I think I've made my position clear. Kilnforming is more complicated than making popcorn. There are some things that just can't be reduced to pushing a button.Lani McGregor wrote:I certainly admit to feeling passionately that it's the wrong direction... not because it's easy, but because it leads the beginner to believe that kilnforming is as simple as pushing buttons. I am seeing more and more of this lately and it upsets me.
Stay right here. I think it's important to be passionate about the things that are important to you... I also think it's important for others to understand why you are so passionate.Lani McGregor wrote:I hope that having strong opinions isn't inappropriate on this board or I should go elsewhere.
You're welcome. Sometimes it's hard to be passionate without being controversial. While we haven't always agreed, you usually bring a reasoned, well thought out argument to the table... sometimes you come across as just wanting to mudwrestle. Hopefully we can continue the discussions and debate in a way that doesn't offend too many members of our community.Lani McGregor wrote:From the background you've posted on the WGW controversy it's obvious I step into this stuff more frequently than is comfortable for most. I apologize to those who are disturbed by my opinions, but Bullseye came on as the first sponsor of this board because we hoped that it would be a place where we could debate the issues. I've had a difficult time getting debate going sometimes because I'm perceived as being "accusatory". I hope that I can be forgiven my style and taken just on my substance. Anyway, Tony, thanks for all your research on and synopsis of the WGW "dumbing down" controversy.
Lani McGregor wrote:Yes, it is unreasonable if Bullseye bears the expense of that training. We are not a non-profit. Our only revenues for our educational efforts come out of sales. Why would we spend those revenues on someone who uses other products before we spend them on Bullseye users? We run teacher training programs at Bullseye regularly. They are run with Bullseye materials - if we taught with other materials (that we're not familiar with) we'd be as guilty as any other ill-prepared beginning teacher.Tony Smith wrote:
... If the goal is to "certify" teachers, then is it unreasonable to think that someone who works in float glass should have access to the same teacher training classes as someone who works with Bullseye glass? Or that someone who uses many types of glass: Bullseye, Uroboros, Spectrum, Kugler, Fremont, float and others should be excluded because she isn't exclusively a BE customer?
That brings up a good question: Why don't you charge for your teacher training? And before you accuse me of being facetious, I would like to point out that I'm asking the question from a different perspective. Charging for the classes would allow people from all mediums to benefit from your teacher training. In the long run, it would benefit the artform across the board. I'm sure you don't have any restrictions on affiliation or glass type in your other classes.
It wasn't facetious, it was, however, a rhetorical question intended to lead into the question about the "greater good" of advancing the artform. I don't know how Bullseye is structured, and after our last go-around, I decided it wasn't any of my business to question your business decisions. For some reason, I thought that the BE Connection Gallery and the educational segments of your business would be separate, not-for-profit entities. I withdraw the question.Lani McGregor wrote:Of course not. Is this a facetious question? Again, we're not a non-profit. This is still a business. One that believes its customer's success results in its own success and believes that education is a way to insure that success. Is that altruism? Sheesh, no. It's a business strategy. Which doesn't mean that it's passionless or not apt to lead us into swampy territory where our beliefs may seem unbusiness-like at times ...Tony Smith wrote:I haven't seen any company with a greater investment in education and process development than Bullseye... but is being altruistic part of your charter? Is providing teacher education to glass artists regardless of their medium-of-choice important for the greater good?
see above under "none of my business"... at this point, I don't agree or disagree with your business strategy.Lani McGregor wrote: .... and, Tony, I know that you don't agree with much of our business strategy ... but you don't have to ... and I won't call you on being accusatory and taunting just because you feel strongly about that...
Lani
But this just brings up more darned questions...
Is there a way to ensure that teachers are properly trained without a bias toward one manufacturer, technique or method? Is it necessary? Phil says no, that the marketplace will cull out the inadequate teachers. But like Lani said,
I have to agree with Lani here. Especially if the student isn't asked for a review, how do future students know what they are getting or "not getting" (as Lani said)?Lani McGregor wrote: Tony, I've seen rave reviews for really bad classes (full of technical misinformation, but "fun"). How does the beginning student know what they're not getting?
Tony