not at all. One can acquire a "university education" without attending a
university; it's the level of education, not where it was obtained, that is the
key.
Indeed, as the immortal Socrates definitively proved, knowing the right
questions is generally superior to knowing the answers, from an 'educational'
standpoint.
Tim of Angle
Scripsit DD...@best.com (David Friedman) :
[Interesting and well-taken points with which I have no argument deleted]
> The logical problem with Tadhg's argument is that he ignores the symmetry
> in the situation. Professors are "self-selected" in the sense of being
> selected by other professors, who were selected by still other ... just
> as laurels are.
Nope. Laurels have input into the process, but Laurels are created by Kings (and
Queens here in Ansteorra), not other Laurels. If the President or a Governor
appointed all Ph.Ds, then your argument would be apposite; as it stands, it's
not.
> On average, the system works better for professional
> academics than amateur medieval hobbyists--but it is basically the same
> system.
Neither in theory nor in practice. I could give you a list of Laurels (and
Pelicans, for that matter, and I have no doubt that a list of Knights could
quickly be constructed by those who care about such things) who were considered
unqualified by a majority (and in more than one case an overwhelming majority)
of the existing peers of that Order in that Kingdom. However much mythology
Laurels may construct that the systems are similar, in point of fact they are
not.
> In both cases, as Tadhg pointed out at the beginning of his post,
> prudent people will approach all sources of authority, academic and SCA,
> with a reasonable degree of scepticism.
Would that more SCA-nominated "authorities" approached themselves in that
manner....
Timothy A. McDaniel
(Posted and mailed.)
In some article, Jay Rudin <jru...@nortel.ca> wrote:
> an incompetent hem won't kill me
YOU don't wear long undertunics.
Daniel "a new meaning to the dance 'The Suicide Bransle' and
the song 'Stairway to Heaven'" de Lincolia
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@crl.com;
if that fail, tm...@austin.ibm.com is my work address.
David Friedman
>Scripsit DD...@best.com (David Friedman) :
>
>[Interesting and well-taken points with which I have no argument deleted]
>
> > The logical problem with Tadhg's argument is that he ignores the symmetry
> > in the situation. Professors are "self-selected" in the sense of being
> > selected by other professors, who were selected by still other ... just
> > as laurels are.
>
>Nope. Laurels have input into the process, but Laurels are created by
Kings (and
>Queens here in Ansteorra), not other Laurels. If the President or a Governor
>appointed all Ph.Ds, then your argument would be apposite; as it stands, it's
>not.
Interesting question. Most universities are de facto run by the faculty,
but de jure by the board of trustees. Certainly if you take hiring
decisions, which are the next step up the ladder, the administration does
not have to hire someone, even if the department is unanimously in favor
of doing so--and could hire someone even if the faculty was unanimously
against. It just doesn't often happen. Similarly, royalty can give someone
a laurel against the unanimous opinion of the order, but in my experience
it virtually never happens.
I'm not sure whether, technically, the administration has a veto on
granting PhD's, and whether the faculty does. But again, it seems to me
the difference, if any, is in degree not in kind.
> > On average, the system works better for professional
> > academics than amateur medieval hobbyists--but it is basically the same
> > system.
>Neither in theory nor in practice. I could give you a list of Laurels (and
>Pelicans, for that matter, and I have no doubt that a list of Knights could
>quickly be constructed by those who care about such things) who were considered
>unqualified by a majority (and in more than one case an overwhelming majority)
>of the existing peers of that Order in that Kingdom. However much mythology
>Laurels may construct that the systems are similar, in point of fact they are
>not.
In practice, I suspect a larger fraction of the laurels are involved in
evaluating a candidate for the laurel than of the faculty in evaluating a
PhD candidate. I agree that the chance of the royalty stepping in to
overrule that judgement is higher than the equivalent case for
academia--but in my experience, at least, it is still the exception, not
the rule.
I can think of at least one very successful academic whose PhD was
delayed, although not permanently blocked, because the research it was
based on produced politically unpopular results. I can also (again,
considering the next steps on the ladder) think of one person in my field
who has done an extraordinary amount of work, published in high status
journals--far more than most tenured professors--but cannot get a tenured
position at a good school, at least in part becasue his work is
politically controversial. So the world outside academia ends up
interfering in practice there too.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Duane Brocious
Jay Rudin wrote:
:> Please stop ascribing ideas to me that aren't mine. I have not
:> commented on whether people “require” an education; I have only
:> commented on why the SCA needs to insist on one for health care
:> providers.
You are really quite full of B.S.
I asked you a few question and you claim I put words in your mouth.
If you are being honest, then your post made no sense what-so-ever.
Ferret
Duane Brocious
Morgan E. Smith wrote:
> I found Ferret's original post distateful, to tell you the truth. Do
> those of you who do have university educations and good jobs automatically
> look down on anyone who doesn't?
What is wrong with having pity for people ? I wasn't being sarcastic I
was being honest. I also know what it is like to be in desperate
straits, I have lived in abandoded cars and eaten out of dumpsters.
I pity anyone in such condition. NO I EMPATHIZE.
Howver, I do not know many street people in the SCA. I do not have any
pity for those who spend thousands of dollars on SCA related materials
and events and claim they can't afford $100 on basic history course at
the local community college. If they simply said they think academia is
a bunch of crap I might accept that. Feeble excuses for avoiding an
education don't cut it with me though.
Ferret
robin
David Friedman wrote:
> I agree that people in the SCA should try to use scholarly
> resources--books, articles, and the like. I am much less confident that
> the sensible way of using them is by taking university courses.
Agreed... though a student ID card provides entree to more libraries and
other resources. It's an awfully expensive library card though :-/
miriel
Tim of Angle
Scripsit DD...@best.com (David Friedman) :
> > > The logical problem with Tadhg's argument is that he ignores the symmetry
> > > in the situation. Professors are "self-selected" in the sense of being
> > > selected by other professors, who were selected by still other ... just
> > > as laurels are.
> >
> > Nope. Laurels have input into the process, but Laurels are created by
> > Kings (and
> > Queens here in Ansteorra), not other Laurels. If the President or a Governor
> > appointed all Ph.Ds, then your argument would be apposite; as it stands, it's
> > not.
>
> Interesting question. Most universities are de facto run by the faculty,
> but de jure by the board of trustees. Certainly if you take hiring
> decisions, which are the next step up the ladder, the administration does
> not have to hire someone, even if the department is unanimously in favor
> of doing so--and could hire someone even if the faculty was unanimously
> against. It just doesn't often happen. Similarly, royalty can give someone
> a laurel against the unanimous opinion of the order, but in my experience
> it virtually never happens.
Oh, I'm not claiming it's common, but it *does* happen -- as I said, I could
give you a list of just the ones I know about. The fact that it happens at all
makes the analogy inapposite; we're talking about Ph.Ds granted, not faculty
hired, remember.
> I'm not sure whether, technically, the administration has a veto on
> granting PhD's, and whether the faculty does. But again, it seems to me
> the difference, if any, is in degree not in kind.
I disagree. I think it quite obvious that the difference is in kind, not degree.
> >Neither in theory nor in practice. I could give you a list of Laurels (and
> >Pelicans, for that matter, and I have no doubt that a list of Knights could
> >quickly be constructed by those who care about such things) who were considered
> >unqualified by a majority (and in more than one case an overwhelming majority)
> >of the existing peers of that Order in that Kingdom. However much mythology
> >Laurels may construct that the systems are similar, in point of fact they are
> >not.
>
> In practice, I suspect a larger fraction of the laurels are involved in
> evaluating a candidate for the laurel than of the faculty in evaluating a
> PhD candidate.
No doubt. But that doesn't affect my point regarding who has formal authority to
make X a Y.
> I agree that the chance of the royalty stepping in to
> overrule that judgement is higher than the equivalent case for
> academia--but in my experience, at least, it is still the exception, not
> the rule.
But it *is* the rule -- however much it may not be the common practice. That's
the whole point.
> I can think of at least one very successful academic whose PhD was
> delayed, although not permanently blocked, because the research it was
> based on produced politically unpopular results. I can also (again,
> considering the next steps on the ladder) think of one person in my field
> who has done an extraordinary amount of work, published in high status
> journals--far more than most tenured professors--but cannot get a tenured
> position at a good school, at least in part becasue his work is
> politically controversial. So the world outside academia ends up
> interfering in practice there too.
Never said it didn't. But the relevance of your observations here is far from
clear -- in both cases, WHO was holding up the degree? The President or other
formal head of the University? Or the factuality involved in granting degrees?
C'
mon, David, I know you can perceive these distinctions; I've read your books.
Don Levey
When I do something for a living, it is because it has value to
someone else, and so they pay me for it.
When I do something for recreation, it is because it has value to me,
and I enjoy it.
Sometimes, I am able to find things which have value to both me and
others. That is my career.
There are still other things that have value to only me, and yet I
still engage in those activities. Should I stop, because they benefit
only me? Should I leave a high-paying career because the mix of
benefits is different than from my hobbies?
There are many things which I have taught, and continue to teach,
which have nothing to do with my academic career or my employment. I
am, however, happy with all of them.
-Don
On Thu, 28 May 1998 23:53:07 -0400, Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu>
wrote:
>Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> Many of the PhD's that I know in the SCA don't teach within their
>> fields. You see to have a pretty bizarre idea of what PhD's might be
>> interested in for their hobby activities.
>
>My scholarly and recreational areas are the same, as are many other
>scholars I know. I pity the poor sod who spent years learnig and a
>lifetime doing something that doesn't interest him.
>
>Ferret
>
>
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation. All nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent
to this address is construed as being sent to a fax machine and subject
to a $500 fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| By sending me unsolicited commercial email you agree to pay my |
| standard consulting fee of $250/hr for examining your message (a |
| minimum charge of one (1) hour). The bill for my service will be |
| sent to you along with my analysis of your message. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Levey
When I go to a class at an event, I am there willingly, and knowingly.
I understand that what I hear is not necessarily the Truth, but at
best the teacher's experience of truth (and at worst misinterpretation
or foolishness). I know this going in, and I understand that it is my
responsibility to do some outside work, check up, and expand upon what
I hear. My purpose in walking in to the classroom is to hear the
teacher.
In contrast, when I go to a class or event, I expressly hope never to
see a chirurgeon except on a social basis. What they do is not for
the purpose of enhancing my knowledge or medieval experience, but
rather they are charged with my health and safety when my own efforts
have failed. I want them to be the most highly trained people
possible, with the most modern facilities. In this area, I do not
wish to make room for me to double-check their work later. There may
not be a later. And I don't give a damn whether or not they train new
medics. Their function is in the demonstration of their skills, not
in the xplanation of them.
Certainly, we can discuss and potential physical damage done by a
teacher with less-than-acceptable knowledge. Anyone know a brewer who
made abisinthe with real wormwood? I do. This can be harmful.
However, the harm is done by those who take what they hear and try to
use it, even if their intentions are the best. I see no useful
parallel between teachers and chirurgeons.
-Don
On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:11:13 GMT, ta...@bigfoot.com (Tim of Angle)
wrote:
>
> > > Do we accept chiurgeons without formal training ? Then why not push
> > > for minimal training for all "authorities" in the SCA ?
> >
> > Because an incompetent hem won't kill me; incompetent medical care
> > might.
>
>I'm certainly up for a discussion of the damage done by the prevalence of "The
>problem is what you 'know' that ain't so" in the SCA....
>
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
Don Levey
On Fri, 29 May 1998 00:31:06 -0400, Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu>
wrote:
>Matthew Pius wrote:
>
>> and easy. Location, work schedule, and personal finances could all
>> contribute to making it very difficult indeed. However, I think it is
>> entirely possible to learn research methodology without taking a college
>> course. There are those in the SCA who know and are willing to teach.
>
>How do you know that they know anything ? Do they know proper
>methodology (and the pitfalls)? Do they understand statistical analysis
>? Are they aware of the major researchers in the field ?
>
>Sorry, I used to buy this B.S. until I traded the B.S. for a B.S.
>
---> I spent 11 years in academia, in various capacities. When I
started, I revered my professors almost as gods, because they were
charged with teaching me, and because they had achieved that coveted
goal, the PhD. As I went on, I found that the professors had the
resources, but that was their major asset (there were certainly
exceptions, of course. I speak only of the majority). Most of the
professors with whom I had dealings were not inherently more capable
than was I, nor was their viewpoint any more valid than mine. In some
cases, it was far less so, because they had sacrificed their
objectivity and integrity by blindly accepting the publications and
references of others bases upon reputation and respect.
One of the most famous historians I knew (American Civil War) had made
his name and career by criticizing other historians. After 20 years,
when he finally came out with his epic tome, it was universally panned
as pedantic and slipshod. Before that time, he was considered an
authority, because he was a PhD and professor. This does not
automatically grant truth along with authority.
Some of the community colleges with which I have dealt have excellent
courses. Many, however, do not. These others have only a passing
resemblance to reality, because they simply regurgitate long-abandoned
views, using outdated texts, with people who often have simply failed
to "make it" at a more respected house of learning. Again, this is
only some, not all. Taking a college course is no more a guarantee of
accuracy than a course in, say, the SCA. However, when we take a
class in the SCA we (should) know that it is likely being taught by an
amateur. When we take a college class, we have an expectation of
something more.
I used to think that a degree was significant, until I got one. By
then, I had found how painfully easy it was to acquire. Simply repeat
the right words, in the right order. No truly original thought
required.
-Don
>
>FErret
Don Levey
If all you wanted to do was read about it, perhaps there *are* other
groups or places to go. However, many of us not only read, but do.
Some just do. So be it, do as you see fit. Most college libraries of
which I know do not permit a student to set up a mash tun.
-Don
On Fri, 29 May 1998 14:30:02 -0400, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J.
Maloney) wrote:
>In fact, even on this newsgroup I was once told, in reference to brewing
>matters, that if I wanted to "just read about it", I could go somewhere
>else, because in SCA people actualy did things. As somebody who brews,
>but who insists upon actual historical research whenever making claims
>about historical brewing, I found such a statement ludicrous, but all too
>common an attitude in the SCA.
>
>Evidently, even *DARING* to think of opening an actual historical book or
>primary source is beneath some in the SCA...
>
>--
>http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Mark Schuldenfrei
Tim of Angle <ta...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
But the fact remains that, whatever its flaws and failings, the
academic world has a regular methodology for determining when
knowledge is genuine and when it is not, and the SCA has no such
metrology -- you're an "expert" whenever you can convince other
self-selected "experts" that you are, and it has nothing whatever
to do with whether what you "know" bears any relation to the real
world.
Good Frater, you are by and large correct. Some of it by accident: the
"SCA" has very little that is universal across the entire organization,
after all. (Didn't someone say something about the only universal being
tolerance? :-)
And, perhaps it SHOULD have some universal metrology. Heaven help us if we
try to determine it, although the exercise would be fun. (I can hear
someone stoking the outrage machine even as I type this. What does an
outrage machine burn, I wonder?)
At least locally, the overwhelming majority of serious researchers (many of
whom have Laurels) *do* in fact closely imitate many of the styles and
standards of academe, especially citation and publication. What we lack,
often, is useful peer review.
Part of that is that we do not restrict ourselves only to facts. (Pax, I am
not going where you think I am.) We are re-creating: and we do so with
limited time, interest, talent and budget. So our attempts to apply our
knowledge move us from the pure academic to the low-budget practical. How
would one do a useful peer review of that, without treading on feelings too
often?
What can people intelligently review of a person's interpretation? In the
modern world we don't call people who discuss intepretations reviewers: we
call them critics.
The truth is, that there are MANY that find the academic methods and routes
to be fruitful and useful. We call them students and professors. The SCA
is a complement to that, a useful adjunct and not a lesser one necessarily.
We can and should borrow from their methods, just as we borrow from their
researches.
But a failure to imitate them perfectly in the small is not a priori a
shortcoming of the SCA. It is the difference between them and us. Perhaps
we can (or should) imitate more, or build our own equivalents of things like
Peer Review. (:-)
As a specific example, many A&S competitions or Laurel Prize competitions
*can* fulfill the role of peer review. On the other hand, such competitions
and reviews are absolutely NOT times when we are doing medieval re-creation!
What we are doing then is more like antiquarian crafts fairs.
I don't have an answer here. I invite informed debate, though.
Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@math.harvard.edu)
"Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably
would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin
Mark Schuldenfrei
> > Do those of you who do have university educations and good jobs
> > automatically look down on anyone who doesn't?
>
>
> > And what does that say about you?
>
>That we're educated and successful, and hence demonstrably better in some ways
>than those who aren't? That's just a guess, mind you....
Ahh, dear Tadhg. How did I know when I saw the original, that it would be
you that answered, and answered this way?
Pardon my defensive reaction: but I disagree. Education and learning are
not synonyms. And only in the best schools are they necessarily closely
correlated. Remember what the Wizard of Oz said to the Scarecrow? "I can't
give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma".
Generalizations have their faults, true. But I expected more precision
from a Yale Law School mind. (:-). By and large, the best way to be
learned is to matriculate from a school of higher education. But does that
make one better? I am less sure about that.
Tibor (HS graduate from an unaccredited High School)
Jay Rudin
Duane Brocious wrote:
> You are really quite full of B.S.
B.A, actually, plus two M.S.'s. Also I'm ABD, since you seem so
interested in academic credentials.
> I asked you a few question and you claim I put words in your mouth.
> If you are being honest, then your post made no sense what-so-ever.
Herewith I re-present the few questions you asked:
> So what you are saying is that poor teaching or teaching nonsense is
> OK because nobody gets hurt ?
...
> So only doctors of medicine require an education ?
...
> What three paragraphs are you talking about. I only posted a couple
> sentences that you wrote ?
I answered directly the question about the three paragraphs. The others
seemed like rhetorical devices for putting words in my mouth, especially
given that in one of the posts you said:
> I think I get it now, it has nothing to do with teaching and learning
> medieval studies topics. It is about making it "look like" we are
> doing educational things.
This statement, at least, is clearly an attempt to ascribe beliefs to me
that are not my own.
If these were actually intended as straightforward questions, then I
apologize for misunderstanding them. Here are the straightforward
answers:
> So only doctors of medicine require an education ?
I never said or implied that, and don't believe that. For one thing, my
words at the time clearly implied that *all* health care professionals
need an education. Furthermore, I have made no statement for or against
the possible need for education for professors, engineers, lawyers,
dentists, policemen, soldiers, kindergarten teachers, legislators, etc.
I do not believe that it is possible for a well-intentioned person with
any logic training to turn my statements into "only doctors of medicine
require an education".
When I start a new art, I am prepared to take beginning lessons from an
enthusiastic beginner who's only a few steps ahead of me, and will
accept the possible mistakes that will come from this. When I am
injured, I am not prepared to accept health care from an enthusiastic
beginner, and will not accept the possible mistakes that can come from
this. Why is this hard to understand?
> So what you are saying is that poor teaching or teaching nonsense is
> OK because nobody gets hurt ?
No, I am not saying what I didn't say -- I am only saying what I said.
To avoid further tripe, I will extend my own comments: I don't think
poor teaching or teaching nonsense is "OK"; I do think that they are
tolerable, and that most good teaching and teaching knowledge would be
thrown out if we tried to eliminate all the poor teaching. Furthermore,
I don't think any authority within the SCA is learned enough to set
standards for SCA teaching, and any attempt to do so on strictly
academic grounds would create howling errors in both directions. The
SCA is a voluntary organization, and our best teachers, like our best
marshals or heralds, are volunteers. This organization is founded, not
on the intention to hold university level classes, but on the belief
that holding tourneys, feasts, revels, etc. *will* be educational.
(Actually, it was founded on the idea that these things are *fun*. The
educational aspect was discovered, not planned.)
By analogy, the purpose of the Boy Scouts of America is "to develop, in
boys, character, citizenship, and fitness". They do not hold classes in
character and citizenship, or devise a scientific fitness program.
Rather, they believe that these goals will be reached by Scouts who
actually come in to camp, hike, etc. Boys don't come up and say, "I
want to be a Scout and develop my character"; they say "Hey, let's go
camping!" Similarly, people join the SCA to wear funny costumes or to
hit people with sticks.
One major result is that the SCA is one of the few organizations in the
world that educates non-students. Drunken jocks who are here just to
fight and party wind up knowing that Giovanni is an Italian name and
Bjorn is a Norse name, that halberds are axes on sticks, that sonnets
are Renaissance and sagas are earlier, etc. More importantly, they have
actually *felt* the rush of seeing hundreds of armored warriors rushing
toward them, and harbored strong emotions at the display of their
kingdom's or household's armory. They have felt a tender joy when a
lady hands them a favor, and been stirred to thoughts of heroism when
hearing a bard describe last year's battle. I understand *The Battle of
Maldon* better because I have fought in SCA wars.
It's not a university education, but it *is* education. And it's
education on the only level that the SCA ever claimed. If you wish to
question the SCA's education ideas, then question this approach. But
don't hold the SCA to an academic approach it never espoused and then
complain that it doesn't meet it.
I believe that the teaching at the Known World Arts & Sciences events I
have attended have been of a high caliber, and that the same can be said
of the Known World Heraldic Symposia and Academies of the Rapier. I
also believe that since I take SCA teaching seriously, it is my
responsibility to go to such things and teach what I know, and I will
listen respectfully to anybody else who has taught at multiple KW
teaching events. I believe that my kingdom's arts, fighting and heraldic
teaching are at a high caliber (with a few trouble spots), and that it's
my responsibility to try to help there, too. And I believe that the
teaching at the Steppes Collegium (local monthly classes) is of a fairly
high level. I know that after Dr. Cawthen from the local university
taught a medieval history class at the Collegium, she apologized for
bringing an undergraduate level lecture, and said that she would bring a
graduate lecture next time.
Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that everyone in this thread who
is (known to me to be) currently active in teaching on the local,
kingdom, and KW levels has been speaking in favor of our amateur
teachers. I am prepared to back down on this assertion if shown
untrue. Is there anybody here besides Cariadoc, Master Tivar and myself
who has travelled several hundred miles out of their own kingdom to SCA
teaching events in each of the last five years?
By the way, I will admit to one attempt on my part to re-interpret your
words. In the first line of you most recent post, you made a puerile
insult. I chose to interpret it as a polite and honest statement.
Except for that one example, I believe I have tried to take your words
exactly as you intended them, and not to re-interpret them into
nonsense. I request the same courtesy in return.
Heather Rose Jones
Jay Rudin (jru...@nortel.ca) wrote:
: Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that everyone in this thread who
: is (known to me to be) currently active in teaching on the local,
: kingdom, and KW levels has been speaking in favor of our amateur
: teachers. I am prepared to back down on this assertion if shown
: untrue. Is there anybody here besides Cariadoc, Master Tivar and myself
: who has travelled several hundred miles out of their own kingdom to SCA
: teaching events in each of the last five years?
Hmm, I think I might manage to make the standard, although I'd have to
look up my old calendars to make sure. (And I think I'd have to include
the occasion on which I travelled several thousand miles to teach without
actually managing to leave my own kingdom. :)
And I definitely support the system of amateur teachers. Yes, you end up
with some real duds, that way -- but the trade-off in terms of what you'd
lose by applying some sort of "academic" filter isn't worth it. I'd also
add that it doesn't help the reputation of academia in the SCA when the
people you hear talking the loudest about their academic credentials are
being _really_ obnoxious about it.
Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn
gsh...@highwaymaster.com
In article <35784782...@news.flash.net>,
automatically
> > look down on anyone who doesn't?
>
> Pretty much.
Speak for yourself. Your ego overstretches your authority to represent a
class of people to whom you belong. Fortunately, most who read this are
likely to recognize that fact.
>
> > And what does that say about you?
>
> That we're educated and successful, and hence demonstrably better in some
ways
> than those who aren't? That's just a guess, mind you....
And a poor one, in my opinion. I would prefer to restate this as: 'That
those who value pieces of paper awarded for jumping through hoops designed to
test knowledge but which instead test ability to jump through hoops are sadly
deluded, as they are basing their judgements of the value of a person on their
ability to jump through hoops, an activity for which the human being is
clearly poorly designed.'
And before you get excited, this comes from a very successful, degreed
professional.
> Fra Tadhg Liath OFT
ta...@bigfoot.com
> The Grumpiest Pelican
>
Mordock von Rugen
Unimpressed by Pelicans, grumpy or otherwise. Impressed only by people.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Mary Iliff
In article <356E31...@psu.edu>, Duane Brocious <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
>Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> Many of the PhD's that I know in the SCA don't teach within their
>> fields. You see to have a pretty bizarre idea of what PhD's might be
>> interested in for their hobby activities.
>
>My scholarly and recreational areas are the same, as are many other
>scholars I know. I pity the poor sod who spent years learnig and a
>lifetime doing something that doesn't interest him.
My professional area is research into the flying qualities of
high-performance (fighter) aircraft. Thrilling though this is, it's not
exactly the stuff hobbies are made of. Dropping $20 million or so on an
airframe isn't within my budget. And general aviation aircraft, although
affordable, are not of great interest to me.
My recreations include travel, reading (mysteries, history, and popular
science) and beadwork, in part because they are so unrelated to my
professional area.
My husband works more broadly in aeronautics, being further up the
organizational chain than me, but his recreations are travel, reading, and
watching American & Canadian football, basketball, and auto racing on TV.
We both love our work, feeling that we have the best of all possible jobs,
but we also love our play.