Vague Thoughts on Apparation - Conclusion Confusion

[annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 93513

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboy_mn at y...> wrote:
 
> The law that says students can't cast spells until they are of age, is
> the same law that says you can't Apparate until you are of age (and
> pass your Apparation test). 
> 
> Apparation is a difficult and dangerous form of magic, the teaching of
> which is best left to professionals in my opinion.

Annemehr:
This seems to be a distillation of bboy_mn's impression.  I do think
it's quite reasonable.  The rest of this post is about how I think my
different impression is also reasonable; I can't prove I'm right, and
I wouldn't really be surprised if I'm wrong.  ;-)

bboy_mn quoted:
> > Annemehr:
> > Percy is four years older than Ron; he was in his fifth year when 
> > Ron was in his first. He was probably born in the summer of 1977, so
> > that he didn't turn 17 until he left Hogwarts. He got his apparition
> > license during the summer of 1995 and enjoyed Apparating here and
> > there just to show off the fact that he could.

Annemehr:
Actually, those aren't my words.  That's me quoting the Lexicon. 
Right afterward I wrote about how I didn't believe it and that Percy
must have turned 17 before he left Hogwarts -- in other words, I agree
with you (I also noted that the Lexicon ought to have had "1994" in
place of "1995," if anyone's doing the math).

> bboy_mn:
> The last point is Hermione's continued insistance that you can't
> Apparate at Hogwarts. But just outside the gate of Hogwarts, one must
> assume, you can Apparate. Why is that a problem?

Annemehr:
I did note that as a possibility, and added that it could be a reason
for Harry never to notice older students doing Apparition lessons
during the school year.  So, a point for you!

bboy_mn:
> Certainly, it seems that it could and would very logically be taught
> during 6th year so that students would be ready to take the test as
> soon as they turned 17 and had a break from school. More importantly,
> I WANT it taught during 6th year and AT school because I want to find
> out all the details on how it works and what it feels like.

Annemehr:
Hmmm...what year *would* they teach it at Hogwarts?  If it was during
sixth year, then Percy would have had to wait more than a year between
Apparition lessons at school and taking his test after seventh year. 
I suppose that's not an insurmountable problem, but it does make
things a little bit awkward.

I'm sure you will find out all about Apparating, though, because I'm
sure Harry will learn to Apparate, no matter how he's taught.  *If* my
impressions are correct, I figure someone (I'm hoping it's Arthur)
will see to it that Harry learns and will take him for his Apparition
test at the Ministry.  Interestingly, *if* Hermione does turn out to
be younger than Harry, and *if* students don't get their license until
the summer after they turn 17, then either Hermione will spend the
seventh book not being able to Apparate, or somebody's going to be
bending rules again...(lots of "ifs" in that paragraph!)

bboy_mn:
> So the key points I need resolved are-
> 
> 1.) Why do people feel that students can practice other magic at
> school, but for some reason are forbidden to practice Apparation even
> while under the supervision of teachers?

Annemehr:
Well, I wouldn't be stunned if Hogwarts did teach it, I was just
giving my (reasonable, I think) impressions.  I think I was thinking
it was like learning to drive, which traditionally was taught by a
family member, even though nowadays lots of people learn at school or
from professionals (and I wasn't aware of the British way of doing it
one way or the other).

bboy_mn:
> 2.) Tied in with above, why are people so rigid about the age 17
> restriction for Apparation, yet the school is not that rigid when it
> comes to other magic?

Annemehr:
I suppose, because Apparation can take you almost anywhere.  It'd be
an awful lot of power to hand a teenager, and perhaps the Ministry
feels it's inappropriate to even teach to someone until they're of
age.  After all, if sixteen-year-olds are learning it at Hogwarts, a
little matter of not yet being licensed isn't necessarily going to
stop them from trying it out on a Hogsmeade weekend!

bboy_mn:
> 3.) Why would something this difficult and dangerous NOT be taught at
> school? The difficulty and danger would seem to imply that it MUST be
> taught at school; taught by professionals.

Annemehr:
Again, maybe it's like driving, which is also difficult and dangerous.
 I don't know whether your state is different, but in Pennsylvania
*any* licensed driver can teach a teenager how to drive, it doesn't
have to be a professional.  The proof of the driving lessons comes in
whether or not you pass the test.  A policy that a student driver
*must* learn from a professional driver's ed. teacher might seem
reasonable, but around here at least, there's no such policy.

bboy_mn:
> 4.) Why would summer tests rule out the course being taught at the
school?

Annemehr:
It wouldn't, but as Shaun points out, NEWTs are much more important
(I'd forgotten all about those).  

bboy_mn:
> In conclusion, from previous discussion on this matter, most people
> seem to take the same position that Annemehr and Carol are taking, but
> frankly, the logic of it escapes me. My own logic tells me it must be
> taught at school, and the very same evidence they are using to argue
> against it, is the evidence I use to argue for it.
> 
> So, what's up with that?
> 
> bboy_mn

Annemehr:
I don't know what's up with that!  :D  The books seem to imply that
one takes the test and gets licensed over the summer, but I don't see
anything you can really use to argue whether or not one is taught
Apparition at Hogwarts or outside of it.  I was just giving my
impressions and arguing that they were at least reasonable.  I guess
we'll find out in book 6, right?  :-)

Annemehr
who will be absolutely stunned if JKR doesn't have Harry learn to
Apparate one way or another