3 reasons why I usually reject beginner students...

[the89thkey]

People have been throwing me this question so I thought I'd make this forum and refer people to it when they ask...
Here they are:

1) They are harder to teach
2) They are less enjoyable to teach
and last but not least-
3) Usually they pay less money for lessons...

If you need further explanations of these reasons (which is very likely since I don't think they are really so clear myself), leave a comment

[perprocrastinate]

Do you teach masterclasses?

[the89thkey]

Do you teach masterclasses?

When I'm asked I usually do, yes.

[keypeg]

My thought is that teaching beginners is crucial and important , and it is a specialized skill in its own right.  Hopefully the student is being introduced to a host of things that he will be using from then on - everything is new.  It's not just technique, learning to read, but also how you approach things, how you practice - it's everything.  The teacher who gives interpretation of advanced pieces, refines technique, brings out things - he uses those skills that the first teacher has given.  He has a different kind of specialization.  Being good in one area doesn't necessarily mean being good in the other.

So if you are in the second camp, I think it is good that you don't teach beginner students.  You should stay doing what you are good at.

[the89thkey]

My thought is that teaching beginners is crucial and important , and it is a specialized skill in its own right.  Hopefully the student is being introduced to a host of things that he will be using from then on - everything is new.  It's not just technique, learning to read, but also how you approach things, how you practice - it's everything.  The teacher who gives interpretation of advanced pieces, refines technique, brings out things - he uses those skills that the first teacher has given.  He has a different kind of specialization.  Being good in one area doesn't necessarily mean being good in the other.

So if you are in the second camp, I think it is good that you don't teach beginner students.  You should stay doing what you are good at.

Very well expressed, that is I guess another reason I don't teach beginners. Frankly, I find it exasperating sometimes.
Of course, it can also be exasperating to get a student with talent whose first teacher trained them badly, but you get the point.

[green]

My thought is that teaching beginners is crucial and important , and it is a specialized skill in its own right.  Hopefully the student is being introduced to a host of things that he will be using from then on - everything is new.  It's not just technique, learning to read, but also how you approach things, how you practice - it's everything.  The teacher who gives interpretation of advanced pieces, refines technique, brings out things - he uses those skills that the first teacher has given.  He has a different kind of specialization.  Being good in one area doesn't necessarily mean being good in the other.

So if you are in the second camp, I think it is good that you don't teach beginner students.  You should stay doing what you are good at.

Agreed. When I taught at an Int'l school, most all students were beginners, of different ages. I would like to add that specializing in beginners is one thing, but also beginners of different ages requires its own skill sets. I personally would prefer a beginner, but ONLY if they are motivated and practice. Beginners yes are more often nightmares if they have no interest and show up week after week having done nothing, but that was at an Int'l school where that was much more difficult to monitor or regulate in any consistent way.

[p2u_]

3 reasons why I usually reject beginner students

Teaching children and beginners is a calling and should not be undertaken by anyone who is not 100% motivated.

I think I have my own three motives to add for rejecting children specifically:
1) Usually, the motivation for development is in the parents, not in the child. I don't know what to do with that. Prodigies could be an exception, but they can help themselves actually, so I reject those too;
2) Usually, they have a rather small attention span. When you are just getting in the mood, you are forced to stop the lesson already;
3) When you are male, there is always a risk of being wrongly accused of being a pervert, especially if you are very kind and the child likes you very much (personal sad experience, but I have to mention this).

Paul

[clavile]

Everybody says beginner students are SO hard to teach, but I'm not having trouble at all teaching my six year old beginner, who is, by the way, the first student I've ever had, and it is a DELIGHT to teach him, and watch him progress.

So the question: Why does everybody say this, and WHAT do ya'll think is so hard about it? What do you think is hard, the approach, teaching the child himself? The typically young age? I know there are quite a few answers here, but I guess what I'm looking for is a little different than those.

I know several other people who started off with beginners and did just fine, yet I come here, and everybody seems to complain about them.

[the89thkey]

I tend to teach about the same number of children as adults. Also, I feel more comfortable  teaching children because they are normally more open to my ideas (obviously) if not more responsive

[keypeg]

(Answering Clavile)

The pieces are super easy at the beginner level, so if you are teaching a student different simple pieces, that's easy.  But the important thing for beginners is to get foundational things which become important at the advanced level.  Ideally you learn basic technique, get a good solid way of reading music, a practical understanding of theory (not formal but in practice).  You also learn how to practice - how to approach a new piece of music as you practice at home.  First the solutions are modeled and later you become independent.

The thing is that in the beginning the music is so easy that a smart student with a bit of ear can dash off the melody by memory and zip through it.  That student does not get the tools while the music is still easy, and then doesn't have the tools when it becomes challenging.  The goal isn't the piece - it's learning these things that I outlined.

In another thread there is a young adult in his or her late teens who had lessons, took a few years off, and then resumed.   The first period of lessons which I guess were at beginner and maybe early intermediate were easy, with the music being dashed off.  Now the student is being told s/he isn't practising in a good way, and doesn't know what that means.  I suspect that it involves these kinds of things.

[clavile]

(Answering Clavile)

The pieces are super easy at the beginner level, so if you are teaching a student different simple pieces, that's easy.  But the important thing for beginners is to get foundational things which become important at the advanced level.  Ideally you learn basic technique, get a good solid way of reading music, a practical understanding of theory (not formal but in practice).  You also learn how to practice - how to approach a new piece of music as you practice at home.  First the solutions are modeled and later you become independent.

The thing is that in the beginning the music is so easy that a smart student with a bit of ear can dash off the melody by memory and zip through it.  That student does not get the tools while the music is still easy, and then doesn't have the tools when it becomes challenging.  The goal isn't the piece - it's learning these things that I outlined.

In another thread there is a young adult in his or her late teens who had lessons, took a few years off, and then resumed.   The first period of lessons which I guess were at beginner and maybe early intermediate were easy, with the music being dashed off.  Now the student is being told s/he isn't practising in a good way, and doesn't know what that means.  I suspect that it involves these kinds of things.

Now THAT is a good answer! That is the part I've had a harder time with. I really want to make sure I give him a good foundation, so that has been one of my larger worries since the beginning. It requires loads of repetition, and careful thought!

When I first started taking lessons, I took with a seventeen-year-old, who was very organized, and gave her other students and me a FANTASTIC foundation. All my teachers since then are amazed by what a great foundation she gave us. It has been a great help to me not only because of that, but because I was able to begin with her at an older age, where I was more aware of exactly what she was teaching me, and how she was going about the task.

Thanks!

[keypeg]

The fact that you got those foundations at the beginning, and at an age where you were aware of it, is very encouraging.  Someone who starts very young may simply slip into things which become automatic and never be aware - what we do subconsciously may be the hardest things to teach.   I started lessons on an instrument well into adulthood, and since I had played things self-taught on various instrument, we just zipped through the first grades.  When I got stuck later on, I realized that it was largely due to things I had not learned at the basic level but that had seemed to be there because of what I could already do with music.  That is when the idea of establishing foundations, and what beginner levels are about, took root.

[clavile]

The fact that you got those foundations at the beginning, and at an age where you were aware of it, is very encouraging.  Someone who starts very young may simply slip into things which become automatic and never be aware - what we do subconsciously may be the hardest things to teach.   I started lessons on an instrument well into adulthood, and since I had played things self-taught on various instrument, we just zipped through the first grades.  When I got stuck later on, I realized that it was largely due to things I had not learned at the basic level but that had seemed to be there because of what I could already do with music.  That is when the idea of establishing foundations, and what beginner levels are about, took root.

Well said!

[lostinidlewonder]

I have learned more from teaching beginners than from any other level. I could easily remove all my beginner students and teach only developed students but I strongly believe I would be a lesser teacher if I did so. I still have not met every single beginner type that is out there, I am still challenged, surprised and taught something new with beginners.

If I consider my advanced students, of course I meet many different shades of ability at the high levels but their needs are often very similar (eg: improving technical efficiency and musical expression) and they do not need to be nurtured all the time but often are given guidance with space. I like going on a musical journey with beginners, to see how they develop is very interesting you can see music grow and develop quite rapidly with beginners, like watching a seed sprout and grow. With advanced students it's like trimming a bonsai tree

So the question: Why does everybody say this, and WHAT do ya'll think is so hard about it? What do you think is hard, the approach, teaching the child himself? The typically young age? I know there are quite a few answers here, but I guess what I'm looking for is a little different than those.

I think the most difficult challenge in teaching beginners is the variation of beginner levels that exist. Beginner level is extremely multifaceted, full of students with a huge amount of different needs. You may have a beginner who doesn't have any sense of beat or rhythm, then you have a beginner who can play instruments by ear and have self taught themselves bits and pieces, then you have beginners who have trouble coordinating their hands but others which can learn new coordination rather easily. You have beginners who are challenged to be able to concentrate and focus and follow directions from a teacher. You can just keep writing on and on about the various strengths and weaknesses you can come across with beginners.

When you come across someone who had played for several years and has a number of pieces learned there is much less variation of students you come across. Of course everyone has their own needs but once you know how to play and coordination your hands there is already a foundation built, if there are problems with certain foundations its easy to go back and improve since they can compare to how they did it before. Developing this foundation is the tricky part when teaching beginners.

... Someone who starts very young may simply slip into things which become automatic and never be aware - what we do subconsciously may be the hardest things to teach.

I agree, for example there are certainly issues in coordination that young children generally learn a lot better than adults. Children can just simply accept lots of new muscular movements where adults generally have a harder time. This of course is not the case all the time but I see many young students have the propensity to learn new coordination more readily than adults. This makes teaching young beginners often extremely interesting.

[clavile]

I have learned more from teaching beginners than from any other level. I could easily remove all my beginner students and teach only developed students but I strongly believe I would be a lesser teacher if I did so. I still have not met every single beginner type that is out there, I am still challenged, surprised and taught something new with beginners.

If I consider my advanced students, of course I meet many different shades of ability at the high levels but their needs are often very similar (eg: improving technical efficiency and musical expression) and they do not need to be nurtured all the time but often are given guidance with space. I like going on a musical journey with beginners, to see how they develop is very interesting you can see music grow and develop quite rapidly with beginners, like watching a seed sprout and grow. With advanced students it's like trimming a bonsai tree

I think the most difficult challenge in teaching beginners is the variation of beginner levels that exist. Beginner level is extremely multifaceted, full of students with a huge amount of different needs. You may have a beginner who doesn't have any sense of beat or rhythm, then you have a beginner who can play instruments by ear and have self taught themselves bits and pieces, then you have beginners who have trouble coordinating their hands but others which can learn new coordination rather easily. You have beginners who are challenged to be able to concentrate and focus and follow directions from a teacher. You can just keep writing on and on about the various strengths and weaknesses you can come across with beginners.

When you come across someone who had played for several years and has a number of pieces learned there is much less variation of students you come across. Of course everyone has their own needs but once you know how to play and coordination your hands there is already a foundation built, if there are problems with certain foundations its easy to go back and improve since they can compare to how they did it before. Developing this foundation is the tricky part when teaching beginners.
I agree, for example there are certainly issues in coordination that young children generally learn a lot better than adults. Children can just simply accept lots of new muscular movements where adults generally have a harder time. This of course is not the case all the time but I see many young students have the propensity to learn new coordination more readily than adults. This makes teaching young beginners often extremely interesting.

Fantastic answer! It's well explained! Thanks so much! These posts have answered my questions perfectly! 

[the89thkey]

Fantastic answer! It's well explained! Thanks so much! These posts have answered my questions perfectly! 

A long one too...
I never could see the point of enormous posts containing vast quantities of information. However I guess they are informative (redundancy?). Seems hard to see how people find the time to write them though.
You should see the one somebody put in one of my threads once. He gave 15 different 10 item lists and wrote a paragraph of explanation after each one. Then he proceeded to top it off with three exceedingly long paragraphs at the end. I couldn't even find the time to read it all...

[j_menz]

I never could see the point of enormous posts containing vast quantities of information.

No, indeed. You appear to favour vast quantities of posts containing no information whatsoever.

[perprocrastinate]

I never could see the point of enormous posts containing vast quantities of information.

You also saw past their concision.

[lostinidlewonder]

A long one too...
I never could see the point of enormous posts containing vast quantities of information. However I guess they are informative (redundancy?). Seems hard to see how people find the time to write them though.
You should see the one somebody put in one of my threads once. He gave 15 different 10 item lists and wrote a paragraph of explanation after each one. Then he proceeded to top it off with three exceedingly long paragraphs at the end. I couldn't even find the time to read it all...

You might find it amazing but some people type quite fast. It takes me a few minutes to type that, if you study piano hours a day, the concentration required to read my posts is child's play. And you can't find the time? Goodness me the first few days of your membership here you where posting for hours and hours per day.

[keypeg]

The important thing is that posts are not written with one person's tastes in mind.  I appreciate a well written post with sufficient information. 

[outin]

No, indeed. You appear to favour vast quantities of posts containing no information whatsoever.

You on the other hand have the ability to make your point in the most economic way, which I find an extremely pleasant quality in a poster

[j_menz]

You on the other hand have the ability to make your point in the most economic way, which I find an extremely pleasant quality in a poster

I've always considered laziness an oft maligned virtue.

[outin]

I've always considered laziness an oft maligned virtue.

Well, I may not have many virtues, but I do have that

[the89thkey]

You might find it amazing but some people type quite fast. It takes me a few minutes to type that, if you study piano hours a day, the concentration required to read my posts is child's play. And you can't find the time? Goodness me the first few days of your membership here you where posting for hours and hours per day.

I can be "online" 8 hours and make 1 post. That number means absolutely nothing. It's how much time the window was open with Pianostreet in it. That's it. I can go practice now (which incidentally I'm about to do) then come back in 3 hours for a break and check the forums, and it records me as having been posting the whole time...

I type fairly quickly though. Say 80 WPM? Don't know about this stuff.

[zezhyrule]

I can be "online" 8 hours and make 1 post. That number means absolutely nothing. It's how much time the window was open with Pianostreet in it. That's it. I can go practice now (which incidentally I'm about to do) then come back in 3 hours for a break and check the forums, and it records me as having been posting the whole time...

What are you on about? You realize no one else can see the time you've been logged in, except for yourself?

We can however see the average number of posts you make each day. Which happens to be 21.8. Nice.

[perfect_pitch]

We can however see the average number of posts you make each day. Which happens to be 21.8. Nice.

The funny thing was just before people accused him of being a fraud with his claims of practice towards the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto - his average number of posts was about 50 a day.

[vsrinivasa]

The funny thing was just before people accused him of being a fraud with his claims of practice towards the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto - his average number of posts was about 50 a day.

Noticed that as well. Seems a bit suspicious...

[keypeg]

The point of forums such as this one is to share information, learn from each other, solve problems, enjoy talking to people with a common interest.  The usefulness-factor is high: finding solutions, learning, teaching.  So imho, a post is a good post if it gives enough information in a clear manner to be understood and useful.  If that can be done in a single sentence, fine.  If the single sentence creates confusion or misunderstanding, then it is worse than useless.

The post being criticized for its length was the one by Liw. His posts are usually well thought out and contain useful and pertinent things.  This one was no exception.  Otoh, the opening post - clearly written and factual, but what's the purpose?  How does it help anyone with anything?  At the same time, beginner students is an important topic.  I think most people know why.  So if we went into it in depth, and wrote enough rather than too little, that's a good thing.  Of course if you are not interested in teaching beginners, then it's not a topic for you to follow, even if only a single word appeared in a post.

[sucom]

When I take on new students I much prefer them to be beginners.  One thing I absolutely don't enjoy is trying to get rid of bad habits which have developed while a student was with a different teacher.  So frustrating to get students out of well developed bad habits!  I also don't like taking on a student who has apparently passed Grade 1 or 2 with a good mark, only to find they can't read notation.  So annoying!  Far too many teachers show their students which notes to play, rather than teach them how to read the notes for themselves.  This may work ok very early on but it becomes a real bind for students once the music becomes a little more advanced.  

I don't think beginners are hard work as such; it is actually rather pleasant to see a student progress from the early days.  I have to admit, though, that patience is an absolute MUST!   What I DO think, however, is that beginners deserve a good teacher so that they have the benefit of a good, solid foundation.  I would say that a good teacher is really important right from the outset if a student is to make the best progress.

[pianoman53]

I type fairly quickly though. Say 80 WPM? Don't know about this stuff.

Is there anything you're not good at? I bet you're a magician in bed...
at least among your Wow-friends
...
To whom you're saying you're dating Tori Black (for you who doesn't know who she is... Don't google it, it wont have a positive effect among your parents.)

[the89thkey]

Is there anything you're not good at? I bet you're a magician in bed...
at least among your Wow-friends
...
To whom you're saying you're dating Tori Black (for you who doesn't know who she is... Don't google it, it wont have a positive effect among your parents.)

My parents live several thousand miles from me so I doubt that.

[the89thkey]

The funny thing was just before people accused him of being a fraud with his claims of practice towards the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto - his average number of posts was about 50 a day.

I agree that I stopped posting a lot once I started working on the concerto. Hopefully I'll be a little more active once the stress is over after my concert.

[pianoman53]

My parents live several thousand miles from me so I doubt that.

I'm so happy for them!

[cey444]

On the topic of teaching beginners, I found the whole of this post very interesting because talking to some other fellow teachers in my area, they seem to be disheartened with the fact that they get more  beginner students than anything. Obviously this is the same with me, but on the contrary I enjoy teaching beginners.

I think the most difficult challenge in teaching beginners is the variation of beginner levels that exist. Beginner level is extremely multifaceted, full of students with a huge amount of different needs.

Children can just simply accept lots of new muscular movements where adults generally have a harder time. This of course is not the case all the time but I see many young students have the propensity to learn new coordination more readily than adults.

This is exactly what I have found aswell. Even if two beginners start at the same time, and we use exactly the same book, the rate of learning and what areas they find tricky varies enormously. It's fascinating to gain this type of insight into a child's mind, the way they learn things really is extraordinary. I have two five year olds who can sight read very very well for their age, but their technique is terrible. I have an eight year old with excellent technique but who takes ages to work through the notes. Finding different ways of teaching these troublesome areas is a challenge I regularly look forward to each week, and I find that I can improve my teaching with each new student and working through their problems.

On the subject of technique, to some children it comes so naturally. Within a few weeks the new muscular movement is second nature to that type of technique and it only takes further refinement to make it solid. On the contrary, I find that older students (late teens and adults) find it very difficult to learn technique, it takes hard work and dedication and often I find that I have to go through it for a couple of weeks before they completely get it. I find that teaching and being aware of how children and adults learn has helped me to improve my own technique a lot, therefore making me a better teacher. I only expect to learn more and become a better teacher from each beginner that I have.

I also don't like taking on a student who has apparently passed Grade 1 or 2 with a good mark, only to find they can't read notation.  So annoying!  Far too many teachers show their students which notes to play, rather than teach them how to read the notes for themselves. advanced. 

I know of some teachers who hate teaching and especially hate teaching beginners. As a result of this, they treat every student the same with no regards to their specific needs. It's teachers like this who get students past their grade 1 and 2 without being able to learn music or have any understanding of what technique really is. Unfortunately I've seen a lot of these -.- why do they carry on teaching? because of the money ... how depressing

[thesixthsensemusic]

Because none of them have found out wether or not they're talented. You could be dealing with the next Alkan, as well as with a complete a-musical child.