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

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 128345

On 30 Apr 2005 at 22:11, phoenixgod2000 wrote:

Shaun:
> > 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.
>
> Phoenixgod2000:
>
> 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.

I disagree on that, rather strongly.

I don't believe Hermione was able to derive any benefits from 
Divination as it was taught. I also don't believe that Hermione was 
able to derive any benefit from Umbridge's DADA classes.

Hermione certainly, in my view, is able to get benefit from most 
classes - but not *any* sort of class.

In the case of Divination, it's because nothing at all useful seems 
to be being taught.

I believe Divination (as it exists in the Harry Potter universe) is 
something that really cannot be taught to any great extent. You are 
either a seer, or you are not a seer. Perhaps the subject is useful 
to someone who is a natural seer - but if you don't have that 
ability, it's a useless subject.

Where facts exist, it's a very woolly subject - there are no clearly 
right or wrong answers - it's all interpretation, and any 
interpretation can be right if you can justify it.

Hermione isn't likely to learn anything at all in such a class, in my 
view.

With Umbridge, it's a bit different. Umbridge simply doesn't teach at 
all. Maybe the book she has them reading has some value - but 
Hermione has devoured it before she even enters the class. She will 
learn nothing new in that class over an entire year.

The fact that Hermione is capable of learning from a book by herself, 
doesn't mean she learns anything in a class where that book is 
assigned.
 
> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> 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. 

Shaun:

Is there, though?

The way Snape pushes students is certainly not the only way of doing 
it, but it can be a very valid way. I had two teachers during my 
schooling who I *really* do think were extremely similar to Snape. 
One of them was fundamentally, deep down, a nice guy. The other... 
well, he wasn't.

Both were very successful teachers in the sense that their students 
did very well.

What indications we have are that Snape is the same. His students 
seem to do well.

> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> 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. 

Shaun:

Ah, but you see, my dear Phoenixgod, for some of us who had Snape 
like teachers who taught us very, very effectively, and to whom we 
may me extremely grateful for that (even if sometimes, we may hate 
their guts at the same time!), it's rather hard to sit back and watch 
a style of teaching that worked for us to be dismissed by people 
based on the fact that they see things differently. Of course, they 
have the right to see it however they see it - but that is why I 
defend Snape. Because I really do believe that the way he teaches is 
a valid way of teaching, and I hate to see anyone - even a literary 
construct - wrongly criticised.

I don't think Snape is a good person. But I do think a valid case can 
be made for him being a good teacher - and he has to little else 
going for him, I don't like to see people strip that away as well (-8
 
> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> 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.

Shaun:

We don't know that. And I would say there is considerable reason to 
believe that Snape does teach.

Point by point, perhaps.

Does Snape care if anyone learns potions?

Oh, yes. Oh, yes, he cares. Potions seem to be the one thing he is 
most passionate about.

"As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly 
believe this is magic. I don't expect you will really understand the 
beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, 
the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, 
bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses.... I can teach you how to 
bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death - if you aren't as big a 
bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach." 

Severus Snape may not care about much. But he cares about potions. To 
him, it is an art - and it's an art he wants to live.

My second Snape-like teacher at school - he taught me Latin (and he 
tried to teach me Ancient Greek - I didn't cooperate on that one) - 
he was a nasty, nasty man in some ways. He terrified and terrorised 
me, in fact, for two years, before I finally became competent enough 
that I didn't need to fear him. In his classes, you generally had the 
real impression that he *hated* what he was teaching, and he didn't 
care at all if we learned it.

But he did. What he hated, I think, was standing around in a 
classroom listening to 30 half-interested boys chant the declensions 
of Dominus. It was dull enough for us doing it - listening to it must 
have been hell to him.

But when he read to us some account of Roman history, translating 
freely on the fly from the Latin he was reading to something close to 
free verse in English... that's when we heard his passion. Believe 
me, he wanted to teach us - not just to use Latin - but to love Latin 
- and he knew what a horrible task this was going to be. And we had 
to wade through it.

Snape is a master of his art. I'm sure he wants to teach - but what 
he wants to teach are the best students - he wants to teach the NEWT 
students who meet his high standards for entry. To do that he has to 
get them through the lower levels. And that is hard, and that is 
dull, and that is barely worthy of his time.

But we know his students pass - and we know his standards are high. 
Even Umbridge says so.


> Shaun:
> 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.
> 
> Phoenixgod2000:
>
> 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.

Shaun:

Oh dear - the point I was trying to make seems to have been missed.

Let me quote the entire paragraph again - because it's meant to be 
viewed as a whole:

"So the school is traditional - all the teachers seem to use 
traditional teaching methods and have traditional educational ideas. 
One of the major ideas that falls into those methods is the idea that 
a teachers job is to impart knowledge to students. 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."

My point is not that it's undesirable for a teacher to be emotionally 
stable (nor is it undesirable for them to be nice, or kind, for that 
matter). Ideally, I believe that those are all *good* things.

But Hogwarts as presented in the novels is a highly traditional 
school - founded on highly traditional teaching methods and 
traditional educational ideas.

*Within that context*, there is considered to be no need for a 
teacher to be nice, kind, or stable. These things were not considered 
important in the type of schools that Hogwarts is based on.

Hogwarts is a literary construct based on the British Public School 
model evidenced in thousands of British School novels of the 19th and 
20th century.

In a 'real world' sense, Hogwarts fits very neatly (though not 
perfectly) into the model of the highly traditional British Public 
School - I wrote a whole detailed essay on this a while back which 
can be found at http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/HSWW.html

I attended an Australian school based very heavily on that same 
tradition, and it's a tradition that has interested me most of my 
life, so I see these parallels - many people won't, because they are 
not aware of how these schools operate. They do change over time, and 
in honesty, I think Hogwarts is a bit behind the times (-8

I'm talking about assessing teachers within a particular tradition of 
education that really is quite different from that most people are 
aware of today. The statement about emotional stability was a little 
tongue in cheek - they certainly didn't want insane teachers - but a 
little eccentricity (even in a way that might seem a bit detrimental 
to students) would be forgiven in an effective teacher who got 
results.

I think Snape is an effective teacher who gets results. It'd be nice 
if he was more than that - but in the context of the type of school, 
Hogwarts is presented as, that is enough.
 
> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> 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.

Shaun:

Speaking as someone who attended a similar school to the type I think 
Hogwarts is presented as, and who had to deal with these issues (at 
times, for various reasons, I was the type of kid who did need help), 
I would expect that if Harry went to Flitwick or Sprout with any type 
of significant problem, not directly related to his subjects with 
them, their very first question would be "Why have you come to me and 
not gone to your Head of House?" That's exactly what would have 
happened at my school.

Now, if there was a good reason why Harry hadn't done that, yes, I'm 
sure that Sprout and Flitwick would do what was necessary to help him 
- but in all honesty, I would expect Snape to do so as well in that 
situation (and if he didn't, then I would say he'd failed in his 
duty) - at that point he would have a responsibility to do so - but 
his responsibility only becomes apparent if for some reason, Harry 
cannot get help from the person he should be getting help from - his 
own Head of House, first.  

(Of course, there's an exception to this in cases where you're 
dealing with a time critical situation, like a medical emergency).

This is something I had to deal with myself as a kid. And I suspect 
that my school had moved further along the path of expecting all 
teachers to behave reasonably than Hogwarts had.

> Phoenixgod2000:
>
> 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.

Shaun:

Sure, it can, if they are thinking that. But I wouldn't have thought 
that, I didn't think that about similar teachers, and I really can't 
see that in Snape.
 
> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> Snape's style (poor as it is) does not suit far more children than it
> does suit imo.

Shaun:

That doesn't make it a bad style. Just because a particular child's 
learning needs are in the minority, doesn't make them any less 
important than the needs of the majority.

Shaun:
> > Hermione, to me, seems very much to fit into the mould of a highly
> > motivated exceptionally or profoundly gifted child.
>
> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> 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 :)    

OK - when I use the term 'gifted' I am using in the way it is most 
commonly used in education - to refer to intellectually gifted 
children. These can be classified in a number of ways, but a simple 
(though somewhat problematic definition) is to use an IQ score. A 
gifted child by that measure has an IQ of 130 or more. Exceptionally 
gifted (seeing I have used the term) refers to a child with an IQ of 
160-179, Profoundly gifted refers to children with IQs of over 180.

I work with kids like this - and have all my adult life. And I'm 
fairly good at identifying them (at least the typical ones - they can 
be rather atypical) by their characteristics.

The Harry Potter books were popular among gifted children even before 
they became broadly popular. Part of the reason for that, was 
Hermione.

Most people who work with gifted kids, and who know the common 
characteristics of kids at various levels of giftedness, seem to 
agree that Hermione Granger is at least an exceptionally gifted 
child, very possibly a profoundly gifted one. She fits so well into 
that grouping - a relatively well adjusted EG/PG child.

Now, of course, the term gifted can be used to refer to other things 
besides intellectual talent - and it is used in that way - and it can 
certainly be used in talking about magic talent in the Harry Potter 
universe. But when you're talking about academics and how children 
learn in a classroom, it is the domain of intellectual giftedness 
which is the most relevant - and that's what I've been referring to. 
Of course, in terms of overall achievement post Hogwarts, her 
intelligence alone won't be the only relevant factor - but when 
looking at teaching styles, that is relevant.

Hermione isn't just reasonably intelligent - she is extremely 
intelligent. Now someone could certainly debate that, but as someone 
who works with such kids (and frankly as someone who was one - that's 
how I got involved in it), she really does fit the mould extremely 
well.

You'll find relatively few people who know about giftedness and who 
have read the HP books, who haven't seen a gifted child when they see 
Hermione (many believe Harry is also gifted - albeit in the 
moderately gifted range, rather than the exceptional, and some 
believe Ron might be - largely on the basis that a child with two 
close gifted friends is likely to be gifted - commonalities are of 
some relevance - his Chess ability may also be a sign).


> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> 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.

Shaun:

I will e-mail you off list about this.
 
> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> 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.

Shaun:

That could be part of it - but she seems even more eager than the 
others. She doesn't just seem to have devoured her books before she 
gets to Hogwarts, she's inhaled them!
 
> Phoenixgod2000:
>
> 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.

Shaun:

Discouraging to a student with her motivation? It could happen, but 
generally it works the other way around. Provided an EG/PG child is 
well balanced and hasn't already been turned off learning, they tend 
to react to such a teacher as a challenge. Generally school has been 
so easy for them, that they have never had the chance to push 
themselves - most teachers are satisfied with a child who does better 
than average - and if you're capable of far more than that, you 
probably don't get the chance to prove it. A teacher who is very hard 
to satisfy - that's the challenge.

A "Hmm, that wasn't quite as hopeless as I expected" can mean a *LOT* 
more than a "That was the most spectacular thing I ever saw" to such 
a child. Now, I'm not saying the first thing is a good thing to say - 
but it can actually be very motivating to these kids.

When all you've ever got from teachers is meaningless praise for 
things you found easy - then a teacher who doesn't hand out praise 
even for real achievementds can be refreshing. It's less fake, 
anyway.

> > 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.
>
> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> I guess my argument would be that there is no evidence that Snape puts
> learning as any sort of priority.

Shaun:

My view is that Umbridge's statement in OotP is the best evidence we 
have.

'Well, the class seem 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 Strengthening Solution. I 
think the Ministry would prefer it if that was removed from the 
syllabus.'  

Umbridge doesn't hand out praise for no reason. There's certainly no 
reason to believe she is going easy on Snape. And she describes the 
class as fairly advanced.

Snape has been their teacher for five years.

He deserves credit for that, as a teacher.

And as it's unlikely he inspired most of the class to great things by 
his ready wit and sparkling personality, I think we have to accept 
that his teaching is what has made them advanced for their level.

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