Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 51 to 100 of 109
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Here is what Bruce Forman thinks about university jazz education (I believe he himself holds a position at a collage):
    LJS 10: Interview With Bruce Forman - Learn Jazz Standards

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    And I am an IT pro as well, but this isn't about about you, me, or Bruce Forman for that matter.

    Back on topic - Do either you or Bruce have anything to say that addresses "positivism" in Jazz Ed?

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    You mean jazz greats? Quite a few of them teach at universities now.
    Indeed likeKenny Burrell who started a prestigious program


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    You kidding? Read the names who teaches at universities, at least in America, they are all greats. In City College where I went we had John Patitucci. Do they love this job? They are not teaching high school, they are teaching dedicated group of students, I am sure there is a lot love in this job.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    pos·i·tiv·ism
    1. Philosophy
    a. A doctrine contending that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought
    b. The application of this doctrine in logic, epistemology, and ethics
    c. The system of Auguste Comte designed to supersede theology and metaphysics and depending on a hierarchy of the sciences, beginning with mathematics and culminating in sociology
    d. Any of several doctrines or viewpoints, often similar to Comte's, that stress attention to actual practice over consideration of what is ideal

    Clearly, positivism in the domain of jazz education must mean learning to play by ear, no?

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Why don't we ever talk about tractors here?
    Last edited by rabbit; 09-19-2019 at 06:16 PM.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    pos·i·tiv·ism
    1. Philosophy
    a. A doctrine contending that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought
    b. The application of this doctrine in logic, epistemology, and ethics
    c. The system of Auguste Comte designed to supersede theology and metaphysics and depending on a hierarchy of the sciences, beginning with mathematics and culminating in sociology
    d. Any of several doctrines or viewpoints, often similar to Comte's, that stress attention to actual practice over consideration of what is ideal

    Clearly, positivism in the domain of jazz education must mean learning to play by ear, no?
    True!

    I think the meaning has shifted. In so much as positivism aims to refute metaphysics and actually most musicians have a vaguely metaphysical outlook. (At least if they are any good.)

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    You kidding? Read the names who teaches at universities, at least in America, they are all greats. In City College where I went we had John Patitucci. Do they love this job? They are not teaching high school, they are teaching dedicated group of students, I am sure there is a lot love in this job.
    My point is greats teaching at colleges doesn't mean they go "Now, that's how you teach jazz. I wish I learned this shit in class room instead of gigging in dirty bars and on the road . That's the way to go."

    They might love their jobs. In fact the reason I said that "I even like my job", despite disagreeing with some of approaches and attitudes towards the craft (software development) was to point out that one didn't negate the other. I meant to say, yes they might even like teaching at colleges.

    The topic is positivism in education. The way I understand it is it implies, over intellectualized, one size fits all, factory assembly line type of approach is being questioned. In other words, pedagogical system that had to be developed in order to feasibly fit jazz training in the institutionalized format. Or youtube format or online academy format for that matter.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    You guys are reaching, especially those of you who are/were not music majors, and are therefore engaged in outsider, arms length, speculation. I was a classical and jazz major on both coasts and in flyover country, and no music instructor, professor, student or textbook blabbed on about metaphysics in music. In Religious and Philosophy studies? Sure, but not in music.

    While many institutions include music fundamentals classes now, in a certain sense all undergrad degrees are engaged in fundamentals. There are only eight semesters, and it's over!

    In the end it's not all about those four years, it's what you do with them afterwards.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    My point is greats teaching at colleges doesn't mean they go "Now, that's how you teach jazz. I wish I learned this shit in class room instead of gigging in dirty bars and on the road . That's the way to go."

    They might love their jobs. In fact the reason I said that "I even like my job", despite disagreeing with some of approaches and attitudes towards the craft (software development) was to point out that one didn't negate the other. I meant to say, yes they might even like teaching at colleges.

    The topic is positivism in education. The way I understand it is it implies, over intellectualized, one size fits all, factory assembly line type of approach is being questioned. In other words, pedagogical system that had to be developed in order to feasibly fit jazz training in the institutionalized format. Or youtube format or online academy format for that matter.
    The way I think the positivism idea comes in is in the assessment (which of course is related to the teaching itself) where a student’s learning is evaluated purely in terms of the information they have learned. Needless to say, it’s stark to see why this is inappropriate in music.

    (In a sense to assess learning outcomes in this actually a form of anti-intellectualism.)

    In terms of jazz, and away from the academies, who of course don’t teach music purely in a classroom format - people who are drawn to jazz are easily able to access information. Many jazz musicians know lots of information, so it’s easy to see why so many people kind of think jazz is information...

    But I do think that need for a distinctive syllabus in jazz programs going back to the 70s etc crystallised these elements into from that was readily distributable by first print media and later video. The internet has kicked this all into high gear.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt

    In the end it's not all about those four years, it's what you do with them afterwards.

    I agree. You have to continue to develop some of what you learned and un-learn some of the other.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    You guys are reaching, especially those of you who are/were not music majors, and are therefore engaged in outsider, arms length, speculation. I was a classical and jazz major on both coasts and in flyover country, and no music instructor, professor, student or textbook blabbed on about metaphysics in music. In Religious and Philosophy studies? Sure, but not in music.

    While many institutions include music fundamentals classes now, in a certain sense all undergrad degrees are engaged in fundamentals. There are only eight semesters, and it's over!

    In the end it's not all about those four years, it's what you do with them afterwards.
    I don't have a degree in jazz. But I did take university credit courses from the jazz program of the university I attended (including one on one instruction). I've been for years now privately studying with people who are faculties in jazz programs. I also participate semester long workshops, ensembles that are run by university teachers. I've been basically following formal university curriculum so I'm not a complete outsider.
    I actually didn't criticise university jazz education, I even said some of the pedagogical simplifications were a necessity. The point about jazz greats were my response to your question.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 09-19-2019 at 07:17 PM.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    You guys are reaching, especially those of you who are/were not music majors, and are therefore engaged in outsider, arms length, speculation. I was a classical and jazz major on both coasts and in flyover country, and no music instructor, professor, student or textbook blabbed on about metaphysics in music. In Religious and Philosophy studies? Sure, but not in music.

    While many institutions include music fundamentals classes now, in a certain sense all undergrad degrees are engaged in fundamentals. There are only eight semesters, and it's over!

    In the end it's not all about those four years, it's what you do with them afterwards.
    Yeah metaphysics might be the wrong word.

    The thing that is relevant is a player beyond the intermediate level has to start dealing with the interior world and less with ‘stuff.’

    for example, you have to be aware of your own mental state while performing and develop techniques for cultivating this. If you don’t you’ll play out of time, and so on.

    You have to find concrete ways to encourage the creative process. And so on.

    This may all sound a bit hippy, but this is a concrete thing I deal with every day in common with all performing musicians.

    Can education deal with this? Or is it something you find on the trenches? I think the former.

    I don’t see education as purely what happens in the classroom. For instance, certainly in London, no doubt in the US, jazz colleges are proactive in helping their students find gigs, which for them also serves the handy side benefit of helping students fund their living expenses as well as providing the obvious experiential learning.

    In fact some models of education - situated learning - reject the classroom entirely in favour of something that would be familiar to us from the jazz history books - an apprenticeship under the guiding hand of elders/mentors who engineer their own eventual replacement.

    And if the classroom come to resemble this environment I feel that would be of benefit to music.

    OTOH - HE institutions are (rightly) under political pressure to be accountable! And apprenticeship is ... opaque. How many apprentice painters ended up being basically servants for a disinterested renaissance master? Could not situated learning environments also be ideal breeding grounds for cult like behaviours?

    A more nuanced method of evaluation is obviously required, but how this is sold within modern democracy is a tough one. I understand the position that also focuses on applicable skills. But I also believe that’s a false dichotomy with arts education. Not only can you have both - you need both.
    Last edited by christianm77; 09-19-2019 at 08:20 AM.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    For that matter I don't think you can teach computer programming at a university either. Especially in research focused universities where theory nerds who've never worked a day in their lives as a programmers in the industry teach you how to code. You learn it when you work on actual code that's used in real life.

    Sorry that was off-topic.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    For that matter I don't think you can teach computer programming at a university either. Especially in research focused universities where theory nerds who've never worked a day in their lives as a programmers in the industry teach you how to code. You learn it when you work on actual code that's used in real life.

    Sorry that was off-topic.
    Yeah people (non coders) probably think of that as a dry logic thing .... but I think any discipline can be considered in similar terms educationally.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77

    Logical Positivism =/= Positivism BTW
    In academic philosophy it mostly does. And/or LP is seen as the definitive ans most rigourous expression of P.

    That said, and now understanding what your question is about a bit better ...

    the trend toward imposing ill-conceived rigor-for-the-sake-of-rigor and metrics is everywhere, not just education. I worked for a long time in a setting where well-designed performance and Q/A metrics were used to good effect, so I know what doing it right looks like.

    That was the exception. Since then I've seen a lot of bullshit. It could be some deep flaw in positivism (in your sense), but I think it's more a matter of the world being run by malign idiots afflicted with man-with-hammer syndrome who have very different goals from the people actually doing the work.

    It also seems to me that one could design useful metrics and assessments of music-student or -teacher progress and achievement (e.g., parental tears of joy per recital). That one typically does not speaks to the inherent fucked-upness of institutional behavior more than to epistemological questions.

    John
    (Apologies for a serious answer. I will now return to puns, snark, and obscure references)
    Last edited by John A.; 09-19-2019 at 09:28 AM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbit
    Why don't we ever take about tractors here?
    because there would be a lot of detractors ...

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    In academic philosophy it mostly does. And/or LP is seen as the definitive ans most rigourous expression of P.

    That said, and now understanding what your question is about a bit better ...

    the trend toward imposing ill-conceived rigor-for-the-sake-of-rigor and metrics is everywhere, not just education. I worked for a long time in a setting where well-designed performance and Q/A metrics were used to good effect, so I know what doing it right looks like.

    That was the exception. Since then I've seen a lot of bullshit. It could be some deep flaw in positivism (in your sense), but I think it's more a matter of the world being run by malign idiots afflicted with man-with-hammer syndrome who have very different goals from the people actually doing the work.

    It also seems to me that one could design useful metrics and assessments of music-student or -teacher progress and achievement (e.g., parental tears of joy per recital). That one typically does not speaks to the inherent fucked-upness of institutional behavior more than to epistemological questions.

    John
    (Apologies for a serious answer. I will now return to puns, snark, and obscure references)
    It’s simple just count the tears of joy.

    Not that hard innit.

    Epistemology is not the sort of thing I think I could have the patience to deal with. I’d kick the rock but I can’t be arsed.

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    In academic philosophy it mostly does. And/or LP is seen as the definitive ans most rigourous expression of P.

    That said, and now understanding what your question is about a bit better ...

    the trend toward imposing ill-conceived rigor-for-the-sake-of-rigor and metrics is everywhere, not just education. I worked for a long time in a setting where well-designed performance and Q/A metrics were used to good effect, so I know what doing it right looks like.

    That was the exception. Since then I've seen a lot of bullshit. It could be some deep flaw in positivism (in your sense), but I think it's more a matter of the world being run by malign idiots afflicted with man-with-hammer syndrome who have very different goals from the people actually doing the work.

    It also seems to me that one could design useful metrics and assessments of music-student or -teacher progress and achievement (e.g., parental tears of joy per recital). That one typically does not speaks to the inherent fucked-upness of institutional behavior more than to epistemological questions.

    John
    (Apologies for a serious answer. I will now return to puns, snark, and obscure references)
    Actually you make a very good point here. In the educational literature, the attempt to create concrete, measurable, assessable learning outcomes was, originally, much broader than the quantitative mania we see today. A series of books dating back to the 1950's and 1960'scarried the title Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and tried to set out an ascending scale of sophistication in learner behavior. Some here know about this, some don't, so I'll give a little summary,

    The key was that this set of studies recognized different domains of learning. So one book was devoted to the Cognitive Domain and looked at learning outcomes, seen in learner behavior, in terms of increasing levels of cognitive processing and gave examples of how such levels could be observed and evaluated. But there was also a volume devoted to the Affective Domain, which related to the learner's ability to discriminate qualitatively, the manner in which learners recognized, appreciated, preferred or declined, and even assimilated and characterized values related to the subject matter. This volume was quite difficult to write, and the authors confessed to feeling their efforts very inadequate, but still they offered some really helpful material for those of us who want to see more than mere mastery, and masterful handling, of information. We want to know how much students care about the subject, how they integrate it into their own value systems. Obviously we don't base their grade on that, but we do want it to happen and we want to be able to describe and assess it. The third area was the Psychomotor Domain, which has to do with physical manipulation and motor skills. Very few subjects have this aspect, but obviously musical performance would.

    What has happened is that educators have pretty much abandoned the Affective Domain because they fear you can't, or shouldn't, assess student's embrace of a subject. The Psychomotor Domain never got much run because folks thought it was mainly for Physical Education classes. So educational philosophy landed almost exclusively in the Cognitive Domain. Typically these get stereotyped as "Quanitative" vs. "Qualitative" but that's really a different thing. Cognitive Domain behavior can still be assessed qualitatively, and Affective Domain responses can be quantified.

    Teaching as I do in a religious institution, where students coming in the front door know we have an advocacy dynamic in our curriculum, I have found reflecting on the Affective Domain very helpful. While I don't condition passing on students adoption of our school's religious framework, I do want to know their response to it, and I want to be able to articulate that in reasonable terms that others could understand. It's possible also to assess something like that anonymously and work from statistical analysis to know how we're doing with a given cohort of students. This could be done in the arts as well, where the assimilation of certain values plays a role in acquiring mastery.

    I don't know when educational policy began to lose interest in the Affective Domain, but I would love to see that re-engaged in a non-coercive, open manner.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pingu
    because there would be a lot of detractors ...
    and quite a few protractors as well...

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    I believe that a much more useful discussion would be:

    Pragmatism in Jazz Education - discuss.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    and quite a few protractors as well...
    Yeah , thats a different angle

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    and quite a few protractors as well...
    Without a protractor I'm lost when I take lines through cycle of 5ths.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 09-19-2019 at 08:39 PM.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    No need to elongate that discussion.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzstdnt
    you mean jazz greats? Quite a few of them teach at universities now.
    Griot

  27. #76

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Griot
    OK, in this context it's about the same is it not? At least in the big city schools.

    Which begs the question - after a smart, enterprising, hard working person learns from these griots and develops skill and knowledge of their own, are they then qualified to teach a little? Are they now a griot? If not, what are the mandatory qualifications? (Anyway, no need to answer all of that unless you really want to. Those were intended as rhetorical questions).

    There are two topics at play here anyway, positivism in jazz ed. and "can jazz be taught, and if so, should degrees be offered in the university system"?

    That second one should probably have a second thread, or perhaps survey. We could have a third thread that focuses on the objectives of undergrad and grad studies in Jazz Ed. We could further discuss what should be taught/emphasized in such programs. All the naysayers could stay out of the discussion, since every point or sub-point would be dismissed by them anyway. All that negativity just gets in the way and wastes time.

    It's really very easy to make an argument that this topic or that should not be offered in the college system. A recent national article made the point that 25% of colleges and universities would close or be acquired in the coming two decades anyway. Not enough interest and costs too much. After all, if kids have access to the internet at age 10, why go to some building and spend all that money? A college degree is so "last century".

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    So What? Jeff Matz teaches art at high school. Is that also "out of desperation"? (no offense Jeff).
    None taken. Certainly, all work is desperation at some level to maintaining a standard of living...

    I would suppose the reason one gets into teaching an art has a lot to do with wanting to be around something we love, and "do it for a living," but to get the security of a steady paycheck.

    The big difference in teaching at the high school level versus college, of course, is those who weren't cut out to teach are quickly run over in high school. In college, great artists who are lousy teachers can languish for decades...

    I tried teaching because I thought I might like it. I guessed right, thankfully. 18 years later in the same school here I am...

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

    The big difference in teaching at the high school level versus college, of course, is those who weren't cut out to teach are quickly run over in high school. In college, great artists who are lousy teachers can languish for decades...
    Never forgot that day at teachers college when the professor, angry at us for some reason, stated, "Don't forget... those who can DO those who can't TEACH!"

    To which, in answer, one student raised his hand and said, "...yeah and those who can't teach...teach teachers!"

  30. #79

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    None taken. Certainly, all work is desperation at some level to maintaining a standard of living...

    I would suppose the reason one gets into teaching an art has a lot to do with wanting to be around something we love, and "do it for a living," but to get the security of a steady paycheck.

    The big difference in teaching at the high school level versus college, of course, is those who weren't cut out to teach are quickly run over in high school. In college, great artists who are lousy teachers can languish for decades...

    I tried teaching because I thought I might like it. I guessed right, thankfully. 18 years later in the same school here I am...
    I have a great respect for teachers in high schools, or middle schools, or any of those. I got a degree in Music Ed, but I quickly realized to get up at 6am to go to work is not something I can possibly do. Under any circumstances. Just not a life for me.

    However, I do teach full time in school now, but it's a strictly music school. Kids come here to take lessons in bands or instrument classes. It's in Shanghai, so I'm having fun so far, everything taking care of and it's a good break from the non stop NYC hassle kind of life.

    I'm a probably lousy teacher, because I never see myself as just a teacher, but more like an artist who's willing to share his skills. Meaning I like students who are already motivated, but I don't really know how to motivate or care really. I can show kids what I know according to their level, and that's it. It's their choice to take it and run with, or ignore. Either one is cool with me.

    Anyway, my point, when I was a college student myself, the only criteria of a good teacher was if he/she could really play. That's it! I take a lousy teacher/great artist any day over great teacher/lousy artist. In college it's a student responsibility to milk it out of their teachers, as far as a pro music goes. So from this angle, great artists can still enjoy teaching, because all they have to do is being themselves!

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt

    It's really very easy to make an argument that this topic or that should not be offered in the college system. A recent national article made the point that 25% of colleges and universities would close or be acquired in the coming two decades anyway. Not enough interest and costs too much. After all, if kids have access to the internet at age 10, why go to some building and spend all that money? A college degree is so "last century".
    Because the speed of light is a finite constant.

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Because the speed of light is a finite constant.
    not when i shred my sick sweep arps

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    I believe that a much more useful discussion would be:

    Pragmatism in Jazz Education - discuss.
    Just lettin' ya know, that's a school of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, too ... Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in again

    John

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by WILSON 1
    Never forgot that day at teachers college when the professor, angry at us for some reason, stated, "Don't forget... those who can DO those who can't TEACH!"

    To which, in answer, one student raised his hand and said, "...yeah and those who can't teach...teach teachers!"
    And Woody Allen said "those who can't teach teach gym."

    John

  35. #84

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Because the speed of light is a finite constant.
    A regular Einstein here.

    John
    PS, best band name ever: Ultraviolet Catastrophe.

  36. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    And Woody Allen said "those who can't teach teach gym."
    John
    other version:
    "and those who can't even teach are writing a book about it.."


  37. #86

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    Just lettin' ya know, that's a school of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, too ... Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in again

    John
    I know. Lets say practicality then. lol

  38. #87

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    In college, great artists who are lousy teachers can languish for decades...
    Are you referring to The New School? (ouch).

  39. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    OK, in this context it's about the same is it not? At least in the big city schools.

    Which begs the question - after a smart, enterprising, hard working person learns from these griots and develops skill and knowledge of their own, are they then qualified to teach a little? Are they now a griot? If not, what are the mandatory qualifications? (Anyway, no need to answer all of that unless you really want to. Those were intended as rhetorical questions).
    Pet peeve alert -- begging the question does not mean inviting or exposing a question. It's a form circular reasoning in which the unproven conclusion of an argument is stated as the premise of the argument. Such as "L5's are really popular because everybody likes them."

    John

  40. #89

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    I take a lousy teacher/great artist any day over great teacher/lousy artist. In college it's a student responsibility to milk it out of their teachers, as far as a pro music goes. So from this angle, great artists can still enjoy teaching, because all they have to do is being themselves!
    Well that's your choice to be so generous, and no offense, but it's backwards.

    The reality is that when one pays to attend a school - any school - they are paying for a service, an educational service. The burden is on the service provider (institution/teacher) to deliver with requisite quality. The burden is on the student to absorb lesson material and produce results relative to the instruction, otherwise earn a low/lower grade or even be dropped. But one must never forget - the student is writing the checks. The teacher is the service provider, the student is the beneficiary. Hell, you could even call the student "the client" if the price is high enough, and in many schools it darn well is. Without the student cutting the checks, the school/teacher are out of business/out of work, so they are charged with the duty of earning their pay like every other professional is. That's why they call it "work", as opposed to "fun".

    And great playing? Sure! That's called a concert, or CD, but the same rules apply. The concert is a service, the CD is a product. If the service or product is sub-standard, then patrons are not obliged to show up or purchase.

  41. #90

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    Pet peeve alert -- begging the question does not mean inviting or exposing a question. It's a form circular reasoning in which the unproven conclusion of an argument is stated as the premise of the argument. Such as "L5's are really popular because everybody likes them."

    John
    Would your pet peeve be remediated if I replaced "begs" with "raises"?

  42. #91

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Would your pet peeve be remediated if I replaced "begs" with "raises"?
    Yes.

    John

  43. #92

    User Info Menu

    Is it positivism or is it pragmatism?

  44. #93

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Well that's your choice to be so generous, and no offense, but it's backwards.

    The reality is that when one pays to attend a school - any school - they are paying for a service, an educational service. The burden is on the service provider (institution/teacher) to deliver with requisite quality. The burden is on the student to absorb lesson material and produce results relative to the instruction, otherwise earn a low/lower grade or even be dropped. But one must never forget - the student is writing the checks. The teacher is the service provider, the student is the beneficiary. Hell, you could even call the student "the client" if the price is high enough, and in many schools it darn well is. Without the student cutting the checks, the school/teacher are out of business/out of work, so they are charged with the duty of earning their pay like every other professional is. That's why they call it "work", as opposed to "fun".

    And great playing? Sure! That's called a concert, or CD, but the same rules apply. The concert is a service, the CD is a product. If the service or product is sub-standard, then patrons are not obliged to show up or purchase.
    You're stating something as objective fact [i.e., education is a product consumed by as student for a price]. But that is really only one way of looking at education, and at the relationship between the institution and the student. It's also worth noting that in most of the world, the student is not cutting the check at all, and even in the US the check the student cuts is typically much less than the cost of the "product". So the idea that the student deserves his/her definition of good service because he/she is the customer is nowhere near as straightforward as you put it, even for students who see it primarily in vocational terms. Education can be looked at as the student's investment in vocational training, but it can also be looked at as the community's investment in the student for purposes that go beyond the student's career purposes.

    I certainly do not look upon my education as purely or even primarily vocational. It has served me well in my career, and as a citizen, and as a person, but it did not train me specifically for what I do to earn a living, and that's the case for most of the people I know. [My parents are/were professors, which, obviously, also colors my view of the subject. I don't think it's wrong to view education in other terms than mine, but I do think it's wrong to cast those terms as an objective and universal.]

    John

  45. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    You guys are reaching, especially those of you who are/were not music majors, and are therefore engaged in outsider, arms length, speculation. I was a classical and jazz major on both coasts and in flyover country, and no music instructor, professor, student or textbook blabbed on about metaphysics in music. In Religious and Philosophy studies? Sure, but not in music.

    While many institutions include music fundamentals classes now, in a certain sense all undergrad degrees are engaged in fundamentals. There are only eight semesters, and it's over!

    In the end it's not all about those four years, it's what you do with them afterwards.
    I wasn't a music major but took music theory, ear training, history and even a music business course in college (and saw Pat Metheny perform on campus!). It wasn't all "how to play" there was BS'ing too.

    John

  46. #95

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Well that's your choice to be so generous, and no offense, but it's backwards.

    The reality is that when one pays to attend a school - any school - they are paying for a service, an educational service. The burden is on the service provider (institution/teacher) to deliver with requisite quality. The burden is on the student to absorb lesson material and produce results relative to the instruction, otherwise earn a low/lower grade or even be dropped. But one must never forget - the student is writing the checks. The teacher is the service provider, the student is the beneficiary. Hell, you could even call the student "the client" if the price is high enough, and in many schools it darn well is. Without the student cutting the checks, the school/teacher are out of business/out of work, so they are charged with the duty of earning their pay like every other professional is. That's why they call it "work", as opposed to "fun".

    And great playing? Sure! That's called a concert, or CD, but the same rules apply. The concert is a service, the CD is a product. If the service or product is sub-standard, then patrons are not obliged to show up or purchase.
    Yes, but music is different. You wanna learn from the greats, accept the fact a lot of them don't function like ordinary people. Accept them as they are with any teaching flaws they might have.

    But in America it might be a foreign concept. 'I pay you good money so you must deliver the way I see it, I don't care who you are, I pay you blah blah'. Well, I'm glad not to be from here.

  47. #96

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    You're stating something as objective fact [i.e., education is a product consumed by as student for a price]. But that is really only one way of looking at education, and at the relationship between the institution and the student. It's also worth noting that in most of the world, the student is not cutting the check at all, and even in the US the check the student cuts is typically much less than the cost of the "product". So the idea that the student deserves his/her definition of good service because he/she is the customer is nowhere near as straightforward as you put it, even for students who see it primarily in vocational terms. Education can be looked at as the student's investment in vocational training, but it can also be looked at as the community's investment in the student for purposes that go beyond the student's career purposes.

    I certainly do not look upon my education as purely or even primarily vocational. It has served me well in my career, and as a citizen, and as a person, but it did not train me specifically for what I do to earn a living, and that's the case for most of the people I know. [My parents are/were professors, which, obviously, also colors my view of the subject. I don't think it's wrong to view education in other terms than mine, but I do think it's wrong to cast those terms as an objective and universal.]

    John
    Nope, I said education was a service, not a product, and I'm right. Textbooks are a product. What the instructor does in the classroom is a service (knowledge transfer, information exchange, etc.).

    Hep's point was that he was fine with a great player being more or less worthless as an instructor, and that it was up to the student to in effect "pull" information out of an instructor. That's absurd.

  48. #97

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    Yes, but music is different. You wanna learn from the greats, accept the fact a lot of them don't function like ordinary people. Accept them as they are with any teaching flaws they might have.

    But in America it might be a foreign concept. 'I pay you good money so you must deliver the way I see it, I don't care who you are, I pay you blah blah'. Well, I'm glad not to be from here.

    I do accept that fact when I pay to see artists perform, or buy their paintings etc. It's hardly news that many artists have been/still are dysfunctional, eccentric oddballs. We ALL get that, and have for centuries, OK?

    But in a university we have something called standards. If an artist wants to be a goofy oddball at the 92nd Street Y that's one thing - but in an expensive four year university? NFW. They'd better bring the contribution, and bring it with quality. The unemployment line is long.

  49. #98

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Nope, I said education was a service, not a product, and I'm right. Textbooks are a product. What the instructor does in the classroom is a service (knowledge transfer, information exchange, etc.).

    Hep's point was that he was fine with a great player being more or less worthless as an instructor, and that it was up to the student to in effect "pull" information out of an instructor. That's absurd.
    Substitute service for product, and it changes nothing in what I said. I had one particularly worthless instructor in college. It did occur to me to lodge a complaint about this instructor. It did not occur to me ask for my money back because I did not see myself as a consumer.

    That's the point - your transactional view of education is just one view if it. But you're expressing it as though education is universally and exclusively as you see it.

    John

  50. #99

    User Info Menu

    Obviously, a transactional view of education would encourage the student to focus on easily quantifiable outcomes.

  51. #100

    User Info Menu

    No, I would not substitute service with product. And I don't see education as narrowly as you imply, but I also don't see any reason not to remind colleges and universities who pays the bills.

    It's quite easy to observe that some rich schools with huge endowments can easily become arrogant and dissociate the money from the services that they owe. I suppose they figure that they don't have to compete, at least not very hard. And some don't.

    Most colleges and universities realize that they DO have to compete, and that's the way it should be. Stay hungry, baby.