[HPforGrownups] Re: What's wrong with being bad ?

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 102123

On 19 Jun 2004 at 18:56, kyntor70 wrote:

> I don't think that Snape is a member of the Hogwarts staff because he 
> is a good teacher (indeed not).  I believe that he is there so that 
> he can be a "useful spy" to Voldemort when he is reborn.  Dumbledore 
> knows that Voldemort was not killed by Harry on Halloween 1981.  
> Dumbledore expects him to resurface later.  I think Dumbledore is 
> willing to "make do" with a poor Potions Professor for the benefits 
> that a double agent will give him.

I've already addressed this in a previous post a bit, by saying I 
personally don't believe Dumbledore would keep Snape on unless he 
was a decent teacher, even if Voldemort is a factor. But I'll just 
expand on that for a moment.

Where is there *any* indication that Snape is a poor Potions 
Professor?

Umbridge - the only person who gives us a direct external opinion 
says:

"'Well, the class seems fairly advanced for their level,' she said 
briskly to Snape's back. 'Though I would question whether it is 
advisable to teach them a potion like the Strengthning Solution. I 
think the Ministry would prefer it if that was removed from the 
syllabus.'" (OotP, British, p. 323).

Note that Umbridge says that the class seems fairly advance at the 
same time as she is criticising Snape's choice of curriculum - 
she's not giving him false praise - if anything, the tone of what 
she is saying suggests that her admission that the class is 
advanced is rather a grudging one.

>From what Snape says in his first class in their OWL year, he is 
accustomed to a high pass rate - in externally assessed exams. That 
suggests that his students are competent in quite a difficult 
subject - we know potions aren't easy, because even a skilled adult 
wizard like Lupin gets an expert to brew the difficult one.

I haven't seen any indication that Snape is a poor Potions 
Professor.
 
> Dreadnought wrote:
> 
> > Let me make it clear in case I haven't been. Snape's treatment of 
> > Harry is, in every instance where it differs from his treatment of 
> > other students, indefensible and reprehensible. But Harry is a 
> > special case, IMHO - Snape's hatred of him is separate to his 
> > treatment of his other students.
> 
> Kyntor replies:
> 
> Great! We agree!  Snape treats Harry different from the students most 
> of the time.  We also see him treat Hermione and Neville differently.

Yes, we do - but in their cases, we are probably dealing with the 
most competent student in the class, and one of the least competent 
(who has no reason not to be). Snape arguably, shoud be treating 
them differently (I'm not saying his methods are good ones in their 
cases - but there's nothing wrong with the fundamental idea of 
treating them differently). It's only with Harry, that we are given 
any additional insight into why he is treated differently - and 
that allows me to say I disagree - because I think I know why it's 
happening. With Hermione and Neville, I think it's possible, Snape 
think he's teaching them the correct way to meet their needs - he 
may be wrong, but his motivations *may be* correct ones.

> Dreadnought wrote:
> 
> > Well, no, because I don't think treating the Gryffindors in the 
> > same way he treats the Slytherins would necessarily be the most 
> > effective way of teaching the Gryffindors.
> 
> Kyntor replies:
> 
> Maybe not, but it can be any worse of a teaching method than the 
> rancor he currently uses on them.

Yes, it can be, and that's kind of been my point over and over 
again. I learned quite well in classes which had teachers who acted 
like Snape - far better than I would have in classes where the 
teacher let me get away with whatever I liked. And I know a lot of 
other people who did as well.

There are far *worse* ways of teaching than those employed by 
Snape. I've experienced them.

> Kyntor replies:
> 
> I don't really know that it is a good idea for a teacher to divide a 
> class into two seperate "teaching methods" before even the first 
> class begins.  The teacher doesn't know anything about the student's 
> personalities or individual histories the first time he meets them 
> (even with them being divided into one of four houses).

Not a lot, no - but it's something to work on. It's better than 
just assuming you're dealing with one homogenous blob of students.

> The best method would be to begin teaching a class one way, in a 
> clear, fair, and strait-forward presentation of the material.  Once 
> the teacher sees students that are having trouble with this method, 
> he/she should meet with the students and give them the individual 
> help they need.

No, that's *not* the best method for a lot of students. It's 
certainly often not the best method for any student in the class 
who is above average. A teacher who does what you are suggesting 
here will wind up aiming at the entire class achieving average 
performance. That's not an uncommon practice in schools - but it's 
a practice that automatically means neglecting the above average 
students. The inherent assumption in what you have said above is 
that it's only the students who are having trouble, who need 
invidual help. That isn't a valid assumption.

*Every* child in a class should be learning to their level of 
potential. That's a personal belief of mine, largely based on being 
in a school system as a child where this didn't happen, and being 
hurt by that - but it also seems likely to be the modus operandi at 
Hogwarts. It's how schooling used to be - and Hogwarts does seem to 
be a rather old fashioned place.

Is the method you describe a valid one - yes, it is? A perfectly 
valid one for some students. But it's not a good one for all 
students. In fact, it's one of the methods that caused me 
considerable pain as a child.

*Don't* make the assumption that there's any one single teaching 
method that works for all children - because there isn't.

I don't defend Snape's teaching methods because I think they are 
the best ones - I don't. I just know from personal experience that 
sometimes they work for some children.

Education should involve students having access to a range of 
different methods. There's no such thing as any single perfect 
method.

At Hogwarts, we see a range. That's a good thing. Even if some of 
the methods are less than perfect. Snape's are. So, for that 
matter, are Binns and Trelawney's, IMHO.

I'm defending Snape's methods as *valid* within the broad spectrum 
of different teaching methods. That isn't the same as saying his 
methods are the best methods - just that there is a place for them, 
because some students do learn well from them.

> Dreadnought wrote:
> 
> > Personally I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the 
> > Gryffindor's marks are, on average, higher than the Slytherins - 
> > because I think they are generally more likely to work harder, and 
> > they also don't have Crabbe and Goyle.
> 
> Kyntor replies:
> 
> I agree with you here.  Not because of the different "teaching 
> methods" involved but because of the individual students involved.  I 
> believe that this particular Gryffindor class would always outperform 
> this particular Slytherin class no matter what reasonable (no setting 
> children on fire) teaching methods were used.

Actually, I've seen a teacher set a child on fire once - not 
deliberately, but it certainly increased the level of concentration 
in chemistry classes for the rest of the year (just for the record, 
the kid wasn't hurt - the labcoat he was wearing did its job) (-8

Just an example though, from one of my Snape teachers. We had two 
teachers who taught us Latin in the junior school. There were 
around 120 students, 60 taught by each. It was a random selection 
in each class. Both teachers taught the same curriculum.

One was extremely Snape like - I really mean it in his case - often 
when I describe my teachers as Snape like, I'm exagerating a bit. 
But he *really* was. Everyone I know who had him as a teacher and 
who is familiar with HP, mentions him.

The other was much calmer, and much more placid, and his classes 
were much more pleasant.

The Snape teacher produced a situation where *nobody* in his 
classes got under 92% and the average was 96% the year I had him 
(this is in a marking system where a mark of 50% was a pass - marks 
of 90 or more were meant to be very rare).

The other teacher had an average of 76%, and a lowest mark of 
around 53%.

Same raw materials - different teaching methods - and a huge 
difference in results.

On statewide comparisons, 'Snape' was also generally regarded as 
the top teacher for his subject as well, achieving the best results 
at the higher levels where direct comparison was possible. 
 
> No, you are not missing anything.  I don't remember JKR overtly 
> saying anything either.  However, I do believe that JKR wants us to 
> compare and contrast our own society with the one she describes in 
> her books, and make our own conclusions (this would be a good English 
> paper).

Possibly, yes - but in my case, I think she's doing a very good job 
of showing us a Wizarding World that is generally more attractive 
than our own. Not perfect, and not better in every respect - but in 
many ways, definitely.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia