Friday, July 23, 2010
The school is a McDojo if it has birthday parties and sleepovers
This is a revenue generator. This has nothing to do with the quality of the school or its instructors. This does not qualify the school as a McDojo, only a legitimate attempt to raise money through means that cater to young children. Other than worrying about who the chaperone is, and their qualifications, there is really nothing to worry about here.
The school is a McDojo if it has clubs that you must join in order to learn or participate in various clinics or seminars, such as 'black belt club', or 'masters club'
Requiring students to attend seminars does not alone make a McDojo. In fact, it is a novel way to introduce new material into the curriculum, as well as to meet new people.
But requiring a student to belong to clubs, perhaps for the sole avenue for attaining black belt, is another matter. I find it distasteful and contrary to humility to even have black belt clubs. I wonder about the purposes of such clubs: if the sole purpose is to train students to become black belt, and these clubs are available at a cost, then this follows the McDojo mantra. However, if non-participating students are able to become black belts, or these clubs do not charge except for nominal fees for equipment or travel, then this isn't a bad thing. To me, it is still distasteful, but at least it doesn't reek of commercialism.
But requiring a student to belong to clubs, perhaps for the sole avenue for attaining black belt, is another matter. I find it distasteful and contrary to humility to even have black belt clubs. I wonder about the purposes of such clubs: if the sole purpose is to train students to become black belt, and these clubs are available at a cost, then this follows the McDojo mantra. However, if non-participating students are able to become black belts, or these clubs do not charge except for nominal fees for equipment or travel, then this isn't a bad thing. To me, it is still distasteful, but at least it doesn't reek of commercialism.
The school is a McDojo if it lacks sparring
Some martial arts, notably the more philosphical ones like Aikido, do not spar. So complaining about no sparring may not always be fair. Other arts, like the boxing and wrestling styles, clearly need sparring. Sparring is one activity, like forms and breaking, that put the learned techniques together. Without sparring, the student does not learn to put combinations together. Without it, the student does not learn to identify and control adrenaline rush. Without it, the student does not know how to react to being hit. Without it, the student doesn't learn to watch for telegraphs, change of stance, opponent's combinations, and other ideosyncracies. Sparring drills are important, but without a sparring partner, there is no other substitute.
A martial art is about self-defense. If a school is teaching self-defense, but does not allow the student to practice them in as close to a real scenario as possible - sparring - then how can the student know that the technique is effective?
A school that does not spar is not a McDojo, but it is a sign of poor instruction.
There are schools that spar, but will not compete. This is different. Schools who don't spar usually cite things like favoritism amongst judging, or a student base that just doen't want to compete. There's nothing wrong with this. But some schools' marketing spiels includes disclaimers which mention of deadly or secret techniques. This is pure and simple crass marketing. It's meant to pique the interest. McDojo? No. But likely, there are a number of rad flags about the school that when aggregated, mean the school really is a McDojo.
A martial art is about self-defense. If a school is teaching self-defense, but does not allow the student to practice them in as close to a real scenario as possible - sparring - then how can the student know that the technique is effective?
A school that does not spar is not a McDojo, but it is a sign of poor instruction.
There are schools that spar, but will not compete. This is different. Schools who don't spar usually cite things like favoritism amongst judging, or a student base that just doen't want to compete. There's nothing wrong with this. But some schools' marketing spiels includes disclaimers which mention of deadly or secret techniques. This is pure and simple crass marketing. It's meant to pique the interest. McDojo? No. But likely, there are a number of rad flags about the school that when aggregated, mean the school really is a McDojo.
The school is a McDojo if it has point sparring
A complaint oft heard is that if the ONLY sparring that is done is "point" or "tournament" sparring, or is watered down with numerous rules such as no contact or light contact, no punching to the head, no catching, trips, throws, take downs, joint locks, grappling, hits to the back, legs, below the belt, etc… and the techniques encouraged are kicks, jump kicks, and spins, then this is bad.
This is total rubbish and is obviously taking a pot-shot at all of Taekwondo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tournament sparring, some of which may be continuous and some may be point. This complaint is often heard from martial artists who believe that martial arts should be all about self-defense. For these styles, notably Taekwondo, it would be nice now and then to break from the norm and have self-defense-oriented sparring. But the absense of it does not mark poor instruction, let alone a McDojo. Some of the best schools will do nothing but tournament sparring.
If your definition of martial arts insists on forms (kata or poomsae) then you will be disappointed by this statement. But I say, get real. There is nothing wrong with tournament style sparring, it's just different than other styles. It is not a reflection on cheap contract-oriented money grubbing instructors. It is true that tournament style sparring should not be used for self-defense (and the converse is equally true, that self-defense sparring should not be used for tournament), but that is a style that the school teaches, and if the student does not like it, they can go somewhere else.
Do not be alarmed because the school teaches tournament self-defense.
I hope I've made my point.
Having said that, the diatribe that continues on about take-downs, joint locks, grapples, light or no contact, no punching to the head, yada yada yada. The reason these complaints are made is because the complainer is not able to distinguish the difference between street fighting (self-defense) and tournament sparring. In tournament sparring, the rules vary. For example, no punches to the head. No kicks below the belt. No takedowns. If these are the tournament rules, then the school should be practicing with these rules in mind. I suppose the complainer may capitulate and agree, but then point out why doesn't the school play to other tournament rules.
My answer is that it doesn't matter. If all else with the school is fine, and the only complaint is about whether their sparring style includes light contact or no takedowns, then fine. If that's your only complaint, so be it. But this does not mean it's a McDojo.
I will say, however, that no contact is only a small step up from no sparring at all. I believe that a school should at least have light contact, particularly for the less experienced. For these folks - children and adults - they need to work on technique, which is best done with light contact. When full contact is exclusively used with inexperience, then students do not get the opportunity to practice their correct technique. It is appropriate for a school to provide no- AND light-contact for inexperienced students, just as much as light- AND full-contact drills be used for the more experienced students. But if there is no sparring, or only light contact for experienced students, then the students are not getting the best training.
This is total rubbish and is obviously taking a pot-shot at all of Taekwondo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tournament sparring, some of which may be continuous and some may be point. This complaint is often heard from martial artists who believe that martial arts should be all about self-defense. For these styles, notably Taekwondo, it would be nice now and then to break from the norm and have self-defense-oriented sparring. But the absense of it does not mark poor instruction, let alone a McDojo. Some of the best schools will do nothing but tournament sparring.
If your definition of martial arts insists on forms (kata or poomsae) then you will be disappointed by this statement. But I say, get real. There is nothing wrong with tournament style sparring, it's just different than other styles. It is not a reflection on cheap contract-oriented money grubbing instructors. It is true that tournament style sparring should not be used for self-defense (and the converse is equally true, that self-defense sparring should not be used for tournament), but that is a style that the school teaches, and if the student does not like it, they can go somewhere else.
Do not be alarmed because the school teaches tournament self-defense.
I hope I've made my point.
Having said that, the diatribe that continues on about take-downs, joint locks, grapples, light or no contact, no punching to the head, yada yada yada. The reason these complaints are made is because the complainer is not able to distinguish the difference between street fighting (self-defense) and tournament sparring. In tournament sparring, the rules vary. For example, no punches to the head. No kicks below the belt. No takedowns. If these are the tournament rules, then the school should be practicing with these rules in mind. I suppose the complainer may capitulate and agree, but then point out why doesn't the school play to other tournament rules.
My answer is that it doesn't matter. If all else with the school is fine, and the only complaint is about whether their sparring style includes light contact or no takedowns, then fine. If that's your only complaint, so be it. But this does not mean it's a McDojo.
I will say, however, that no contact is only a small step up from no sparring at all. I believe that a school should at least have light contact, particularly for the less experienced. For these folks - children and adults - they need to work on technique, which is best done with light contact. When full contact is exclusively used with inexperience, then students do not get the opportunity to practice their correct technique. It is appropriate for a school to provide no- AND light-contact for inexperienced students, just as much as light- AND full-contact drills be used for the more experienced students. But if there is no sparring, or only light contact for experienced students, then the students are not getting the best training.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The school is a McDojo if the class mostly practices forms, one-step (self-defense or sparring), or board breaking
Now if the school has de-emphasized sparring, then they must be doing forms, one-step self-defense, one-step sparring, or break practice. You'll usually hear this as a complaint from street-fighters who assume a martial art is no good because they have forms and breaking. They don't understand the benefit of what forms can engender, and usually spout Bruce Lee's famous quote (which was made in the context of a movie, rather than in a memoir or instructional context), which is, "Boards don't fight back". The argument against board breaking is that it doesn't allow for proper sparring technique. And therein lies the problem. Nobody ever said that was the purpose of breaking. And so the complainer is correct - it doesn't help sparring.
What then, is the purpose of forms? Forms, whether you use the English term "form", "pattern", or "movement", or the Japanese "kata", or the Korean "poomsae", "tul", or "hyung", they all mean the same thing. They are a series of choreographed techniques. As the student advances in rank, the techniques in the form become more complex. Forms serve a multitude of purposes. They preserve the techniques for the art. It is analogous to a child who learns words easier when sung than when said. A child will learn the words to a song faster than the words of a poem. That's because there is an element of rhythm, fun, and repetition. With forms, the student can practice them in solitude. It is harder for a student to be told, "go home and practice a reverse punch, a front snap kick, a low block, and a forward stance". When they get home, they say to themselves, "ok... punch, front kick, stance... what was the other thing??"
With forms, the student has learned a pattern of movements that make it far easier to remember the instruction to go home and practice the punch, block, kick, and stance. In fact, a student learns a good many other things, as well: rhythm, breath control, turning, stepping, and combining techniques. Imagine an instructor giving this instruction to a student:
Go home and practice steping to left or right whilst performing a low block; performing a combination of low block and punch; using forward stances and walking stances in conjunction with high blocks and punches; your kihaps/kiai. And all the while, do them smoothly (or hard, or fast, or slow). Huh?
This is much simpler: "Go home and practice Taeguek 1".
What then, is the purpose of breaking? If boards don't hit back, why then, do we hit the boards? For one thing, it teaches the student about focus; follow through; control of technique; the effects of power and energy dispersion; and the physics of momentum, impulse, velocity, and mass. These can be learned in sparring to some degree. But the pace of sparring is such that this activity doesn't lend itself very well to learning these concepts, and so breaking is found to be a very effective tool instead.
Unless, of course, one denies the applicability of focus, follow through, control of technique, power, energy, momentum, impulse, velocity, and mass to sparring.
What then, is the purpose of "one steps"? It builds a foundation on which we can apply sparring and self-defence techniques. When performing a one-step self-defence technique, one partner goes into a stance, like a step backward into a low block; while the other readies him or herself for an attack. The other partner then steps forward into a controlled punch toward the face. The defender chooses an appropriate defense. The attacker simulates being attacked by bending forward or twists or contorts in response to the imagined attack. And then they switch roles.
Yes, not very realistic, of course. This isn't what happens on the street - and it is on the street for which we practice these techniques. The critics complain this isn't realistic, because the sequences are executed too slowly. My response would be to inquire how can a defender perform a technique quickly if s/he can't perform them slowly? It is only through repetition that the slow technique can morph into a speedier execution on the street.
Critics will complain, "well, why don't the black belts do them at full speed?". And my answer is simply, "I don't know". Senior belts should be performing self-defense techniques are real-time speed - certainly dynamically. Static practice is fine when first learning the technique, but when the student begins to become comfortable with the tecnique, then they should be doing them faster.
Schools that don't do this are doing a disservice to their students, because the students are being sent into the world with a false sense of security that they can handle themselves. They could get killed or seriously injured if they are called to use their techniques.
In the end, there is nothing wrong with doing or not doing forms, one-steps, or breaking. A good school will balance them. But a school that doesn't isn't necessarily a McDojo.
Some schools - notably Aikido - do not spar, compete, or break. And their forms are their self-defense. In this case, there are philosophical reasons not to spar, compete, or break. That does not mean the school has bad instruction.
What then, is the purpose of forms? Forms, whether you use the English term "form", "pattern", or "movement", or the Japanese "kata", or the Korean "poomsae", "tul", or "hyung", they all mean the same thing. They are a series of choreographed techniques. As the student advances in rank, the techniques in the form become more complex. Forms serve a multitude of purposes. They preserve the techniques for the art. It is analogous to a child who learns words easier when sung than when said. A child will learn the words to a song faster than the words of a poem. That's because there is an element of rhythm, fun, and repetition. With forms, the student can practice them in solitude. It is harder for a student to be told, "go home and practice a reverse punch, a front snap kick, a low block, and a forward stance". When they get home, they say to themselves, "ok... punch, front kick, stance... what was the other thing??"
With forms, the student has learned a pattern of movements that make it far easier to remember the instruction to go home and practice the punch, block, kick, and stance. In fact, a student learns a good many other things, as well: rhythm, breath control, turning, stepping, and combining techniques. Imagine an instructor giving this instruction to a student:
Go home and practice steping to left or right whilst performing a low block; performing a combination of low block and punch; using forward stances and walking stances in conjunction with high blocks and punches; your kihaps/kiai. And all the while, do them smoothly (or hard, or fast, or slow). Huh?
This is much simpler: "Go home and practice Taeguek 1".
What then, is the purpose of breaking? If boards don't hit back, why then, do we hit the boards? For one thing, it teaches the student about focus; follow through; control of technique; the effects of power and energy dispersion; and the physics of momentum, impulse, velocity, and mass. These can be learned in sparring to some degree. But the pace of sparring is such that this activity doesn't lend itself very well to learning these concepts, and so breaking is found to be a very effective tool instead.
Unless, of course, one denies the applicability of focus, follow through, control of technique, power, energy, momentum, impulse, velocity, and mass to sparring.
What then, is the purpose of "one steps"? It builds a foundation on which we can apply sparring and self-defence techniques. When performing a one-step self-defence technique, one partner goes into a stance, like a step backward into a low block; while the other readies him or herself for an attack. The other partner then steps forward into a controlled punch toward the face. The defender chooses an appropriate defense. The attacker simulates being attacked by bending forward or twists or contorts in response to the imagined attack. And then they switch roles.
Yes, not very realistic, of course. This isn't what happens on the street - and it is on the street for which we practice these techniques. The critics complain this isn't realistic, because the sequences are executed too slowly. My response would be to inquire how can a defender perform a technique quickly if s/he can't perform them slowly? It is only through repetition that the slow technique can morph into a speedier execution on the street.
Critics will complain, "well, why don't the black belts do them at full speed?". And my answer is simply, "I don't know". Senior belts should be performing self-defense techniques are real-time speed - certainly dynamically. Static practice is fine when first learning the technique, but when the student begins to become comfortable with the tecnique, then they should be doing them faster.
Schools that don't do this are doing a disservice to their students, because the students are being sent into the world with a false sense of security that they can handle themselves. They could get killed or seriously injured if they are called to use their techniques.
In the end, there is nothing wrong with doing or not doing forms, one-steps, or breaking. A good school will balance them. But a school that doesn't isn't necessarily a McDojo.
Some schools - notably Aikido - do not spar, compete, or break. And their forms are their self-defense. In this case, there are philosophical reasons not to spar, compete, or break. That does not mean the school has bad instruction.
The school is a McDojo if the instructor forbids entering tournaments
Yes, I've heard this one before. And so how is this a McDojo? I think the argument by critics is that the instructor is afraid to have their students lose and that it would be a poor reflection on the instructor. If this is the reason (and who could prove it; do you really think an instructor will fess up?) then the school is probably not very good.
But remember, this only applies when there are opportunities to compete. Aikido students, for example, do not compete. Here, the philosophical reason has to do with the concept of "winners" and "losers", a concept in which Aikido does not belive. So an instructor has a right to forbid their students from competing.
I can't think of too many reasons for instructors to forbid entering tournaments, but I can think of reasons why they would prefer not to enter one.
In this case, to understand the instructor's mentality, one must understand the mechanics of a tournament. Most are informally put together by a school in order to raise money. Fair enough. Where to get the judges and referees? From the adult senior belts, of course. And now I'm insinuating there is an element of favoritism here. Plain and simple, it's politics.
Of course, this generally doesn't apply when the tournament is arranged by an independent sponsor or promoter. There's politics here, too, but there usually isn't the same favoritism encountered when an individual school promotes the tournament.
But remember, this only applies when there are opportunities to compete. Aikido students, for example, do not compete. Here, the philosophical reason has to do with the concept of "winners" and "losers", a concept in which Aikido does not belive. So an instructor has a right to forbid their students from competing.
I can't think of too many reasons for instructors to forbid entering tournaments, but I can think of reasons why they would prefer not to enter one.
In this case, to understand the instructor's mentality, one must understand the mechanics of a tournament. Most are informally put together by a school in order to raise money. Fair enough. Where to get the judges and referees? From the adult senior belts, of course. And now I'm insinuating there is an element of favoritism here. Plain and simple, it's politics.
Of course, this generally doesn't apply when the tournament is arranged by an independent sponsor or promoter. There's politics here, too, but there usually isn't the same favoritism encountered when an individual school promotes the tournament.
The school is a McDojo if tournaments are restricted to specific styles or associations
I somehow don't understand how this is the fault of a school, let alone being enough to label a school a McDojo. I understand the argument that tournaments are limited by association. If the competitors were of the same style, what then, would be the problem of inviting students from other schools? I think the answer here has something to do with a pot-shot at ATA schools, who only compete amongst themselves. I can understand the reasons for limiting tournaments to a style - Taekwondo should not invite Karate competitors, for instance - but to further limit it by association seems arbitrarily exclusionary to me. It does not make a school who abides by this a McDojo (it isn't, after all, the school's fault), unless the school is the one who is promoting and hosting the tournament.
If the exclusion is always because of style, that's not wrong. That's the school's preference, and because the rules for competitive sparring varies, it's easier if the school just focuses on the rules applicable to their style. So this alone does not a McDojo make. I prefer to see schools participate in open tournaments, but just because one does not, that doesn't mean it's a bad school. And this applies whether the school hosts the tournament or participates in one.
If the exclusion is always because of association, that's wrong. The result will be that the competitor pool will be smaller, thereby increasing the opportunity that the competitors will usually be the same ones year after year.
If the host insists on style or association, they should post the rules clearly up front (I've yet to see even the most poorly run tournaments fail to do at least this). So there shouldn't be any reason not to include intra-style or intra-association.
I can tell you that some schools (ok, I'm talking about ATA schools) have a franchise agreement to host tournaments, and that these tournaments must be limited to only other ATA schools. I've not seen an ATA franchise agreement, but if they are anything like a McDonald's or Burger King franchise agreement, then the host school may not be allowed to host (or participate) in non-ATA tournaments, much like the restaurant may be prohibited from selling Coke or Pepsi.
But my point is that the whole business of tournaments, and who hosts what, and who can participate, is all irrelevant to McDojoism. A school may be a McDojo, but not because of the tournament structure they participate in. In defense of these schools, there is an upside to the concept of exclusionary hosting. The standards, rules, and judges are consistent.
If the exclusion is always because of style, that's not wrong. That's the school's preference, and because the rules for competitive sparring varies, it's easier if the school just focuses on the rules applicable to their style. So this alone does not a McDojo make. I prefer to see schools participate in open tournaments, but just because one does not, that doesn't mean it's a bad school. And this applies whether the school hosts the tournament or participates in one.
If the exclusion is always because of association, that's wrong. The result will be that the competitor pool will be smaller, thereby increasing the opportunity that the competitors will usually be the same ones year after year.
If the host insists on style or association, they should post the rules clearly up front (I've yet to see even the most poorly run tournaments fail to do at least this). So there shouldn't be any reason not to include intra-style or intra-association.
I can tell you that some schools (ok, I'm talking about ATA schools) have a franchise agreement to host tournaments, and that these tournaments must be limited to only other ATA schools. I've not seen an ATA franchise agreement, but if they are anything like a McDonald's or Burger King franchise agreement, then the host school may not be allowed to host (or participate) in non-ATA tournaments, much like the restaurant may be prohibited from selling Coke or Pepsi.
But my point is that the whole business of tournaments, and who hosts what, and who can participate, is all irrelevant to McDojoism. A school may be a McDojo, but not because of the tournament structure they participate in. In defense of these schools, there is an upside to the concept of exclusionary hosting. The standards, rules, and judges are consistent.
The school is a McDojo if the idea of take-downs or wrestling is never addressed
This is a common pot-shot at Taekwondo from the MMA camps, as well as an ATA-school pot-shot by mainstream Taekwondoists.
In Taekwondo tournaments, take-downs are not allowed. So why should a school perform them? I would agree that a school should round the student off with occasional take-down drills, but the only application for take-downs is for self-defense, which is why self-defense and wrestling styles folks gripe about this. If a good instructor seems to think that self-defense can be achieved without a take-down, then that is their perogative. Yes, a student should know how to handle being taken down, but this is beside the point.
The absense of take-downs (ground fighting) does not make the school a McDojo. It may say something about the quality of instruction, but it's got nothing to do with contracts and money grubbing.
In Taekwondo tournaments, take-downs are not allowed. So why should a school perform them? I would agree that a school should round the student off with occasional take-down drills, but the only application for take-downs is for self-defense, which is why self-defense and wrestling styles folks gripe about this. If a good instructor seems to think that self-defense can be achieved without a take-down, then that is their perogative. Yes, a student should know how to handle being taken down, but this is beside the point.
The absense of take-downs (ground fighting) does not make the school a McDojo. It may say something about the quality of instruction, but it's got nothing to do with contracts and money grubbing.
The school is a McDojo if 'anti-grappling' techniques are taught
This is a clear pot-shot at self-defense consultants, Krav Maga, military style schools, and the like. There isn't any such thing as "anti-grappling" techniques, and boasting that you teach them says a lot about the marketing of the school or instructor. McDojo? Not yet. Dubious instruction? You bet.
The school is a McDojo if board breaking has a heavy emphasis
... or is taught as an indicator as to how well one would fight, or is used as a supplement to full contact fighting.
If just a heavy emphasis on breaking, then not a McDjo. If heavy emphasis to improve sparring, then this is questionable instruction. But either way, this is not a McDojo. As stated before, a good school should have a well-rounded approach to sparring, forms, self-defense, and breaking. And there are some styles of martial arts who thrive on the metaphysical aspects of this meditation technique of breaking. Kung Fu styles are notorious for breaking (and bending and other inanimate object manipulation).
Breaking has its place in the martial arts. Do not be tempted to spout Bruce Lee's famous line, "Boards don't hit back" as justification to dismiss breaking. Those who do, did not watch the movie, or did not understand the context of the remark. Breaking is a meditation, a concentration of focus and ki. It has its place in sparring perhaps, but remember that martial arts isn't all about sparring.
If just a heavy emphasis on breaking, then not a McDjo. If heavy emphasis to improve sparring, then this is questionable instruction. But either way, this is not a McDojo. As stated before, a good school should have a well-rounded approach to sparring, forms, self-defense, and breaking. And there are some styles of martial arts who thrive on the metaphysical aspects of this meditation technique of breaking. Kung Fu styles are notorious for breaking (and bending and other inanimate object manipulation).
Breaking has its place in the martial arts. Do not be tempted to spout Bruce Lee's famous line, "Boards don't hit back" as justification to dismiss breaking. Those who do, did not watch the movie, or did not understand the context of the remark. Breaking is a meditation, a concentration of focus and ki. It has its place in sparring perhaps, but remember that martial arts isn't all about sparring.
The school is a McDojo if you're not training out of someone's backyard (or garage) it's a McDojo
Oy. McDojo? Unless there is some connection to black belt clubs, belt factories, and contracts how does this come close to defining the instruction as McDojoism? I'm sure this complaint is voiced by someone whose got this idea that the ideal martial arts dojang or dojo is a "proper training facility". Whatever that is. I will state that it's hard for a back yard or garage to be a quality training facility. But that doesn't mean the training is bad, nor does it have anything to do with a McDojo.
My answer to those who use this to complain about a facility they know of, without any other issues, I say, "get over it".
My answer to those who use this to complain about a facility they know of, without any other issues, I say, "get over it".
The school is a McDojo if it has foam floors
I hear this a lot from older folks, the same ones who recall walking to school 6 miles in the snow, with sneakers.
Uh-huh.
Foam floors protect the student, yes; but there are other schools that have wood, carpet, soft squishy mats, and hard foam tiled floors. Each has a purpose, a benefit, and a drawback. Whatever the style of flooring is used, it has nothing to do with meing a McDojo.
Foam floors, by the way, are common in WTF Taekwondo schools, which are modelled after Olympic-style sparring rings, and they use hard foam floors.
Uh-huh.
Foam floors protect the student, yes; but there are other schools that have wood, carpet, soft squishy mats, and hard foam tiled floors. Each has a purpose, a benefit, and a drawback. Whatever the style of flooring is used, it has nothing to do with meing a McDojo.
Foam floors, by the way, are common in WTF Taekwondo schools, which are modelled after Olympic-style sparring rings, and they use hard foam floors.
The school is a McDojo if it is located in a mall or a strip mall
This doesn't mean it's a McDojo, but most probably, these schools are McDojos for the very reason they are there. Being in a mall of any sort means the rent will be fairly high. It also means it is taking advantage of the achor stores, like the super department stores or supermarkets. The idea is that the classes are structured so as to allow parents to drop off their kids at the school, so that the parents can go and do their shopping. Not a bad idea.
But in the end, the concept is to cater to the family - particularly the children. So this probably makes it a McDojo. But nothing is said about quality. So don't knock a strip-mall martial arts studio until you look at the instruction.
But in the end, the concept is to cater to the family - particularly the children. So this probably makes it a McDojo. But nothing is said about quality. So don't knock a strip-mall martial arts studio until you look at the instruction.
The school is a McDojo if testing and monthly fees are excessive
Word for word, this statement screams "McDojo". But if you change "and" to "or", that changes everything. And either way, "excessive" is a subjective word. The instructor has fees s/he needs to charge in order to maintain the school; if that's too much for the student, then the student understandably labels this as "excessive". Ask students who are happy and are able to afford these fees, they'll tell you they're reasonable.
There's no definition of "excessive", but it is a fact that expensive schools tend to be McDojos, and expensive schools usually have high monthly fees as well as expensive tests. I know, because I belong to a world-class Aikido school personally taught by a world-renowned instructor, and monthly fees are very reasonable, as are the test fees. So it is possible to go to a good school and not pay a lot of money. I am also aware of a local school who, by many standards, fits the description of McDojo, and whose owner sports a Hummer. I refuse to step in and get harassed by one of the instructor managers of the day who, as she's handing me a contract, is also asking me my name.
Test fees, no matter how much the monthly fees are, should be nominal. You pay for boards and belts, as a rule. A board retails for around $3.00 per board, and belts can cost as low as $3.00. So if you you break one board pay more than $6.00, the rest is profit for the school. Bigger schools can purchase in bulk, so $6.00 can be profit, too. If, like Aikido, your art does not break boards and you retain your color, then the test fees are nothing more than revenue for the school.
There is a good reason to have high test fees: that will make students test and practice harder, especially if there is a real threat of not passing students.
There's no definition of "excessive", but it is a fact that expensive schools tend to be McDojos, and expensive schools usually have high monthly fees as well as expensive tests. I know, because I belong to a world-class Aikido school personally taught by a world-renowned instructor, and monthly fees are very reasonable, as are the test fees. So it is possible to go to a good school and not pay a lot of money. I am also aware of a local school who, by many standards, fits the description of McDojo, and whose owner sports a Hummer. I refuse to step in and get harassed by one of the instructor managers of the day who, as she's handing me a contract, is also asking me my name.
Test fees, no matter how much the monthly fees are, should be nominal. You pay for boards and belts, as a rule. A board retails for around $3.00 per board, and belts can cost as low as $3.00. So if you you break one board pay more than $6.00, the rest is profit for the school. Bigger schools can purchase in bulk, so $6.00 can be profit, too. If, like Aikido, your art does not break boards and you retain your color, then the test fees are nothing more than revenue for the school.
There is a good reason to have high test fees: that will make students test and practice harder, especially if there is a real threat of not passing students.
The school is a McDojo if the school has many students, such as over 100
This is clearly taking a pot-shot at ATA schools who tend to have large memberships. However, this is also taking pot-shots against very successful schools, my own, for example. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a school just because it has lots of students. I defy anyone to prove me wrong. The school might be a McDojo for other reasons, but not because it is large.
The school is a McDojo if the school has many black belts
This is indicative of a school that promotes often. It is a classic McDojo, because it means they are handing out belts hand-over-hand. A good school will have a pyramid structure, where the bulk of the students are lower belt, and only a few of the students are black belt. It is typical to have students drop out before they reach black belt, this forms the pyramid.
It is rare to find a school that attracts few students, all of whom stick around for black belt and still stay. If you find this kind of school, you're lucky because it means the school does not rely on sales gimmicks or contracts to keep their students, and they offer quality instruction. But how to tell the good school from the McDojo? You really must rely on other factors.
It is rare to find a school that attracts few students, all of whom stick around for black belt and still stay. If you find this kind of school, you're lucky because it means the school does not rely on sales gimmicks or contracts to keep their students, and they offer quality instruction. But how to tell the good school from the McDojo? You really must rely on other factors.
The school is a McDojo if they teach weapons like the sai and nunchaku as a form of self-defense
Oh, come now. How many ways can someone complain about something - anything - and then label the school because of this complaint. Schools the world over teach sai and nunchaku. As self-defense? I dunno, I've never seen it. Weapons are an offensive concept, not defensive. And I wonder about the word "like". What other weapons are like the sai and nunchuck? They're pretty unique, unless your classification is "ninja". I would have started with something more like shuriken, manriki gusari, and the others. So is the pot-shot at ninja? Or the fact that they're teaching an ancient weapon as a self-defense?
Not sure. This alone does not qualify a McDojo. Quit grousing.
Not sure. This alone does not qualify a McDojo. Quit grousing.
The school is a McDojo if they are a Chinese martial art and use karate belts
This complaint poking fun at schools who traditionally don't have belts - sashes - and one or two colors at that. A McDojo? Not by a long shot. Other factors must come into play. Wording, dress, manners... it's all in the instructor. Belts hold up the pants, and keep the shirt down. What color they are, or what they're called, is the perogative of the school.
For the record, Taekwondo schools use the words "karate", "dojo", "kata", and "gi" because for a long time, Americans only knew the Japanese terms. To make their school more familiar, they endorsed the Japanese phraseology. Do I like it? No, because I'm a purist. Is it a McDojo? No, not without other factors coming into play.
Kung Fu instructors may endorse a belt system because s/he can't otherwise attract students. Is it fair? Not to purists. Does it detract from technique or philosophy? No. McDojo? Nope.
For the record, Taekwondo schools use the words "karate", "dojo", "kata", and "gi" because for a long time, Americans only knew the Japanese terms. To make their school more familiar, they endorsed the Japanese phraseology. Do I like it? No, because I'm a purist. Is it a McDojo? No, not without other factors coming into play.
Kung Fu instructors may endorse a belt system because s/he can't otherwise attract students. Is it fair? Not to purists. Does it detract from technique or philosophy? No. McDojo? Nope.
The school is a McDojo if they glorify or try to imitate the Samurai or ninja
Now we're scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Legitimate Shotokukan schools, for example, are about nothing else other than feudal Japanese-era Samuarai warriors. Why label these schools a McDojo? No, there must be something else other than glorification or imitation of some ancient warrior figure.
Having said that, this complaint may be a more veiled attack at places that offer "Little Ninja" or "Little Warrior" programs. In other words, places that take children. As if teaching children martial arts was taboo. Most of the world's best martial artists - past and present - were once children practicing martial arts. Were they practicing in a McDojo? If you go by the ideology of the complainers, then the answer would be "Yes, if they were part of the Little Ninjas", or "No, if they weren't part of the Little Ninjas".
Well, let's give the complainers a benefit of the doubt. Maybe, they were complaining about kids with black belts. While I think we've covered this already, that would digress from the complaint about Ninja or Samurai. This has nothing to do with black belts.
So bottom line, if a school labels kids as samurai or ninja, don't worry about it.
Having said that, this complaint may be a more veiled attack at places that offer "Little Ninja" or "Little Warrior" programs. In other words, places that take children. As if teaching children martial arts was taboo. Most of the world's best martial artists - past and present - were once children practicing martial arts. Were they practicing in a McDojo? If you go by the ideology of the complainers, then the answer would be "Yes, if they were part of the Little Ninjas", or "No, if they weren't part of the Little Ninjas".
Well, let's give the complainers a benefit of the doubt. Maybe, they were complaining about kids with black belts. While I think we've covered this already, that would digress from the complaint about Ninja or Samurai. This has nothing to do with black belts.
So bottom line, if a school labels kids as samurai or ninja, don't worry about it.
The school is a McDojo if it teaches Taekwondo but it's name says 'Karate'
You pass a martial arts studio, and see the name "Emporium of Taekwondo Karate". Huh?
In the old days, people knew what Karate was, but they didn't know what Taekwondo was. For some schools, that was fine - it kept the riff raff away. For others, they need to attract business. And this is what they came up with.
A McDojo? Nope. Annoying habbit? Absolutely. Bad martial arts? No, not necessarily.
But there is something to be said of some schools, of which a chain is notable culprit. They'll teach "Taekwondo". But the students practice in a "dojo" wearing a "gi" taught by a "sensei".
We in America would say the same thing, "We practice in a school wearing a uniform taught by a teacher". In Japan, people would say "We practice in a dojo wearing a gi taught by a sensei". So why isn't it a problem when Americans use completely English terms, or when Japanese use completely Japanese terms, but it's taboo when Americans use Japanese terms?
Because if anyone had any respect for the art, they would use either the local language, or the language of it's roots. So it's fine to use "school" or "dojang" in the US (or uniform/dobok, or instructor/sabumnim). It's equally permissable to use dojo/dojang, gi/dobok, and sensei/sabumnim in Japan. Just don't use Japanese phrases for Taekwondo in the US.
Similarly, don't go to Korea using American phrases in Shotokan Karate schools.
When a school violates this principal, it doesn't make it a McDojo, but it does call into question the seriousness of what it teaches.
In the old days, people knew what Karate was, but they didn't know what Taekwondo was. For some schools, that was fine - it kept the riff raff away. For others, they need to attract business. And this is what they came up with.
A McDojo? Nope. Annoying habbit? Absolutely. Bad martial arts? No, not necessarily.
But there is something to be said of some schools, of which a chain is notable culprit. They'll teach "Taekwondo". But the students practice in a "dojo" wearing a "gi" taught by a "sensei".
We in America would say the same thing, "We practice in a school wearing a uniform taught by a teacher". In Japan, people would say "We practice in a dojo wearing a gi taught by a sensei". So why isn't it a problem when Americans use completely English terms, or when Japanese use completely Japanese terms, but it's taboo when Americans use Japanese terms?
Because if anyone had any respect for the art, they would use either the local language, or the language of it's roots. So it's fine to use "school" or "dojang" in the US (or uniform/dobok, or instructor/sabumnim). It's equally permissable to use dojo/dojang, gi/dobok, and sensei/sabumnim in Japan. Just don't use Japanese phrases for Taekwondo in the US.
Similarly, don't go to Korea using American phrases in Shotokan Karate schools.
When a school violates this principal, it doesn't make it a McDojo, but it does call into question the seriousness of what it teaches.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The school is a McDojo if it requires contracts
This seems to be taking a pot-shot at ATA, since they are notorious for them. The problem with contracts is, what if you don't like the school? What if, after you've joined and trained with folks you like, the management changes, and you don't like them? Good luck trying to wheedle out of the contract. I always recommend paying month-to-month. After a year or so, you should be able to determine if this is the right place.
The school I attend has a no-contract month-to-month arrangement. If I don't like them, I can walk away a free man, and no questions are asked. Guaranteed. I can continue this arragement after a year, or, I can convert to an annual contract. The difference is that I pay $20 less per month on the contract.
Requiring contracts isn't unusual or problematic. It's the fine print that can be troubling. If you join a school, particularly (but not limited to) a franchised one, be sure you can try-before-you-buy, by paying month-to-month without signing a single piece of paper, other than an injury waiver.
Having contracts alone does not mean the school is a McDojo. Having them might raise flags, but does not mean it's a McDojo. Think of it from the owner's perspective. A contract means predictable a income. This, in turn, means the bills and rent can be paid.
Contracts have nothing to do with quality of instruction, despite the fact that most people who smell a contract immediately label the place a MCDojo.
Should you be concerned? It all depends on the fine print. You need to consider what happens if you need to get out of the contract. Say you lose your job, or you become injured, or some life event prevents you from coming to class long term. Look for escape clauses:
Find out if you can break out of it, for example, by giving a few months notice.
If you pay month-to-month for 6 months or a year, and then convert to a contract to get the cheaper rates, then perhaps breaking the contract, but pay the difference. In other words, if your monthly rate is $120, but an annual contract is $1,200 ($100/mo), and you need to break the contract 3 months into the year. You've paid $300 at contract rate, but you would have paid $360 month-to-month, so offer to pay the $60 to walk away.
Find out if you can defer the contract. Say you are injured, and you are laid up in the hospital and rehab for 6 months. Offer to break the contract and continue where you left off when you are well.
Contracts shouldn't be evil. They basically should say, "you're paying $1,200 for annual membership, we'll allow you to pay in monthly installments". That's it. Perhaps, it will mention that you are responsible for uniform, test fees, and tournament fees. This is all reasonable and customary. But once anything about rank is mentioned, or your responsibilities to the school, then you need to really examine what you're being asked to do - these are the red flags to watch out for.
For heaven's sake, though... If you miss a payment, don't even think of coming to class, that's just rude.
The school I attend has a no-contract month-to-month arrangement. If I don't like them, I can walk away a free man, and no questions are asked. Guaranteed. I can continue this arragement after a year, or, I can convert to an annual contract. The difference is that I pay $20 less per month on the contract.
Requiring contracts isn't unusual or problematic. It's the fine print that can be troubling. If you join a school, particularly (but not limited to) a franchised one, be sure you can try-before-you-buy, by paying month-to-month without signing a single piece of paper, other than an injury waiver.
Having contracts alone does not mean the school is a McDojo. Having them might raise flags, but does not mean it's a McDojo. Think of it from the owner's perspective. A contract means predictable a income. This, in turn, means the bills and rent can be paid.
Contracts have nothing to do with quality of instruction, despite the fact that most people who smell a contract immediately label the place a MCDojo.
Should you be concerned? It all depends on the fine print. You need to consider what happens if you need to get out of the contract. Say you lose your job, or you become injured, or some life event prevents you from coming to class long term. Look for escape clauses:
Find out if you can break out of it, for example, by giving a few months notice.
If you pay month-to-month for 6 months or a year, and then convert to a contract to get the cheaper rates, then perhaps breaking the contract, but pay the difference. In other words, if your monthly rate is $120, but an annual contract is $1,200 ($100/mo), and you need to break the contract 3 months into the year. You've paid $300 at contract rate, but you would have paid $360 month-to-month, so offer to pay the $60 to walk away.
Find out if you can defer the contract. Say you are injured, and you are laid up in the hospital and rehab for 6 months. Offer to break the contract and continue where you left off when you are well.
Contracts shouldn't be evil. They basically should say, "you're paying $1,200 for annual membership, we'll allow you to pay in monthly installments". That's it. Perhaps, it will mention that you are responsible for uniform, test fees, and tournament fees. This is all reasonable and customary. But once anything about rank is mentioned, or your responsibilities to the school, then you need to really examine what you're being asked to do - these are the red flags to watch out for.
For heaven's sake, though... If you miss a payment, don't even think of coming to class, that's just rude.
Is there anything wrong with a McDojo?
We hear the term all the time, a label given to a martial art school. According to an unsourced Wikipedia article, it is: "...a pejorative term used by some Western martial artists to describe a martial arts school where image or profit is of a higher importance than technical standards, and in the related use of martial arts franchising."
Yet, a simple perusal of the internet yields blog upon blog of folks further defining what is a McDojo. Typically, they relate to belt factories, contracts, payment structures, and even style.
Martial arts chains are often targets, like Tiger Schulman's and Eagle Martial Arts. Also, organizations (and schools that are part of the organization) are targets, notably American Taekwondo Association and World Taekwondo Federation. Also, schools that teach children are also targets. And schools that charge fees. And schools located in strip malls.
It seems like every school is a target. Indeed, that's becoming more and more common. But just because a school possesses one out of many poor or questionable qualities, it doesn't mean that it is a McDojo.
I prefer a more practical definition of McDojo. The prefix "Mc" suggests a connotation with McDonalds Restaurants. What is relevant is that McDonalds is a chain (it franchises), its goal is to hand out food as fast as possible, with special drivethrough lanes for even speedier service, to accomodate children (see Happy Meals), at a very cheap price ($1 burgers) although one notes that even in the midst of a huge sale, one still pays the same prices regardless (upsell one product, but make more expensive the other products - like sodas and fries).
Wow. We can probably relate to a few martial arts schools who possess qualities of a McDonalds Restaurant, yes? Like the drive through, the schools have clubs for those wanting their black belts. Like the restaurant franchise, some are chains. Like the restaurant's attention to children, the schools have Little Tigers, Little Ninjas, pee-wees, Tiny Dragons, etc. Like the cheap burger-but-pay-through-the-nose-soda-and-fries, schools have cheap monthly or introductory rates, but the equipment, tests, seminars, weapons, and tournaments are very expensive - and the costs add up.
The problem is now everyone who has something negative to say about a school, labels every such school a McDojo. If the school is in a strip mall (aren't many McDonalds?), then it's a McDojo. If the instructor is just a kid with a black belt (haven't you met some newly promoted cocky Fries Manager kid on some power trip?) then it must be a McDojo. If it has birthday parties and kid programs (haven't you seen a climbing pen at most McDonalds?) then it must be a McDojo. If the school is handing out black belts based on tenure, rather than merit (haven't you ever heard the blase phrase, "Who's next...") then it must be a McDojo.
And all of this, as if McDonalds is the epitome of evil? What did McDonalds ever do to you? You WANT McDonalds. You NEED McDonalds. Ever been on a long drive with kids in the back seat? Fastest thing to shut them up is a quickie trip to McDonalds. Been late to work, and need a coffee? There's a drive-thru within 1 mile of your current location, guaranteed. Need to break a $20? Go buy yourself a $1 burger, get $19 in change.
Alright, let's leave McDonalds alone. And let's leave some of the evil martial arts schools alone, while we're at it. Or not. Should we be weary of McDojos?
Let's see what people are grousing about, and is it enough to make the school a McDojo. And even if it is, is it something to be avoided?
Note that many of the complaints are directed at an organization called "American Taekwondo Assocation", or ATA. The ATA is an organization who started their own flavor of Taekwondo. What they do is market their style, and schools buy a franchise from them. If a school likes their ideals, they buy the marketing stuff, and then uses it to recruit new students.
Yet, a simple perusal of the internet yields blog upon blog of folks further defining what is a McDojo. Typically, they relate to belt factories, contracts, payment structures, and even style.
Martial arts chains are often targets, like Tiger Schulman's and Eagle Martial Arts. Also, organizations (and schools that are part of the organization) are targets, notably American Taekwondo Association and World Taekwondo Federation. Also, schools that teach children are also targets. And schools that charge fees. And schools located in strip malls.
It seems like every school is a target. Indeed, that's becoming more and more common. But just because a school possesses one out of many poor or questionable qualities, it doesn't mean that it is a McDojo.
I prefer a more practical definition of McDojo. The prefix "Mc" suggests a connotation with McDonalds Restaurants. What is relevant is that McDonalds is a chain (it franchises), its goal is to hand out food as fast as possible, with special drivethrough lanes for even speedier service, to accomodate children (see Happy Meals), at a very cheap price ($1 burgers) although one notes that even in the midst of a huge sale, one still pays the same prices regardless (upsell one product, but make more expensive the other products - like sodas and fries).
Wow. We can probably relate to a few martial arts schools who possess qualities of a McDonalds Restaurant, yes? Like the drive through, the schools have clubs for those wanting their black belts. Like the restaurant franchise, some are chains. Like the restaurant's attention to children, the schools have Little Tigers, Little Ninjas, pee-wees, Tiny Dragons, etc. Like the cheap burger-but-pay-through-the-nose-soda-and-fries, schools have cheap monthly or introductory rates, but the equipment, tests, seminars, weapons, and tournaments are very expensive - and the costs add up.
The problem is now everyone who has something negative to say about a school, labels every such school a McDojo. If the school is in a strip mall (aren't many McDonalds?), then it's a McDojo. If the instructor is just a kid with a black belt (haven't you met some newly promoted cocky Fries Manager kid on some power trip?) then it must be a McDojo. If it has birthday parties and kid programs (haven't you seen a climbing pen at most McDonalds?) then it must be a McDojo. If the school is handing out black belts based on tenure, rather than merit (haven't you ever heard the blase phrase, "Who's next...") then it must be a McDojo.
And all of this, as if McDonalds is the epitome of evil? What did McDonalds ever do to you? You WANT McDonalds. You NEED McDonalds. Ever been on a long drive with kids in the back seat? Fastest thing to shut them up is a quickie trip to McDonalds. Been late to work, and need a coffee? There's a drive-thru within 1 mile of your current location, guaranteed. Need to break a $20? Go buy yourself a $1 burger, get $19 in change.
Alright, let's leave McDonalds alone. And let's leave some of the evil martial arts schools alone, while we're at it. Or not. Should we be weary of McDojos?
Let's see what people are grousing about, and is it enough to make the school a McDojo. And even if it is, is it something to be avoided?
Note that many of the complaints are directed at an organization called "American Taekwondo Assocation", or ATA. The ATA is an organization who started their own flavor of Taekwondo. What they do is market their style, and schools buy a franchise from them. If a school likes their ideals, they buy the marketing stuff, and then uses it to recruit new students.
The school is a McDojo if it has overpriced, low quality gear, and must buy theirs
Insurance regulations are partly at play here. In order for the school to be covered under their liability terms, they sometimes stipulate what kind of equipment must be used. However, the equipment is sometimes sold at a huge markup - it's not uncommon to see 100% or more.
There is no reason for this, other than profit grabbing. This alone does not qualify the school as a McDojo, however, McDojos do this all the time.
There is no reason for this, other than profit grabbing. This alone does not qualify the school as a McDojo, however, McDojos do this all the time.
The school is a McDojo if the instructor rarely works out with the students and has his or her assistants do most or all of the teaching
This isn't a sign of a McDojo, it is a sign of a lazy instructor, unless the assistants are reputable themselves. After all, time will pull all of us back; but in this case, one hopes the instructor has sufficiently trained assistants who are qualified to teach and troubleshoot.
The school is a McDojo if the class is being instructed by someone of questionable age
Be careful; there's nothing wrong with a teenager leading a class in stretching. It's also permissible for a teen to assist an adult in a particular form or combination. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, this should be followed up by senior instructor review, so that s/he can verify that you have learned correctly, and that you have been taught correctly. In the event the teen has started, continued, and ended the class exclusively, then that's a problem.
In any case, this is not a sign of a McDojo. It is a sign of poor and lazy instruction. It is a dangerous thing for a senior instructor to do - for the young instructor, the student, and him (or her) self, because the young instructor teaching others may not have the troubleshooting skills needed to correct bad technique, or have the skills to work with an at-risk student (overweight, injured, elder, etc). Good judgement skills are needed here, and the first problem is that the senior instructor has used bad judgement in letting a junior student teach a class.
In any case, this is not a sign of a McDojo. It is a sign of poor and lazy instruction. It is a dangerous thing for a senior instructor to do - for the young instructor, the student, and him (or her) self, because the young instructor teaching others may not have the troubleshooting skills needed to correct bad technique, or have the skills to work with an at-risk student (overweight, injured, elder, etc). Good judgement skills are needed here, and the first problem is that the senior instructor has used bad judgement in letting a junior student teach a class.
The school is a McDojo if the head instructor makes claims about titles and awards he has won
Well, you could ask for proof or evidence of such success, but what would that do for you? How could you verify that evidence? This isn't a courtroom. You don't need to verify someone's titles and awards, and you don't need them to prove it.
In the odd exception where you yourself are a high dan practitioner in need (or want?) of a promotion, you need to seek someone who is of sufficiently high rank in order to promote you. Kukkiwon has explicit and rigid requirements on this, and so if this fits your situation, you will need to have that intstructor prove their title.
But if you are a beginner, whether the instructor is 1st dan or 10th dan; whether they've won or coached an Olympic event; or whether the dojang's guest area is lined with trophies is all irrelevant to you. This all indicates what the instructor has done for himself or for others in the past. It is no guarantee of what they will do for you.
Again, this isn't a McDojo just because an instructor has unverifyable titles and awards. It's not even a detriment to the training you'll receive. In the event the instructor offers you irrefutable evidence of your challange, how will you feel then? Leave this issue alone. If these are specious awards and titles, it's a sure bet that he'll do other things that qualify him as a McDojoist.
In the odd exception where you yourself are a high dan practitioner in need (or want?) of a promotion, you need to seek someone who is of sufficiently high rank in order to promote you. Kukkiwon has explicit and rigid requirements on this, and so if this fits your situation, you will need to have that intstructor prove their title.
But if you are a beginner, whether the instructor is 1st dan or 10th dan; whether they've won or coached an Olympic event; or whether the dojang's guest area is lined with trophies is all irrelevant to you. This all indicates what the instructor has done for himself or for others in the past. It is no guarantee of what they will do for you.
Again, this isn't a McDojo just because an instructor has unverifyable titles and awards. It's not even a detriment to the training you'll receive. In the event the instructor offers you irrefutable evidence of your challange, how will you feel then? Leave this issue alone. If these are specious awards and titles, it's a sure bet that he'll do other things that qualify him as a McDojoist.
The school is a McDojo if it has a number of black belt degrees in different styles
This doesn't make a McDojo. But to many experienced martial artists, this reeks of someone coming up the ranks of other McDojos. If it takes 6 years to be a black belt in a reputable school, and you have an instructor who boasts of 6 or 7 degrees in other arts, the person had better be in the seventies.
I wonder about one who would get to 1st degree, and then leaves for another art. This person has learned all of the techniques the art has to offer, and is now a beginner. Now he thinks he's learned enough to go teach it? Oy.
Alternatively, he may be a high degree in one art. In this case, his credentials are now in doubt. Kukkiwon (WTF Taekwondo) sets age restrictions to 15, 16, 18, 21, 25, 30, 36, 44, 53, and 60 years old in order to qualify from 1st through 10th dan. In addition, they must spend 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 years, respectively at the rank of 1st through 9th dan, respectively, in order to qualify for the next dan. Someone who claims to be 5th degree and is 20 years old is a farce.
Oh, but there are odd exceptions in Kukkiwon. Those who start at a very young age, like 3 or 4, they can receive up to 4th poom at 18 years old, and they can have them all converted to 4th dan. They then can become 5th dan at 22.
Additionally, the age restriction is lessened by a year or two if they've won an Olympic event or a world or national event. So in theory, you may find a 20 year old 5th dan black belt, but you'd have to be lucky enough to find one of only 5 people in the world who've legitimately done this.
I'll leave for another discussion as to whether I think this should be allowed. However, it is far more common for you to encounter some 30-year-old 7th dan in this art, and 6th dan in that art. This just isn't feasible, unless the rank was self-awarded or awarded by some surreptitious means.
You may encounter someone in apparent advanced age who proclaims to be 10th dan. In Kukkiwon, there are only about 10 people alive with this rank. I can't speak for other arts, but the rarety suggests you will unlikey encounter such a person. Even 9th dans are relatively rare, and few of them actually teach. You'll find them, but they are not very common.
So if you encounter someone who professes to be 11th dan, you may see a pattern of one-up-manship. I would politely congratulate him or her on their success and then move on. To me, this reeks of narcisissm, despite reports of elderly 14th dans running around in one art or another. Those who admit to being at such an advanced rank, let alone advertises it, is one who probably less deserves it than those of lesser rank.
So absurdly high ranking instructors, or those with many degrees in many arts, is not a sign of a McDojo. It is a sign of someone who may have cut corners to get to where they are, and these types of people will do other things that may qualify their school as a McDojo.
I wonder about one who would get to 1st degree, and then leaves for another art. This person has learned all of the techniques the art has to offer, and is now a beginner. Now he thinks he's learned enough to go teach it? Oy.
Alternatively, he may be a high degree in one art. In this case, his credentials are now in doubt. Kukkiwon (WTF Taekwondo) sets age restrictions to 15, 16, 18, 21, 25, 30, 36, 44, 53, and 60 years old in order to qualify from 1st through 10th dan. In addition, they must spend 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 years, respectively at the rank of 1st through 9th dan, respectively, in order to qualify for the next dan. Someone who claims to be 5th degree and is 20 years old is a farce.
Oh, but there are odd exceptions in Kukkiwon. Those who start at a very young age, like 3 or 4, they can receive up to 4th poom at 18 years old, and they can have them all converted to 4th dan. They then can become 5th dan at 22.
Additionally, the age restriction is lessened by a year or two if they've won an Olympic event or a world or national event. So in theory, you may find a 20 year old 5th dan black belt, but you'd have to be lucky enough to find one of only 5 people in the world who've legitimately done this.
I'll leave for another discussion as to whether I think this should be allowed. However, it is far more common for you to encounter some 30-year-old 7th dan in this art, and 6th dan in that art. This just isn't feasible, unless the rank was self-awarded or awarded by some surreptitious means.
You may encounter someone in apparent advanced age who proclaims to be 10th dan. In Kukkiwon, there are only about 10 people alive with this rank. I can't speak for other arts, but the rarety suggests you will unlikey encounter such a person. Even 9th dans are relatively rare, and few of them actually teach. You'll find them, but they are not very common.
So if you encounter someone who professes to be 11th dan, you may see a pattern of one-up-manship. I would politely congratulate him or her on their success and then move on. To me, this reeks of narcisissm, despite reports of elderly 14th dans running around in one art or another. Those who admit to being at such an advanced rank, let alone advertises it, is one who probably less deserves it than those of lesser rank.
So absurdly high ranking instructors, or those with many degrees in many arts, is not a sign of a McDojo. It is a sign of someone who may have cut corners to get to where they are, and these types of people will do other things that may qualify their school as a McDojo.
The school is a McDojo if the test for belt advancement consists mostly of your form & one-steps
The complaint here is shoddy testing. This trait alone does not make the school a McDojo. Aikido, for example, is nothing but forms and 1 steps - at the 6th, 5th, and 4th kyu levels, anyway. There isn't any sparring or breaking.
The school is a McDojo if it is a 'Belt Factory'
This is one of those practices which can abuse the additional belt colors that make the school a McDojo. In this case, students are tested at a particular cycle, for instance, every 3 months. And barring missing the test, they have been pre-determined to pass that test regardless of their ability. In other words, a belt factory is in the business of making kids happy by passing them just because they attended a test. This is a classic McDojo.
Passing should be given on merit, not tenure. Martial arts is an individual sport, not a team sport. That means, instructors who group students into a 3-month cycle are trying to keep kids at the same level. In all fairness, there's nothing wrong with the intention. But if this is done, I would prefer to see that group testing when they are all ready to test, even if it means one or two get extra help so they can catch up. I would prefer that if that group needs 5 months to do it, then it should take 5 months. And if another group needs 3 months to do it, well it wouldn't hurt that group to wait another 2 months.
Ah, but there's another ideology going on, too. Some schools will conduct tests every cycle, say, every month or every 3 months. Ok, not a problem - as long as testing isn't mandatory at these cycles. So a student who comes in in January will sit out on the February and March tests, possibly testing in April. That student might get sick on April's test, but if the school tests every month, he can pick up on the next test, in May. Is there anything wrong with this? No, of course not. Students are testing when they are ready, and all students test at their own pace. If they would like to stick together and advance at the same pace, they should work hard and the good ones should wait reasonably long enough for the slower ones to be ready - this is a decision the students can make.
Passing should be given on merit, not tenure. Martial arts is an individual sport, not a team sport. That means, instructors who group students into a 3-month cycle are trying to keep kids at the same level. In all fairness, there's nothing wrong with the intention. But if this is done, I would prefer to see that group testing when they are all ready to test, even if it means one or two get extra help so they can catch up. I would prefer that if that group needs 5 months to do it, then it should take 5 months. And if another group needs 3 months to do it, well it wouldn't hurt that group to wait another 2 months.
Ah, but there's another ideology going on, too. Some schools will conduct tests every cycle, say, every month or every 3 months. Ok, not a problem - as long as testing isn't mandatory at these cycles. So a student who comes in in January will sit out on the February and March tests, possibly testing in April. That student might get sick on April's test, but if the school tests every month, he can pick up on the next test, in May. Is there anything wrong with this? No, of course not. Students are testing when they are ready, and all students test at their own pace. If they would like to stick together and advance at the same pace, they should work hard and the good ones should wait reasonably long enough for the slower ones to be ready - this is a decision the students can make.
The school is a McDojo if it has creation of extra belts (camo, pink, striped)
Another ATA pot-shot. This complaint comes from martial arts purists who don't like the many colors of belts (or who don't like colors at all). They see this as another revenue generator for the school. The reality is that they are probably right.
However, in defense of such practices, it can be used to lead students to a longer journey to black belt, something I'm in favor of. The counter to this argument is, "why not keep students at a particular belt longer". My reply would be, "that's fine for adults. But that doesn't work for children. They need motivation." And the counter to this argument fizzles down to, "well, martial arts shouldn't be taught to children anyway". And my reply would be, "well, the world's best martial artists started when they were toddlers."
Ok... camo belts? Yeah, that's corny for sure. I prefer to see an adaptation of ITF or Karate where they use stripes for the half-way to the next rank.
So a child starts out at 5. Let's say at a minimum, we don't want that child to get to true black belt until 16. That's 11 years. Let's say this child tests once per year. We'd need 11 colors, yes? Enter the stripes. But wait... once a year? For children? They'll lose interest real fast.
So some schools have come up with a way to recycle colors. Children have white belts with a colored stripe, and test more often using the colored stripes. When they exhaust all of the white/color stripes, they enter the mainstream color scheme, starting with white or yellow where they are in the "adult" testing cycle. Our Aikido school tests students using color belts all the way to 6th kyu adult. So they are sort of a 7th kyu, with a number of belts leading up to 6th kyu, then test normally through the kyu cycle. They only test to 6th kyu when they reach 15, so our black belts are generally in their low 20's or more.
No matter how you look at it, one must balance the interests of children (who provide the lion's share of revenue for most schools), and for that school to maintain the integrity of the art, they need to test more often to keep interest high, while at the same time staving off black belt testing time.
The ATA as introduced another technique of using more belts, plus a "cool" color. What's better than camo or pink?
Yes, it's corny, but it has a valid purpose. Does this make it a McDojo? No, it doesn't. But it happens that McDojos that use this practice tend to do other things that make it a McDojo.
However, in defense of such practices, it can be used to lead students to a longer journey to black belt, something I'm in favor of. The counter to this argument is, "why not keep students at a particular belt longer". My reply would be, "that's fine for adults. But that doesn't work for children. They need motivation." And the counter to this argument fizzles down to, "well, martial arts shouldn't be taught to children anyway". And my reply would be, "well, the world's best martial artists started when they were toddlers."
Ok... camo belts? Yeah, that's corny for sure. I prefer to see an adaptation of ITF or Karate where they use stripes for the half-way to the next rank.
So a child starts out at 5. Let's say at a minimum, we don't want that child to get to true black belt until 16. That's 11 years. Let's say this child tests once per year. We'd need 11 colors, yes? Enter the stripes. But wait... once a year? For children? They'll lose interest real fast.
So some schools have come up with a way to recycle colors. Children have white belts with a colored stripe, and test more often using the colored stripes. When they exhaust all of the white/color stripes, they enter the mainstream color scheme, starting with white or yellow where they are in the "adult" testing cycle. Our Aikido school tests students using color belts all the way to 6th kyu adult. So they are sort of a 7th kyu, with a number of belts leading up to 6th kyu, then test normally through the kyu cycle. They only test to 6th kyu when they reach 15, so our black belts are generally in their low 20's or more.
No matter how you look at it, one must balance the interests of children (who provide the lion's share of revenue for most schools), and for that school to maintain the integrity of the art, they need to test more often to keep interest high, while at the same time staving off black belt testing time.
The ATA as introduced another technique of using more belts, plus a "cool" color. What's better than camo or pink?
Yes, it's corny, but it has a valid purpose. Does this make it a McDojo? No, it doesn't. But it happens that McDojos that use this practice tend to do other things that make it a McDojo.
The school is a McDojo if it has exorbitant belt fees, or charges for belt exam
This is vague, but if you go by my definition of "exorbitant", then this is a McDojo. But the problem is defining "exorbitant". There are folks who insist that tests should be free, and so to them, any amount is exorbitant.
Let's get one thing straight. All schools test their students to promote them. The reason is a simple psychological factor: it makes students practice harder. The new rank makes all the hard work that was put into it that much more worth it. When you pay with blood and sweat, topped off with the insides of your wallet, the prize is worth it. To charge for a test, consumable resources like belts and boards must be paid for. Some argue that the money should come from membership.
Others say to avoid having people arbitrarily test, then the test should be expensive. So only those that are most confident in their ability to test will want to test. But this works when there is a known threat of failing the test - and lost test fees. If there's no threat, then there's no real risk.
So in my book, no matter where that money goes, I believe that tests should be charged for - as long is there is a threat of failing. How much to charge? I believe that the higher the rank, the higher the amount to charge. There are those who say they can train just as hard as those who train because of money risk. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. It is just in my experience, people think twice when their wallet is at stake. And this makes them train harder.
Let's get one thing straight. All schools test their students to promote them. The reason is a simple psychological factor: it makes students practice harder. The new rank makes all the hard work that was put into it that much more worth it. When you pay with blood and sweat, topped off with the insides of your wallet, the prize is worth it. To charge for a test, consumable resources like belts and boards must be paid for. Some argue that the money should come from membership.
Others say to avoid having people arbitrarily test, then the test should be expensive. So only those that are most confident in their ability to test will want to test. But this works when there is a known threat of failing the test - and lost test fees. If there's no threat, then there's no real risk.
So in my book, no matter where that money goes, I believe that tests should be charged for - as long is there is a threat of failing. How much to charge? I believe that the higher the rank, the higher the amount to charge. There are those who say they can train just as hard as those who train because of money risk. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. It is just in my experience, people think twice when their wallet is at stake. And this makes them train harder.
The school is a McDojo if it offers a "fast track" to black belt.
Yes, this is classic McDojoism. The idea is to get people to sign up for the black belt program (extra cost). Others might not join the black-belt program, and it might take them longer to attain that rank - or the school may outright ignore these students when it comes to readying them for black belt. This tends to occur in the martial arts chains, I am unaware of this happening anywhere else. But that doesn't mean there aren't individual schools that do this, so beware.
The school is a McDojo if there are an excessive number of belts and mid-level belts (stripes)
Excessive? I think this is an arbitrary pot-shot at ATA again. After all, it is not uncommon to have a pyramid-shaped membership. Your beginners typically outnumber your higher belts for the simple fact that beginners are often testing the waters. Statistically, they will leave around mid-point to black belt (and it is no coincidence that this statistical phenomenon is one reason for handing out black belts to children).
So this is not a sign of a McDojo by any means. It could be a successful school, or it could be because of crass marketing. Other factors must come into play before designating a school a McDojo.
So this is not a sign of a McDojo by any means. It could be a successful school, or it could be because of crass marketing. Other factors must come into play before designating a school a McDojo.
The school is a McDojo if there are black belts who have not entered or just begun puberty
Yes, I've heard this one before - who hasn't? This applies to a school who gives black belts to children. The McDojo factor pertains to the idea that the instructor has "sold out" his or her art and for good of the money, entices children to join the school with the promise of a black belt. ATA does this, but so does practically every dojo and dojang in the US. And it seems to be happening all over the world.
There is the counter argument that children - that is, people who are under 15 - should be able to earn them. And for some in this camp, their idea of awarding black belts range from giving out "sort-of" black belts, like "junior" black belts and the like; to full-blown dan grade black belts.
Unless the school who is awarding them follows strict Kukkiwon regulations (that is WTF Taekwondo schools), there isn't any governing body to stop the school from doing this. Even in WTF schools that follow regulations will sometimes give them a black belt, or rather, a black colored belt with a piece of paper describing the actual rank (which happens to not be black belt).
Give out a black belt to a child? I don't like the idea. But I feel for the instructors, who otherwise wouldn't have a school. Some enticement needs to be made to get the kids in the dojang and to stay. I've written other articles on this very subject. But suffice to say, I prefer the "give them the belt, make them wait for rank" mantra.
It kills me to sit along side a kid with the same color belt as me only to have lay people look at it and wonder if my test was watered down or the kid is some sort of prodigy. Then again, I wonder about the 9th degree who sits along side me, and if he's thinking the same thing.
In the end, this is classic McDojo. If you are uncomfortable with kids getting black belts, find another school. Or take solace in knowing that these kids will unlikely be able to use their skills when called upon.
There is the counter argument that children - that is, people who are under 15 - should be able to earn them. And for some in this camp, their idea of awarding black belts range from giving out "sort-of" black belts, like "junior" black belts and the like; to full-blown dan grade black belts.
Unless the school who is awarding them follows strict Kukkiwon regulations (that is WTF Taekwondo schools), there isn't any governing body to stop the school from doing this. Even in WTF schools that follow regulations will sometimes give them a black belt, or rather, a black colored belt with a piece of paper describing the actual rank (which happens to not be black belt).
Give out a black belt to a child? I don't like the idea. But I feel for the instructors, who otherwise wouldn't have a school. Some enticement needs to be made to get the kids in the dojang and to stay. I've written other articles on this very subject. But suffice to say, I prefer the "give them the belt, make them wait for rank" mantra.
It kills me to sit along side a kid with the same color belt as me only to have lay people look at it and wonder if my test was watered down or the kid is some sort of prodigy. Then again, I wonder about the 9th degree who sits along side me, and if he's thinking the same thing.
In the end, this is classic McDojo. If you are uncomfortable with kids getting black belts, find another school. Or take solace in knowing that these kids will unlikely be able to use their skills when called upon.
The school is a McDojo if belt advancement tests require significant payment
There's nothing wrong with paying for your tests. But the school's got you by the cojones: you've gotten this far to get your black belt, so they'll hold it ransom unless you pay a ransom. I don't like this at all, and unfortunately, it's all too common. After all, what's the difference between a black belt candidate 1 day before their test and the day after their successful test? Nothing at all. They just paid a few hundred dollars to wear a black belt around their waist. So if you have to pay more than a few hundred dollars, I'd label this a McDojo.
Just so you know, all WTF schools must pay Kukkiwon about $150 for a black belt certificate. So a student should expect to pay no less than that. For those who charge their students $500 and up, I wonder where the rest of that money is going?
Just so you know, all WTF schools must pay Kukkiwon about $150 for a black belt certificate. So a student should expect to pay no less than that. For those who charge their students $500 and up, I wonder where the rest of that money is going?
The school is a McDojo if it uses a pitch book to get you to join
Yes, this is a pot-shot at ATA again. This is the in-person version of the "but wait there's more" website. To label a school a McDojo because they do this would also be condeming a fast food clerk who reads a book telling her to upsell french fries or upgrade to a large coke. Depending on the aggression involved, it could be an insecure office manager, or it could be a hard sales tactic. I don't think this fits the bill for a McDojo label, but I don't think a good martial arts school would do this either.
The school is a McDojo if it promotes the idea that cross training in another style of martial arts is unnecessary
This isn't a sign of a McDojo, but it is a sign of an insecure instructor. Schools that do this probably do other things that qualify it as a McDojo.
The school is a McDojo if it has an infomercial-style website with lots of references to 'secret', 'deadly', 'military', and 'but wait, there's more'
This seems to be taking pot-shots at Krav Maga schools, or those schools teaching personal self-defense. Yes, a web site whose home page requires 11 presses of the page down key seems like some infomercial. You can't blame someone for trying to get people to pay to come to their classes. Instructors who resort to this type of advertising will do other things as well.
So they have a crappy website. What does that say about instruction? Will you ever refer to the web site during your tenure as a student? I doubt it. Not a sign of McDojo.
So they have a crappy website. What does that say about instruction? Will you ever refer to the web site during your tenure as a student? I doubt it. Not a sign of McDojo.
The school is a McDojo if it promotes the idea that its style is the 'ultimate', or 'best in the world', and who has 'secrets'
Uh... sure. Just like the instructor who won't spar because his skills are too deadly. Look, if they were the best in the world, why are they teaching in a strip mall along Route 46 in New Jersey?
I would have expected some temple enshrouded in red and gold leaf, with bald and red-robed monks who guard the perimeter.
But like the deadly-skilled instructor, this also doesn't fit the McDojo definition. All it is is crappy advertisement. But it is a tactic a McDojo would use.
I would have expected some temple enshrouded in red and gold leaf, with bald and red-robed monks who guard the perimeter.
But like the deadly-skilled instructor, this also doesn't fit the McDojo definition. All it is is crappy advertisement. But it is a tactic a McDojo would use.
The school is a McDojo if the head instructor refuses to spar with anyone because his skills are 'too deadly'
This is aimed at the schools with the unusual names, giving an air of mystery. Personally, I've never seen schools that advertise in this manner, but I trust that there must be a few out there. And this is a valid complaint. If the school is pushing mystery to get people to join, I'd be hesitant to join.
But this, in of itself, does not a McDojo make. It just rings of poor marketing.
But this, in of itself, does not a McDojo make. It just rings of poor marketing.
The school is a McDojo if, once reaching black belt, students are encouraged to go start their own school
Here we go again, yet another ATA pot-shot. Actually, this complaint might have some legitimacy to it.
The internet is full of testimonials of folks who earned their black belts and then were encouraged to begin another school. This rings of crass multi-level marketing. But in this case, the student has the option to opt-out of starting a school. And what the organization wants of it's senior students has little to do with the quality of instruction from the seniors who are there.
In truth, though, such a process does not beget a true martial arts air, as the focus shifts away from martial arts and moves towards business. In other words, "Big Business", and this would fit under most people's definition of McDojo.
But this again says nothing about the quality of instruction to be offered. So while this may legitimately label a school as a McDojo, it's a minor point - particularly for beginners.
The internet is full of testimonials of folks who earned their black belts and then were encouraged to begin another school. This rings of crass multi-level marketing. But in this case, the student has the option to opt-out of starting a school. And what the organization wants of it's senior students has little to do with the quality of instruction from the seniors who are there.
In truth, though, such a process does not beget a true martial arts air, as the focus shifts away from martial arts and moves towards business. In other words, "Big Business", and this would fit under most people's definition of McDojo.
But this again says nothing about the quality of instruction to be offered. So while this may legitimately label a school as a McDojo, it's a minor point - particularly for beginners.
The school is a McDojo if it has programs, such as 'Karate for Kids', 'Tiny Tigers'
Okay, another ATA pot-shot. Karate For Kids and Tiny Tigers are trademark children's classes offered by ATA schools. But the truth is, many schools have such programs, or programs like them. These are programs designed for the little ones. Really... what is wrong with that? In ATA's defense, the children don't earn black belts, and the material learned are life skills. If parents want to take kids there, what's wrong with that? The reality is that there ARE martial arts schools which offer similar material, but they promote these children to black belt. Most likely, this is the source of frustration, and not the fact that the school offers a small children program.
So maybe having such programs fits within the definition, certainly mine, of McDojo. But is it really a problem? On the contrary, I think it's preferable as long as the program is executed well.
So maybe having such programs fits within the definition, certainly mine, of McDojo. But is it really a problem? On the contrary, I think it's preferable as long as the program is executed well.
The school is a McDojo if you are required to join a federation or association
Another ATA pot-shot. They are, after all, "American Taekwondo Association". It seems also a pot-shot against WTF and ITF taekwondo schools as well, as they are the "World Taekwondo Federation", and "International Taekwondo Association". These make the lion's share of Taekwondo schools, so the pot-shot could be directed at Taekwondo in general.
Let's take a closer look. When you join a school, particularly with one that has a contract, usually the deal is that you become part of that school's affiliate organization. So when you join a school affiliated with ATA, you are, in essence, joining the ATA. You pay a joiner's fee of about $300 (I don't know where the money goes, I assume to the ATA organization).
But with WTF, you as an individual are not allowed to join the WTF - not even schools are allowed. A school must be a member of a local chapter, which is overseen by a region, which is overseen by a soverign entity, which is overseen by WTF. So you are a long way away from joining WTF.
Does joining a federation or association make the school a McDojo? Of course not. And even if you argue otherwise, nothing about the concept of joining an association or federation says anything about the quality of instruction. Personally, I do not like the idea of paying into an organization, like the ATA, as if you were joining an YMCA. I don't like this at all, whether it is a martial arts school or any other organization. If I pay monthly dues, that should be my "joiner's fee".
Let's take a closer look. When you join a school, particularly with one that has a contract, usually the deal is that you become part of that school's affiliate organization. So when you join a school affiliated with ATA, you are, in essence, joining the ATA. You pay a joiner's fee of about $300 (I don't know where the money goes, I assume to the ATA organization).
But with WTF, you as an individual are not allowed to join the WTF - not even schools are allowed. A school must be a member of a local chapter, which is overseen by a region, which is overseen by a soverign entity, which is overseen by WTF. So you are a long way away from joining WTF.
Does joining a federation or association make the school a McDojo? Of course not. And even if you argue otherwise, nothing about the concept of joining an association or federation says anything about the quality of instruction. Personally, I do not like the idea of paying into an organization, like the ATA, as if you were joining an YMCA. I don't like this at all, whether it is a martial arts school or any other organization. If I pay monthly dues, that should be my "joiner's fee".
The school is a McDojo if it uses collection agencies for late or missed payments
This seems like another ATA pot-shot, although there are many martial arts schools that outsource their receivables. A number of horror stories abound on the internet about folks who miss payments for whatever reason, or who don't like the school and want out of their contract, only to become hounded by blood-thirsty collection agencies.
In all honesty, I can't imagine a student showing up for class knowing the instructor just let loose a collections agent on them the night before. I also find it somewhat crass for a student to show up knowing he didn't pay his monthly dues. If you owe, you should pay up. And if you have a grievance, you should be able to suspend or terminate your contract until the dispute is resolved.
Remember, school owners have a business to run, they can't always be in the business of charity. So they shouldn't have to tolerate being taken advantate of. But the reverse is also true: if the school does not live up to it's standards, then the student should be given a chance to get out of the contract.
In all honesty, I can't imagine a student showing up for class knowing the instructor just let loose a collections agent on them the night before. I also find it somewhat crass for a student to show up knowing he didn't pay his monthly dues. If you owe, you should pay up. And if you have a grievance, you should be able to suspend or terminate your contract until the dispute is resolved.
Remember, school owners have a business to run, they can't always be in the business of charity. So they shouldn't have to tolerate being taken advantate of. But the reverse is also true: if the school does not live up to it's standards, then the student should be given a chance to get out of the contract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)