Differences between Asian Professional and Other Teachers

[tekesta]

I believe the article refers to the modern concept of a centralised school system rather than publicly funded schools.

Ditto here.

[tekesta]

To return to the stated topic of this thread (and hopefully avoid sounding like a troll)... I'll begin by saying that the initial occurrence of Westerners teaching other Westerners the game of Go might be why Go in the West has not reached the level seen in East Asia; since Westerners and East Asians have different cultural outlooks, both look at the game differently. I ought to wonder if, instead of Westerners going to Japan in the late 1800s and bringing back Go with them to teach other Westerners, Japanese pros would've taught Westerners directly and on the same basis as the insei of the period, after which these Westerners would've taught the game to their fellow countrymen.

Much of what has been said on the topic up to now makes sense. Still, I believe that it is better for the student of Go to have a brief nugget of pertinent info on a particular theme, then struggle a bit to familiarize oneself with it. This would mean 10 percent theoretical discussions and 90 percent self-study.

In addition, has anyone here considered whether a Go curriculum should be instructor-directed or learner-directed?

------------------------------------
Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered. Those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win.
Zhuge Liang