Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Del writes: 
>Personally, I would like to see our conventions change some and focus more
>directly on those who are a bit more experienced- .
    
   I agree. 

>This is the direction our organization has decided our conventions should
>take and as long as that is the case we're pretty much stuck with the way
>things are. 

   I see a circular logic there, and would hope that "we" aren't "stuck" 
unless we want to be.  Changes come in pairs, so a task is waiting for those 
that want a different style of convention, (see below)

>There is a strong motivation for leaving things relatively
>alone--the status quo does work for quite a few people. 

Ain't that the truth!  However, improvement requires change, so the status 
quo is actually regressive, and that is something that is worth looking at. 

> Changes are always uncertain. 

  yes, thank goodness.  
 
>And we know from experience that there will be enough folks
>willing to devote substantial portions of their time and energy throughout
>the year to provide a reasonably high level of technical content even if
>they are not compensated appropriately. 

  Agreed, but with a question.  Are the conventions as valuable as possible?  
I personally know of two instructors that presented work-changing classes 
(for me), that no longer teach because of the cost.  There are probably 
others, as well.  What quality are we missing because of this? 
    There are also more than a few teachers at the convention that teach how 
to use their products, which is well and good, since they can profit in more 
ways than Guild compensation.  However,  what about those instructors who can 
bring knowledge that is of great benifit to the members but have nothing to 
sell?  
    Without some tangible suggestions, not much will happen, so here is mine: 
 Since it is impossible to teach a topic at a level the beginner will grasp 
without boring the experienced veteran, there should be some classes 
restricted to "RPT-only".   This will allow an instructor to target their 
audience.  I think a higher quality of presentation could be had .  It will 
also provide some impetus to the associates to upgrade their status.  
Possibly there could be associate versions of these same classes, taught by 
the same instructor but aimed at the tech with less background.  
      I know that there are ratings in place to describe the classes, but 
that doesn't stop the newbie from asking elementary questions in what is 
supposed to be an advanced class, thus dragging the whole room backwards.  A 
class that is more equal ,(what a political word for me to use...) allows the 
instructor to go deeper into the specific area, without needing to give all 
that background.  A class on voicing the hammer that I attended several years 
ago comes to mind. This was a 90 minute class.  The first 50 minutes of the 
period was spent on filing hammers and leveling strings!!!  The next 30 
minutes was spent on the regulation required,  then there was 10 minutes 
spent on altering the hammer to alter the tone.  Beginners grasped the first 
half while the veterans slept, then they were lost in the last half while the 
veterans debated the various ways to regulate. <sigh> 
   
     Maybe it could be that we would allow the associates to "audit" the 
course, but only the RPT's could take part in the discussion in these 
restricted classes.  Yes, it will mean denying somebody's wishes, but without 
some kind of discipline, there is no way to focus the class. 
    Teaching is a specific skill in its own right,  just because someone has 
done a beautiful job of rebuilding for 40 years doesn't mean that they can 
transfer that knowledge to another, and having classes of mixed abilities 
just makes the job that much harder.  I think it would be easier to organize 
the classes than it would be to train technicians to be teachers.  
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT 
(no, I got no flame suit,  I just sit there and smoke).