Originally Posted by
Jay Cunningham
A good and fair question; I'll do my best to answer.
First I'm going to post the subject from the OP, just to refer to so I don't go too far off the rails.
Next I'll address your post.
Both. I think it's fair to say that the later coursework I chose was a correction for the earlier coursework. That doesn't mean that all the early work was bad or wrong.
Many of these classes got me to my current point-of-view, but also my experiences as a host, my time spent as a moderator and staff on popular related forums, and personal relationships with many of the players off the gun range. Now, what am I doing different from the things I said I didn't like? (great question BTW)
didn't like dogmatic instruction - Dogmatic instructors lack the ability (or desire) to think critically. They may be very polished presenters, but the material they present is not their material. They may be able to answer a lot of "why" questions, but only if those "why" questions had already been addressed by the instructor or group which they devote their loyalty to. They can't deviate from the script and they won't look at their own material with a critical eye. I've had hundreds of hours of relevant instruction from over 20 different instructors of varying backgrounds. Everything I see, I evaluate for both my own needs and the needs of my students. If I can't answer a question, if I can't say "I like this and here's why" or "I don't like this and here's why", I need to revaluate what I'm presenting.
lots of down time and long lunches - Proper flow of material and reasonable class size and instructor-to-student ratio largely deals with this... 26 people in a class with one instructor means lots of down time. I strive to maintain a 1:5 instructor-to-student ratio, and generally cap my classes at 10 people. An hour for lunch is more than enough.
low round counts and a slow tempo when it was time to shoot - I've been fed the lie that an elevated round count always means you're just hosing down the berm. Well, just like anything else, it depends. A relatively low round count can indeed be appropriate. But sometimes it's just because the instructor does not have a high energy level. There is plenty of justification for higher round counts, and higher round counts still mean accountability for accuracy. I keep an eye on the class and provide accurate round counts in my course descriptions. I control my pacing so that fatigue doesn't ruin performance. Sometimes it is very helpful to get the guns hot.
irrelevant war stories - I don't have any war stories, so I can't distract anyone with this. Some war stories are very relevant, but many are worthless.
trash-talking other instructors in the industry - This one is really bad. Other instructors do come up, it's inevitable. But I do my absolute utmost to not gossip about other instructors or bash them. It's unprofessional.
hero-worship from student cliques - This is another bad one, and it's everywhere. Most people have no idea what makes for a good instructor. You need a lot of experience with different instructors and it helps to have a background in instructing yourself (doesn't need to be gunslinger stuff) AND you need to be able to think critically. It takes a long time and lots of experience to figure out what good, relevant instruction looks like. I don't subscribe to any one philosophy and I sure as hell know my students don't worship me!
very specialized techniques and tactics thoughtlessly pawned off as great for general consumption - This may be my biggest personal gripe and it's facilitated by students having no idea what right looks like. It's also facilitated by instructors who are unable (or unwilling) to step out of their own experiences and look critically at their students. Much of this has been touched on already in this thread... team tactics and variations of team tactics taught to armed citizens who will never, ever work as part of a team is a bad one. Shooting-on-the-move as it is both taught and emphasized by certain trainers is hideously wrong, as is one man movement inside structures, especially when coupled with light employment. While carbines should only make up a small portion of one's training, it still should be trained right; however this is typically where the biggest fantasy LARPing comes into play. I don't have the bias of military or LE background, so I can sit and objectively look at things and say "this is applicable to me as a civilian" or "this is not applicable to me as a civilian", and I do my best to present that to my students, who are also my (less experienced) peers.
complete inability of most shooting instructors to properly diagnose shooting - Once again, students have no idea what right looks like. It took lots of instruction from lots of different guys to finally realize that some truly know what they're looking at and can troubleshoot. Not to nut-dangle, but Todd's ability to troubleshoot and diagnose individual shooter issues impressed me. I decided that if I ever wanted to try and teach people, that I'd commit to learn how to properly troubleshoot.
students playing dress-up and screwing around when I was trying to learn - This goes back to the LARPing thing, usually worst in carbine classes. I'm not talking about being a hipster, but an IT guy who's in full Crye gear with chest rig and drop holster is so silly it's almost distracting, especially if they're otherwise inept. I want people to wear normal clothing and not get all worked up about gear. I don't care if you have a warbelt or chest rig to carry a bunch of extra shit, just don't wear it as part of a classtume. Large class sizes and student cliques can also lead to a lot of Cokeing and Joking on the line. AIs can help with this.
instructors seemed to just "phone it in" - This goes back I think to low energy level and also instructor ego. Some instructors seem to act like they're doing the student a favor taking their money and just showing up. I try to keep my energy level high and pour my heart into what I'm doing.
Generally, no. But I did (and continue to do) a lot of trial-and-error, a lot of critical thinking, and a lot of arguing with assistant instructors to see if we can validate a point and then defend it. Most stuff has already been invented anyway... we either steal it or "rediscover" it!
As a final note, I think that The Rangemaster Tactical Conference is an incredibly valuable resource for the average armed citizen. There are a lot of smart guys there talking about a lot of smart guy stuff.
Reply With Quote
