Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long)

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 148180

This may turn out fairly long as I may be replying to quite 
a few people's posts at once in this long post, but I've 
been following this with interest, as well as participating 
at times, and I am seriously considering the idea of 
examining in detail the teaching styles and practices seen 
at Hogwarts for my final year thesis if I can convince my 
tutors of the idea, so I've been doing a lot of thinking 
about this, and I'd like to salute all those posting in this 
thread for giving such a wide range of perspectives.

> Alla:
> 
> You know, it is funny. I was thinking about "Hermione defending 
> Snape as a teacher' argument in support of "Snape as a good teacher" 
> and I realized that I don't remember many instances when she does 
> so. Now  in HBP she compares Snape DADA lesson to Harry's as it was 
> discussed, I agree that this is a positive comparison, since 
> Hermione definitely thought that Harry is a good teacher in OOP, but 
> can we claim that based on one lesson Hermione considers Snape to be 
> a good teacher? I don't think so, personally.

Shaun:

I really congratulate you on the effort you've put into this 
post, and I think you've made a very strong case to counter 
the claim that Hermione defends Snape as a teacher. 
Personally, I'm not sure I've ever made that claim myself - 
although I do think there's a good possibility that Hermione 
considers Snape to be a good teacher. Mainly because she 
doesn't criticise him. Hermione does criticise teachers she 
considers to be bad ones. I don't think Hermione defends 
Snape as a teacher - but I find her lack of criticism, 
telling.

Hermione expresses criticism of the teaching methods of 
Hagrid, Umbridge, and Trelawney. When Hermione thinks that a 
teacher has problems teaching, she doesn't seem to me to 
conceal her views. Even when it's someone she likes - such 
as Hagrid. She is capable of making at least some 
distinction between a person's ability as a teacher and her 
feelings about them personally - although this might not be 
entirely true with Trelawney.

The thing is Hermione has adequate reason to dislike Snape. 
He's not that likeable anyway, but he is mean to one of her 
closest friends in Harry, and to another reasonably close 
friend in Neville. He's also mean to her on occasion. If 
Hermione really thought Snape was a bad teacher, I'd have 
expected to have heard it from her at some stage. In my 
view, the absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of 
absence - the fact that we don't see Hermione criticising 
Snape *as a teacher* suggests to me she doesn't have major 
problems with Snape *as a teacher*.

Moving away from canon for a moment, just to general 
observations of the way I believe Hermione probably operates 
psychologically. This is not a canon based argument, except 
in the most limited sense, but as it's coming in a post that 
I intend to contain a lot of canon, I don't think that's a 
major problem. And it is important to why I think Hermione 
probably has few problems with Snape as a teacher (this is 
totally different and separate from problems she has with 
him as a person).

I believe Hermione is either exceptionally or profoundly 
intellectually gifted. This is a population of children I 
know a great deal about. I've worked with such children all 
my adult life, and I was one myself. I'm published in the 
field, and I'm considered to be a reasonable authority on 
such children. I am also specifically qualified with regards 
to teaching gifted children, though that will not become 
officially active until I complete my degree at the end of 
this year.

As a technical definition, an exceptionally gifted child is 
one with an IQ of at least 160. Precisely how common these 
children are is subject to debate. Theoretically we should 
be talking about something fewer than 1 in 10,000 children, 
but in fact they do seem to be a little more common than 
that. These kids are individuals, of course, but they do 
still have some range of common characteristics and Hermione 
presents as a fairly typically example of an exceptionally 
gifted academic high achievers (you also get underachievers 
- and I sometimes suspect that Harry might fall into that 
category - very smart, not as worried about doing as well as 
Hermione except if he deems something important to him).

I can't prove Hermione is an exceptionally gifted child - I 
can just tell you that as someone who works with such kids, 
she comes across as one. Lupin's statement that she is the 
cleverest witch of her age he has ever met, suggests she is 
rare, as does her performance in subjects which involve 
quite a lot of intellectual exercise as well as magical 
talent. But for the sake of argument, understand that I do 
believe Hermione to be an exceptionally gifted academic high 
achiever type.

Such children, generally speaking, are not well catered to 
in most schools in the western world. Obviously for 
Hermione, England is the most relevant setting and I can 
tell you that across most of England, most of these children 
were not well catered to in classrooms during the 1980s. I 
don't want to go too much into the politics of why this was 
so as it gets seriously off topic, but the problems were 
largely created by certain social and political theories in 
education that gained sway in Britain (as in many other 
places) from the late 1960s onwards. These theories weren't, 
by any means, universally bad - but they were generally not 
positive for the small number of exceptionally gifted 
children around, no matter whether they were in general 
positive or negative.

My point is that, in all probability, Hermione probably went 
through her primary schooling, prior to coming to Hogwarts, 
within a school environment that did not meet her 
educational needs. She may have done very well in that 
environment compared to other students (indeed as an 
achiever type she probably did) - but she almost certainly 
wasn't being educated to anywhere near her level of 
potential.

The point is - most exceptionally gifted children (in fact, 
most gifted children in general - it's just more intense and 
less common for the exceptionally gifted) crave intellectual 
challenge. They crave the chance to push themselves 
intellectually. They *want* teachers who push them to their 
limits - and generally speaking things like what those 
teachers are like in terms of personality are very much 
secondary issues. They will typically look at a teacher very 
solidly in terms of their ability to teach. Things like 
whether the teacher is nice, or friendly, or even fair tend 
to be very much secondary considerations - real bonuses if 
the teacher fits into those categories, but not generally 
that important. What these kids want is competence above all 
else.

Now, the thing is - I suspect very strongly that J.K. 
Rowling was also a highly gifted child. Her success as an 
author indicates a high intelligence, just by itself - you 
need to be more than just intelligent to be a successful 
author, but intelligence is certainly part of the 
requirement, given the breadth of what she is writing. She 
has, I believe, stated that Hermione is quite like herself 
in many ways. I'd say she is quite likely to understand all 
the above as well. That is speculation on my part, but I do 
think it is likely and it does inform my views.

It's for this reason I don't see any real conflict between 
JKR saying she thinks Snape is a sadist (and I will address 
that later) whatever she means by that, and the possibility 
that she may still see him as a good teacher - in terms of 
his *competence in teaching*. Maybe this is where part of 
the argument comes from. I see those things as two different 
things as well. I believe they can be divorced. I think a 
lot of people don't see it that way. They think that if a 
person is 'sadistic' (for whatever meaning they give the 
term), they can't be a competent teacher. That's a different 
way of seeing things.

What I can say in that regard is that some of the worst 
teachers I ever had in terms of their competence in teaching 
were among the nicest people I've ever known. And some of 
the best teachers I ever had in terms of their competence in 
teaching were genuinely nasty.

I think Hermione is likely to be able to see the same 
distinction I see.

Anyway - on with the post.

> Renee:
>
> If I'm not mistaken, you don't attach much importance to JKR's own
> comments. But now that you're bringing her into the discussion anyway,
> I'd like to point out again that she's the one who called Snape `a
> sadistic teacher', without qualification. You may counter this by
> saying: "I don't care how JKR interprets her own characters; if she
> intended Snape to be sadistic she didn't do her job very well, because
> I don't see it." But you can't maintain she didn't intend Snape to be
> sadistic because Umbridge is a sadist. There's no reason whatsoever
> why the series shouldn't contain two sadistic teachers, each with
> their own personal brand of sadism. 

Well, for my part, I do attach reasonable importance to 
JKR's own comments. And I think I can understand why she 
would call Snape sadistic. I wouldn't use that term myself, 
but even as someone who defends Snape as a teacher, I 
believe he's a very nasty man. And I would say that Umbridge 
is most definitely a sadist.

To me the distinction is that I believe a sadist is someone 
who isn't just nasty or cruel, but is wantonly nasty and 
cruel primarily for their own enjoyment.

My test... if Snape was a genuine sadist (by my 
understanding of the term) he would *like* having Neville 
Longbottom in his class. He would *want* Neville to be 
there, because Neville gives him the perfect excuse to be 
mean and nasty. He wouldn't make any effort to try and get 
Neville to improve in class, because that would get rid of 
his foil - his perfect tool to express his sadism and get 
pleasure out of it. But when I look at Snape, I see someone 
who is actually trying to get Neville to improve in his 
classes. I think Snape misjudges the situation with regards, 
but I do think that is his motivation. Neville *annoys* him 
by his lack of performance and Snape doesn't like being 
annoyed. He is trying to make Neville competent because that 
will stop him annoying him.

Anecdote from my own life... when I was 14, and in Form III 
at school, I had one of my most Snape like teachers for two 
different subjects that year - Latin and Ancient Greek. In 
Latin (a subject I had chosen to do voluntarily) I did quite 
well. In Ancient Greek (a subject I was forced to do against 
my will, even though it was supposed to be elective - they 
moved me from my choice of Drama into Ancient Greek) I did 
incredibly poorly. To give you an idea - from memory my 
results in Latin for the first half of that year were around 
85%, and my mark in Ancient Greek was 7%.

Now this teacher was *extremely* strict, and really was a 
rather nasty man in terms of personality. And my Ancient 
Greek classes were hell for me. The way he treated me was 
pretty much every bit as harshly as Snape treats Neville - 
and he had methods at his disposal that Snape doesn't seem 
to have available.

The thing is, I really do think the reason he treated me 
that way in those classes was out of sheer frustration at 
how badly I was doing, how I couldn't do the most basic 
things right. And I really think Snape sees Neville in the 
same way. Now in my case, this teacher knew that I could do 
better. And he was nasty to me, and very very severe with me 
because he believed I could do better, and he believed that 
he could encourage me to do better by making things very 
unpleasant for me if I did not. Now he had good reason to 
believe that - teaching me two very similar subjects and 
seeing the difference in performance in both - and perhaps 
Snape doesn't have as good reason. But every other child in 
the class can do it - and though Neville does seem to have 
problems in other classes, they are not to the same extent 
he does in Snape's I can to an extent understand why Snape 
might genuinely believe that Neville is capable of more if 
he has an incentive to do better. And Snape doesn't do 
positive incentives - anymore than my Classics Master did.

I frustrated my teacher - he wasn't going after me because 
he *wanted* to make me miserable. He went after me because 
he wanted me to learn, so I would stop frustrating him!

If Snape was a genuine sadist, he would welcome Neville's 
presence in his class - but frankly, I think Snape would be 
much happier if Neville just ceased to exist in his classes.

> Renee:
>
> Personally, I do see Snape's sadism quite clearly. The Trevor incident
> is sadism, because Neville is obvioulsy terrified. 

This is where we get into problems - why does the fact that 
Neville is terrified indicate that Snape is a sadist. I 
don't see that.

When I got -3/10 in a Greek vocab test (and yes, that mark 
was serious - each week we had a vocab test of ten words - 
you got 0 for a wrong answer, and lost 1/2 a mark for each 
subsequent mistake - so getting the root word wrong *and* 
the conjugation *and* the tense, yielded a net mark of -1 
for that question), you'd better believe I was utterly 
terrified of what this teacher would do to me. But that 
terror made sure I *never* did it again. The fact that a 
teacher makes a child frightened doesn't make them a sadist. 
And the fact that a particular child may be so sensitive 
that something that would make another child mildly 
apprehensive instead makes that child terrified doesn't make 
the teacher a sadist either. Neville has made two very basic 
mistakes he shouldn't have made in that class. Snape doesn't 
target him for no reason - he's done something wrong, 
something that he shouldn't have. He's got in trouble for 
it. It's normal for a child to feel a little afraid in such 
cases.


> Joe:
>    
> A better judge of if Snape is a good teacher 
> would be to ask his less talented students.

Why? Why are the least talented students the best judges of 
whether or not a teacher is a good teacher or not?

This is actually a recurring problem with education in the 
real world. There's a great tendency to focus our attention 
on the lowest performing students as if they are somehow 
more important than other students. They are important. They 
are as entitled to an education that meets their needs as 
any other students are - but they are not more important 
than other students, and they should be no more entitled 
than other students to such an education.

The opinion of the least talented students in a class as to 
whether or not a a teacher is a good teacher is no more 
important than the opinion of the most talented students in 
the class. It should be no less important either, but 
there's no reason to suppose that these students can judge a 
teachers ability than any others.

They can, probably, say whether or not the teachers methods 
work well for them personally, and that's useful 
information. But that doesn't make the teacher a good 
teacher in general - just a good teacher for them. Because 
all teachers are individuals and all students are 
individuals, some teachers will be a good match for some 
students, but maybe not for other students.

Expecting a teacher to be able to teach all students, as 
individual as they are, with equal efficacy is totally 
unrealistic. There may be some *very* rare teachers who can 
teach all children at peak efficiency, but if so they are 
very rare indeed. Some teachers are especially good with 
struggling students. Some teachers are especially good with 
brilliant students. Some teachers are especially good with 
the mid range of students. And *none* of these teachers are 
superior to the others simply on that basis.

You can get some idea of a teachers *general* ability as a 
teacher by looking at their class as a whole (assuming a 
reasonably diverse student population in terms of ability 
and learning styles). Our indications are that most students 
Snape teaches do adequately, and some do very well. Overall, 
the class is advanced beyond the standards apparently 
expected by the ministry.


> Shaun:
>
> > All right - now please explain to me why Neville is the student who 
> > forgets he is wearing the sorting hat during the sorting ceremony; 
> > why Neville is the student who needs to be helped into the Gryffindor 
> > common room the first time they go there; 
> 
> Gerry
> (snip)
> Well, obviously: 
> 1) he has a bad memory
> 2) he has very low self esteem, tends to make mistakes because he
> already believes he will fail. 

Shaun:

Two good points, but they do not excuse his carelessness.

If Neville has a poor memory, he should write down the 
process as it is explained to the class. That's assuming 
that Snape doesn't write it down on a board, or it's not 
being read out of a book.

As for poor self esteem, yes, he does have that - but he 
needs to come to terms with it. Allowing it to be an excuse 
for his poor performance isn't going to help him. As we see 
through the books, Neville gradually grows in confidence and 
courage by being expected to be brave, not by having his 
lack of self esteem indulged. He is simply expected to get 
over this - and he does.

I think Snape expects the same thing - probably not 
specifically, but he expects Neville to improve over time. 
And he doesn't. 

> Gerry:
>
> Careless in my non-native understanding of the English language means
> though perfectly able to do something, not caring to be bothered to do
> it right.

I think we are running up against a language issue here, 
though your English is excellent and I didn't realise it 
wasn't your native tongue. Your definition of careless is 
correct in a precise sense, but when teachers use the term 
they are not being quite that precise. A careless mistake in 
a classroom situation is one that could be avoided with 
care. Sometimes it requires *special* care. Especially if 
the student is being asked to do something difficult for 
them. Being careless is not a matter of just not being 
bothered which would imply no effort at all. You can be 
careless even if you are putting some effort into something, 
if it's not *enough* effort.

Schoolwork *should* require a student to exercise a 
reasonable degree of care (otherwise it's too easy). It 
shouldn't be something that they can accomplish without any 
effort. So some degree of effort can be assumed. But if a 
student isn't putting in enough effort to do what they need 
to do, they are being careless. The fact that they may be 
making some effort, even if it's not enough, doesn't stop 
them being careless.

Adding ingredients in the right order, adding the right 
amount of ingredients should not be beyond Neville's 
abilities.

OK - here's actually a good example of carelessness in a 
potions class.

"They were making a new potion today, a Shrinking Solution. 
Malfoy set up his cauldron right next to Harry and Ron, so 
that they were preparing their ingredients on the same 
table.

'Sir,' Malfoy called, 'sir, I'll need help cutting up these 
daisy roots, because of my arm -'

'Weasley, cut up Malfoy's roots for him,' said Snape without 
looking up.

Ron went brick red.

'There's nothing wrong with your arm,' he hissed at Malfoy.

Malfoy smirked across the table.

'Weasley, you heard Professor Snape; cut up these roots.'

Ron seized his knife, pulled Malfoy's roots toward him, and
began to chop them roughly, so that they were all different 
sizes.

'Professor,' drawled Malfoy, 'Weasley's mutilating my roots,
si'.'

Snape approached their table, stared down his hooked nose at 
the roots, then gave Ron an unpleasant smile from beneath 
his long, greasy black hair.

'Change roots with Malfoy, Weasley.'

'But, sir -!'

Ron had spent the last quarter of an hour carefully 
shredding his own roots into exactly equal pieces.

'Now,' said Snape in his most dangerous voice.

Ron shoved his own beautifully cut roots across the table at 
Malfoy, then took up the knife again."

(PoA)

This is a perfect example. Ron does cut Malfoy's roots - he 
does do the basic task required. *But* he does it 
carelessly. Just doing the basics isn't enough. You have to 
take enough care to do it properly. 

> Gerry:
>
> A very good example of carelessness is Harry in PoA when he,
> despite the danger he is in uses his invisibility cloak to pay a higly
> risky Hogsmead visit, he knew exactly what was at stake, yet he could
> not be bothered to act differently. 

I would say that is more recklessness than carelessness. But 
that is getting into semantics.

> Gerry:
>
> Very, very different from Neville.
>  Now I fully believe Snape is unable to see the difference between
> carelesness and being - how do you call it in English - a
> psychological block. But canon makes it very clear that for Neville it
> is not a question of 'can't be bothered' but of being unable to. A
> good teacher,- mind you, not an extraordinary one - should be able to
> recognize the difference. 

Shaun:

Not necessarily - and I am speaking as a teacher. Sorting 
out the psychological issues involved with a student can be 
quite complex. Sometimes it's obvious - often it's not. 
Working out that a student has a problem is often easy. 
Working out what it is is often very hard. Most teachers in 
most modern school environments (and this is a place where I 
think modern education does something very right) have 
access where needed to psychologists and similar to help 
work this out when they can not. Because it's not easy.

> Gerry:
>
> > To me, it seems obvious that the problem is with the pupil. With 
> > Neville.
> 
> If that were the case, he would have difficulties in all his classes.
> Yet he is fine with charms and is outstanding in herbology, not
> exaclty a tame subject. And even with transformation he does not go to
> pieces 

Shaun:

He does blow McGonnagal's desk to pieces (actually he just 
blows a leg off) (-8

Neville is depicted as having problems in a lot of classes, 
herbology being a noteable exception. And in general terms 
as well. Things seem to happen to Neville - to me that is a 
clear indication that the problem is with Neville.

Even in Harry's DA classes in Sixth Year, Neville has 
issues.

*But* he overcomes them. That's the point - he is capable of 
overcoming them. There not a sign of pathology. They are 
something within his power to deal with. 

"'You cannot pass an OWL,' said Professor McGonagall grimly, 
'without serious application, practice and study. I see no 
reason why everybody in this class should not achieve an OWL 
in Transfiguration as long as they put in the work.' Neville 
made a sad little disbelieving noise. 'Yes, you too, 
Longbottom,' said Professor McGonagall. There's nothing 
wrong with your work except lack of confidence."

(OotP)

Note that - even in Fifth Year, far from doing well in other 
subjects, Neville still has doubts that he will get an OWL 
in Transfiguration. And McGonagall points out that his 
problem is with him - it's his lack of confidence.

> Gerry:
>
> Why, if you think that Snape does not handle this situation well, do
> you consider him a good teacher? 

Shaun:

Because I don't believe any teacher on this planet, no 
matter how good, always succeeds with every single situation 
every single time. A teacher who was able to do that would 
not be a good teacher, they'd be a perfect teacher.

And there's a difference. To be a good teacher a teacher 
doesn't have to always get it right with every single 
student they teach.

One of my teachers from when I was 13, a couple of years ago 
won an award as one of Australia's best teachers. She's very 
well regarded. She made some mistakes when it came to me, 
though, she got some things rather significantly wrong (and, 
no, she's not one of the teachers I would describe as a bad 
teacher I had - she was a decent teacher even for me where 
she made some mistakes - but she did make mistakes).

Saying that Snape is a good teacher doesn't mean I think 
he's perfect and never makes mistakes. I do think he makes 
mistakes with regards to Neville. But a teacher should *not* 
be judged on the basis of their mistakes. Everybody makes 
mistakes in their job at times. What makes someone good or 
bad at their job is their general performance most of the 
time, not their worst performance.

 
> Gerry:
>
> Neville left the paper next to his bed, safe in the Gryffindor
> dormitory. No one could have foreseen that it would be stolen by
> Crookshanks who was in league with Sirius Black. That is not an
> example of carelesness. 

Shaun:

It most certainly is. You should never write passwords down 
- it defeats the purpose of them - and if for some reason, 
you are foolish enough to do so, you would never leave them 
anywhere anyone could just pick them up.

You should always assume that written down passwords can 
fall into the wrong hands.

He was careless - Professor McGonnagal certainly thought he 
was and punished him for it. Now, if we assume that he 
wasn't careless, then that would become an example of 
Professor McGonnagal making a very serious mistake about 
Neville - does that make her a bad teacher? Again, no. I 
don't think she made a mistake - I think he was very 
careless - but if she did, again, you can't assess the 
general competence of a teacher based on their mistakes. You 
have to look at their general competence.

> Gerry:
>
> Well, a melted cauldron is something quite spectacular, we see many
> potions mistakes throughout the book, but most of them are not any
> more dangerous than a potion turning the wrong colour of giving a bad
> smell. So yes, I do think it strange that the first potions being
> taught is one where a simple mistake has such huge effects. 

Shaun:

I don't think we do see many potions mistakes through the 
books.

The next incident I can find where a mishap in the potions 
class is described is in the second book - and there it is 
not a mishap - Harry deliberately ensures people are 
splashed by using a firework.

But what happens to the students who are splashed?

"Goyle's potion exploded, showering the whole class. People 
shrieked as splashes of the Swelling Solution hit them. 
Malfoy got a faceful and his nose began to swell like a 
balloon; Goyle blundered around, his hands over his eyes, 
which had expanded to the size of a dinner plate - Snape was 
trying to restore calm and find out what had happened. 
Through the confusion, Harry saw Hermione slip quietly into 
Snape's office."

Then we have the Trevor incident in the third book. While 
Neville's mistake is not spectacular in that class, it does 
seem that the concoction he makes by mistake could kill 
anyone who drinks it. Minor mistakes have serious 
consequences in potions classes, whether they are 
spectacular or not.

Yes, we have non-spectacular incidents as well - but I don't 
think spectacular reactions are likely to be that unusual. 
Fred and George also cause a lot of explosions at home with 
their experiments (-8

> Shaun:
>
> > The first problem with that argument, in my view, is that Neville 
> > makes his very first mistake before Snape has bullied him. The second 
> > problem with it that Neville demonstrates careless behaviour out of 
> > class and in other teachers classes as well - in Chamber of Secrets I 
> > recall, he accidentally removes the leg of McGonnagall's desk during 
> > a class, and at the time he's under no stress at all.
>
> Gerry:
> 
> Why is this careless? Is it because it is Neville? 

"But something happened in their first lesson, 
Transfiguration, that drove the Chamber of Secrets out of 
their minds for the first time in weeks. Ten minutes into 
the class, Professor McGonagall told them that their exams 
would start on the first of June, one week from today.

'Exams?' howled Seamus Finnigan. 'We're still getting 
exams?'

There was a loud bang behind Harry as Neville Longbottom's 
wand slipped, vanishing one of the legs on his desk. 
Professor McGonagall restored it with a wave of her own 
wand, and turned, frowning, to Seamus."

It's careless because - without any sign that he is under 
particular stress, Neville's wand slips and accidentally 
removes the leg of his desk. A slip without a reason that 
causes that type of damage - I can't see any reason not to 
call it carelessness. Unless the wand slipped all by itself, 
somehow.

It'd be careless whoever it happened to.

> Gerry:
>
> Gerry
> Leaving a student alone, abstaining from nasty comments is not the
> same as abstaining from duty. It can be a very effective teaching
> method. I'm sorry, but I get the feeling Betsy had in one of the other
> discussions. You seem determined to excuse anything Snape does. You
> wanted an example of Snape being nasty to other students than Harry.
> Ypu even agree that the DADA class is nasty, yet suddenly it is all
> right because teachers do that at Hogwarts, where you use McGonnagal
> as an example, though both times she is very tense an stressed where
> Snape knows exactly what he is doing. His remaek about Hermione's
> teeth is again an example of a teacher being personal and cruel. Snape
>  is not a nice man.

Shaun:

I have never said that Snape is a nice man and I've made it 
quite clear in the past that I think his remark about 
Hermione's teeth is completely and utterly inexcusable. I 
disagree entirely with the suggestion that I try to excuse 
anything that Snape does. I have made it quite clear that I 
think his treatment of Harry is wrong, I have made it quite 
clear that I think Snape was wrong to tell Lupin about what 
had happened in his class with Neville, and I really think 
what Snape said with regards to Hermione's teeth was very 
wrong. When I think Snape has done something wrong, I have 
most certainly said so.

But as someone who had his childhood ruined to the extent 
that I was suicidal at the age of 12, because people had 
decided that the methods of education that worked for me 
were unacceptable for politically correct reasons - and that 
we had to have nice kind teachers whether they could teach 
or not - frankly, I have a bit of a problem with the fact 
that, in my view, some people seem to believe that the forms 
of education they like and that may have been good for them 
are school are somehow inherently superior to old fashioned 
ideas of education of the type that helped save my life and 
restore me to some semblance of mental health.

Hogwarts is a school of a particular style - it is modelled 
on the great British Public Schools - and teachers like 
Snape are a not uncommon feature of those schools. And for 
about a century and a half, these schools were generally 
regarded over a fair swathe of the world as providing the 
best education available. This is why copies of them were 
set up in countries all over the world (including one that I 
was fortunate enough to attend).

The schools that grew out of this tradition are still 
regarded as excellent schools, and people pay a fortune to 
send their children to them. Yes, they are a bit softer than 
they once were (and some have changed a lot) but generally 
speaking, these are good schools.

My point is that I believe that this type of education, no 
matter how unfashionable it may be with certain people has 
stood the test of time and proven itself. So, honestly, I 
find it very odd to see people who don't seem to understand 
it in many cases, constantly criticising it. I can 
understand that they believe that the things that worked for 
them at school, or that they think would have worked for 
them are good things - and I believe that they are probably 
right. But I also think that *I* am qualified to say what 
worked for me and to regard what worked for *me* as a good 
thing as well.

I had my childhood ruined by modern educational ideas. OK - 
maybe I was a freak of nature. But honestly, it's hard 
enough in real life to see the type of schooling that worked 
for me derided as having something wrong with it. Yet, at 
least in real life, I can understand that the people who 
attack that type of schooling are genuinely sincere people 
who believe they are helping kids. I may disagree with them 
but I can understand their motives.

But we're talking about a work of fiction here. Criticising 
Snape as a teacher isn't going to change anything that 
matters anywhere. He's not teaching real children, even if 
he is a sadist (and I don't think he is), he's not really 
hurting anybody real. OK - the people who want to change 
schools in the real world - right or wrong, they are 
normally trying to work for the benefit of kids (as they are 
given to see it). So I won't really argue with them in real 
life (except in very specific formats).

But in fiction, I don't see the harm. And so I will defend 
here the type of school that kept me sane, and the type of 
teachers who kept me alive.

Please note - I am not saying for a moment that people 
shouldn't attack Snape, just because this is fiction. That's 
fine. It's fun! At least, I assume it is, as this is just 
for fun.

All I am saying is that I do accept in some cases that Snape 
has done things wrong. But it's hard for me to see the only 
type of education that I was every happy in and learning in 
derided by people because they don't believe in it - 
especially when I believe their opposition is based on a 
belief that modern methods of education are automatically 
better than those of the past.

I think the traditional methods are worth defending. And 
maybe if people had defended them in real life here, I 
wouldn't have wound up a clinical depressive at the age of 
12.

But I don't believe these methods are perfect. They're not. 
I've never claimed they are. But I will defend them when I 
think they are, overall, good for at least some students.

> Gerry:
>
> So as long as a teacher does not make his students depressed or
> suicidal his teaching methods are fine? Then it does not matter that a
> teacher has not the wit or is too disinterested to distinguish between
> carelesness and inability? That is one easy excuse for bad teaching.

No, that's not what I said at all.

I believe that to be a good teacher, a teacher has to do a 
great deal more than just ensure their students are not 
depressed or suicidal.

*But* I don't think a good teacher necessarily needs to be a 
good teacher for every single student. If a teacher is a 
good teacher for *most* of their students, then they meet 
the first criteria to be a good teacher. I don't think a 
good teacher has to be *perfect*.

*But* having said that, of course, that doesn't mean you can 
ignore what's happening to the other students for whom they 
are not a good teacher. You do have to look at that. And 
*if* those students are *suffering* to a significant extent 
from the teaching methods, then that would invalidate the 
teacher's general efficiency.

Let me use numbers, let's look at a class of twenty.

If a teacher with twenty children is teaching 15 of them 
very well, 4 of them, OK, and 1 of them not at all - but 
isn't actually causing that last child serious harm - then I 
would say they are a good teacher.

However, if a teacher with twenty children is teaching 15 of 
them very well, 4 of them, OK, and the last wants to kill 
themselves - then that's a *very* real problem.

I acknowledge fully that Neville is uncomfortable in Snape's 
classes and that they are less than optimal for him. I wish 
he wasn't in that situation. But I don't believe the level 
of discomfort experienced by that one student is enough to 
invalidate the teaching skill of the teacher. 

If Neville was close to suicide, I would think that.

Now understand this - after a year of suboptimal teaching at 
the age of 12, I *was* suicidal with regards to my school. 
Believe me I take this issue very seriously indeed. But out 
of all my teachers that year, really just one of them caused 
me to be that deeply depressed. Most of the others made me 
unhappy, yes - but the unhappiness I experienced was not 
enough to invalidate the good work they did with most of my 
class of 30. Yes, it was bad for me. But they weren't bad 
teachers.

That last one though... she was another matter.

> Catherine:
>
> I think what most people are forgetting is that Neville suffers from 
> poor self-esteem, first of all. Secondly he has what could pretty 
> much be deamed a deep-seated *phobia* of Snape. His Boggart is Snape, 
> not a severed hand, giant spider, monster or anything else. His fear 
> is absolutely true, and being so fearful *never* lets someone live up 
> to their potential. It's not the pressure of Snape classes that do 
> Neville in as demonstrated by him actually doing OK during his 
> Potions Owl. Not everyone is good at following "simple directions". 
> How is it that one person can bake a cake perfectly using a 
> particular recipe, and another fail miserably following the exact 
> same recipe? What may be simple to you, might not be simple to 
> another. Right from the beginning Neville says he didn't think he 
> was "magic enough" to get in to Hogwarts. 

Shaun:

Well, I am not forgetting for a moment that Neville suffers 
from low self esteem. I suffered from it as a child myself 
and I take it seriously.

But I had to learn to deal with it. And Neville has to learn 
to deal with it, as well. It's not a nice thing to have in 
your corner - but if you don't learn to overcome it, it will 
control you for ever and that is not in your interest. And 
children do not develop self esteem by being mollycoddled. 
They learn it by being placed in situations where they can 
develop resilience. That's what worked for me - and it's 
what works for Neville. Over time, over the books, Neville 
*does* develop a better self image - and he doesn't develop 
it by having his low self esteem indulged.

(Please note - I am aware that for some children, it's not 
as easy as I've just implied - some kids need a lot of help 
with this and certainly they should get it. And if Neville 
hadn't developed better self esteem over time, I would say 
he was one of these - but generally speaking pushing Neville 
to develop greater confidence and courage *has* worked. It 
may not have worked as well in Snape's class - but as it 
works in general, I definitely think it's a valid strategy.)

As for Neville having a phobia about Snape - honestly I 
don't think he does. A phobia is an irrational fear. 
Something you are afraid of without good reason. And again, 
I suffer from phobias - I absolutely fear having my 
photograph taken, irrational though that is (this comes from 
some bullying I experienced as a child). The thing is 
Neville *does* have a rational reason to be afraid of Snape. 
The man is nasty to him. I think Neville's fear is 
disproportionate to the cause, but that's different from 
being irrational.

But even if it was a phobia, you don't indulge a phobia. A 
person who has a phobia has to learn to deal with it. 
Failing to learn to deal with it, doesn't help anyone, least 
of all the victim. Sometimes it's so severe a person can't 
learn to deal with it - it's not weakness if you can't, it 
can be that debilitating. But generally the best way to deal 
with it is to confront it.

Neville confronts his fears through the books. He can do 
this with Snape.

Your cake analogy is interesting - because it's true, even 
if two people follow a cake recipe perfectly they can get 
different results. But the point is Neville doesn't even 
follow the recipe perfectly. While your cake may not turn 
out all right even if you do follow the recipe, there is a 
difference between following it correctly and failing to do 
so. Not everyone can produce a perfect cake. But everyone 
should be able to do the steps outlined.

> Catherine:
>
>   Snape on the other hand, is simply not a nice person. Can he teach? 
> Yes. Does everybody like him? No. Would I want my children to have 
> him as a teacher? Absolutely not. Some people will respond well to 
> his methods (which I see as being one of two things: favoritism and 
> bullying) The ones he favors will either do well because of it
> (Malfoy, Nott perhaps?), or do horribly (Crabbe and Goyle) and be 
> left in peace. The ones he bullies will either fall to pieces 
> (Neville) defy to do well depsite of his attitude (Hermione) or just 
> suck it up as long as is necessary and try to do your best (Harry, 
> Ron). Unfortunately, we only see how he treats Slyhterins and 
> Gryffindors. But only 3 Ravenclaws (the most intellectual) and 1 
> Hufflepuff (the hardest working) managed an Owl in the subject, or 
> decided to continue with Potions thinking that Snape would be 
> teaching.

Well, I can say categorically that I responded very well to 
Snape like teachers and their methods - and it had nothing 
to do with them bullying me or favouring me. I was a victim 
of extreme bullying in my time at school - including by 
teachers, unfortunately, and believe me I recognise 
bullying. That isn't what these Snape like teachers did. And 
they certainly didn't favour me. This is what I responded 
to. And that's part of my point. Different people respond to 
different types of teaching. Methods that worked for most of 
my classmates at 12, made me clinically depressed. And Snape 
like methods worked.

I'd also point out that it's not true that only 3 Ravenclaws 
and 1 Hufflepuff managed an Owl in the subject. To get into 
Slughorn's NEWT level potions classes requires an E grade 
(Exceeds Expectations). His standards aren't as high as 
Snape's for entry, but they are higher than just passing.

> Catherine:
>
>    That to me says more than any offhand quote someone may have made 
> about him. Either not many people did well in Potions to receive an 
> Owl in it, or not many people wanted to continue with Potions because 
> they didn't like him. 

Or maybe they just made the choices that suited their career 
paths. My two best subjects in my second last year of school 
(and I was the best student across my entire Form in one of 
those subjects - I didn't drop a single mark all year - and 
third out of about two hundred and fifty boys in the second 
one) were ones I dropped for my final year. Because they 
weren't going to be useful to me in terms of my employment 
choices. We know students get careers advice in Fifth year 
that tell them what subjects they need. Many may have 
dropped Potions purely because they didn't need the NEWT in 
them. This really isn't that uncommon when your secondary 
schooling system provides genuine credentials for further 
study (which is true in some places and not true in others).


> Irene:
>
> Why on earth would I want to prove that? So what if
> Snape made him disembowel frogs, or toads or lizards?
> Or any other animal that provides ingredients for
> Potions?
> It would be an illegitimate punishment only if the
> ingredients were in themselves illegal or required
> Dark Magic to produce them.
> Or do you mean Snape should have cared that these
> animals remind Neville of his pet? I'm not sure
> McGonagall would.

I agree entirely, Irene. I think the person who first made 
the link between disembowelling horend toads and Trevor, and 
thought this might have been a deliberately chosen 
punishment to cause Neville pain was very clever - but I 
think it's an utterly unproven theory. I was punished quite 
a few times at school with having to do certain menial tasks 
and they just tended to be whatever needed to be done. 
Shifting 500 100-year old copies of Nixon's Geometry in 
Space from one bookshelf at one side of a room to another at 
the other side of the room, one at a time because they were 
fragile was the one that sticks in my mind (actually it 
sticks in my mind because the teacher who assigned it came 
into the room to discover me and the other boy involved had 
decided the books weren't fragile despite their age and we 
were throwing them across the room!).

Maybe Snape did this deliberately - but they do use these 
toad in potions.

Besides - even if horned toads were closely related to toads 
(which they are not as someone else has pointed out - though 
I agree it's possible that JKR probably didn't know that), 
they would still be a separate species - and any boy with 
enough of an understanding of taxonomy to get so involved in 
a Mimbulus mimbletonia - honestly, I think he understands 
the difference between species.




 

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