About learning and self-improvement
Sidu Ponnappa
When interviewing programmers in India, a fairly constant response to
'What personal projects do you hack on in your spare time?' that I've
received has been 'I don't take my work home,' 'I prefer to maintain a
work life balance' or 'I expect the company to pay for professional
training during work hours.'
A recent comment along similar lines to a three year old blog post of
mine on ThoughtWorks' recruiting workflow led me to respond with a
blog post ( http://x.c42.in/hhF2Kl ). I would be interested to know
both your opinions on the subject, and also if similar patterns are
common in other parts of the world too.
Best,
Sidu.
http://c42.in
Josmas Flores
great post. I think it happens everywhere in the world but I wouldn't
be inclined to conclude that if you don't hack on your spare time then
I don't want to hire/work with you.
It might be a bit more complex than that. If you work in a place where
no one values your work, learning is not in the menu, you are
consistently sidetracked and have to go in earlier than anyone or stay
later than anyone to get anything done, then I wouldn't expect anyone
to be happy to 'take work home'.
I'm afraid there's tons of people in similar situations, without an
easy way out. Candidates might be trying to get away from an
environment like that.
Maybe questions such as why did you decide to start programming or
what got you hooked in first instance, could allow for spotting the
potential for a good hire which is currently in the wrong social
environment. Just an opinion! :)
cheers,
Jos
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
> To post to this group, send email to software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.
>
>
Steven Smith
- don't pay attention to that guy...
I agree with you. I only want to hire and work with programmers who
are passionate about what they are doing. I would extend that to any
occupation, I think, though I'm sure if I thought about it long enough
I could come up with necessary occupations that one can do without
spending much time outside of work on them. Mostly these would be in
fields or industries that are not changing rapidly (e.g. cleaning
offices), but even in these cases I think a case can be made for being
passionate about one's craft. I saw an interesting tweet this week
that read something like "Each person's job is a self-portrait of the
kind of person doing it". If you're just marking time or punching a
clock but aren't really present in what you're doing, it will show.
If you care and are passionate, that too will show.
I think it's also important to recognize that not everybody who is a
programmer loves programming. This is perhaps unfortunate, but
altogether common. I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to get
to do something I really enjoy (programming and problem solving) and
get paid for it. And because I enjoy it I also do it in my spare time
and enjoy learning about it while not at work, etc. But there are
plenty of people in any industry who are there because it's a job and
they need to pay their bills and that's that. Or who once enjoyed it
but now would rather be doing other things. And there is plenty of
work for these folks, but again all things being equal I'll hire the
programmer who loves their craft over the one who's just collecting a
paycheck.
Steve
--
Pick up your 2011 Software Craftsmanship Calendar today: http://bit.ly/SC_2011
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
> To post to this group, send email to software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.
>
>
--
Steve Smith
http://SteveSmithBlog.com/
http://twitter.com/ardalis
Melanio Reyes
reminds me of a recent Seth Godin post.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/12/wheres-your-platform.html
John Daniels
> are passionate about what they are doing.
I totally agree, but it doesn't necessarily follow that passionate
programmers spend their leisure time programming. I'd look for
evidence of their passion in their broader attitude to continuous
learning, and in contributing their ideas to the community. I think
it's a good sign if they do at least some of that in their own time.
Conversely, I might not be very impressed by someone who spends all
day programming then rushes home and spends their evenings and
weekends for months on end in the solitary pursuit of some open-source
project. It shows passion, yes, but is that the sort of passion I want
to hire?
--John
Pablosan
me give you a concrete example: namely, me.
I went through a very dark time in my career as a software developer.
I had bounced from job to job, working in some pretty nasty situations
and the experiences had sapped my passion to the point that I was
looking for a new career.
As a developer, I am very good at what I do. I've always been one of
the best players on the team... except for those dark days. Even
though my coding ability was top-notch, my apathy buried my ability.
During that time, had I been asked "what are you coding for fun on
your own time?" I would have answered honestly: "absolutely nothing."
And you know what? Even though I had tons of ability, asking that
question would have given the interviewer a hint that maybe they
shouldn't hire me. And they would be right. Nobody should have hired
me. I was a liability.
Recently, I've found myself stating in several conversations around
dealing with dead weight or hiring the right people "we're not running
a charity." It may be harsh, but it is not my goal to rehabilitate
someone who is wallowing in apathy.
The happy ending is that I was able to find the personal fortitude to
rise above the negative impact of my environment. I realized that if I
wanted to attract the attention of the right kind of employer I had to
regain my passion. Since that time, I've never had to look for a job.
They've come looking for me, including the company that I'm starting
with 3 January, 2011: ThoughtWorks.
Ben Fulton
I totally agree, but it doesn't necessarily follow that passionate
programmers spend their leisure time programming.
Dave Hoover
Cory Foy
Dave Hoover
Jerry Andrews
Dave Hoover
Everyone makes decisions about their priorities. When you're raising kids, they often want time that single people can devote to programming. If you choose to program instead of giving them that time, it's a choice you are free to make, but others will prioritize differently. Who's to say which is the better choice for you and your family? My wife raised her kids by herself (she wasn't married to me at the time). Could she find time to program when her babies needed attention? My dad's career didn't go where he wanted it to, in part because he felt it was important to be home for dinner every night. Would I have turned out differently if he hadn't? I don't have any way to evaluate that.We each make our choices. I have to respect that some people will choose to work, and others will choose to spend their limited time on other things. I can't see that either choice is "better" in any objective sense.
--
Pablosan
not an easy balance, and I'm sure I haven't found the right balance.
It's hard, but important enough to my career that I look for ways to
squeeze it in.
Jussi Mononen
>> programming goes out the window for people with families.
>
> I actually have a family and still make time for coding for fun. It is
> not an easy balance, and I'm sure I haven't found the right balance.
> It's hard, but important enough to my career that I look for ways to
> squeeze it in.
Ditto. I just have less time for coding @ home. But that is ok, I
guess and hope that my time with code and other related areas will
grow at the same time as my kids grow older. Thank god my $work allows
me to have some slack that I can use for my craftsman journey.
--
"Progress doesn't come from early risers — progress is made by lazy
men looking for easier ways to do things." - Robert. A. Heinlein
Robert Martin
Jerry Andrews <jerryd...@gmail.com> Dec 14 08:53AM -0600 ^
Everyone makes decisions about their priorities. When you're raising kids,
they often want time that single people can devote to programming. If you
choose to program instead of giving them that time, it's a choice you are
free to make, but others will prioritize differently. Who's to say which is
the better choice *for you and your family*? My wife raised her kids by
herself (she wasn't married to me at the time). Could she find time to
program when her babies needed attention? My dad's career didn't go where he
wanted it to, in part because he felt it was important to be home for dinner
every night. Would I have turned out differently if he hadn't? I don't have
any way to evaluate that.
We each make our choices. I have to respect that some people will choose to
work, and others will choose to spend their limited time on other things. I
can't see that either choice is "better" in any objective sense.
Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | uncl...@cleancoder.com
Uncle Bob Consulting LLC. | @unclebobmartin
847.922.0563 | web: objectmentor.com
Joel Helbling
dot-com startup, a single father, and I was homeschooling my son.
Three big jobs, and I never felt that I was doing decently at more
than one of them at any given time. Two things would slide while the
third enjoyed focus for a while. Over time I have come to the
conclusion that this may be alright.
The idea that there is some perfect balance which incorporates of all
our objectives and priorities --optimizing each for robust growth-- is
silly. If this were so, we could set it and forget it, and everything
in our lives would hum along nicely. But we are not baking cupcakes
or stamping license plates here, we are raising children and growing
as software craftsmen. Those two pursuits certainly benefit from
foresight and planning, but the fact is that to be effective at each,
we must maintain an adaptive stance and a willingness to respond to
change.
I'll be honest; there are times in my life when I feel rather blase
about programming. I have learned to not be too concerned about these
times. They pass. Often these are times with rich experiences in my
relationships; conversations and shared experiences with loved ones
which I wouldn't miss for the world. Naturally, in these times I
still have to earn a living. And I remain committed to practicing and
growing as a software craftsman. It just takes a bit more grit for
what feels like less return.
And at other times my appetite for practice and craft return with such
energy that I am easily absorbed for 14 hours at a time, at the end of
which I suddenly discover that I am parched, starving and I have to
pee like a racehorse. I like times like those; my learning and skill
re-accelerates and it's loads of fun. And in those times I make a
point to periodically break away from all that fascinating stuff in
order to connect with my family and be a regular human for a while
every day.
The cycles used to exasperate me. Not so much anymore. I'm thinking
they may be part of the natural order of things, and if that's the
case, then I believe they are good and beneficial for me when handled
appropriately. If you love your family, you will invest in them. And
If you really love developing software, you'll continue to pursue it
even in the times when you feel like you're doomed to suck at it.
On Dec 14, 10:32 pm, Robert Martin <uncle...@cleancoder.com> wrote:
> In 1988 I joined a startup company. We were all going to make a trillion dollars! All we had to do was work really really hard for a year or two and then we'd be rich, rich, rich. My boss told me: "It's not the quantity of time you spend with your family, it's the _quality_".
>
> What a load of horse-apples! Here's a tip: Your family needs quality _and_ quantity! A professional is not someone without a family life. A professional struggles to keep both profession and family in balance. And, believe me, family members see that struggle, and learn from it. There can hardly be a better role model for children than to see their parents working at that balancing act.
>
> But this is not a simple one-sided argument. There are 168 hours in a week. If you manage to spend only 40 on your career; then you have a job and not a profession; and in software you will be outclassed by your colleagues. Again, you can be sure that family members will take note of that. When rainy days come, as they always do, do you want your family wondering why you didn't work harder on their behalf to remain competitive?
>
> Your point about a single-parent is valid. Raising both children and a profession by yourself is very difficult. The movie "The Pursuit of Happiness" tells the story of just how hard that is. Unfortunately, his story is not the way that most single-parent homes turn out. Single-parent homes are far more likely to live below the poverty line than two-parent homes.
>
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 19:08 , software_crafts...@googlegroups.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Everyone makes decisions about their priorities. When you're raising kids,
> > they often want time that single people can devote to programming. If you
> > choose to program instead of giving them that time, it's a choice you are
> > free to make, but others will prioritize differently. Who's to say which is
> > the better choice *for you and your family*? My wife raised her kids by
> > herself (she wasn't married to me at the time). Could she find time to
> > program when her babies needed attention? My dad's career didn't go where he
> > wanted it to, in part because he felt it was important to be home for dinner
> > every night. Would I have turned out differently if he hadn't? I don't have
> > any way to evaluate that.
>
> > We each make our choices. I have to respect that some people will choose to
> > work, and others will choose to spend their limited time on other things. I
> > can't see that either choice is "better" in any objective sense.
>
> ----
Cory Foy
On Dec 14, 2010, at 22:32, Robert Martin <uncl...@cleancoder.com> wrote:
> But this is not a simple one-sided argument. There are 168 hours in a week. If you manage to spend only 40 on your career; then you have a job and not a profession; and in software you will be outclassed by your colleagues. Again, you can be sure that family members will take note of that. When rainy days come, as they always do, do you want your family wondering why you didn't work harder on their behalf to remain competitive?
It's rare for a statement to take me to this level, but that's a bunch of horsecrap. I can only hope you were being sarcastic.
There is no reason for anyone to sacrifice their family time for a profession, a career, or a passion. Absolutely none. It comes out of our sick US culture that says that we have to punch a clock and that anything outside of that is on our own.
In other words, if you want to grow, your only option is to do that outside of "work" since "work" is not a place for learning, exploration and growth.
I get that some people work in places which don't value learning, and to change their company they have to spend time outside of work to do that. But that should be an exception, not a rule. We should be holding up those organizations which value their employees and understand that productivity and innovation can be fostered during the work week.
My family will never wonder why I "didn't work harder" because they come first. Does that mean that I'm not able to do the things I want, and mean that I don't know thngs as well as others? Damn right.
This obsession that to be the best at what you do requires sacrifice of your family - I don't buy it, because we aren't addressing the root cause of what leads to not being able to grow during your day job.
Should you have a passion outside of your job? Absolutely. Should you have the passion to want to do things outside of your comfort area? Absolutely! Should you sacrifice family time to do so?
I would say with great caution, and with buy-in from your family and a definitive goal in mind. But outside of that, so what if I'm outclassed? So what if my colleague has learned 20 languages this year and I've only been able to play with one or two? Am I still capable of delivering value to my customers in the best way possible? You better darn believe it. And I have something even greater - many, many memories of spending time with my kids at museums, parks and at home.
You *can* be a craftsman and a family person. I firmly reject the notion that you have to sacrifice your family for the love of your craft, and that if you don't you'll be left on the streets in the rain with your family shaking their heads saying, "Oh Dad, why, oh, why didn't you spend more time working than with us?"
Cory
Jeff Langr
> You *can* be a craftsman and a family person.
Indeed.
> I firmly reject the notion that you have to sacrifice your family for the love of your craft, and that if you
> don't you'll be left on the streets in the rain with your family shaking their heads saying, "Oh Dad, why,
> oh, why didn't you spend more time working than with us?"
An extra hour each weeknight to keep updated can be enough. Put the
kids to bed, spend some time with the wife, then go learn for an hour.
I did this when my kids were younger, learning and writing after 10pm.
I didn't sacrifice my family.
I know of programmers (including a good personal friend) who spent
months, and some close to a year, out of work. They weren't afforded
any real extra opportunities to grow their career while at work, and
unimaginatively figured that their work would keep them relevant.
Unemployment is very hard on a family, and very real in smaller
markets--and in some cases, the only escape is *real* sacrifice of
traveling to a job or moving.
It's up to each individual to decide, but I believe doing 40 hours of
unrewarding/non-career-forwarding work and then refusing to invest any
additional time is a poor choice. I suspect few posting here would
ever make that choice.
Jeff
Langr Software Solutions
http://langrsoft.com
http://agileinaflash.com
Jason L. van Brackel
I can second Jeff and Uncle Bob on this one. I found out I was being
laid off on 3 December. I've taken a route similar to what Jeff
describes over the last several years. Because of my time spent
outside of the 9 to 5, I am very marketable. I finish my current job
today. I start another tomorrow. I have two boys and spend time with
them and my wife each day. One can do both, but to expect to
significantly and competitively grow within the confines of the 9 to 5
is likely unreasonable.
Jason
Jason L. van Brackel
ja...@vanbrackel.net
Jason L. van Brackel
culture problem and that many companies care little for the value of
continual self improvement. It's very difficult to get bottomline
companies to see the ROI on learning and other non-billable
activities. Nonetheless, we who would aspire to master craftsmanship
must rise above the circumstances of the job.
And I too see the family as very important. I have often put
self-improvement time aside for some extra floor time with the boys.
I just didn't want you to feel I was just piling on, because we do
agree to a certain level.
Jason
Jason L. van Brackel
ja...@vanbrackel.net
Sidu Ponnappa
somewhat to extremes, but I would nevertheless like to offer an
additional perspective.
From what I've seen, it is sometimes very hard for those in the first
world to understand the complete lack of social safety nets in the
third world (where I live and work). This lack of safety nets
effectively forces many of us to focus on stable, successful careers
to a degree verging on obsession. We have to fend for ourselves, our
children and our parents. Nothing is provided by the state - we have
to plan for our own healthcare, our children's education and often our
parents healthcare as well. A single serious illness can force the
average middle class family to liquidate all their assets to pay for
healthcare, possibly bankrupting them. The average savings rate here
hovers around 25%, and with good reason. Sabbaticals are almost
unheard of, and are considered career killers; the only exception in
my experience was ThoughtWorks (where I used to work), but then that's
a fundamentally more friendly place to work than most.
Remaining skilled and eminently employable in such an environment is
absolutely essential. I'm not suggesting that families or personal
considerations should be ignored - just that things aren't the same
everywhere, and while a balance is essential, the point where that
balance lies may move based on the situation.
Indeed, in the case of much of the low cost software services industry
in India (which employs the vast majority of our engineers), a little
study might offer a path out of a mind-numbing job where you're forced
to work twelve hour days to compensate for incompetent management,
badly written software and (consequently) irate clients while earning
a pittance.
Best,
Sidu.
http://c42.in
Robert Martin
There is no reason for anyone to sacrifice their family time for a profession, a career, or a passion. Absolutely none.
It comes out of our sick US culture that says that we have to punch a clock and that anything outside of that is on our own.
In other words, if you want to grow, your only option is to do that outside of "work" since "work" is not a place for learning, exploration and growth.
I get that some people work in places which don't value learning, and to change their company they have to spend time outside of work to do that. But that should be an exception, not a rule.
We should be holding up those organizations which value their employees and understand that productivity and innovation can be fostered during the work week.
My family will never wonder why I "didn't work harder" because they come first. Does that mean that I'm not able to do the things I want, and mean that I don't know thngs as well as others? Damn right.
This obsession that to be the best at what you do requires sacrifice of your family - I don't buy it, because we aren't addressing the root cause of what leads to not being able to grow during your day job.
Should you have a passion outside of your job? Absolutely. Should you have the passion to want to do things outside of your comfort area? Absolutely! Should you sacrifice family time to do so?
I would say with great caution, and with buy-in from your family and a definitive goal in mind. But outside of that, so what if I'm outclassed? So what if my colleague has learned 20 languages this year and I've only been able to play with one or two? Am I still capable of delivering value to my customers in the best way possible? You better darn believe it.
And I have something even greater - many, many memories of spending time with my kids at museums, parks and at home.
You *can* be a craftsman and a family person.
I firmly reject the notion that you have to sacrifice your family for the love of your craft, and that if you don't you'll be left on the streets in the rain with your family shaking their heads saying, "Oh Dad, why, oh, why didn't you spend more time working than with us?"
Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | uncl...@cleancoder.com
Robert Martin
Sidu Ponnappa <ckpon...@gmail.com> Dec 16 01:44AM +0530 ^
J. B. Rainsberger
I can second Jeff and Uncle Bob on this one. I found out I was being
laid off on 3 December. I've taken a route similar to what Jeff
describes over the last several years. Because of my time spent
outside of the 9 to 5, I am very marketable. I finish my current job
today. I start another tomorrow. I have two boys and spend time with
them and my wife each day. One can do both, but to expect to
significantly and competitively grow within the confines of the 9 to 5
is likely unreasonable.
Diaspar Software Services :: http://www.diasparsoftware.com
Author, JUnit Recipes
2005 Gordon Pask Award for contribution to Agile practice :: Agile 2010: Learn. Practice. Explore.
George Dinwiddie
On 12/15/10 12:22 AM, Joel Helbling wrote:
> At one point a few years ago, I was a telecommuting programmer for a
> dot-com startup, a single father, and I was homeschooling my son.
> Three big jobs, and I never felt that I was doing decently at more
> than one of them at any given time. Two things would slide while the
> third enjoyed focus for a while. Over time I have come to the
> conclusion that this may be alright.
>
> The idea that there is some perfect balance which incorporates of all
> our objectives and priorities --optimizing each for robust growth-- is
> silly. If this were so, we could set it and forget it, and everything
> in our lives would hum along nicely. But we are not baking cupcakes
> or stamping license plates here, we are raising children and growing
> as software craftsmen. Those two pursuits certainly benefit from
> foresight and planning, but the fact is that to be effective at each,
> we must maintain an adaptive stance and a willingness to respond to
> change.
Yes, it's a dynamic balance, not a static one. It always takes attention.
- George
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Tuma
balance? I normally just "feel" that one area is lacking, so I shift
focus for a while -- a very un-disciplined approach. I just started
reading "Apprenticeship Patterns" and it seems like it will be a good
start.
-Frank
Corey Haines
Sign up for an invitation, and I'll get you one. I think this is a
great use-case for the application.
-Corey
--
http://www.coreyhaines.com
The Internet's Premiere source of information about Corey Haines
Paul Pagel
Peter Bell
tal...@gmail.com
For example, I'm training for a half marathon right now (it's in January). Till then, I find myself devoting less time to my other interests. Once I complete the half marathon, I know running will become less important (not that I'll stop running, but it'll be on autopilot, will be shorter runs, and I won't be thinking about it all the time). I'll pick up the next goal and work towards that.
This used to be frustrating initially - when I found that it's not possible to spend equal amounts of time and pay attention to each and every small detail for every activity. Now I've found the goal oriented approach to be much more sustainable - as long as the other activities are not completely ignored. I keep track of the other activities by doing a review every weekend. Setting reminders helps (this won't work for most people related stuff, of course, but it works for personal learning).
Hope this helps.
- Hrish
------------------------------------------
http://www.deepinspace.net
------------------------------------------
Robert Martin
In short, I learned and grew within the 9 to 5, and that served me pretty
damn well.
Robert Martin
Anybody have any helpful tools/tricks for monitoring this delicate
balance?
Jason Gorman
for highlighting it.
The mythical 10,000 hours of dedicated practice it takes to become a
true master of something seems pretty challenging IF you're starting
later in life. It's one reason why no good piano teacher worth his or
her salt would take me on as a 40-yr-old student.
Not only because I'd be 60 by the time I was a maestro pianist, but
because as a 40-yr-old I have the crippling commitments of of your
average modern 40-yr-old, which leaves little time for becoming a
concert pianist.
Of course, I COULD re-arrange my life to make the time. And if I did
that, it must mean that I really, really want to be a concert pianist
- more than anything else. Which is why I won't do it. More than
anything else, I want to be a software developer. I kind of enjoy it.
It's not a burden and rarely feels like work, so I don't notice how
much time I'm putting in. When I have kids, I may well feel
differently about it. I may be even more keen to spend time
programming, if other people's kids are anything to go by ;)
But there's a serious point here. If the learning process starts early
in life, like it does for many other complex practical disciplines
like speaking foreign languages, playing sport, ballet dancing or
playing musical instruments, then the 10,000 hours is far more
achievable.
Which is one reason hwy increasingly I find myself focusing my
thoughts on programming in school and university. When I was a kid,
lots of today's best programmers cut their teeth on Sinclair
Spectrums, Commodore 64s and Acorn Micros, spending hour after hour
programming games and wotnot in their bedrooms. Those days are gone,
alas. Kids spend thousands of hours playing computer games written by
the kids who learned to program in the 80's when you had to program to
operate a computer.
We need to get that back somehow. And Programming and software
development needs to be cut a clear educational path, distinct from
computer science and mathematics, where's it's treated as practical
skill like playing the piano and where education is much more
vocational from ages 16 onwards. A 21 yr-old who's been coding for 2
hours a day since she was 11 would have 6,000 of her 10,000 hours. If
she served a full-time apprenticeship from age 18-21, she could quite
possibly have achieved 10,000 hours.
There's still hope for us old-timers, of course. But making the time
requires much greater and more challenging sacrifices. In the long
term, the next generation of software craftsmen we desperately need
tod rive our information economies is not going to come from our
generation in the majority of cases. The challenge is just to great.
Jason Gorman
www.codemanship.com
On Dec 9, 12:25 pm, Sidu Ponnappa <ckponna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> When interviewing programmers in India, a fairly constant response to
> 'What personal projects do you hack on in your spare time?' that I've
> received has been 'I don't take my work home,' 'I prefer to maintain a
> work life balance' or 'I expect the company to pay for professional
> training during work hours.'
>
> A recent comment along similar lines to a three year old blog post of
> mine on ThoughtWorks' recruiting workflow led me to respond with a
> blog post (http://x.c42.in/hhF2Kl). I would be interested to know
> both your opinions on the subject, and also if similar patterns are
> common in other parts of the world too.
>
> Best,
> Sidu.http://c42.in
Jon Jagger
> I think there's a very interesting point being made here, and thanks
> for highlighting it.
>
> The mythical 10,000 hours of dedicated practice it takes to become a
> true master of something seems pretty challenging IF you're starting
> later in life.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by mythical here.
My understanding is there seems to be good consensus on 10,000 hours
of the right kind of practice IF you want to become a world class
expert. But there's nothing wrong with simply wanting to get better,
or even to simply make a start, rather than immediately aim for being
world class.
> It's one reason why no good piano teacher worth his or
> her salt would take me on as a 40-yr-old student.
> Not only because I'd be 60 by the time I was a maestro pianist, but
> because as a 40-yr-old I have the crippling commitments of of your
> average modern 40-yr-old, which leaves little time for becoming a
> concert pianist.
So don't aim for becoming a concert pianist. Simply aim to get a bit better.
A good piano teacher would probably welcome someone with enthusiasm to
get better - regardless of their age. Someone starting to learn the
piano who is 40 years old is likely to have that enthusiasm simply
because they're 40 and they wouldn't be asking otherwise!
Cheers
Jon
Alastair Smith
A good piano teacher would probably welcome someone with enthusiasm to get better
Alastair Smith MEng, MBCS, DipABRSM
http://www.alastairsmith.me.uk/