The beauty of a discussion board is the fact that people can agree or disagree on the same subject. Another beauty is that we can see holes in ones arguments. Let's see how Oroborus' argument fails and contradicts itself, shall we?
First, when it comes to "speech" classes which is essentially what the MS is, whether it is the MS or if it were at school, it is entirely useful to hear the critique publicly.
"Speech class"? Arguably, perhaps. But who really is the teacher of this "class"? Usually ... Always, the one giving the counsel relies on the School Guide Book. For example, this is typical of the Counselor: "On page 176 in the School Guide Book, it says that you should have..." or "The School Guide Book says that you can use words that...". In a true school, the teacher has a great knowledge of the subject at hand. They don't continously refer to a textbook. A truly good instructor has much experience in their field of study. It has been my experience that most of the JW School Overseers are terrible with timing, use poor grammar, use word-whiskers (i.e., Uh, Um...) in their own talks, and don't use more than one gesture.
Next, he says:
The other students in the class just heard the talk, if they then hear the counsel, points that were good and things needing improvement they can then take the whole experience and learn from it for themselves. Thus everyone is instructed not just the student-speaker.
This statement is not accurate! I challenge any current or former DUBS to come forward. Who sits in the audience and actually applies it to themselves? Isn't it more fair to say that when the man or woman is getting counseled, the audience is saying to themselves, 'Wow! He/she is getting their butt handed to him. He/she really screwed up' OR 'Poor brother/sister! That Counselor is being really hard on him.' I would venture to say that most folks in the audience ARE NOT saying, 'Hmm! I will have to try using that part of the counsel in MY next talk!'
This is where his argument collapses:
The School is specifically to work on particular speech counsel points and to improve as a speaker (now with the change in the school effective 2003, really the emphasis is on becoming a better "minister" not merely speaker).
How do you measure improvement? Based on Oroborus' argument, then, there is no improvement if the very ones getting counseled become Elders or Servants and then don't apply the counsel of timing, gestures, word-whiskers, audience contact, etc.! That certainly defeats the whole purpose of having a school, does it not?
Still failing in his argument, he next says:
The point the student was specifically supposed to be concentrating on was timing, thus it is fair and appropriate to judge him on that point.
Like Reborn said, the same should also apply to the TMS. If they are alotted 10 minutes for their part, then they need to stick to it. By constantly going overtime, have they truly benefitted from the school?
Lastly:
The latter talk of the brother was entirely different-part of the Service Meeting- and although the bros are encouraged to keep their talks to the specified time alloted what is MORE important is the content of the information. Entirely different than the ministry school.
Reborn already broke this down nicely.
