Hermione and Snape. Was: Re: Accio 2005 press releaseTrial of Snape

[phoenixgod2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 128329

> 
> Shaun:

Phoenixgod2000: A well thought out, reasoned pov, Shaun. Don't do 
that :)

> But I am certainly not certain that Hermione derives any great 
> benefit from Snape's classes - she *might* do so, but it's by no 
> means certain in my view.

Hermione can derive benefits from any sort of class—even divination 
if it didn't offend her sensibilities--because of who she is and not 
the teacher.
 
> Where I'm coming from is someone who went to a number of different 
> schools and who fared very badly in 'modern' schools with all the 
> modern touchy-feely-let's-worry-about-self-esteem-above-all-else-
> academics-aren't-important-teachers-should-be-nice ideas, and who 
did 
> extremely well in 'highly traditional' you-kids-are-here-to-learn-
and-
> we-don't-care-at-all-what-we-need-to-do-to-make-that-happen ideas.

I agree with you about the touchy feely PC crap that infests the 
school system (at least the US one). I agree that teachers are 
generally there just to teach and not be substitute parents and 
sometimes that requires a strong hand. I work with a lot of low 
performing students and you have to push them. And push them hard. 
But there is a difference between pushing students hard and Snape. 
 
> I've no fundamental problems with modern educational ideas - I 
think 
> they work well for a lot of kids and where they work, I'm very 
glad 
> to see them being used. What I object to is the idea that seems to 
> develop that new ideas are inherently better than old ones, and 
that 
> new philosophies of education should replace traditional 
> philosophies. In my view, there's no need for that to happen - 
both 
> can co-exist.

My problem is with Snape defenders. People who have these elaborate 
fantasies about why Snape is the way he is and justify his actions 
through contortions of logic that boggle my mind.  Snape just isn't 
a good person or a good teacher. I understand his role in the story, 
but his role just doesn't require me to justify everything he does 
the way so many people do. 
 
> Because of this, I tend to get rather frustrated when I see people 
> attacking the methods of teaching used at Hogwarts seemingly on 
the 
> basis that they are old fashioned traditional methods. 

I agree with you. Everything new is not great and everything old is 
not bad.
 
> Both types of teaching work for some kids, and both types don't 
work 
> for some kids. I'll even concede that in general terms, I think 
the 
> modern methods done well probably work better in more cases - I 
just 
> don't like it when people go so far as to dismiss the old methods.

I think you give Snape too much credit when you call what he does a 
teaching method. I think Snape doesn't really have one. His *method* 
is merely barely concealed contempt for his students. We've never 
even really seen him actually teach. IIRC, most of the lesson's 
we've seen him do are just putting directions on the board and 
giving out homework. That could be merely a product of not being 
shown in the books, but something tells me that Snape isn't big on 
lectures (or any other form of explaining himself). I don't really 
see him as a teacher at all because I don't think that there is any 
evidence that he actually cares if anyone even learns Potions.  To 
me, that is what separates Snape from a stern teacher who wants to 
convey knowledge. Snape is mean because he doesn't want to be 
bothered.
 
Teachers do not 
> have to be nice. Teachers do not have to be kind. Teachers do not 
> even have to be emotionally stable. None of those things are 
relevant 
> to their abilities as teachers - because a teachers job is to 
teach.

Well, I would argue that a teacher really should be emotionally 
stable in order to teach.  Maybe even moreso when it comes to magic, 
which seems to require a certain mastery of emotions. Emotional 
instability certainly held Snape back from properly teaching Harry.
 
> (At least not in their role as a classroom teacher... teachers can 
> have other responsibilities besides teaching in such a school - 
for 
> example, Snape is head of a house at Hogwarts - and that position 
> means that he does have some particular and special responsibility 
> for the welfare of the children in that house that goes beyond 
their 
> classroom learning. But he doesn't have it for anyone else.

I would argue that Snape does have a moral duty to every student, 
his house or not. These kids are away from their parents ten months 
out of the year. They need more than just a head of house for their 
personal supervision.  Do you really think that if Harry went to 
Flitwick or Sprout that they wouldn't do their best to help him?  
That they wouldn't do their best for any student who came to them?  
Snape owes those kids no less.  Dumbledore does a disservice to 
every child in his school by putting a person who seems to not even 
like children all that much in charge of a very important piece of 
their education.

> My point is two fold. Some kids do learn best in very traditional 
> environments when information and knowledge is simply presented 
and 
> expected to be picked up. The attitudes of the teacher are largely 
> irrelevant to these kids - sure, it can be a bonus if the teacher 
is 
> nicer, but it doesn't really matter. And for many of them, they 
don't 
> really want anything else. They just want to learn. They don't 
want 
> teachers trying to get to know them, trying to be their friends, 
> trying to make every class a happy place. Others may not enjoy the 
> class - but they still may learn very well in it - and that's the 
> bottom line.

Every teacher has a different style that has to fit their subject 
and their personality. I don't like to comment in general on 
teaching styles because they are deeply personal things.  Tough is 
good. Kids need tough sometimes.  But I don't think that Snape has 
any sort of teaching style because I don't think he wants to be a 
teacher. I would lay down money that there isn't a kid in one of his 
classrooms that doesn't know that he would rather be somewhere else, 
doing something else, than teaching them. And that makes every 
difference to kids.
 
> (When it comes to specific students, we do have some indication 
that 
> Snape doesn't do well. I think Snape's personal and visceral 
hatred 
> of Harry means he cannot teach Harry as effectively as he might 
> otherwise do so. And I think Neville is one of those kids for whom 
> Snape's style is simply wrong. But even the best teacher can have 
> failures with some kids.)

Snape's style (poor as it is) does not suit far more children than 
it does suit imo.
 
> Hermione, to me, seems very much to fit into the mould of a highly 
> motivated exceptionally or profoundly gifted child.

What are you calling gifted? Highly motivated and reasonably 
intelligent, I'll give you.  But I haven't seen any evidence that 
Hermione is anyway an extraordinarily gifted witch. If she was, the 
whole house of Ravenclaw would be gifted because they all share 
Hermione's love of learning.  The only wizards I would call gifted 
in the series are Voldemort, Dumbledore, Harry, Neville, and maybe 
Ron (chess).  They are the only ones who seem to me to have 
abilities that go above and beyond what an ordinary wizard could 
do.  Hermione doesn't do anything that anyone who studied as much as 
her couldn't do.  Hell, if I could do magic, I would bury myself in 
books till I could match DD.  Magic is way cool :)    
 
> As a matter of simple fact, most EG and PG kids do not do that 
well 
> in modern education. This isn't because modern educational methods 
> are inherently bad for such kids - it's just that modern education 
> often includes ideas tacked onto it that work out being bad for 
> gifted children (when those ideas are discarded, a lot of modern 
> teaching actually works very well for such kids). I don't want to 
go 
> into all that here - but it's a commonly observed problem.

I would be curious about what specifically you are referring to in 
modern teaching methods and how they relate to gifted children.  
Could you email me off list?  I don't get the chance to work with 
too many gifted kids.  My students tend to be on the
umm
opposite 
end of the spectrum. Or at least they act that way till I kick `em 
in the rear.
 
> We don't know about Hermione's education prior to Hogwarts - but 
I'm 
> inclined to think she was lucky enough to be in a place where she 
got 
> most of what she needed, but probably not quite everything - not a 
> bad environment, just not ideal. That assessment is based on my 
> experience of such gifted kids who seem like Hermione - at age 11, 
> she hasn't given up on education (which means her experiences 
> probably weren't that bad) but she does seem incredibly eager to 
> embrace new things at Hogwarts (which suggests she is finding 
> challenge at Hogwarts she has never had before). That's 
speculation - 
> but informed speculation.

An argument could be made that it was simply the, for lack of a 
better word, magic of what was happening to her.  Something new, 
that she had never heard of, and she was going off to learn it? You 
would have to be pretty soul-dead not to be eager to learn magic. 
Harry would probably have been more excited if he didn't think they 
would kick him out of the school once he got there.

> I think Irene is right in that in many (not all) modern real-life 
> schools Hermione would be discouraged from learning - I constantly 
> see gifted kids who this has happened to and came very close to 
being 
> one myself - discouraged by her peers and even by teachers from 
> reaching her potential.

I think Snape would probably be a pretty discouraging teacher for 
just about everyone sort of a Hermione level of motivation.  Makes 
you wonder how many potion masters have come out of his classes and 
how many students would be glad not to get an O so they don't have 
to take his class anymore.
 
> And while teachers like Snape play a role in that - so do teachers 
> like McGonagall, teachers like Sprout, Binns, Flitwick, Lupin, 
> Moody(Crouch)... all teachers who seem to put learning first. They 
> don't necessarily ignore other things - it's just they are not the 
> first priority.

I guess my argument would be that there is no evidence that Snape 
puts learning as any sort of priority.
 
> AyanEva: 
> 
> I agree whole heartedly. Some of the classes that I learned the 
most
> in were taught by teachers who were, without a doubt, some of the
> meanest teachers on the Earth. Seriously, a couple even made me 
cry 
> in elementary school, hurt my feelings in middle school, and 
> infuriated me to the point of tears in high school. In college I 
had 
> some similar professors with whom I used to get into full-blown 
> e-mail arguments. Lots of snarky, short responses and all, but I 
> learned the material better than the rest of the class just to 
spite 
> them. I remember what they taught more so than many of the really 
> nice teachers who taught really easy classes. The mean professors 
> aren't out to coddle the students and make friends: Their job is 
to 
> force the student to learn, whether they want to or not, and 
that's 
> what they do. 

AyanEva, to me it sounds like your teachers were being tough on you, 
not for personal reasons, or because they didn't like teaching, but 
because they wanted to push you into learning as much as you could 
and reach your potential. That's good. That's the right kind of 
tough.

But ask yourself this before you judge if Snape is that kind of 
teacher.  If Hermione owled him about a potion (wizard equivalent of 
your snarky emails) do you really think he would owl her back?

Oh, and AyanEva, as a diehard Libertarian I love the name.

Phoenixgod2000