What Is A McDojo?

[lklawson]

Then again, I'd rather get rid of the ranking system entirely, and eliminate any danger of people training for coloured fabric rather than knowledge.

There's a lot to be agreed with in that.

I wrote this mini-article some time back:
http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/ranking/ranking.html

Advantages and Disadvantages of a Ranking System

The decision to go to a grading/belt-ranking/whatever system is a balance between the advantages and disadvantages.

The biggest advantages of a belt / grading system are:

​

1) Allows the instructor (particularly visiting instructors) to instantly know the student's minimum capabilities and adjust the instruction accordingly.

2) Assists the student in tracking his personal advancement and gives him a clear understanding of what he must learn or improve to continue advancement
2a) [subset of 2 I suppose] Gives the student a valuable tool in setting and meeting personal goals

3) Is "main stream" and accepted, even EXPECTED by potential students, thus raising credibility in the community.​

The biggest DISadvantages of a belt / grading system are:

​

1) Has limited meaning outside of the training system or in some other martial system.
1a) Not usually transferable to another martial system.

2) Exposes the student to vulnerabilities of egotism ("I'm a Black Belt and I can kick your butt!").

3) Generates risk of "next belt" syndrome whereby the student focuses too heavily on simply attaining rank and not on true practice and understanding.

4) Exposes school to the risk of "McDojo" syndrome whereby the school or instructor "sells" rankings without imparting true knowledge or whereby the school imposes countless fees and testing requirements for insignificant advancements.
​

If an organization or school is considering implementing a ranking system, these are the pros and cons that they typically weigh.
​

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[PhotonGuy]

To me, a McDojo uses high pressure, used-car sales tactics. In addition, their belt promotions are based on whether the check for the testing fee clears the bank, rather than whether or not the student can actually perform the material.

I agree. A McDojo is a place that sells students their rank. Anybody who is satisfied getting belts that way I would recommend they go to a martial arts store and buy whatever belt they want for $5.00. To any student who wants to buy their rank, at a martial arts store, you can get any color belt you want, including a black belt, for about $5.00, much less than what these McDojos charge.

 

[Balrog]

I agree. A McDojo is a place that sells students their rank. Anybody who is satisfied getting belts that way I would recommend they go to a martial arts store and buy whatever belt they want for $5.00. To any student who wants to buy their rank, at a martial arts store, you can get any color belt you want, including a black belt, for about $5.00, much less than what these McDojos charge.

Yes. I'll sell anyone a belt. $7.50, $10 if you want it embroidered.

But that doesn't make you a Black Belt, it makes you a person who owns a Black Belt. There is a world of difference.

A Black Belt is like a cake. A person who owns a Black Belt is like a bowl full of batter. There's potential, but you ain't cake yet. You want to be cake, baby, you gotta go through the fire and rise to the challenge.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yes. I'll sell anyone a belt. $7.50, $10 if you want it embroidered.

But that doesn't make you a Black Belt, it makes you a person who owns a Black Belt. There is a world of difference.

A Black Belt is like a cake. A person who owns a Black Belt is like a bowl full of batter. There's potential, but you ain't cake yet. You want to be cake, baby, you gotta go through the fire and rise to the challenge.

$2.50 for belt embroidery, now that takes the cake.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

It doesn't cost much. The biggest factor is how many lines of script and whether or not both ends are embroidered. Stripes add costs. Overall though, unless it's hand stitched, embroidery isn't that big a cost.

 

[WaterGal]

It doesn't cost much. The biggest factor is how many lines of script and whether or not both ends are embroidered. Stripes add costs. Overall though, unless it's hand stitched, embroidery isn't that big a cost.

Yeah, I just checked my invoices and the last embroidered belt we got was $20 all told, and that's with text on both ends.

 

[Dissertating]

Personally, I really dislike the term "McDojo." There really is not a good definition for it because everyone has their own definition and it typically boils down to "You do something I do not or that I do not agree with, thus you are a McDojo." If we all spent the time training that we seem to spend worrying about McDojo's and what defines a McDojo, we'd all be better martial artists. The simple reality is there is no real way to define McDojo. We can only point to things we feel aren't right and say this is what constitutes a McDojo. I don't label schools this way, I label them schools I would either train at or not for whatever reason. I may not see the value in what a school is doing but if other people see the value and are willing to go to a school that I would not, more power to them. The martial arts for me is a journey and it is different for every person. Some people care about self-defense, some want a workout, some want the belt, some want weapons training, some want to compete or be on demonstration teams.

I trained at a school in Texas that was a Franchise (red flag for most) with a contract (red flag) and that required you to buy gear through their school (another red flag) that also had any number of items for sale (another red flag) and who had a sales process for new students (gasp red flag) which was considered expensive to a lot of people (everybody man their battle stations this is getting bad) with an instructor with several black belts (*feint* it's just too much). I happily paid my close to $200 a month not caring that plenty of people would label them a McDojo. It was some of the best training I'd ever had and if I hadn't moved out of Texas I would still be training there. I was also attending a Tae Kwon Do and a Krav school when I was there. The Krav school was licensed through KM worldwide (red flag), no required contract but could sign one for a discount (red flaggish), a moderate price, with plenty of add-ons you could choose to purchase (red flaggish). Happily paid my $60/month and enjoyed it (well when I wasn't about to pass out). The Tae Kwon Do place was a hole in the wall type place with an instructor who was a good technician but lacking as an instructor in many ways, no real sales system to speak of other than he would not talk about prices over the phone-you had to come in, and would often disappear from the TKD class to check on the MMA guys in the back. He was about $80/month. If I moved back to San Antonio tomorrow I'd be signed back up with the franchise and Krav studio the same day, I can't say the same about the school that most people would consider the least-McDojo out of the three.

What I think is important to remember is that school owners are in business. I have no problem with them trying to make money. If they have a business practice that I really just do not agree with that I cannot overlook then I'll find somewhere else to train. No need to try and label them as others may not have any problem with that tactic. What I mean by this is I have a big problem personally with most automated payment systems. I don't disagree with the premise of using them as I understand the benefit they provide to the instructor. My problem comes with the practices of some of the more common companies. Whenever I ended up at a school that used one of these companies they were so sporadic it drove me nuts. One month the payment came out on the 1st. The next month it would come out on the 10th. The month after that it came out on the 24th. I prefer consistency in my payments, if the school would use a company that could manage to take the payment out on the same day, give or take a few days every month as I know my bank also plays a role in this, then it wouldn't bother me to allow for automated payments. Since this is one of my issues that can effect whether I train somewhere or not I have a talk about it with the instructor up front. Usually when I explain my concerns with it they tell me that they'll invoice me every month and I can just pay them directly. If they tell me that they use the payment system because of the benefits and it would not be fair to let students pick and choose, mostly because it would defeat the benefit of using it; well then I will either decide that its not worth it to me or if I really do want to train there I'll tell the instructor that I can live with that as long as the payments come out relatively consistently. If they don't, I walk. At the least it means the instructor probably calls the billing company to discuss this with them.

Ultimately there is no universal definition of McDojo because everybody has different perceptions, expectations, and tolerance for different business practices. We should focus on ourselves (do I want to train here), rather than trying to determine if this school meets some arbitrary definition of McDojo.

Just my .02

-D.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Personally, I really dislike the term "McDojo." There really is not a good definition for it because everyone has their own definition and it typically boils down to "You do something I do not or that I do not agree with, thus you are a McDojo." If we all spent the time training that we seem to spend worrying about McDojo's and what defines a McDojo, we'd all be better martial artists. The simple reality is there is no real way to define McDojo. We can only point to things we feel aren't right and say this is what constitutes a McDojo. I don't label schools this way, I label them schools I would either train at or not for whatever reason. I may not see the value in what a school is doing but if other people see the value and are willing to go to a school that I would not, more power to them. The martial arts for me is a journey and it is different for every person. Some people care about self-defense, some want a workout, some want the belt, some want weapons training, some want to compete or be on demonstration teams.

I trained at a school in Texas that was a Franchise (red flag for most) with a contract (red flag) and that required you to buy gear through their school (another red flag) that also had any number of items for sale (another red flag) and who had a sales process for new students (gasp red flag) which was considered expensive to a lot of people (everybody man their battle stations this is getting bad) with an instructor with several black belts (*feint* it's just too much). I happily paid my close to $200 a month not caring that plenty of people would label them a McDojo. It was some of the best training I'd ever had and if I hadn't moved out of Texas I would still be training there. I was also attending a Tae Kwon Do and a Krav school when I was there. The Krav school was licensed through KM worldwide (red flag), no required contract but could sign one for a discount (red flaggish), a moderate price, with plenty of add-ons you could choose to purchase (red flaggish). Happily paid my $60/month and enjoyed it (well when I wasn't about to pass out). The Tae Kwon Do place was a hole in the wall type place with an instructor who was a good technician but lacking as an instructor in many ways, no real sales system to speak of other than he would not talk about prices over the phone-you had to come in, and would often disappear from the TKD class to check on the MMA guys in the back. He was about $80/month. If I moved back to San Antonio tomorrow I'd be signed back up with the franchise and Krav studio the same day, I can't say the same about the school that most people would consider the least-McDojo out of the three.

What I think is important to remember is that school owners are in business. I have no problem with them trying to make money. If they have a business practice that I really just do not agree with that I cannot overlook then I'll find somewhere else to train. No need to try and label them as others may not have any problem with that tactic. What I mean by this is I have a big problem personally with most automated payment systems. I don't disagree with the premise of using them as I understand the benefit they provide to the instructor. My problem comes with the practices of some of the more common companies. Whenever I ended up at a school that used one of these companies they were so sporadic it drove me nuts. One month the payment came out on the 1st. The next month it would come out on the 10th. The month after that it came out on the 24th. I prefer consistency in my payments, if the school would use a company that could manage to take the payment out on the same day, give or take a few days every month as I know my bank also plays a role in this, then it wouldn't bother me to allow for automated payments. Since this is one of my issues that can effect whether I train somewhere or not I have a talk about it with the instructor up front. Usually when I explain my concerns with it they tell me that they'll invoice me every month and I can just pay them directly. If they tell me that they use the payment system because of the benefits and it would not be fair to let students pick and choose, mostly because it would defeat the benefit of using it; well then I will either decide that its not worth it to me or if I really do want to train there I'll tell the instructor that I can live with that as long as the payments come out relatively consistently. If they don't, I walk. At the least it means the instructor probably calls the billing company to discuss this with them.

Ultimately there is no universal definition of McDojo because everybody has different perceptions, expectations, and tolerance for different business practices. We should focus on ourselves (do I want to train here), rather than trying to determine if this school meets some arbitrary definition of McDojo.

Just my .02

-D.

While there may be no universal definition, I do feel that there are some common denominator. Rather than write another lengthy missive, I'll quote my original response.

I want to preface my response by saying that there are plenty of lousy schools that aren't McDojos. They're just lousy schools.

A McDojo is a school that has plugged into a system that has developed over the past three decades. This system is designed to maximize the profitability of the school. If you look at large, commercial schools, and some not so large schools, you'll see the pattern. Similar times in grade for black belt (16-24 mos), a huge emphasis on the black belt, the black belt being treated as a graduation of sorts, and a system of testing fees that substantially increase the annual tuition. Finally, a huge emphasis on kids, with very young child black belts being normative and generally having a lot of colored belts between white and black.

In addition, you have side orders: Black belt clubs, masters clubs, leadership clubs, demo teams and competion teams, all of which cost extra to join and which usually come with a prize (uniform, patch, special belt, etc.). School branded equipment often serves as a side order as well, though usually not at a competitive price, which is why some McDojos require students to buy their equipment. After school programs and summer camps are also a vital part of this model, though again, because profit is the focus, these programs lack any licensing an lack certified or appropriately trained personnel that are normally found in daycare centers and preschool.

After black belt, there are generally weapons, but the weapons curriculum is designed to keep students interested rather than to actually give meaningful instruction in the weapons in question. They may learn raw basics (how to hold and how to swing in a few predetermined patterns and maybe a couple of blocks), but once they learn these raw basics, they are quickly hustled onto the next, and likely less useful, weapon. Of note, many of the McDojo schools teach arts that don't traditionally include these weapons, but which savvy school owners have learned are exciting to young students.

These schools also all have a rather similar look and similar business practices. Lengthy contracts (one year or more), high end pricing, requirements of bank drafting monthly dues through a billing company, and an excessive number of colored belts, often with ascending fees, and pretty much guaranteed passage upon payment of said fees.

Curriculum at these schools is geared towards keeping you paying. A little is dribbled out with each belt and you learn it well enough to pass the test. You then move onto the next batch of material, learn it well enough to pass the test, promote, repeat process. The self defense is sometimes fantastical, but more often it is simply geared towards competitions, though the school itself may not be particularly competitive.

The teaching at these schools is usually mediocre, though there are some with stellar teachers. While a McDojo can be a good school, the focus on profitablility places teaching in the back seat, so the level of instruction falls to the norm of mediocrity. The length of the contracts mean that there is a fuse on fee collection, so students are be passed along through the belt ranks because that final black belt test is often hundreds of dollars and they need to get those fees prior to the contract expiration.

Finally, the tests are filled with physical busy-work; calisthenics, running through warm up exercises, and essentially doing things that do nothing to show the quality of the training. The students are then praised for endurance, but a careful examination of their overal level of quality reveals that it is usually (though there are exceptions) not where it should be.

Again, the above designates a McDojo. A school can be "traditional" and have an instructor with tons of legitimate accolades and still be a lousy school. Not every champion is a teacher and low prices are no more a guarantor of quality than expensive prices are.

Additionally, a McDojo who's owner hasn't forgotten why (s)he teaches martial arts can sometimes offer a very good school that is also profitable, and thus not as likely to close when times are lean, but such schools are definitely the exception to the rule.

As I've said previously; it all comes down the individual school and the instructors. I don't check out schools trying to pick out whether or not it's a McDojo, but I am familiar with the elements that lend to it being called one.

And as I've also said previously, profitablilty and/or higher pricing doesn't automatically equivocate to low quality training any more than inexpensive or free instruction equivocates to high quality (an idea that I've seen expressed many times, both here and elsewhere).

 

[lklawson]

Personally, I really dislike the term "McDojo." There really is not a good definition for it because everyone has their own definition and it typically boils down to "You do something I do not or that I do not agree with, thus you are a McDojo."

Umm... No. There seems to be developing a general consensus of the over-arching idea of what a McDojo may or may not be. The question seems to be coming down to the details.

I trained at a school in Texas that was a Franchise (red flag for most) with a contract (red flag) and that required you to buy gear through their school (another red flag) that also had any number of items for sale (another red flag) and who had a sales process for new students (gasp red flag) which was considered expensive to a lot of people (everybody man their battle stations this is getting bad) with an instructor with several black belts (*feint* it's just too much). I happily paid my close to $200 a month not caring that plenty of people would label them a McDojo. It was some of the best training I'd ever had and if I hadn't moved out of Texas I would still be training there. I was also attending a Tae Kwon Do and a Krav school when I was there. The Krav school was licensed through KM worldwide (red flag), no required contract but could sign one for a discount (red flaggish), a moderate price, with plenty of add-ons you could choose to purchase (red flaggish).

I think you misunderstand exactly what a "red flag" is and what its purpose is. A "red flag" doesn't mean automatic disqualification or points-off-to-the-total. It just means that it is an indicator commonly associated with a given description or definition and thus indicates closer inspection and more caution. You are confusing correlation with causation (or you are assuming that we are confusing correlation with causation). Also, I'm not sure that everyone in this discussion would concur with your definitions of a red flag.

I can't say the same about the school that most people would consider the least-McDojo out of the three.

I'm not sure who these "plenty of people" or "most people" are because it seems like few people in this discussion would agree.

What I think is important to remember is that school owners are in business. I have no problem with them trying to make money. If they have a business practice that I really just do not agree with that I cannot overlook then I'll find somewhere else to train. No need to try and label them as others may not have any problem with that tactic. What I mean by this is I have a big problem personally with most automated payment systems. I don't disagree with the premise of using them as I understand the benefit they provide to the instructor. My problem comes with the practices of some of the more common companies. Whenever I ended up at a school that used one of these companies they were so sporadic it drove me nuts. One month the payment came out on the 1st. The next month it would come out on the 10th. The month after that it came out on the 24th. I prefer consistency in my payments, if the school would use a company that could manage to take the payment out on the same day, give or take a few days every month as I know my bank also plays a role in this, then it wouldn't bother me to allow for automated payments. Since this is one of my issues that can effect whether I train somewhere or not I have a talk about it with the instructor up front. Usually when I explain my concerns with it they tell me that they'll invoice me every month and I can just pay them directly. If they tell me that they use the payment system because of the benefits and it would not be fair to let students pick and choose, mostly because it would defeat the benefit of using it; well then I will either decide that its not worth it to me or if I really do want to train there I'll tell the instructor that I can live with that as long as the payments come out relatively consistently. If they don't, I walk. At the least it means the instructor probably calls the billing company to discuss this with them.

Do you think that people in this discussion have a position that a Martial Arts Instructor is somehow immoral or compromising his art if he's also trying to make money from it? I haven't really seen much of that on this forum (or most forums for that matter).

Ultimately there is no universal definition of McDojo

Seems like most of us are on the same page. Just a matter of which paragraph and are we using italics or bold-face.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[elder999]

McDojo website here.I think.....

[h=1]PRO Martial Arts - A Franchise Opportunity[/h]Ed Samane is the founder of PRO Martial Arts Corporation, its methods, and the PRO Martial Arts franchise program. He began this unique instructional program 18 years ago with the belief that karate should teach not only self-defense, but also character by helping to improve overall attitude, self-worth, fitness, assertiveness, and self-awareness in both children and adults.

 

[Dissertating]

While there may be no universal definition, I do feel that there are some common denominator. Rather than write another lengthy missive, I'll quote my original response.

Which is the problem that I was speaking about, or at least the problem from my point of view. These are common denominators for you and you share those with others, but there are also people who do not view it that way. Which was the reason for my example. It is not really fair or respectful to try and influence other people's choices or viewpoints about a certain school using ambiguous terms that are not clearly defined (in my opinion). You have a very clear definition of what you consider a McDojo but that is your definition in which some parts are part of another's definition and other parts are not. So, let me respond to the post you quoted and I'll show you where I disagree with some things and agree with you in a way (like I said I do not like the term McDojo but there are things that I do not like to see in a school I train at):

A McDojo is a school that has plugged into a system that has developed over the past three decades. This system is designed to maximize the profitability of the school. If you look at large, commercial schools, and some not so large schools, you'll see the pattern. Similar times in grade for black belt (16-24 mos), a huge emphasis on the black belt, the black belt being treated as a graduation of sorts, and a system of testing fees that substantially increase the annual tuition. Finally, a huge emphasis on kids, with very young child black belts being normative and generally having a lot of colored belts between white and black.

There is a problem with a businessperson trying to be profitable? All for-profit businesses should be striving to be profitable. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit. This is where having integrity comes in. You can have a profitable school and not compromise the integrity of your art. While everyone has a concept of how long a black belt should take to achieve, it varies widely. Systems differ, standards for black belts differ. The business person in me actually says that from a profit standpoint it would be smarter to lengthen the time required to become a black belt and then use other means for student retention. Do some people shorten the time required for a black belt to keep motivation high, I'm sure they do. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily. If I'm not training in their art or at their school I really have little interest in it. It's their school and they set the standards, their reputation based on the students will speak for itself. Short-changing their art and producing highly ranked students that do not meet the technical requirements of that art is a travesty and does hurt the arts overall. But does that need a label beyond unethical? What is the problem with an emphasis on achieving a black belt or a graduation for it? From my experiences most people that begin training have attaining their black belt as a goal. What is wrong with focusing on attaining a goal or celebrating once it is accomplished. In most of the arts I've studied the black belt was a graduation of sorts, not to expert or master but of having accomplished an understanding of the fundamentals and ready to pursue mastery (never to achieve it, but to pursue it). I could live without testing fees but am not really bothered by them either. I have heard of some testing fees that seem crazy to me, but if others are willing to pay them then so be it. Often when I see testings done the student is receiving their new belt, certificate, sometimes a new uniform top, and often have outside instructors at the testing. All of which do cost the school owner money. I'm also not averse to them making some profit from the testing, it just doesn't bother me. If the students who are actually paying the money are ok with it, what exactly is the problem? Children are a major part of most martial arts school, nothing really new here. People fall into different camps regarding child black belts, some are ok with it and others are appalled. It is a matter of opinion. I would use a different system if it were my school. But as far as training at a school, I am not a child and so it is mostly irrelevant to me. What is important to me is the adult training. Schools have colored belts, no real shock and not really new. Sure the number have belts have grown but is that really a big deal? When I first started TKD there were not many belts (White, yellow, green, red, brown, black). This is how it should be for some not these 15 different colored belts that we see nowadays. But there were 2 stripes for each belt and we tested for each stripe, I spent 9 months as a white belt going to on average two classes per night Monday-Thursday. What I see now is that rather than having stripes, students receive a new color belt and earn their stripes within normal classes as a means of marking their readiness to test. I really don't see much wrong with this. Is it something that a lot of ultra-traditionalists can't stand? Sure it is I've heard many of them complain about it at length. I don't think it is all that bad of a practice. Goal setting is an important skill that people are lacking. When you study goal setting you see people recommending having long-term, near-term, and short-term goals. Black Belt: Long-term; Next color belt: near-term (can be called other things); Next stripe (short-term). It's a motivation tool, which does help retention rates. People want to make progress towards their goals and be recognized for their accomplishments.

In addition, you have side orders: Black belt clubs, masters clubs, leadership clubs, demo teams and competion teams, all of which cost extra to join and which usually come with a prize (uniform, patch, special belt, etc.). School branded equipment often serves as a side order as well, though usually not at a competitive price, which is why some McDojos require students to buy their equipment. After school programs and summer camps are also a vital part of this model, though again, because profit is the focus, these programs lack any licensing an lack certified or appropriately trained personnel that are normally found in daycare centers and preschool.

Each of which are and should be considered optional add-ons. I've never been to a school (not saying they don't exist) that had these and made them mandatory. Take them or leave them. If you go to a department store and buy a dress shirt and want a tie to go with it do you expect it to be free? If you go to the mechanic for an oil change and then decide you'd like your brake pad changed, do you expect it to be free? If you go to a restaurant and decide you want a slice of pie, should it be free? If you go to a gym and want an hour with a personal trainer, should it be free (yes, I know that Planet fitness offers free personal training but that is known as part of your monthly payment with them and is not common practice that I've found). I don't see many students at martial arts school worry that much over these different clubs. It always seems to be the traditional guys/gals or people who train at schools without them that take so much offense to them. Perhaps some of the people bothered by it are ones that think they should get for free what others pay for. They don't want it bad enough to pay for it and then think it should just be part of the package. Life isn't an all-you-can-eat buffet, sometimes you have to pay for extra. It comes down to different philosophies. I personally tend not to like equipment to be purchased only from the school, but for me is rarely a reason to dismiss a school. Sometimes it is purely profit-motivated and a poor business decision in my opinion. I have, however, known instructors who had this rule in place because they did not want students buying the cheapest thing they could find and it turn out not to be safe. After school programs should be license if required by their state. Some of that depends on what takes place during the program. It is, however, a bit of a weak argument considering that martial arts schools in general lack licensing and certified personnel for interacting with children. I don't really follow the whole summer camp thing because I attended a lot of them growing up and they surely did not have licensed childcare providers and every one of them cost money. Once again these are added services you can choose to pay for or not pay for.

After black belt, there are generally weapons, but the weapons curriculum is designed to keep students interested rather than to actually give meaningful instruction in the weapons in question. They may learn raw basics (how to hold and how to swing in a few predetermined patterns and maybe a couple of blocks), but once they learn these raw basics, they are quickly hustled onto the next, and likely less useful, weapon. Of note, many of the McDojo schools teach arts that don't traditionally include these weapons, but which savvy school owners have learned are exciting to young students.

No meaningful instruction in weapons that were designed based off farm implements to be used in a different era? Just pointing that out, I am well aware that the principles of these weapons can be applied to sometimes readily available everyday items (pool cues, sticks, etc). But is it really your or my place to judge the value of weapons training for other people? I choose to train in the weapons I carry with me or feel I can acquire in most instances. Predominantly my interests are in knives and firearms because I am rarely far from either. But I also enjoy more traditional weapons regardless of their day-to-day self-defense availability. I've seen a lot of schools that have weapons as part of the curriculum, traditional schools, that teach a handful of kata for each weapon, and don't practice them beyond kata. No practice or discussion of their practical application. It never seemed to bother the students. Were I teaching weapons would I want to teach practical applications? Absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily detract from the value of another school. People are enamored with weapons, they want to train in them, as a kid I wanted to train with them and not because I wanted to know how to use them to beat other people up, it was enjoyable. When you watch some of the "extreme" empty-hand and weapons forms that people create for competition that are designed to look good not be deadly do you think that they are wrong for doing so? If they find enjoyment in it, then so be it. Quality is important, but enjoyment is also important. If whatever depth you teach weapons, you are giving quality instruction in what you do teach then what is the problem? Teaching poor quality can be unethical, but we also have to remember that quality is subjective in everything including the martial arts. As far as your last statement, if an instructor adds something to their curriculum that is usually not there but that their students enjoy then this is bad? Back when I went through paramedic school my instructor made all of us learn the full medical school physical assessment that was above and beyond what was required of the curriculum. This made me a worse paramedic, yes? I bit of an extreme example, sorry. But the martial arts students learned a little bit extra about martial arts (even if not to the depth you would prefer or to be experts in the practical applications of that weapon) that they enjoyed learning and this is a qualification for a label?

These schools also all have a rather similar look and similar business practices. Lengthy contracts (one year or more), high end pricing, requirements of bank drafting monthly dues through a billing company, and an excessive number of colored belts, often with ascending fees, and pretty much guaranteed passage upon payment of said fees.

Almost every truck-stop bathroom I've ever been in had a similar look and business practices. A vague statement that honestly says nothing about the quality of instruction. I'm generally not a fan of long contracts with no outs other than moving over 30 miles away. However, I have trained at schools with mandatory contracts that had great instruction and at schools without contracts with poor instruction. Pricing is subjective. It is based upon perceived value on the part of both the school owner and the student. Some students are unwilling to pay $150/month and others will do so happily. It the student feels that what they are learning is worth at least what they are paying, what is the problem. Price is irrelevant, competing on price as a small-business owner can be fatal as often as it's successful. If you charge too much based on the value of what you're providing and you'll probably go out of business. Charge too little and you surely will. What always tickles me (and this is not directed at you) is the student who won't go and pay this high fee to the "McDojo" but then grumbles that all the schools that charge the $50/month they're willing to spend will give them tetanus. I already mentioned my thoughts on billing companies, there has got to be a decent one out there somewhere. Already spoke about number of belts and testing fees. Guaranteed passage kind of depends on how and why its set-up. There are some very good instructors who use a rotating curriculum and for the first several tests will basically guarantee passing as long as the student is making progress. They essentially have looser initial standards that get stricter and stricter as the student progresses. This is not necessarily bad as it does offset discouragement that students will feel as they are learning something new. Anyone who thinks that when they took their very first rank test that they had to and did perform the perfect front kick because their instructor did not accept anything less than perfection is probably kidding themselves. You expect a different level of technical competence at different levels. If simply paying money is all that it takes to receive a belt without any progression or skill, then yes this is bad and unethical in my opinion.

Curriculum at these schools is geared towards keeping you paying. A little is dribbled out with each belt and you learn it well enough to pass the test. You then move onto the next batch of material, learn it well enough to pass the test, promote, repeat process. The self defense is sometimes fantastical, but more often it is simply geared towards competitions, though the school itself may not be particularly competitive.

So when you started off as a white belt your instructor taught you everything that was required all the way through the highest level in your system as a white belt, yes? What you described is the nature of teaching and learning. It is the same experience I have had from pre-school to the PhD program I'm in now and every time I've ever learned anything in a formal setting. Heck I can argue that it is the way I've gained anything I've ever learned. Everyone has different definitions of fantastical and it starts getting too close to my art is better than your art. I believe that some arts teach self-defense better than others, but it is solely my opinion where individual arts or schools within arts lie. Some people's goal is to compete, maybe they're better off at a competition based school? Oh yea, back to first statement. Almost every formal curriculum that you pay to take is geared towards keeping you paying to some extent. Colleges and universities spend absurd amounts of money studying and trying to improve student retention.

The teaching at these schools is usually mediocre, though there are some with stellar teachers. While a McDojo can be a good school, the focus on profitablility places teaching in the back seat, so the level of instruction falls to the norm of mediocrity. The length of the contracts mean that there is a fuse on fee collection, so students are be passed along through the belt ranks because that final black belt test is often hundreds of dollars and they need to get those fees prior to the contract expiration.

You are an expert on adult and child educational theory and application? Mediocrity is subjective and I'd argue that most teachers of anything are mediocre as teachers. Teaching is both art and science, the ones that we tend to classify as good are really skilled in the art of teaching but know little about the science, few have a decent about of skill/knowledge in the art and science, and probably only a handful are really skilled in both. There is a pretty close comparison between martial arts teachers and university professors. They are both considered experts in their field and the honest truth is that neither group tends to know a whole lot about learning and teaching. We equate expertise in a field with teaching ability, which is far from the truth. The "good" ones tend to get by on natural aptitude but could be phenomenal if they received a solid foundation in education. I've already talked about contracts and I don't believe they are fantastic but they do serve a purpose which is not always the one attributed to them. And I have agreed that there is an ethical concern to trading a black belt for money without the skill required for your art. Though I also do not claim to be an expert it what is required of every art and organization out there, certainly not enough to go around judging schools or arts. I know what I am looking for in my training and search out schools that will provide it, those that don't I move past. The key is that what I am looking for is not necessarily the same as what you or someone else is looking for. What is a good fit for me, may not be for you. What is a good fit for you, may not be for me. If I'm not going to train there why should I care about labeling it this or that? I have no need to prove myself as some expert in the martial arts by passing judgement on other schools or instructors

The whole concept of "a McDojo can be a good school, the focus on profitability places teaching in the back seat, so the level of instruction falls to the norm of mediocrity" is subjective and ridiculous. It doesn't even make sense. A good school at the level of mediocrity because of profit? Is mediocrity the definition of a good school? According to this line of reasoning every for-profit business, and most non-profits, are McDojos. The government is a McDojo. I trade time for profit, heck I'm a McDojo. You probably make money doing something, you're a McDojo. I still don't get why everyone is so afraid of someone else being a successful martial arts school owner. I really do think its some weird, twisted concept of what we believe about Asian notions of honor or integrity or whatever. Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Nintendo are all just trying to break-even right? The only honorable martial arts instructor is the one who worries how he's going to pay the light bill for his 200 square foot run-down school and lives off three packs of Ramen noodles and half a snickers bar a week? And if he's extra-special honorable he donates two of those packs of Ramen noodles to a food bank.

Finally, the tests are filled with physical busy-work; calisthenics, running through warm up exercises, and essentially doing things that do nothing to show the quality of the training. The students are then praised for endurance, but a careful examination of their overal level of quality reveals that it is usually (though there are exceptions) not where it should be.

Physical ability is not important in a physical activity? Are there better times to test physical abilities such as general endurance or strength than at a testing? Perhaps, I've seen tests done both ways and it has never really bothered me either way. For some a black belt test is a grueling ordeal that is meant to test your mental willpower as much as your physical ability. Which is a concept that the U.S. military uses every day. They don't just do endless PT to make their recruits more physically fit. The people that go into selection for various special forces groups are already in pretty top notch shape and then even after selection they are constantly pushed to their physical limits to test their mental ones. I will say that quality should be demonstrated in a test and most of the tests that did have pretty heavy fitness tests along with it actually expected a certain level of degradation of technique as the test went on. I'm sure there are cases where you are right and PT is used to mask technique flaws, but it is also possible that you do not agree with incorporating any type of PT into testing and so any school that does isn't doing it right and is, therefore, a McDojo.

Again, the above designates a McDojo. A school can be "traditional" and have an instructor with tons of legitimate accolades and still be a lousy school. Not every champion is a teacher and low prices are no more a guarantor of quality than expensive prices are.

Traditional school, instructor with legitimate accolades, lousy? I guess you mean that a well qualified instructor can have a lousy school and I agree wholeheartedly. That has nothing to do with whether they are making a profit or not. Not every champion is a teacher. Not every good teacher is a champion. Price is no more of a guarantor of quality than anything else you've mentioned other than where you have explicitly stated quality is bad. You cannot legitimately say that using a billing company means the instruction is bad. Or that having a contract means the instruction is bad. Or that having lots of colored belts means the instruction is bad. Or that any combination of these three with anything else you listed (other than explicit quality problems) means that the instruction is bad. Not trying to be rude or offend you, but when I read this what it seemed to scream at me was if the instructor wants to make money teaching martial arts they must be a McDojo. I contend that you can make money and maintain the integrity of what you teach. If you are providing value to people and they are willing to pay you for it then you are obviously doing something right. Some people expect pushy sales and really couldn't care less one way or another, some see it as a game, and some will walk if presented with it. The best salespeople aren't push at all from my experiences. Asking for the sale is not bad or wrong or evil. The martial arts teacher is selling a service and to get the sale you have to ask for it.

Additionally, a McDojo who's owner hasn't forgotten why (s)he teaches martial arts can sometimes offer a very good school that is also profitable, and thus not as likely to close when times are lean, but such schools are definitely the exception to the rule.

So, based on this statement if I were to own a school a McDojo would be exactly what I wanted to own. To be an owner that still loved their art, had a good school with a solid curriculum, that was profitable and didn't have to worry about having to close when times are lean-- I'll take it. Profit at the expense of the art is bad, profit while maintaining the integrity of your art is not.

As I've said previously; it all comes down the individual school and the instructors. I don't check out schools trying to pick out whether or not it's a McDojo, but I am familiar with the elements that lend to it being called one.

This I completely agree with. It is the individual schools and instructors. Just like what a McDojo is or isn't all comes down to individuals. I would hate to miss the opportunity to train at a place that had something that really filled a gap in my training because of some arbitrary rules that did not necessarily impact the quality of the instruction at all. That was the point of my example in my first post, I found great training at a place that would be labeled a McDojo by most and not so great training at another place that most would not call a McDojo. I would be rather upset if I went to a martial artist friend who I respected and asked him about XYZ school only to be told "it's a McDojo" based on their own personal arbitrary definition. To me it is a bit close-minded as I've seen any number of discussions about whether this or that school is or is not a McDojo on the internet about schools that no one involved in the conversation is anywhere close enough to go check it out on their own. I would have much greater respect for someone that told me specifically what the problems were. "I don't know much about that school but I went by and checked it out and thought it was too expensive." or "I didn't feel the style was a good fit for me, but it might be for you." or "They do front kicks differently than I've been taught and I don't know that I agree with how they do them or that I could adapt to that."

And ultimately, I go back to my main point from before. You don't try and pick out whether a school is or is not a McDojo but you have a detailed list of what constitutes one based. What you have is a detailed list of what you feel constitutes the derogatory label of McDojo. Though based on at least one statement of yours it is exactly the label most business consultants would tell you to strive for. Which is the key, a McDojo is whatever the individual believes it is. There is really no standard to compare it against. If you ask me is Joe's Modern Tae Kwon Roto Rooter a McDojo, I'd have to say maybe, whose definition do you want to compare it against? Daniel's? Watergal's? Balrog's? PhotonGuys? Just reading this thread shows a variety of definitions. Well does Joe's sell rank? If it does then according to PhotonGuy it is a McDojo. It might also be according to Daniel but he has a rather large list of criteria but is a little unclear on how many of those criteria you have to meet, I'm pretty sure that selling rank is an automatic qualifier though so I would feel safe saying that it probably qualifies as a McDojo for Daniel but we might want to call him and see how to score each criteria and what overall score we have to make to meet the qualification.

Once again it is all my .02. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Also, I am not attempting to attack you or be argumentative, just laying out my point of view in comparison to the post of yours you quoted. You have every right to believe a McDojo is whatever you believe it is. It just so happens that I dislike the term and care more for quality in instruction than whether the owner makes a profit or not.

-D.

 

[lklawson]

It is not really fair or respectful to try and influence other people's choices or viewpoints about a certain school

Of course it's fair. We get asked all the time what school/art/etc. someone should study or if this or that school, some given art's regulating body, or so-n-so's school is "any good" or if someone should or should not take classes there.

We're asked for qualitative opinions all the freaking time. Having some expressible reason for yes/no good/bad is perfectly reasonable even if you don't like the reasons expressed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Which is the problem that I was speaking about, or at least the problem from my point of view. These are common denominators for you and you share those with others, but there are also people who do not view it that way. Which was the reason for my example. It is not really fair or respectful to try and influence other people's choices or viewpoints about a certain school using ambiguous terms that are not clearly defined (in my opinion). You have a very clear definition of what you consider a McDojo but that is your definition in which some parts are part of another's definition and other parts are not. So, let me respond to the post you quoted and I'll show you where I disagree with some things and agree with you in a way (like I said I do not like the term McDojo but there are things that I do not like to see in a school I train at):

There is a problem with a businessperson trying to be profitable? All for-profit businesses should be striving to be profitable. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit. This is where having integrity comes in. You can have a profitable school and not compromise the integrity of your art. While everyone has a concept of how long a black belt should take to achieve, it varies widely. Systems differ, standards for black belts differ. The business person in me actually says that from a profit standpoint it would be smarter to lengthen the time required to become a black belt and then use other means for student retention. Do some people shorten the time required for a black belt to keep motivation high, I'm sure they do. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily. If I'm not training in their art or at their school I really have little interest in it. It's their school and they set the standards, their reputation based on the students will speak for itself. Short-changing their art and producing highly ranked students that do not meet the technical requirements of that art is a travesty and does hurt the arts overall. But does that need a label beyond unethical? What is the problem with an emphasis on achieving a black belt or a graduation for it? From my experiences most people that begin training have attaining their black belt as a goal. What is wrong with focusing on attaining a goal or celebrating once it is accomplished. In most of the arts I've studied the black belt was a graduation of sorts, not to expert or master but of having accomplished an understanding of the fundamentals and ready to pursue mastery (never to achieve it, but to pursue it). I could live without testing fees but am not really bothered by them either. I have heard of some testing fees that seem crazy to me, but if others are willing to pay them then so be it. Often when I see testings done the student is receiving their new belt, certificate, sometimes a new uniform top, and often have outside instructors at the testing. All of which do cost the school owner money. I'm also not averse to them making some profit from the testing, it just doesn't bother me. If the students who are actually paying the money are ok with it, what exactly is the problem? Children are a major part of most martial arts school, nothing really new here. People fall into different camps regarding child black belts, some are ok with it and others are appalled. It is a matter of opinion. I would use a different system if it were my school. But as far as training at a school, I am not a child and so it is mostly irrelevant to me. What is important to me is the adult training. Schools have colored belts, no real shock and not really new. Sure the number have belts have grown but is that really a big deal? When I first started TKD there were not many belts (White, yellow, green, red, brown, black). This is how it should be for some not these 15 different colored belts that we see nowadays. But there were 2 stripes for each belt and we tested for each stripe, I spent 9 months as a white belt going to on average two classes per night Monday-Thursday. What I see now is that rather than having stripes, students receive a new color belt and earn their stripes within normal classes as a means of marking their readiness to test. I really don't see much wrong with this. Is it something that a lot of ultra-traditionalists can't stand? Sure it is I've heard many of them complain about it at length. I don't think it is all that bad of a practice. Goal setting is an important skill that people are lacking. When you study goal setting you see people recommending having long-term, near-term, and short-term goals. Black Belt: Long-term; Next color belt: near-term (can be called other things); Next stripe (short-term). It's a motivation tool, which does help retention rates. People want to make progress towards their goals and be recognized for their accomplishments.



Each of which are and should be considered optional add-ons. I've never been to a school (not saying they don't exist) that had these and made them mandatory. Take them or leave them. If you go to a department store and buy a dress shirt and want a tie to go with it do you expect it to be free? If you go to the mechanic for an oil change and then decide you'd like your brake pad changed, do you expect it to be free? If you go to a restaurant and decide you want a slice of pie, should it be free? If you go to a gym and want an hour with a personal trainer, should it be free (yes, I know that Planet fitness offers free personal training but that is known as part of your monthly payment with them and is not common practice that I've found). I don't see many students at martial arts school worry that much over these different clubs. It always seems to be the traditional guys/gals or people who train at schools without them that take so much offense to them. Perhaps some of the people bothered by it are ones that think they should get for free what others pay for. They don't want it bad enough to pay for it and then think it should just be part of the package. Life isn't an all-you-can-eat buffet, sometimes you have to pay for extra. It comes down to different philosophies. I personally tend not to like equipment to be purchased only from the school, but for me is rarely a reason to dismiss a school. Sometimes it is purely profit-motivated and a poor business decision in my opinion. I have, however, known instructors who had this rule in place because they did not want students buying the cheapest thing they could find and it turn out not to be safe. After school programs should be license if required by their state. Some of that depends on what takes place during the program. It is, however, a bit of a weak argument considering that martial arts schools in general lack licensing and certified personnel for interacting with children. I don't really follow the whole summer camp thing because I attended a lot of them growing up and they surely did not have licensed childcare providers and every one of them cost money. Once again these are added services you can choose to pay for or not pay for.



No meaningful instruction in weapons that were designed based off farm implements to be used in a different era? Just pointing that out, I am well aware that the principles of these weapons can be applied to sometimes readily available everyday items (pool cues, sticks, etc). But is it really your or my place to judge the value of weapons training for other people? I choose to train in the weapons I carry with me or feel I can acquire in most instances. Predominantly my interests are in knives and firearms because I am rarely far from either. But I also enjoy more traditional weapons regardless of their day-to-day self-defense availability. I've seen a lot of schools that have weapons as part of the curriculum, traditional schools, that teach a handful of kata for each weapon, and don't practice them beyond kata. No practice or discussion of their practical application. It never seemed to bother the students. Were I teaching weapons would I want to teach practical applications? Absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily detract from the value of another school. People are enamored with weapons, they want to train in them, as a kid I wanted to train with them and not because I wanted to know how to use them to beat other people up, it was enjoyable. When you watch some of the "extreme" empty-hand and weapons forms that people create for competition that are designed to look good not be deadly do you think that they are wrong for doing so? If they find enjoyment in it, then so be it. Quality is important, but enjoyment is also important. If whatever depth you teach weapons, you are giving quality instruction in what you do teach then what is the problem? Teaching poor quality can be unethical, but we also have to remember that quality is subjective in everything including the martial arts. As far as your last statement, if an instructor adds something to their curriculum that is usually not there but that their students enjoy then this is bad? Back when I went through paramedic school my instructor made all of us learn the full medical school physical assessment that was above and beyond what was required of the curriculum. This made me a worse paramedic, yes? I bit of an extreme example, sorry. But the martial arts students learned a little bit extra about martial arts (even if not to the depth you would prefer or to be experts in the practical applications of that weapon) that they enjoyed learning and this is a qualification for a label?



Almost every truck-stop bathroom I've ever been in had a similar look and business practices. A vague statement that honestly says nothing about the quality of instruction. I'm generally not a fan of long contracts with no outs other than moving over 30 miles away. However, I have trained at schools with mandatory contracts that had great instruction and at schools without contracts with poor instruction. Pricing is subjective. It is based upon perceived value on the part of both the school owner and the student. Some students are unwilling to pay $150/month and others will do so happily. It the student feels that what they are learning is worth at least what they are paying, what is the problem. Price is irrelevant, competing on price as a small-business owner can be fatal as often as it's successful. If you charge too much based on the value of what you're providing and you'll probably go out of business. Charge too little and you surely will. What always tickles me (and this is not directed at you) is the student who won't go and pay this high fee to the "McDojo" but then grumbles that all the schools that charge the $50/month they're willing to spend will give them tetanus. I already mentioned my thoughts on billing companies, there has got to be a decent one out there somewhere. Already spoke about number of belts and testing fees. Guaranteed passage kind of depends on how and why its set-up. There are some very good instructors who use a rotating curriculum and for the first several tests will basically guarantee passing as long as the student is making progress. They essentially have looser initial standards that get stricter and stricter as the student progresses. This is not necessarily bad as it does offset discouragement that students will feel as they are learning something new. Anyone who thinks that when they took their very first rank test that they had to and did perform the perfect front kick because their instructor did not accept anything less than perfection is probably kidding themselves. You expect a different level of technical competence at different levels. If simply paying money is all that it takes to receive a belt without any progression or skill, then yes this is bad and unethical in my opinion.



So when you started off as a white belt your instructor taught you everything that was required all the way through the highest level in your system as a white belt, yes? What you described is the nature of teaching and learning. It is the same experience I have had from pre-school to the PhD program I'm in now and every time I've ever learned anything in a formal setting. Heck I can argue that it is the way I've gained anything I've ever learned. Everyone has different definitions of fantastical and it starts getting too close to my art is better than your art. I believe that some arts teach self-defense better than others, but it is solely my opinion where individual arts or schools within arts lie. Some people's goal is to compete, maybe they're better off at a competition based school? Oh yea, back to first statement. Almost every formal curriculum that you pay to take is geared towards keeping you paying to some extent. Colleges and universities spend absurd amounts of money studying and trying to improve student retention.



You are an expert on adult and child educational theory and application? Mediocrity is subjective and I'd argue that most teachers of anything are mediocre as teachers. Teaching is both art and science, the ones that we tend to classify as good are really skilled in the art of teaching but know little about the science, few have a decent about of skill/knowledge in the art and science, and probably only a handful are really skilled in both. There is a pretty close comparison between martial arts teachers and university professors. They are both considered experts in their field and the honest truth is that neither group tends to know a whole lot about learning and teaching. We equate expertise in a field with teaching ability, which is far from the truth. The "good" ones tend to get by on natural aptitude but could be phenomenal if they received a solid foundation in education. I've already talked about contracts and I don't believe they are fantastic but they do serve a purpose which is not always the one attributed to them. And I have agreed that there is an ethical concern to trading a black belt for money without the skill required for your art. Though I also do not claim to be an expert it what is required of every art and organization out there, certainly not enough to go around judging schools or arts. I know what I am looking for in my training and search out schools that will provide it, those that don't I move past. The key is that what I am looking for is not necessarily the same as what you or someone else is looking for. What is a good fit for me, may not be for you. What is a good fit for you, may not be for me. If I'm not going to train there why should I care about labeling it this or that? I have no need to prove myself as some expert in the martial arts by passing judgement on other schools or instructors

The whole concept of "a McDojo can be a good school, the focus on profitability places teaching in the back seat, so the level of instruction falls to the norm of mediocrity" is subjective and ridiculous. It doesn't even make sense. A good school at the level of mediocrity because of profit? Is mediocrity the definition of a good school? According to this line of reasoning every for-profit business, and most non-profits, are McDojos. The government is a McDojo. I trade time for profit, heck I'm a McDojo. You probably make money doing something, you're a McDojo. I still don't get why everyone is so afraid of someone else being a successful martial arts school owner. I really do think its some weird, twisted concept of what we believe about Asian notions of honor or integrity or whatever. Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Nintendo are all just trying to break-even right? The only honorable martial arts instructor is the one who worries how he's going to pay the light bill for his 200 square foot run-down school and lives off three packs of Ramen noodles and half a snickers bar a week? And if he's extra-special honorable he donates two of those packs of Ramen noodles to a food bank.



Physical ability is not important in a physical activity? Are there better times to test physical abilities such as general endurance or strength than at a testing? Perhaps, I've seen tests done both ways and it has never really bothered me either way. For some a black belt test is a grueling ordeal that is meant to test your mental willpower as much as your physical ability. Which is a concept that the U.S. military uses every day. They don't just do endless PT to make their recruits more physically fit. The people that go into selection for various special forces groups are already in pretty top notch shape and then even after selection they are constantly pushed to their physical limits to test their mental ones. I will say that quality should be demonstrated in a test and most of the tests that did have pretty heavy fitness tests along with it actually expected a certain level of degradation of technique as the test went on. I'm sure there are cases where you are right and PT is used to mask technique flaws, but it is also possible that you do not agree with incorporating any type of PT into testing and so any school that does isn't doing it right and is, therefore, a McDojo.



Traditional school, instructor with legitimate accolades, lousy? I guess you mean that a well qualified instructor can have a lousy school and I agree wholeheartedly. That has nothing to do with whether they are making a profit or not. Not every champion is a teacher. Not every good teacher is a champion. Price is no more of a guarantor of quality than anything else you've mentioned other than where you have explicitly stated quality is bad. You cannot legitimately say that using a billing company means the instruction is bad. Or that having a contract means the instruction is bad. Or that having lots of colored belts means the instruction is bad. Or that any combination of these three with anything else you listed (other than explicit quality problems) means that the instruction is bad. Not trying to be rude or offend you, but when I read this what it seemed to scream at me was if the instructor wants to make money teaching martial arts they must be a McDojo. I contend that you can make money and maintain the integrity of what you teach. If you are providing value to people and they are willing to pay you for it then you are obviously doing something right. Some people expect pushy sales and really couldn't care less one way or another, some see it as a game, and some will walk if presented with it. The best salespeople aren't push at all from my experiences. Asking for the sale is not bad or wrong or evil. The martial arts teacher is selling a service and to get the sale you have to ask for it.



So, based on this statement if I were to own a school a McDojo would be exactly what I wanted to own. To be an owner that still loved their art, had a good school with a solid curriculum, that was profitable and didn't have to worry about having to close when times are lean-- I'll take it. Profit at the expense of the art is bad, profit while maintaining the integrity of your art is not.



This I completely agree with. It is the individual schools and instructors. Just like what a McDojo is or isn't all comes down to individuals. I would hate to miss the opportunity to train at a place that had something that really filled a gap in my training because of some arbitrary rules that did not necessarily impact the quality of the instruction at all. That was the point of my example in my first post, I found great training at a place that would be labeled a McDojo by most and not so great training at another place that most would not call a McDojo. I would be rather upset if I went to a martial artist friend who I respected and asked him about XYZ school only to be told "it's a McDojo" based on their own personal arbitrary definition. To me it is a bit close-minded as I've seen any number of discussions about whether this or that school is or is not a McDojo on the internet about schools that no one involved in the conversation is anywhere close enough to go check it out on their own. I would have much greater respect for someone that told me specifically what the problems were. "I don't know much about that school but I went by and checked it out and thought it was too expensive." or "I didn't feel the style was a good fit for me, but it might be for you." or "They do front kicks differently than I've been taught and I don't know that I agree with how they do them or that I could adapt to that."

And ultimately, I go back to my main point from before. You don't try and pick out whether a school is or is not a McDojo but you have a detailed list of what constitutes one based. What you have is a detailed list of what you feel constitutes the derogatory label of McDojo. Though based on at least one statement of yours it is exactly the label most business consultants would tell you to strive for. Which is the key, a McDojo is whatever the individual believes it is. There is really no standard to compare it against. If you ask me is Joe's Modern Tae Kwon Roto Rooter a McDojo, I'd have to say maybe, whose definition do you want to compare it against? Daniel's? Watergal's? Balrog's? PhotonGuys? Just reading this thread shows a variety of definitions. Well does Joe's sell rank? If it does then according to PhotonGuy it is a McDojo. It might also be according to Daniel but he has a rather large list of criteria but is a little unclear on how many of those criteria you have to meet, I'm pretty sure that selling rank is an automatic qualifier though so I would feel safe saying that it probably qualifies as a McDojo for Daniel but we might want to call him and see how to score each criteria and what overall score we have to make to meet the qualification.

Once again it is all my .02. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Also, I am not attempting to attack you or be argumentative, just laying out my point of view in comparison to the post of yours you quoted. You have every right to believe a McDojo is whatever you believe it is. It just so happens that I dislike the term and care more for quality in instruction than whether the owner makes a profit or not.

-D. [/B]

Your reply is fourteen paragraphs worth, thirteen of which were in bold print, and two of which should have been three paragraphs on their own. Yes, I read it.

I began a point by point response to you, but in reading your post, I realized that you hadn't actually read my post very carefully and that you seem convinced that I made points that I wasn't making, so I canceled it.

You were brimming over so much with your rebuttal that you couldn't actually take your time to read my post. Because of that, you made straw man arguments based on points you think I made. This is discernable in the way that you restate my comments in your own posts.

If you want to compare viewpoints on McDojos, talk to me, don't blog at me. If you want my opinion on something, or want to know where I'm coming from on a subject, ask me concise questions rather than snarky rhetorical ones accompanied by a blog. I don't respond well to snark, by the way, and there's enough of it here that I question whether you're actually interested in discussing anything rather than just broadcasting your own point of view.

If you stay here for any length of time, you'll find that I'm probably a lot more supportive of commercial schools and the things that they have to deal with and a lot less judgemental of commercial schools, children in black belts, and peripheral programs than many here are. Of course, that should have been evident from the post that you quoted.

 

[Dissertating]

Umm... No. There seems to be developing a general consensus of the over-arching idea of what a McDojo may or may not be. The question seems to be coming down to the details.

And you are free to come to a consensus definition, but my question is what is the point for another derogatory term that serves no real purpose. A person either perceives enough value in a school to justify paying the costs asked or they don't. That is an individual decision and the consensus means nothing to that individual. My issue with the term is that it gets applied all to quickly with little to no real knowledge of the actual school in question and the fact that there really is no way to know what a person means when they label it a McDojo. Lets use Elder999's post as an example. He has found a website, posted its link here and stated that he thinks it may be a McDojo. Now are we all supposed to debate its merit as a McDojo based on its website? Elder999 may know a great deal about the Pro Martial Arts franchise as a whole or one of its Franchisees. Maybe to him it is a McDojo but based on his post I have no way of knowing what he means by McDojo except the "consensus" being generated in this thread. What if his definition is different? But once again, what is the point? How can I discuss Pro martial arts as a McDojo when I've never been in one. Even if I had been in one, how could I discuss them all. Had Elder999 posted a link to Premiere martial arts, then I could discuss that, at least concerning the one of their franchised schools I have been to. I guess the best way to put it is that when you start off with something considered derogatory I believe there is little honest debate that can go on. As I seem to usually see the term McDojo used, a post is started along the lines of "Is this a McDojo?" or "HALP, I think I'm at a McDojo!!!" And usually there are tons of people who have never been to the school that are quick to confirm for that person that yes they are attending a McDojo. And the usual line of reasoning that I have seen in these types of conversations is well they're trying to make money, therefore they sell belts, therefore they are a McDojo. Why don't we discuss the pros and cons of a particular school or program. Rather than worrying about the label, what's the problem?

"Well the school owner sold me a contract membership!"
"Ok, did you want to learn what he was teaching and were willing to pay the price he asked?"
"Yea"
"Then what's the problem?"
"Well he made me sign a contract!"
"Made you huh, held a gun to your head did he?
"Well no"
"So you agreed to it when you signed it, not you don't want it, and so he must be a McDojo?"
"YESSS!!!11!! You get it, I knew He WAS a McDojo"
"No, you are an adult who was stupid enough to sign a long-term contract for something that you were not sure you would stick with for a long time."

or

"I think I'm at a McDojo"
"What's the problem?"
"Well, there's a lot of Tae Kwon Do black belts that are like 12 years old and can't kick about their shins without losing their balance."
So your answer can be:
"Yep, you're at a McDojo congratulations"
or "Well from what I know about Tae Kwon Do that probably doesn't meet the technical requirements for TKD, are there other options near you?"

I tend to be more interested in helping people find the right school for them and I have dealt with students long enough to know that nothing is ever their fault. Things are not always their fault, sometimes they are actually right, but I've also heard some pretty wild things from students about how they were wronged by this teacher or that. I've sat in the manager's chair over faculty and after test time there'd be any number of students who failed the test in the office claiming this or that as not being fair. It does deserve investigation because they are right at times. But do I label the instructor a McTeacher to ridicule them? No, I take the appropriate disciplinary action and move on.

I think you misunderstand exactly what a "red flag" is and what its purpose is. A "red flag" doesn't mean automatic disqualification or points-off-to-the-total. It just means that it is an indicator commonly associated with a given description or definition and thus indicates closer inspection and more caution. You are confusing correlation with causation (or you are assuming that we are confusing correlation with causation). Also, I'm not sure that everyone in this discussion would concur with your definitions of a red flag.

I really really wish I was not familiar with correlation does not equal causation, I hear it way too much in school . I was just pointing out examples of red flags that I have heard used before, some of which had been used in this thread, as part of the overall example. The point I was trying to make there, apparently not very successfully, was that I attended three schools. One which, based on this and other conversations I've had over McDojos that have helped form my personal thoughts, was most likely to be considered a McDojo, one that could go either way, and one that I felt would typically not be considered a McDojo. And where I to move back to Texas I wouldn't hesitate re-joining the first two and probably would not join the last. Now what if I'd asked a friend about going to the first school and he told me "Naw, you don't want to go there," and his opinion was based on nothing more than his belief in what a McDojo was and his feeling that it met those criteria. What if I had listened to him and actually missed out on a fantastic place to train? Would I just go with his recommendation without asking him why? No, of course not. But there are those that would because they don't know any better.

I'm not sure who these "plenty of people" or "most people" are because it seems like few people in this discussion would agree.

And you're right that its possible few people in the discussion would agree, some might. The statement was based on my cumulative experience of McDojo discussions. When I speak I bring the whole of my experience and perhaps should quantify more that I am not necessarily aiming at people in the particular discussion at hand. My bad.

Do you think that people in this discussion have a position that a Martial Arts Instructor is somehow immoral or compromising his art if he's also trying to make money from it? I haven't really seen much of that on this forum (or most forums for that matter).

No. This goes back again that I speak with the sum of my experiences. What I have noticed in my dealings with the topic is that it really people make that "you're doing it different from me" or "you're making money doing this, boooo" you are a McDojo leap. I had no intention of making or seeming to make accusations against anyone in this thread, I was actually surprised by the very succinct definitions "Trading money for belts" from many that I usually don't see in these discussions. It seems like most of the ones that I end up reading or talking about face-to-face are ones with this huge laundry list of McDojo qualities. A red flag is just a red flag, but for a lot of the people I've had the discussion with if you meet one of their criteria then you are a McDojo. Wasn't trying to accuse any of this in my original post. Was just quantifying why I dislike the McDojo term as it has been used in my experiences.

Seems like most of us are on the same page. Just a matter of which paragraph and are we using italics or bold-face.

And I am on the same page as far as believing that Trading money for belts or letting the quality of instruction suffer in favor of profits is very bad. I just think that we should say that directly rather than use a term that does have different meanings for different people.

I thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, I think a healthy debate is an important part of advancing as individuals. We do need to periodically challenge our own commonly held notions or beliefs and we grow by understanding others points of view.

As a general note, no matter how I come off I rarely mean to attack an individual for their point of view. You have as much right to yours as I to mine. I will disagree, and even sometimes in a cheeky way, but I assure you it is meant to be humorous and to lighten the discussion some. I'm one of those people who can argue until I seem like I'm going to explode and then smile when its done and go have a beer. I truly am interested in the opinions and point-of-view of others, even if I disagree I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!

-D.

Edit: For spelling and grammar, let's hope I got them all.

 

[Dissertating]

Of course it's fair. We get asked all the time what school/art/etc. someone should study or if this or that school, some given art's regulating body, or so-n-so's school is "any good" or if someone should or should not take classes there.

We're asked for qualitative opinions all the freaking time. Having some expressible reason for yes/no good/bad is perfectly reasonable even if you don't like the reasons expressed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Which is why the whole quote is important:

It is not really fair or respectful to try and influence other people's choices or viewpoints about a certain school using ambiguous terms that are not clearly defined (in my opinion).

The part in bold left out.

I do not think it is wrong, and have said so in this thread, to give opinions when there is some substance to them. Don't just tell me you don't like it, give me the reasons why. This is kind of why I dislike the term, because I feel it is used too often to tell someone no stay away from that place without actually telling them why. If I came and asked you well what do you think about Such-and-such Karate school and you just said "Stay away it's a McDojo." Which seems is the response when someone doesn't actually know anything about the school but doesn't like it for some off the wall reason (I looked at their website and it looked to commercial). It is a lot less helpful than telling them well I tried the school out and the instructor was very rude or didn't seem interested in his students or that in your opinion the instructor wasn't teaching what he claimed to be teaching based on your experiences with that art.

That was the actual point being expressed, telling someone it is a McDojo tells them nothing to me. Telling them the reasons why you don't like it or why you do is what we should be doing. If you want to quantify you think it's a McDojo before you give the reasons then that is your choice. For me it's just wasted breath, especially considering it is an opinion (whether actually right or wrong).

 

[Dissertating]

Your reply is fourteen paragraphs worth, thirteen of which were in bold print, and two of which should have been three paragraphs on their own. Yes, I read it.

I began a point by point response to you, but in reading your post, I realized that you hadn't actually read my post very carefully and that you seem convinced that I made points that I wasn't making, so I canceled it.

You were brimming over so much with your rebuttal that you couldn't actually take your time to read my post. Because of that, you made straw man arguments based on points you think I made. This is discernable in the way that you restate my comments in your own posts.

If you want to compare viewpoints on McDojos, talk to me, don't blog at me. If you want my opinion on something, or want to know where I'm coming from on a subject, ask me concise questions rather than snarky rhetorical ones accompanied by a blog. I don't respond well to snark, by the way, and there's enough of it here that I question whether you're actually interested in discussing anything rather than just broadcasting your own point of view.

If you stay here for any length of time, you'll find that I'm probably a lot more supportive of commercial schools and the things that they have to deal with and a lot less judgemental of commercial schools, children in black belts, and peripheral programs than many here are. Of course, that should have been evident from the post that you quoted.

Daniel,

In all honesty I did read your post, multiple times in fact. And I honestly was just trying to give my opinion based on the points I saw you making. In your opinion I may not have grasped the nuance of what you were saying. So the overall premise I took from what you had quoted was that you felt there were indicators that made a McDojo, which I gave an alternating point of view that some of the things can have legitimate uses or not necessarily be red flags. The overall purpose being to show a point of view that perhaps contrasted your own and furthered the conversation. I did restate your comments because I agreed with some, and some I agreed with after some modification. I will be honest that I feel much the same way about your posts. You say that you are ok with an instructor making a profit but then you call the School owner who maintains the integrity of their art while making a profit a McDojo owner. In my defense I did state at the very beginning that all of this was my opinion and attempted to show where it differs. And at the end I again attempted to relay that it was my opinion and to explicitly state that I was not trying to attack or be argumentative as I know how easy it is to take things people say on forums like these.

I can apologize for the length. I am talkative, sometimes go off on tangents, and can even be preachy at times (I was raised southern baptist, I'm trapped and don't know how to get rid of the preachiness ). It is my tendency to go off on tangents and be preachy that I try to write often that it is my opinion and that I am not meaning to seem like I am attacking or trying to offend anyone. I send my days talking to people and it has made me a bit chatty.

The bold was by accident. I did not bold it intentionally and am not sure how it got that way.

I guess my "brimming over with my rebuttal" was accurate as the post was meant to be a rebuttal but not really in a negative way. I am sorry if you took it that way.

I use rhetorical questions, quite a bit both when I write and speak. Not intended to be snarky, cheeky maybe but not snarky. I would be willing to bet that most of the questions you felt were snarky were not meant to be snarky or probably even cheeky. I don't see a problem with using rhetorical questions. I use them to make or emphasize points, maybe too much but its how I am. Some of the non-rhetorical questions that you found snarky, well again I can only apologize for you finding them snarky but I assure you there was a valid (not necessarily one you agree with) point behind them. I'll try not to blog at you, though I am afraid it is another one of those personal quirks. I try to be thorough in my explanations, its a habit I have from teaching rather complex topics to people often straight out of high school. I am not saying that anything I said above was complex, just that I am used to explaining in depth. And I would rather write a hundred magazine articles or blog posts than a single scientific paper, I like the style of writing better.

Maybe our definition of discussions are different. I responded to what you responded to me with. You gave me your point of view, I gave you and defended mine in return. You took offense either because of how I write or because you thought I was being snarky or because you felt I wasn't "getting" what you were saying, or because I gave my honest rebuttal rather than caving to your views and ended the conversation. If you had responded, I would have responded to you and by the time it was done I think we would have both clarified some misunderstandings and would have ended up with a decent approximation of what each person believes and quite possibly a better understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Real discussions take work and a willingness to do so on both sides even though they may not agree with what they're hearing/reading. I honestly wanted to better understand your point of view and the best way to do that was to confront it with my own and then see how you did so in return.

And I do not doubt that you are supportive of commercial schools, but as you noted I have not been here for any length of time and do not know how supportive you have been in the past. You speak from the sum of your experience, as do I even if we don't always know the sum of that experience. The last two sentences that you added in may have had me approach the whole thing a little differently had I seen them before I began writing my reply, though probably not. Each of the things you noted were on your list of McDojo common denominators. Now you may have meant that in and of themselves each one does not mean a McDojo, but it did read that way for me at least. And in my defense you gave no real quantifiable way to use this list to determine what mix of these traits denotes a McDojo and other statements as mentioned above show that profit is an important part of your definition regardless of quality (the whole McDojo Shool owner that makes a profit and "remembers why (s)he teaches"). I may be dense and not understanding the hidden meaning but the water is a little muddy.

I really don't know how to respond to the whole "if I'm here any length of time" as though I am supposed to turn and run from the board as fast as I can because you and I had a misunderstanding. I have a thick skin but if misunderstandings are going to be all too common then it may be best for me to allow you the rule of your kingdom without my meddling. With that being said I again apologize if you took offense to anything I said or thought I was trying to do anything more than have a conversation. I will admit that maybe I did not make myself clear on some things or how I meant things. I accept my part in the misunderstanding and hope that this little blog post helped clear up where I was coming from or my intentions or just gave a little insight into the way I write/speak that can be taken the wrong way. I truly was, and still am, interested in understanding your point of view and do feel you have as much a right to yours as I do to mine.

-David

 

[Steve]

David, you're free to train wherever you'd like, and it's great that you have found schools which suit you, and provide what you believe is a good value. The term "mcdojo" means, to me, a way of doing business, and as others have pointed out, the term does mean generally the same thing to most people. Every term, including "mcdojo" is somewhat subjective, but you could ask anyone here or over on Bullshido.net, and while there are varying opinions about the worth of a mcdojo, most people will readily acknowledge that one can obtain quality instruction at a "McDojo." The quality of the instruction and the business practices employed are distinct and one is not necessarily a reflection of the other.

Edit: And, I forgot to say, welcome to the boards!

 

[Dissertating]

Thanks Steve!

So let me ask you this. Is there something wrong with a certain way of doing business or a right way to do business? If certain business practices earn a school the label of McDojo, what are the "right" business practices? And why are those right and the others wrong?

Edit: Let me add for the sake of clarity that my questioning uses the assumption that McDojo is a derogatory term which would make the business practices earning that label "wrong" to the person giving the label.
-D.

 

[Steve]

Thanks Steve!

So let me ask you this. Is there something wrong with a certain way of doing business or a right way to do business? If certain business practices earn a school the label of McDojo, what are the "right" business practices? And why are those right and the others wrong?

Edit: Let me add for the sake of clarity that my questioning uses the assumption that McDojo is a derogatory term which would make the business practices earning that label "wrong" to the person giving the label.
-D.

Well, that's a judgement call. Mixing money and the "art" is a bad thing for some. But most, I think, would say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a good living. There is a point where the pursuit of money and the building of a martial arts empire becomes the primary focus. Gaining new students becomes the priority over retaining the current students. It's a viable business model, but one which can lead to quality issues.

Also, some of the business practices associated with McDojos are more questionable than others. For example, I've always had a problem with "mandatory seminars," "mandatory belt testing," or other things which aren't discussed before the contract is signed, which create additional costs for the customers. It's deceitful, IMO. There are other business practices that I would consider aggressive and not completely honest.

But, discounts for signing longer terms isn't a bad thing necessarily. Neither is selling kit in-house. That's a great way to keep money in the school. Opening affiliate schools is another way to share costs and keep overhead down. Stuff like that is McDojo-ish, but not bad.

I'd say that, as long as quality control is good, and the instruction is sound, then there's really nothing inherently wrong with being a McDojo. I don't like some of the business practices, but that doesn't make them bad. Just not for me.

 

[WaterGal]

McDojo website here.I think.....

I think the quote-worthy part is this:

No previous martial arts experience is necessary to qualify for a PRO Martial Arts franchise!

I actually do think martial arts can be a great way (though certainly not the only way) to help people with their confidence, assertiveness, self-discipline, etc, as cliched as that may be.