Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
My whole focus is on the UK. What happens in NZ is not relevant. Therefore I have not taken into account the fact that no teachers in NZ are qualified and that one person from NZ thinks that is a good thing.
I challenge you to find where I’ve said I think it’s a good thing that no NZ teachers have qualifications. What I have said is that I don’t consider them any worse than the UK teachers because of it.

There is a difference you seem to be choosing to ignore because it suits you.

The only opinion I have given is that the argument from the particular to the general is a weak argument. Perhaps you can tell us why it is not?
What you said was “Most of that was arguing from the particular to the general "I know this great teacher and they aren't qualified - therefore teachers don't need qualifications". This is a poor argument, but it does clearly articulate the sentiment held by the person posing the argument. They don't value qualifications.”. As I was the one who prompted you to bold the phrase “And let's stop quoting the exceptions to the need for qualifications and start thinking about minimum standards.” it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that I am the person (singular) you are referring to.

Your summary of my sentiment is not accurate.


Also, you have only told us that Andy McGregor is wrong in a destructive and argumentative way - I simply debating. Perhaps you'd like to be constructive and write the summary as you think I should have seen it. Let's call it a counter-argument.
I’ve not told you you’re wrong at all, so again you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said.

At most I’ve told you that I think you might be a little naive about teachers maintaining standards if they’re not already inclined to. You also seem to be ignoring the points that I’ve agreed with you on and the fact that I draw a distinction between the skills necessary to be a good teacher and a good operator while as far as I can tell you do not.



So, to answer your question (although I’ve already done it in my previous posts) how does this go?:

The value I place in a qualification is dependent upon the rigour of the examination process. If someone has a “proper” qualification in teaching dance that has taken years of full-time study at a renowned institution with extremely high standards then I’ll consider it a very big advantage. If the qualification is open to anyone, completed over a handful of weekends, run by people to whom are not necessarily fantastic dances and teachers themselves and under the banner of an organization I’ve never heard of then the value of the qualification to me is small*.

At the moment the overwhelming number of MJ teachers have day jobs and teach more for love than money. I suggest that any qualifications they are prepared to spend the time and money to take will be toward the later end of the scale and therefore of little value to me personally as a punter.

Also, in the end, I’ll make up my own mind as to whether I think a teacher is a good one or not regardless of qualifications. Where having a qualification I respect makes a difference is in motivating me to check them out. It’s whether they have the qualities that Straycat has so succinctly provided, and that you’ve agreed with, that will determine if I stay.


*Note that I am not suggesting this is how LEROC or Ceroc courses are run, as I do not know. I’m merely illustrating a point.