I've always sort of had this idea that training you didn't pay for was more valuable than training you did.
The idea behind it is this:
Theoretically, the best teachers are the ones who love it the most. If someone loves it enough they will do it for free.
If someone loves teaching and only wants to teach they will naturally have to charge students to support themselves, but then run into complications that make them less good as teachers than they would have been otherwise.
For example, they will always be focusing a small part of their attention on receiving payment and therefore can never give all of themselves to the student.
Or perhaps, they might have to accept students they wouldn't normally for the sake of payment and then not teach as well as if they had a class full of students they really wanted to teach.
They might become disenchanted with the "business" side of things and lose their passion for the work but keep doing it anyways, and never impart the kind of fire to their students they could otherwise.
Therefore, if someone is truly driven to do something or teach something, they will do it for free (at least occasionaly) and/or find another way to support themselves so they don't have to worry about compromising their values.
On the other hand, if a teacher has to hold a seperate job to support themselves they have less time to teach, and/or might be so unhappy with their other job that they don't teach as well as if they spent all their time doing what they love.
Maybe I just watch too many movies or am niave.
What do you think?
The idea behind it is this:
Theoretically, the best teachers are the ones who love it the most. If someone loves it enough they will do it for free.
If someone loves teaching and only wants to teach they will naturally have to charge students to support themselves, but then run into complications that make them less good as teachers than they would have been otherwise.
For example, they will always be focusing a small part of their attention on receiving payment and therefore can never give all of themselves to the student.
Or perhaps, they might have to accept students they wouldn't normally for the sake of payment and then not teach as well as if they had a class full of students they really wanted to teach.
They might become disenchanted with the "business" side of things and lose their passion for the work but keep doing it anyways, and never impart the kind of fire to their students they could otherwise.
Therefore, if someone is truly driven to do something or teach something, they will do it for free (at least occasionaly) and/or find another way to support themselves so they don't have to worry about compromising their values.
On the other hand, if a teacher has to hold a seperate job to support themselves they have less time to teach, and/or might be so unhappy with their other job that they don't teach as well as if they spent all their time doing what they love.
Maybe I just watch too many movies or am niave.
What do you think?
Comment