Trelawney as a teacher (was: Trelawney isn't a fraud)

[Susan Miller]

No: HPFGUIDX 111515

I'm snipping the whole post, not because I have an opinion on 
Trelawney's skills as a seer, but because I want to defend her as a 
teacher.

What I noticed in her classes is that she offers a collection of 
reference books on the various areas of her subject. To me this is a 
sign of a good teacher. The other classes that we are aware of seem 
to take the curriculum out of a single textbook along with practical 
practice. In no other class are we aware that the instructor 
maintains a library of specialized texts for the students' additional 
use in their studies.

Does one always need to be an expert practitioner of a subject before 
being able to be a good teacher? I think it helps, but I think one 
can teach without being able to perform the skill - which is why we 
can see big men coaching tiny gymnastic pixies in the Olympics. Do we 
really think these guys need to be able to dance on a balance beam 
before being able to coach?

One could point to the disagreement between Firenze and Trelawney on 
the meaning of certain astrologic formations to an indicator of fraud 
on the part of Trelawney. Firenze apparently does have practical 
skills at astrological forcasting that Trelawney does not. Does this 
mean that Trelawney's interpretation is fraudulent? We don't know 
where she got her information. Maybe she made it up. Or maybe she 
learned it from her resources and was passing on her knowledge. What 
I'm saying is that we can't point to this incident as conclusive 
proof that Trelawney is a poor teacher. We just don't know.

I'm standing by my opinion that she runs her class as a good teacher 
should - using multiple authors' opinions and references.

~Constance Vigilance, who also believes that Quirrell was also a good 
teacher. Maybe not a good MAN during the one year that we knew him, 
but not a poor teacher. But don't get me started on the Q-man.