[HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles LONG

[Karen]

No: HPFGUIDX 147842

Just a thought reading through all these threads about Snape teaching 
Harry and Neville, I guess what is most interesting to me is that BOTH 
of them perform reasonably well when simply left alone as is proven by 
their OWL exams. Now, with Harry it was evident from the get go that 
Snape just plain hates him. When he asks Harry in the first class about 
asphodel and wormwood (or whatever) and ignores Hermione, it is obvious 
he isn't looking for the answer but merely to discomfit Harry.  When 
Neville's cauldron melts not only does Snape get irritated with Neville 
(possibly a simple response and not really applicable to "good" or 
"bad" teaching styles) he then turns to Harry blaming him for not 
correcting Neville before he makes a mistake and takes points from him 
for it, which is again, solely to take his daily shot at Harry. At that 
point (which is one of the very first potions lessons) it becomes 
obvious that teaching style has nothing to do with Snape and Harry. He 
just hates him. So, I really don't see how one can even discuss 
teaching style in regards to Harry (and this hatred seems to then just 
extend to anyone friendly with Harry).

In regards to Neville, it isn't really a teaching "style" IMO, to heave 
insults like "idiot boy" and debasement like the one about having no 
brains, along with deriding him to other teachers (Lupin).  How is any 
of this a "teaching style"? I had a Jesuit priest for religion class in 
H.S. who hurled insults like peanuts at students using vocabulary that 
they just didn't know, plus a sense of the ridiculous so dry you could 
set fire to it with a withering look. It irritated me NO end, because 
it was merely for his own entertainment. I made a point of taking up 
whatever they were saying and arguing that tack just to prove not 
everyone had not understood him. It ended up that I think he *wanted* 
that response and he would gladly argue any issue to death with me.  It 
wasn't a teaching style but I guess I'd call it teaching boredom that 
caused him to act that way towards students (looking back this is what 
I would guess. I certainly had the impression then and now that he 
considered 90 percent of his students dunderheads).  It lead me to 
question everything he said, which ended up being good for both of US I 
suppose, but did very little in the way of education of the rest of the 
students. To me a "tough teaching style" would be someone who really 
stuck to strict grading rubrics and for good reason (as those cited of 
something that could lead to death if wrong) and a severe attitude 
about any laxness or frivolity, but actually degrading people, no 
matter how good you are at getting results from X number of students, 
just doesn't qualify as a "style" IMO.