Part-Time vs. Full-Time Teachers

[Old Noob]

Many of you are teachers, either in your own schools or someone else's. I was wondering what your thoughts were on whether it's preferable to attend a school where the instructor has no job other than running the school.

On the one hand, it would seem preferable to seek out a school where the teacher has made his school his life's work. That way you know you're teacher's focus is not diverted by a "day job." On the other hand, a teacher who isn't depending on his school to put food on the table may not be tempted to "water down" the art in order to recruit or retain students.

So what do you think? Are full-timers forced to accept and promote students who may not be deserving in order to keep the school open and provide income or are they preferable because they or more fully immersed in their art? Are part-timers better because they can afford to be harder on students and train fewer or are they distracted from passing on their knowledge? Or...is this something that cannot be answered in general terms because school quality is so variable school to school?

Thoughts?

[David Jamieson]

I don't think it's a black and white issue at all.

some full time teachers are great
some full time teachers suck
some part time teachers are great
some part time teachers suck

some full time teachers are greedy and will dupe you
some full time teachers are not greedy and will not dupe you
some part time teachers are greedy and will dupe you
some part time teachers are not greedy and will not dupe you

some full time teachers are great, but are also greedy
some full time teachers....

and so on.
It's different in each and every school.

If the teacher lives by the art and the words he expects you to, then you are likely ok.

If the teacher demonstrates hypocrisy consistently, rethink what you are doing.

[Ray Pina]

Ideally, I would train with an instructor and 3 to 5 guys who are committed.

More than that you start getting dead weight. And if there is overhead to worry about then everything gets slowed down to the lowest common denominator.

[Tainan Mantis]

And if there is overhead to worry about then everything gets slowed down to the lowest common denominator.

I can see your point.
So from this perspective, what about your kids(I don't know if you have kids, just saying for example). Kids usually go to schools with other kids, lots of them.

So in that case, would you change your view or make an exception?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I can see your point.
So from this perspective, what about your kids(I don't know if you have kids, just saying for example). Kids usually go to schools with other kids, lots of them.

So in that case, would you change your view or make an exception?

Not sure your point...

[MasterKiller]

I can see your point.
So from this perspective, what about your kids(I don't know if you have kids, just saying for example). Kids usually go to schools with other kids, lots of them.

So in that case, would you change your view or make an exception?

Kids should train with kids, and adults should train with adults.

While adults can learn in big classes by helping one another, I think kids do better in smaller classes because they need so much individual attention.

Having 30 kids in one class just leads to mayhem. You are basically getting paid to babysit.

[David Jamieson]

If you have 10 people who move in a group, the whole group will only progress as fast as it's slowest member.

hence, cutting the dead weight, which is where you start getting into elite training...until some schmuck comes along and makes you all look like weenies, in which case, that guy sets the new standard by which the group moves.