BS: Formal vs. Informal Education

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: GUEST,Pete Peterson
Date: 06 Jun 00 - 11:24 AM

Somewhere in Astounding SF (just about the time it got re-neamed Analog) John Campbell wrote an editorial, and then Christopher Anvil turned it into a story. The idea was the young graduate just out of school comes into a situation that the book learning does not cover. . . Campbell divided the competencies in two parts: the license to practice, and the ability to do the job, and said the latter is only gained through experience. In music, I have no formal training, (does one music theory course taken in college count?) but have forty years practical experience playing the banjo, listening to friends, records, tapes, CDs, old-timers, and making music of my own. By now I think I have the ability to do the job-- and really enjoy playing backup with YOUNG fiddlers like Matt Brown, Jake Krack. .. (people who go to Clifftop will know those names) Professionally I have degrees in Chemistry and to reinforce Campbell's point, the most successful teams I have ever been on are ones in which I was working with a very practical engineer who knew just what could and could not be done in the plant while I had the theoretical knowledge to make good guesses at things wroth trying. I have been on unsuccessful teams too and to paraphrase Chekhov, all unsuccessful teams were different, but all successful teams had the combination of practical and theoretical there somewhere. You do need both.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Fiddlin' Big Al
Date: 06 Jun 00 - 04:03 AM

Well after Crazy Ron taught me the technical details of how to improvise on lead guitar and I mastered the patterns I sensed there was still somethin' missin' so I asked him "How do I play with FEELING?" "Well," replied the crazed one, "first you gotta feel somethin'."

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Lucius
Date: 06 Jun 00 - 03:45 AM

After nearly twenty years of sitting on a music composition degree, I've recently been certified to teach music in the public schools. Had I read Bonnie's postings first, perhaps I could have saved myself the trouble.

Indeed, I am self taught, and my degrees are small measure of what I've become. To spend time peering into the music of the great composers like Beethoven, Brahms, Bach--and then be able to discern the theory behind their inspiration--I wouldn't trade it for the world.

And I did not appreciate Bonnie's flame.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: GUEST,Mary in Kentucky
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 03:05 PM

oops...that was me that just dropped my cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 03:03 PM

Grab -- your comment about hammers and screwdrivers reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. Though the quote refers to problem-solving specifically, and IMHO to one's attitude toward life, I think it also summarizes what many of us have been saying in this thread about formal AND informal education (and our need to recognize both).

If the only tool you have is a hammer, you see every problem as requiring a hammer.

Mary

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Frankham
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 02:47 PM

When we started the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago in 1957 we were very interested in this question, "how do people learn music" and can it be done by by-passing formal approaches?

In lieu of notes ad theory, we devised a tablature that in order to learn to use, we had the students copy it through arrangements of traditional pieces from the blackboard.

We were successful in our surmise that you don't have to take a conventional music school approach to learn music and apply it professionally or on an amateur level. As it turns out, many graduates of music school are mostly qualified to teach music and many drop out of the profession altogether. The music school has been used as a means of weeding people out rather than including them in as we tried to do at the Old Town School.

I believe that we were doing important things in the field of music education that could not be learned at any music school in the country at that time or maybe even now. In the U.S, general education has become hackneyed and standardized without innovation for many years. There is little market for innovation particularly now when the emphasis is on how one performs rather than what one learns.

A school, IMHO, is just a place where a body of information has been gathered. Some of the information is useful and some not. There is as much information that is useful in music on the street as there is in the classroom in my opinion. I have had experience with both.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Turtle
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 01:52 PM

Whistle Stop, I can think of a real-world example (in the U.S.) of an attempt to acknowledge this kind of informal learning, with mixed results. In the field of early childhood education, people are grossly undercompensated and as a result the turnover in the field is something like 40% per year in the U.S. and most of the people in the field have little or no education or training beyond high school. In an attempt to recognize & reward people who were doing good work with children but who didn't have formal credentials, the national association about 15 or 20 years ago put together a competency-based credential called the Child Development Associate, or CDA.

The idea was that if people could demonstrate that they had a good solid practical understanding of child development and best practice for children under 6, they could gain a credential without going through formal education, and long term, the credential would be linked to pay increases, status in the field, etc. You got a CDA by working with a CDA advisor to document the fact that you met the criteria in a number of areas in your daily work with kids, and then having this portfolio evaluated by a CDA representative. The whole point of the credential was to legitimize the knowledge people had gained informally through doing their work.

Of course, what happened was that after a while the CDA program was revamped (weakened, in my opinion) to function as a kind of training program. Instead of acknowledging skills people already have, now it's designed to train people into having those skills. To get your CDA these days involves taking classes, not demonstrating what you already know, and its power to change the way we think about knowledge, learning, and credentialing in the field is largely dissipated.

I think that points out the way that systems & institutions, including or perhaps especially educational ones, tend to reshape even fairly radical efforts to change them back into the same old form. There is a lot of research about this in terms of the public schools in the U.S., and it's one reason that changing the way we (the societal we, this time) think about (or practice) learning & education is so hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Gary T
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 01:32 PM

Whistle Stop, I have seen honorary degrees such as you have described, and I agree they are more window dressing (for the recipient) and public relations (for the institution) than anything else. However, I have also seen them along the lines Bonnie referred to, where they have clearly been earned (in the school of "hard knocks") and are fitting recognition of significant acclomplishment. As to which are more prevalent, I don't know. We usually hear about the celebrities, but probably don't hear about the "ordinary Joes" who get--and deserve--one.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 01:09 PM

Getting back to music - I remember at a workshop somewhere and this Irish musician was talking about Hungarian music. He said that he just couldn't get his head round it at all, until he tried learning the dances, and then it became straightforward and meaningful.

The relevance of that is that the dancing gave the music a physical context, the equivalent of a theory, but not in a formal theoretical way. Informal shouldn't imply lack of structure. When you learn a tune by playing it with other people - a couple of notes here, and a couple more the next time it comes around and so forth - there's as much structure there as if you were learning it from a written page, but you are using different aspects of your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 01:01 PM

The thing about not having formal training is that you won't know that what you are doing is supposed to be impossible, so maybe you might go ahead and do it anyway.

The example is the flight of the bee, which accoprding to all the scientists was supposed to be impossible. More recently they've come up wity new ascientifiuc explanantions whuich explain how it can be done. Meanwhle the bees just buzzed around.

I think that I shall never see
a bee
that's got a PhD

An example of a scientist who didn't have any significant scientific education was Michael Faraday. Which was fortunate for the development of science. I know there's a lot more scientific knowledge around now - but you can be sure that in a couple of hundred years looking back at our time, they'll be astonished at all the false assumptions that were taught as indisputable fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 12:48 PM

Bonnie, my feeling is that honorary degrees are fairly meaningless. They tend to be conferred as a form of payment to a celebrity, in return for his or her agreement to speak at commencement exercises or some other such thing. Cynic that I am, I consider this to be part of the ongoing marketing effort that all colleges and universities must engage in (it's a competitive marketplace much like any other). I think that in most cases it really has very little to do with the honoree having established that he/she has met the college's standards for a degree. In fact, I suspect that the colleges and universities would not want honorary degrees to be given too much weight, as this would constitute an admission that their "product" isn't essential. But that is just my admittedly jaded opinion; I don't necessarily expect others to agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Grab
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 12:45 PM

WS, I was about to post something saying "No way - sciences require training". But I keep on thinking up exceptions to it... :-)

I'd say that everyone has a certain amount of innate aptitude for various things. Training in something will always improve that thing, up to some limit in yourself. How you train depends on what it is - you wouldn't teach someone to drive just from theory or just from practice, but a mix of theory and practice gets you through.

Typically, music lessons are lessons in how to play an instrument and playing music on that instrument, not in the section above which is how to construct music. As a result, your technique improves, but without any improvisational skills you're limited to just playing the notes. You're left without the ear for improvising, working on a chord-sequence, and developing fun solos, which are surely key skills for folk and blues.

Teaching yourself, whilst you may try out chords together and wince at the sound, you've formed a deep knowledge of how those chords sound together which a purely theory-trained person won't have. But there's probably not enough time in the world to try all the 7th, 9th, 13th, diminished etc chords together, so some kind of theory training would help and narrow that down a bit, and working on your own you may not have developed the optimum technique for playing that instrument or got some bad habits. Anyone else prepared to admit to curling their wrist the wrong way when they're playing, cos they got in the habit early on, and it still comes back occasionally? :-)

It's tools for the task, so choose what you need. Hammers and screwdrivers...

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: MMario
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 11:43 AM

I don't think people want to admit it, but there seems to be a great many fields where practical experience can lead to a practioner who is as competent or more so then one with formal study/degrees and less experience "in the field" as it were. And face it, there are a lot of places where "underlings" of one type or another, most without any kind of formal training in the particular field do a great deal of the day to day work. AND can function without the "boss" - but frequently the "boss" CANNOT function without the "underlings"

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 11:41 AM

Whistle Stop, what about people who are given honorary doctorates in a field of study. This comes from work they have done outside an academic setting. Later on down the road there accomplishments earn them an honorary doctorate from a university.
I think that says something.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 10:58 AM

Well, I'm back, and somewhat bemused by the directions this thread has gone in. Having started this little discussion, and having seen a lot of negativity surface within it, I feel a need to stress (again) that I had no intention of fostering conflict or animosity between advocates of one style of education and advocates of another. I am sincerely interested in this topic, and in the insights that all of you bring to it. That's all.

If I can summarize, it appears that most of us recognize that there is value in "formal" learning (by which I mean a somewhat defined course of study, presented by a person who is recognized to have expertise in the subject, often through an established and accredited institution of some sort), and there is also value in "informal" learning (life, with all its experiences and influences coming at one in a manner that is not structured). I agree with that.

There also seems to be some general recognition of the importance of "learning the vocabulary," so that one is able to communicate better with one's colleagues. I'd go along with that, too, and I'd probably agree that there are some advantages to learning the vocabulary in a systematic way, presented by a teacher in an organized and progressive fashion, etc. I would suggest that one can also learn the vocabulary without having it presented formally -- as indeed I have done in my chosen profession. And I would submit my personal opinion that society at large should recognize this less-structured approach to learning as legitimate, and having the potential to produce practitioners who are just as "expert" as those who have gone the more structured route.

My final query, before I let this one die altogether: I believe most musicians (folk musicians in particular)recognize that, in music, there is more than one way to skin a cat. There have simply been too many extremely capable "unschooled" musicians for most of us to feel that formal study is the only way to go. My question is, can we carry this logic into other areas -- not only the arts, but the social sciences, and even the "hard" sciences -- and will it still withstand scrutiny? Again, I have a personal interest in this question, as I was unable (for financial reasons) to complete college in my younger days, but managed to claw my way into a technically "sophisticated" career nevertheless. [There was and is no fraud involved; most people just assume my that I have the usual academic credentials, without actually asking.] Any thoughts from this enlightened folk music community on that question?

If you want to let this thread die, don't respond. If you want to carry on the discussion, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Amergin
Date: 05 Jun 00 - 03:21 AM

Just thought that Starfish would like to comment on how this thread should die again.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Jun 00 - 11:22 PM

So why bring it back to the top when it was dying, Starfish? I'm only posting becuse you have just refreshed it but if you want a thread to die and it is dropping well down the list, the worst thing you can do is add another post, e.g. your post has provoked my post, I'd forgotten about the thread...

Honestly, there are times when it is just best to let a thread fade away.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: GUEST,Starfish
Date: 04 Jun 00 - 11:06 PM

This is another one that was starting to get on my nerves

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jun 00 - 07:20 AM

Now I think that little spat has already been resolved in a gracious enough manner.

The distinction between formality and informality isn't just about setting. You can have formal education in an informal setting or the other way round. So you can have children learning in a school in an informal way, and deschooling can involved very formal teaching. Or any combination.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Gary T
Date: 04 Jun 00 - 02:34 AM

(Sigh) Maybe I'm just in a weird mood now, but this bugs me:
Banjo Bonnie: "As for degrees, I find the only degrees I am very concerned about now are my oven's. If I am off 25 degrees, my muffins burn."--Obviously a lighthearted remark indicating no significant interest in academic degrees.
Moonchild: "Bonnie ... Your last post just diminished the integrity of this thread."--A rather inscrutable statement in that it really doesn't make sense. How in the dickens does Bonnie's expression of no personal interest in academic degrees diminish the integrity of the thread? Even the method of expression, while far from deathly serious in tone, is not so outrageous as to harm the thread in any way.
McGrath:"'Your last...this thread' - I'm not even sure what that means."--Another way to indicate that the statement doesn't make sense, while graciously allowing a chance to clarify or restate it.
Moonchild: "Perhaps my vocabulary is a bit more sophisticated than that which you are accustomed."--A rather snotty reply, in my opinion. When it's plain that one's point has not been made, why not rephrase it rather than make "brainier than thou" digs at those who question it?
Ibid."The definition of the words 'diminished' and 'integrity' are very clear to me."--I'm sure they're clear to all of us. What's not clear is how they would have applied to Bonnie's post.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Frankham
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 06:55 PM

In music, you hear it first, feel it second and learn it third. It's that simple. There is no music school in the country that can be relied upon to teach you music. On that third point, you learn it because you need to know it for some reason. Formal skills can cut down on the learning curve sometimes.

You can learn a song faster if you can read music. You can communicate with other trained musicians if you know the language. You can play different kinds of music with this knowledge easier.

Will it make you a better musician?

Who knows?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: bbelle
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 06:28 PM

McGrath ... "Touche!" What fun ... to leave a war (of words, as it were) on a literary note! Would that all wars could be as civil?

moonchild

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: GUEST,Mbo
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 05:46 PM

Yes, Mrrz, I am in college. As I said, I am a senior at East Carolina University, and attending classes in order to receive my BFA.

--Mbo

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 05:36 PM

"There's glory for you!" said Humpty Dumpty.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.

"They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by "impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you meant to do next, as I suppose you don't intend to stop here all the rest of your life."

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

(Through the Looking Glass)

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 05:34 PM

Mbo, I thought you were "in college" - Are you working towards your education from home or what?

I also recommend a text on (called?) Cultural Literacy, about how if you don't have the vocabulary, and you don't get the metaphors behind a lot of the standard linguistic media in your surroundings, you won't understand what you read as well even if what you are reading about is the local news. Very interesting, wish I could recall the author.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: bbelle
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 05:09 PM

"To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly. To make more complex or inclusive; refine."

Since you do not know me in any kind of a personal sense and have no insight as to how I "speak," then to cast aspersions on my vocabulary or use of "words" would put you in the same place as I, in re Bonnie's post ... you made a conclusion about me without "prior knowledge."

Your validation of my opinion is certainly appreciated.

moonchild

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 03:54 PM

"Perhaps my vocabulary is a bit more sophisticated than that which you are accustomed."

Sophisticated: Articial, not genuine or natural; lacking in natural simplicity; disingenuous; worldly wise. (The Univeral Dictionary of the English Language, Wyld and Partridge, published London 1957.)

That does not mean, moonchild, that I am accusing you of any of these things. It is merely to explain why I would hate it if my vocabulary were ever to be described as sophisticated.

But lets not get into trading definitions and suchlike tomfoolery. I posted my comment partly because I felt uneasy at the use of the word "integrity" in this context, but primarily because I did not feel that the post which you were criticising had in fact in any way damaged the quality of the discussion on this thread. Having read Bonnie's response, my impression is that you have come to the same conclusion. So we are agreed on the main point.

And aside from that, I think what you have said has been both interesting and valid. There should never be any sense that the formal and the informal are in opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: IvanB
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 03:39 PM

After spending a number of years in the 'formal' education system, I ended up in a career field that had nothing to do with the formal qualifications I had earned. But I must say that my formal education, or at least the best teachers therin, instilled me with a knowledge of, and a love for, the learning process itself.

Although I'm now retired from a job which I truly loved, I've not lost one whit of my curiosity and love of learning. And the teachers who can fill you with that curiosity rather than cold facts are prizes to be treasured, whether in the formal system or not.

Yes, I've seen the 'us vs. them' syndrome in operation, but I've seen just as much admiration for the knowledge or ability one had, regardless of its source.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: bbelle
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 03:06 PM

Bonnie ... I understand better what you were saying ... and I can relate because I made the decision not to get my Ph.D., for probably the same reasons.

McGrath of Harlow ... What I say I say directly. Perhaps my vocabulary is a bit more sophisticated than that which you are accustomed. The definition of the words "diminished" and "integrity" are very clear to me.

What wasn't clear to me, and I should probably have addressed Bonnie via personal message, instead of on the form, was her statement. But she has been kind enough to offer some clarification.

moonchild

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 02:45 PM

"Your last post just diminished the integrity of this thread" - I'm not even sure what that means. It sounds like some kind of roundabout way of saying something one doesn't want to say straight out, like saying "terminate with extreme prejuduce" instead of "murder".

It sounds a bit as if it means something like "Sit up straight at the back there and put your hands on the desk." Formal education as opposed to Informal.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 02:01 PM

Moonchild,maybe how you interpreted my last posting was different from what I was attempting to express.
It was my way of stating (with some humour) that as for now, I am not interested in getting any more professional degrees.
A couple of years ago I was wrestling with whether or not I wanted to go back to school for a doctorate in nutrition and teach at a University and I came to the conclusion I did not.
So when I say that all I am interested in now is the degrees in my oven, I am serious.
Hope that helps.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: bbelle
Date: 03 Jun 00 - 10:33 AM

Bonnie ... Your last post just diminished the integrity of this thread. I, nor anyone else who has a degree/degrees, has said that knowledge is received only through formal education. The most important aspect of formal education or training is that it teaches one discipline. It also affords one a more well-rounded view of the world (or, at least it should). Along with any formal education/training, must go experience ...

An example would be in re formal vocal training ... I was taught to breathe through my diaphragm ... thus supporting my voice and not causing strain. Because of that, I've been able to sing for hours on end and never have my voice crack or go scratchy. I won't ever have to deal with polyps on my vocal cords. In addition ... the whole point of the classical training, in my case, was to prepare me for Julliard and the opera. I'm glad for the training and I'm also glad I decided against Julliard and the opera ... blues and folk music have been much more fun and satisfying ...

But ... no amount of formal music training/education taught me how to take my talent to the professional level ... I did learned the ropes of being a professional musician in the trenches ... by doing it night after night. Nothing prepared me for good/bad audiences; lecherous club owners/managers; what works/what doesn't; groupies, etc. Those things I learned through experience.

Perhaps balance is the key. But, when all is said and done, whatever makes it work for you ...

As I said earlier on ... a few of the best musicians I've ever heard have no formal training. Such a talent ...

I'm enjoying this thread and the philosophical opinion ... keep it coming.

moonchild

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Amergin
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 06:42 PM

Personally, I learned more from reading on my own then I ever learned from sitting at a desk all day. But then, (here's where my conceit comes in) my writing would be no where near where it is today, if I had not been exposed to the wonderful poets that were in my college writing classes. Plus, it wouldn't be what it is today if it weren't for the wonderful songs some of you post.

Amergin

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Mbo
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 05:27 PM

I have an Associate's Degree in Liberal Arts, but with a heavy concentration in music. I am currently a senior working on my BFA in Graphic Design, but I still have a year and a half left before I graduate. I don't regret for one minute that I have to stay here longer because I concentrated more on music in Community College instead of taking prerequisite art courses. Not for one bloody minute.

--Mbo

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 05:25 PM

Whistle Stop --yes this is an interesting thread. A couple of ideas come to mind.

I like what Fortunato said about having the vocabulary to communicate. When I worked in a research lab, I loved the thrill of discussing new and creative ideas, but I found that it was a lack of vocabulary or just not knowing the "jargon" that limited my thinking and abiltiy to communicate. Often I could intuitively express an idea about a chemical synthesis, but had trouble articulating my ideas. I believe a person's thinking is limited by language. (usually obtained through formal training)

In teaching many subjects to many people of all ages and backgrounds, I've found that learning styles are just so vastly different that it's really hard to make any generalizations about formal vs. informal education. An example...I helped teach an adult computer class with a good friend of mine. She believed in a "hands on" and very verbal approach. This about drove me crazy because it was so inefficient. I always go back to advice from Socrates: KNOW THYSELF. In an ideal world, each of us knows what learning method is best for us, and we have the resources to "do it our way." I personally prefer "advanced organizers" (knowing ahead of time what the broad outline is) and a well-written book that explains everything. (Turtle -- you might be one of these types also. You don't always have to understand everything, just know where the pieces of information fit in the big picture.) My friend says, "Experience is the best teacher." I say, "...and the fool's only teacher."

I could say more...but I'll give it a rest.

Mary

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 05:16 PM

Oh I get ya now Mark, thanks.

As for degrees, I find the only degrees I am very concerned about now are my oven's. If I am off 25 degrees, my muffins burn.

BB

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: GUEST,lucius
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 04:56 PM

Moonchild, you said it all.

I am curious, how many people in this newsgroup are degreed in music? Even more curiosity, how many have MBA's. (I have both).

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Turtle
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 04:41 PM

A couple of months ago, I took a few voice lessons just for the heck of it. The teacher (a jazz & blues singer who also has classical training) was trying to get me to sing a blues scale, and I was having trouble hearing it so he picked it out on the piano. I was watching him, and I said, "Oh, so there are two half steps in the middle, is that right?" He said, "Yes," and then I sang it correctly, and he added, "and you just taught me something about how you learn--you need to understand something, and then you can do it."

I knew I was a visual learner before that, but since then I've realized that he was right--if I understand something in my head, I have a much easier time doing it with my voice or with my hands. It doesn't work that way for everyone, but it does for me. And that's one advantage of formal training (in the sense of getting input from someone outside myself, like a teacher)--they can give me a framework to put what I'm learning into. I could do it by myself, I guess, but it's faster this way. I suppose another advantage that shows up in that story is that I now know something about how I learn that I didn't know before. It's often easier for someone outside of my head to point that stuff out to me than it is for me to see it myself.

When I was in my early twenties, I played guitar a little, but I never took lessons, I just used some method books and a whole bunch of songbooks. And I didn't ever get very good at it, certainly not good enough to feel like I could play my guitar around other people, which is where I might really have learned to play. As a result, I think, I stopped playing after a while. I just couldn't get good enough on my own to make it very satisfying. Last year, I took up fiddle and I found a teacher who's one of the old-time musicians in my city, someone everyone knows & respects, and I've been taking lessons with him for about fourteen months. It's not formal training in the sense of music school or classical training, but in the sense that I go and sit down with him every week or so and learn some tunes and ask him questions and play with him so my ear gets better, and learn some theory in the process (last night he played a new tune for me and asked me what key it was in and how I arrived at my guess, for example). I love playing fiddle and most of the time I think I'm improving steadily at it, though of course I'm still a rank beginner. I don't think if I had tried to learn it on my own I would still be playing.

My experiences probably have a lot to do with my own musical capability (or lack thereof), and with my own learning style. I think we each have to figure out what works for us in learning how to play--well, in learning anything, I guess. It seems that different kinds of training bring out different skills. At an oldtimey session with a lot of really good musicians, I think my ear gets better both in terms of playing in tune and in terms of picking tunes up by ear. Playing at home alone I learn how my fiddle and bow respond to different ways of holding them, how to produce a better tone. From my teacher I get a framework to put it in, a vast storehouse of tunes & tales, a connection to the tradition, techniques that otherwise I would have to invent, warnings against bad habits I would no doubt otherwise develop, and always, encouragement to keep playing.

So I guess what I'm saying is probably what other people have said--that the proof's in the pudding, that different people learn in different ways, that different ways of learning bring different advantages and disadvantages, musically speaking. I hate to see us making generalizations about whether formal or informal training is "better"--one of the best local fiddlers in my area started with Suzuki when he was three, played classical violin through high school, and started fiddling in his twenties. His classical training didn't hold him back at all--he says that having classical technique helped him play fiddle. I know another fiddler who started as a classical violinist who's been playing Irish tunes for a couple of years who has way more technique than most fiddlers, but is really struggling with letting go of that technique enough to fiddle well. What matters is how you play at the end of the day, not how you got there.

As for the larger question of schools and society, McGrath of Harlow said it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Mbo
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 04:19 PM

YEAH for homeschooling! 13 years of it and bloody proud!

--Mbo

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: bbelle
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 03:24 PM

Jon ... you're "preaching to the choir." I made my living gigging as a folksinger for several years ... until I could no longer support myself ... and no club owners ever asked me if I was formally-trained, although a lot of my "following" did. On the other hand, my career moves have been dependent and based on my non-music degrees. It's just the way it is ... moonchild

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 02:12 PM

Just a few comments about schools.

I tend to agree with my learned colleague, M. McGrath of Harlow, that schools should be there to educate. But this isn't a given. Schools have been used over the millenia for a number of different things - to train, to socialize and in many cases to provide a credential. All of these are legitimate purposes that do not always lead to an education as we think of it. Some of these purposes tend to whittle down the individual - as I see it an education enlargens the individual and society.
As I tried to express in my last rather windy post, it's up to us to educate ourselves. Schools, i.e., formal training is one road in the educating process. Too many people think that formal education, and the credentials that a school confers, are the end all and be-all of education. What most people who are impressed by a degree on a wall forget or overlook is that respect for an "education" is a learned attitude. In a way it's a self-aggrandizing product of our formal institutions of learning, IMHO. If "society" over-values formal training (in my mind it does)while disregarding informal, the result can be disastrous. I want access to folk-medicine, an acupuncturist and a good HMO.
When it comes to music, I have some formal training. I also have about twenty years of learning "on the job". And before all that I had the music that has been "in the air" since I was just a little squirt. It all comes in handy and I wouldn't trade any of one for a little more of another, either. In fact I'd like more of them all. I'm nowhere near done learning and this forum is full of brilliant teachers, luckily for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 01:30 PM

Those minimal degrees, though, tend to be called "white man's papers" - and what about all three top spots in the latest spelling bee going to home-schoolers?

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 01:01 PM

Moonchild and others, music and indeed other areas of entertainment are areas where your judges are your audience and your "employers" simply want someone who either is already popular or judges will be popular based on what they do so formal education can have little to do it.

In other areas of life, when looking for work, you will find "must have a mimimum of a degree in XXX"...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 12:54 PM

There's not one thing I've ever done to earn a living and get by in life that is dependent on information I learnt in school. And I had a lot of time in school and university.

That doesn't mean it was a waste of time. What school and such can give you is a set of tricks and disciplines and skills that you can use to find out what you need to know, when you need to know it. And it can teach you to be confident that if you keep on trying to find out, you will get there.

Where schools go wrong is when they think that they are there to fill people up with information. They aren't, because it will all leak out soon enough if that is all that is happening. And it's quite possible to damage people's ability to learn in the process, and it is done all the time, and probably increasingly so, in the current Gradgrindery of educational "reform" in England.

Schools should be there to educate, to bring people out into a condition where they are in command of the skills they possess. This involves providing skills, and tools (mental, physical and spiritual), and protected space and time.

And this also involves giving people feedback as to whether what they are doing measures up to what they could do. That's important too, though dangerous, if teachers don't have the insight and humility to realise they can be wrong about that kind of thing.

Chuirchill said in the context of the war and American aid "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." That's a quote you can usefully wrench out of context. It's what every good teacher wants to hear from their pupils or students.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 12:49 PM

Glad I checked in on this one; there's a lot of good insight being shared, and I appreciate it. In case anyone is wondering, I did not start this thread to set up an "us against them" dynamic. I have formal education in some areas (music, for instance; like Mbo, I have years of training in classical guitar performance), and am self-taught in a number of others, so I can relate to both sides of this issue. I have a successful career in a very technical field; my colleagues generally possess advanced degrees in science or engineering. Yet I am an anomaly -- I do not posess a degree of any kind, as I was unable to carry my formal education very far in my younger days for financial reasons, and I have little desire to return to school at this point in my life. So this question is one that naturally interests me.

The larger societal question is one that I consider quite important: do we recognize non-traditional forms of education as being valid, and can we accept that a person may be quite well educated without having a degree that "proves" it? Obviously, I've got a personal stake in this question, but I'm not attempting to knock formal education; I'm simply questioning whether the open-mindedness expressed elsewhere in this thread is shared by other folks outside of our little community of more or less like-minded musicians. Also, I guess I'm curious about whether musicians -- who may recognize that there have been many self-taught musical geniuses -- are themselves able to make the leap to viewing self-education as a valid approach to non-musical subjects.

Keep those comments coming; I appreciate the interest this thread has generated.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Mark Clark
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 12:33 PM

Bonie, when I said "formal training" I didn't mean theory classes or anything like that. I was really thinking of organized lessons on your chosen instrument by a qualified instructor. By that definition, I think you are persuing formal training.

As people of my generation were learning to play, it became a matter of pride not to have taken any lessons---to be entirely self-taught. This was partly political since many of us were rejecting all the formalisms of an overly anal society but it was partly because "taking music lessons" was very uncool and nerdy and studying guitar meant having to submit to the local accordian accademy with a neon sign and a window full of gleaming trophys covered with mother-of-toilet-seat and learning to smile while playing "Lady of Spain." When I discovered it was possible to make actual music (that I enjoyed) without enduring many years of intellectual abuse, I was hooked. Still, given nothing but a chord book and a phonograph, do you have any idea how many times you have to listen to Gary Davis' "You've Got To Move" before you can figure out how to play it?

At some point (rather late) it finally dawned on me that an audience doesn't care how you get there, they only want you to be good and entertain them. If you can do that and be a legend in your own mind as well, that's fine, but they really just want to be entertained.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 12:19 PM

Which is better, formal or informal education? I suppose it depends on what you're trying to learn. If you want to know something that is regular and formalized - like how to write Haiku - a formal lesson in which the rules are provided is quickest and easiest. Informally reading a bunch of Haiku until you figure out the rules is a good exercise, but messy and time-consuming, and doesn't guarantee that you'll learn the rules at all. You might come up with different rules; or decide you don't like Haiku. On the other hand, I would imagine that free verse can be written without much formal knowledge of the "rules" and precedents. Formal instruction might actually limit the creative process; a prospective poet might try to emulate what they have read rather than simply writing what feels right.
Informal education, i.e., experience, might teach one guy that all poetry is crap. For another, experience might add a richness to the sentiments in a poem that would never be found by taking a class in poetry appreciation.

I have thought for a long time that the reason we are here is to "educate our selves". This world is a wonderful school - all that limits us is our ability to perceive what is right in front of us and our willingness to accept the lessons that are offered. How to best go about getting educated is a very important question, and there are a couple things I would like to drop into this conversation that I think are pertinent.

First of all, I think it's important to remember that formal education is based on a system built around someone's perception of the way that the average person learns best. Different institutions use different systems based on different perceptions. Finding the right system for you at any particular point in your development is an education in itself. But if you find the right system you can get a pretty average education.

I think an important element in deciding how we want to educate ourselves is how we think. How we think is bound to effect how we learn. We learn how to learn as we grow up. And our earliest lessons effect how we choose to learn throughout life. We learn by exploring, we learn by listening to those who know, we learn by trying things out. What works best for us this time is what we will have the tendency to use when we need to know something next time.
The linear thought process around which formal educating is done seems to be based in cause and effect learning that begins when we are infants. A baby cries and gets picked up - simple cause and effect. If the results are consistant the learning is more effective. If the next time that baby cries he or she is ignored or scolded or beaten, the cause and effect relationship begins to break down and the lesson gets lost or muddled. I believe that has to effect how that child will learn later. Schools (at least most of our schools here and now) are based on the cause and effect model - the scientific method; as long as we can repeatedly show that this leads to that, our system of formal education works pretty well. Since not everything in this world follows a clear cause and effect path, our schools don't work as well in teaching non-linear stuff.
. Whether schools deal well or not with non-linear, luckily, our minds can deal with the messy kind of thought processes necessary very well. We can link ideas and idea chains together to come up with all kinds of conclusions that are not expected. A lot of our experience-based learning is like that. Something is going on, we think we know what the outcome will be, and BANG something totally unexpected happens and suddenly we're thrown out of the linear path that we were on and we're off to somewhere new.
The trouble with learning like this, is that we don't know where we're going, or what we'll learn. We may not even be willing or able to accept the lesson at all. Fortunately, the lesson doesn't go away. A lesson gets stashed away somewhere (in our brain? maybe, maybe not) and can be accessed, or just pops up on its own, later on. It's an amazing process and a beautiful thing. Sometimes, if we're not careful, we learn stuff we didn't even know before! Or anybody else, either! Imagine that.

Sorry to ramble on, but this is a fun subject. Have a wonderful day, everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: bbelle
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 12:14 PM

Mbo ... good quote ... moonchild

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Mbo
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 12:12 PM

Everytime a thread like this emerges, it becomes an "us against them" thing.

Yes, it does. The self-taught people are the world's greatest thing and us classically trained people are cold, lifeless, soulless, emotionless, calculating, technical robots. It ain't true folks. I don't what kind of sorry teachers you people had in whatever formal training you've had, but mine ALWAYS uncouraged self-growth ALONG with technicality.

Yes, I am a classically trained guitarist, and I also play acoustic, and I encorporate ideas and techniques from BOTH areas in what I play.

I can play a fiddle tune from ear, after hearing it a few times, and I can just as well play an arranged piano score on the same instrument. I can play evil complicated classical guitar solos from memory AND the printed page,(it is MY decision whether I want to play it as the composer intended, or add my own stuff in, the call is mine) and I can improvise off the top of my head with a band.

Just one method of learning is NOT going to get you anywhere. So, from a rock/classical/opera/country lover who also likes folk music, I'll just say what Jeff Lynne does "You gotta get it all, to get it all to grow."

--Mbo

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: TerriM
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 12:07 PM

As a practising social worker and as a teacher of social work students, I'm in broad agreement that you need both theory and practise in order to maximise your potential, and the Diploma in Social Work endeavours to accomplish both.In theory, you can't qualify without demonstrating your ability in both arena's but it is often the student who is great with people but finds academic theory a problem who will fail or fall by the wayside.I suspect there has got to be a better way to train social workers but I'm not bright enough to think what it might be.As far as music is concerned, I haven't had any formal training but wouldn't I just love the opportunity!

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: bbelle
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 11:49 AM

Everytime a thread like this emerges, it becomes an "us against them" thing. I'm a classically-trained singer and a self-taught guitar player, and I have an undergrad degree in liberal arts and an MBA. And guess what ... none of it means a hill of beans in the grand scheme. I started college as a voice major and changed my major to liberal arts a year later, because it was destroying the joy of music for me. I would have left school but I felt it was important to finish, regardless of major.

The voice and stage presence is a gift from g-d, whom I thank everyday, but I do wish he had given me longer fingers so I'd be a better guitar player. The other stuff has just happened to open a few doors for me.

I DO NOT CARE WHAT KIND OF "FORMAL" TRAINING A MUSICIAN HAS HAD IF HE/SHE PLEASES MY SENSES. Some of the very best I have ever heard have not even a high school diploma.

If you're tone deaf and have absolutely no musical talent .. all the formal training in the world ain't gonna make you better.

If you've got the gift ... formal training may enhance your talents ... it can also stifle your talents.

moonchild

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:53 AM

Mark, if I had taken formal music training in the beginning when I first started taking up the banjo, knowing myself, I would have been turned off playing an instrument. As I learn more about music I am gaining a better appreciation for what formal music training might offer me. I have no clue if in the future I will take any formal music courses, but for now it is definitely not where my head is and I feel very comfortable with that.

Oh, I forgot one thing. The main reason I now have a university degree is because my dad said he would kill me if I left school.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Fortunato
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:45 AM

I play, sing, and perform the way Pete Townsend throws paper wads, intuitively, without benefit of formal musical education. When I speak of this with our sax player, Juilliard trained (the prestigious school of music, New York, USA), referring to areas of my performance that need work, I refer, deferentially, to my lack of education. He responds, "Yes, but you know the songs". And I do, and I can play them, even those that have lots of passing and swing chords, substitutions, inversions, etc. (Guitar)

But fundamentals do count. Where I am deficient, I often lack the language or fundamental understanding to receive communication to correct my deficiency.

There is a point in ensemble playing and the contruction of arrangements where formal training is damn useful.

Or else you may frustrate the hell out of your band.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:35 AM

Education and me have never been a happy mixture and I managed to get an unclassified in 'O' level music. I think I would have failed anyway but a friend of mine had just got hold of a new Greeves Griffon scrambler and riding that seemed much more fun than attending an exam so I missed the exam.

Somehow, without any revision (couldn't be bothered with boring things like that), I did pass enought 'O' levels and started taking A Levels in Physics, Chemistry and Maths but I dropped out after three months as I couldn't stand school any longer.

Looking back, I do regret my descisions and certainly would have found more musical knowledge useful. I suppose I could teach my self more theory but I think I am just plain lazy and when I am in the mood for music, all I want to do is play.

I have tried to catch up on my lack of formal education in other areas before and am in fact attending an interview on Tuesday for entrance to an HNC in Business IT. I did try this course before and hated every minute of it but was doing well until my father had a severe stroke and I had a nasty split up with my girlfriend and I blew the course. Mayybe this time round I will finally get myself some form of formal qualification. I'm not that bothered about not having an qualifications but unfortunately, employers are.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Mark Clark
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:19 AM

Gary, I agree that one should have both. By itself, solid formal music education seems to be an impediment to mastering traditional and popular styles. Not that formal training can't be overcome with very happy results, but often that seems not to happen. It's common to find talented classically-trained violinists who seem unable to master the nuances of fiddle playing or to learn music entirely by ear. Of course it's even more common to find self-taught players who have not learned to play in tune or produce a pleasing tone.

There are examples of musical masters who were entirely self-taught---Earl Scruggs comes to mind and some of the Kentucky thumbpickers (Ike Everley, Merle Travis)---but I think many of the well-loved but self-taught performers played with more heart than technique. Having been down the self-taught road myself, I don't recommend it to beginning musicians. I think people should avail themselves of some formal training andlearn to ignore it as needed to get the musical result they're after.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 10:13 AM

Although I have a formal degree in nutrition sciences and completed an internship so that I could become a dietitian my greatest nutrition teachers have had no formal education but they developed an incredible base of knowledge from their experience and dedication to the field of nutrition.

It was a rude awakening when I graduated because that was when my real education started. I picked up valuable nutrition information from all kinds of alternative sources. The unacceptable 'fringe' kind of nutrition information I was receiving finally made sense to me and my work became meaningful.
I am still glad I got my degree but only for monetary reasons. If gives me a sense of security knowing I have the official papers to be hired in our health care system but that is about it.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 09:57 AM

When I left school to go to sea (at fifteen) logarithms was a birth control method for trees, and calculus grew on yer teeth if you didnt brush em. Since then, I have been a memeber of a scientific institute for 25 years, and work with Doctors and scientists on a regular basis.. Education is an individual achievement and responsibility, which never ceases until death. Yours, Aye. Dave (not the sharpest pencil in the box but can still write)

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: MMario
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 09:30 AM

"Education" and "learning" are two seperate items, at least as they seem to be as defined by today's society. One can be highly educated, yet know practically nothing. There are examples all over the place. On the other hand, there are people with incredible volumes of knowledge that have a bare minimum of "Education". Obviously this is not innate, it must be learned, somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Gary T
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 09:12 AM

Formal education/training tends to deal with theory and intellectual understanding. Informal education tends to deal with experience and intuitive understanding. (These are broad generalizations, certainly not absolute or precise.)

My experience has been that the most efficient learning comes from a combination of training and experience. Learning theory is dry and academic without experiences to apply it to. Learning by experience is often haphazard and frustrating without theory to guide it. Either one by itself can get you a far way with enough time, but put the two together and you can really make tracks.

Subject: Formal vs. Informal Education
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 02 Jun 00 - 08:48 AM

Bonnie and I have been sharing some thoughts about the value of formal education as compared to self-education, and we thought we'd open this up to some others' opinions. In another recent thread, I recalled a point made by Pete Townshend (of the Who) in an old interview. In response to the interviewer's question about where he got his musical training, Mr. Townshend crumpled a ball of paper and threw it across the room into a wastebasket. He then said that, in order to be able to do that, he needed to be able to calculate the lift needed to overcome the weight of the paper, the air resistance that the ball of paper would encounter, the arc needed to clear the rim of the wastebasket, and various other physical properties. He said that he didn't actually have formal training in any of these areas, but somehow he had picked up enough knowledge about all of them that he was intuitively able to put the right combination together and accomplish the task at hand.

The example was intended to illustrate that a person might have a lot of musical "education" without having gone through a formal course of study, and I think we would all acknowledge that there are many highly skilled musicians out there who demonstrate this. In my opinion the concept also has merit in non-musical contexts, although I believe our society is reluctant to recognize that people may be educated without that education having been provided or endorsed by a recognized institution of higher learning.

So with that as a long-winded backdrop, what do people think? Can you be "educated" -- musically or otherwise --without the benefit of a formal course of study? Are there types of education that you can only get from formal study? Are there any advantages to self-education over formal education? And should society at large be revising its views of what it means to be educated?