Looks good on your letterhead......

Snorri the Priest
Licentiate of the Tailwagger Federation
15 Bottywobble Boulevard
Pawmark-on-the-Mudd
Barkshire
PM4 4VW

Or something?

Snorri

Suppose it could do, but if it doesn't do what it says on the tin, the trainer would very soon be out of business - letterhead or no - and, with the more reputable bodies would quickly be out on their ear as far as they are concerned too

If that implication was born of your interpretation of one of my posts then apologies, but that was ever the intent.

Just a genuine question. You think a university education, in dog training is better than one on ones or courses with the best in the dog trainers there are?

Quite possibly. But I think that happens to the same people when they have a session with John Rogerson, or Karen Pryor, or any number of other people.

I think those same changes are likely for those same people, when they encounter new dogs or new experiences.

I dont think a university education is required to update or motivate new thinking. Just my view. I know for instance, that the methods of dealing with aggression within the university education my colleague is following are, in my view, and hers, way behind our own, for instance.

Why not do both? I know someone who does. They get to know methods of an experienced and recognised trainer and apply them practically and academically.

But the point of a decent course is to teach and assess. As a trainer you must recognise the importance of aims and weather the pupil has learned what has been taught.

A decent course will educate, monitor and assess to a level that has been universally agreed and not just by one person.

Jury is out on that one . Much depends on the experience, knowledge and capability to pass on knowledge of the instuctor involved.

However, an instructor on a course or one to one has no idea of how much his or her 'students' has actually taken from the course as there is rarely any testing of that knowledge and, of course, they can only hope to pass on what they themselves know - in other words, if their own education or experience is lacking, their students will not benefit.

Where a degree scores of course is that the instructors aren't looking to influence students by only passing on their instruction, but they encourage them to go out, do their own research, evaluate and analyse that research and be tested on it. The testing ensures that the student has not only done the learning, but understands it and can make their own decisions based on it.

That is a major plus point in favour of degrees, in my opinion, as they aren't churning out lots of 'mini-me's', but rather free-thinking individuals who are capable of reading research, understanding it and using that understanding and knowledge to best advantage within their work.

Edited to add: If you look around, you'll find that universities, far from shielding their students from workshops and seminars, actively encourage their students to attend them - many even host them themselves .

As you have said, the degree your colleague is undertaking encourages (demands) that the students go out to other dog trainers to observe and evaluate their work.

There is a lot to be gained by going to seminars given by good trainers. However, those sessions will only give the 'student' a snapshot of dog training based on the views of the instructor giving the course.

I agree with you that experience is essential and with each experience (and every single dog and owner provides a unique experience) comes learning. It takes an awful long time from the start of the 'experience' road to build up a knowledge base, especially when the 'whys' behind the behaviours being seen aren't known.

Then you should publish your methods so that students across all courses, dog trainers and owners too can gain from your knowledge. It's only by publishing works/research that our knowledge of 'all things dog' progresses which is the ultimate aim of anyone interested in dogs. Also, by publishing your work to a wider audience, the methods can be tested and replicated and if found to be beneficial broadcast to a wider audience which will ultimately benefits a heck of a lot of dogs

Jeez, they are "Just dogs",

It just needs some common sense most of the time