What makes someone a pro?

Several threads have mentioned a "pro" who appeared not to be acting in a professional manner, for example signing a student up for _every_ pro-am event that they could even though it was obvious that the student wasn't ready for several of the events. The poster didn't mention having spoken to the individuals, though, so it could have been the student who wanted to sign up for all the events.

I know of one person who wanted to take their teacher certification exam, but they were so woefully unprepared that they couldn't really answer any of the questions. The examiner (I heard afterward) eventually just started asking for the person to dance the pattern, without bothering to try to answer the technical aspects. The person failed the exam, of course, but felt it was a valuable experience nonetheless.

This isn't well connected to that story, but in your opinion what makes someone a "pro"? There isn't a required certification (like those required for hairdresses) for someone to be a dance teacher, so in reality anyone can call themselves a pro.

In my opinion anyone who accepts money for teaching dance is a pro, even if they don't try to make a living teaching dance. Do you agree? Does accepting money make you a "pro"?

There is another side to the rhombus, of course. What about the competitive amateurs? They aren't pros in the sense of earning money (even if they win scholarships - those don't count), but their level of technical ability would make non-dancers think of them as professionals. Do they count as "pros"? (Not by my definition.)

Yet another side to the rhombus is those individuals who are technically professionals, meaning they actually know what they are doing, and accpet money for their expertise, but who don't act like professionals. Are "pros" who behave non-professionally still pros?

What is your opinion? What makes someone a pro?

Kevin

When I think about how I use the word professional, there are two usages that come to mind. One is merely descriptive--"such and such is a professional musician," meaning he makes his living performing music, whether he's Trane or Kenny G.

The other usage, though, is more evaluative. As in "so and so is a real professional." And to me that denotes, above all, a seriousness before a subject, a breadth of knowledge about that subject that goes beyond rote and technicality, and an openness to new ideas and approaches to the subject (or the profession).

To me, the second is far more important than the first. If I say about a person, "Oh, yeah, Kevin. Great dancer, really nice guy. Yeah, I'd take lessons from him, he's a real pro." That's about the highest compliment I can give.

The opposite in mind to "professional" as I use it is not "amateur." It's "dilettante."

And, sadly, there are dilettantes who get paid to teach dance. I know a few of them.

I think it comes when they no longer need instruction and can hold their own. Dancer are always learning and progressing...but there comes a point when a teacher just can't teach you anything more. As a dancer, you will continue to improve with practice, but for the most part, you have mastered the technique needed to succeed. From here, the world is your oyster...you can choreograph, compete, and hang with most situations. The final key ingredient is the talent. Dancing can be learned, but those with talent can excell.

I myself would love to go pro. The question is, do I have the talent and ability it takes to do so? At present, I am lacking one bank robbery from my goal. I think I probably could with the right partner and training. After only four months, I've had people mistake me for an instructor...while others say that I just glow on the floor...drawing attention no matter what I do.

pygmalion said:

And, sadly, there are dilettantes who get paid to teach dance. I know a few of them.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are. And there are dilettantes who have very successful careers as professional actors while other very professional people go along unnoticed in community theatres across the country.

Luckily, though, everyone else can benefit from our brilliant insights. You know, we should do a radio show together. :wink:

I guess I should expand on the dilettante remark. No need to be cryptic.

Incidentally, back when I was a struggling high school musician, we defined professional as getting paid to do it. So we were pros. LOL! Admittedly, we played assorted happy hours and weddings and didn't get paid much more than good will for our school, but we considered ourselves pros, because we did get paid.

My personal definition has changed a bit. I guess you could use a paycheck as the criterion, if you wanted. But, to me, the word professional carries a deeper meaning. To me, it's someone who takes their craft seriously, even if they're NOT getting paid for it, or it's not their livelihood.

Let me give you an example.

A dance pro who isn't I've known more than a few ballroom dance "pros" who didn't study anything on their own time, didn't know the ins and outs of ballroom shoes, couldn't name any of the US or international high levels competitors, couldn't make a coherent argument as to why one might choose social versus competitive dance, knew nothing about local competitions or national dance governing organizations, and so on. Yet these people were being paid to teach in a social dance studio. So, by some definitions (not mine) they were pros.


Hmm.

Genesius Redux said:

pygmalion said:

And, sadly, there are dilettantes who get paid to teach dance. I know a few of them.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are. And there are dilettantes who have very successful careers as professional actors while other very professional people go along unnoticed in community theatres across the country.

Click to expand...

Can you say J-Lo? :twisted: :lol: Sorry. I couldn't resist.

An anology I can think of is the guy taking photos at sears or glamour shots a professional photographer? Not really at least not according real pros. Sure they get paid....

I consider a professional to be someone who has learnt and honed their craft

That's a great illustration, tasche.

The other day, I was at the supermarket and overhead a couple cashiers planning to go apply for cashier positions at Walmart. Why? Because, if you do well as a cashier, you can get promoted to the position of photographer. :shock:

Perfect illustration. 8)

Oy! My husband was/is a professional photographer ( he has a day job though) and it always bites my a that people come to expect a pro job to cost the same as glamour shots or sears.

Or my pet peeve is when they say to him " Oh your camera takes such good pictures" and he replies "No its the photographer that takes good pictures", "Yeah but your camera is so good.."

Some ppl...

It "bites your a"?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, you're right, people don't think of what a professional charges at all; my most recent headshots were for a sitting fee of $180, which included all the negatives--and that was a steal!

In a sport, even dancesport, the most simple distinction is a pro earns money and an amateur doesn't. An amateur athlete used to be disqualified if for example, a towel boy or lifeguard at a swimming pool was considered a professional swimmer.

Life and Dancesport are not so Black and White. And loopholes surround some dancers so they remain amateurs.

An amateur can get scholarships, as long as that money is used for dance. He can teach, so long as he is not getting monitarily compensated and it is part of his studies, like assisting or teaching is required as part of a dance class cirriculum. Or, he can teach for money as long as he is within a top percentage of amateur atheletes and he/she doesn't make more than he/she spends on dance expenses. An amateur is expected to pay his living expenses out of something other than dance. However, personal grants or corporate sponsoships are OK. Also, I heard there are studios that employ top amateurs as teachers, and the studio provides them room and board for free. Technically, this should be added as income and if the total exceeds the dance expenses, it should make the amateur ineligible, but how is that different from Corporate sponsorship? Just because the Corporate entity is a Dance Studio.

This is the reason the NDCA and USABDA have had recent differences. What the NDCA believes to be amateur is not what USABDA believes. USABDA allowed certain amateurs to teach based on the criteria above and the NDCA said that made them pros. But the NDCA is not the sanctioned body to determine amateur status by the ISDF. So USABDA has not done anything to change their position, and the NDCA got so upset, they started their own amateur circuit and have come up with their own amateur rules. We were talking 80,000 bucks made a year by amateurs, which is just a drop in the bucket compared to millions made by professionals every year. But, when you think about it, if making money makes you a pro, then the NDCA is correct.

The reason USABDA did this was to give our top amateurs a chance to make money like many other amateurs around the world. It just didn't seem fair that our amateurs had to find all the money themselves and other international competitors could make money teaching.

Being an Amateur under the NDCA is very similar to USABDA, and top amateurs can make money teaching, so long as they are International Latin or Standard competitors. The NDCA doesn't allow it for American Competitors because they will not compete internationally, so they don't need the advantages the other competitors have in other countries. Which I think is a valid point. So since USABDA and the NDCA are really close in their thinking, why are they still split on the issue? I think the NDCA made the first compromise by letting international competitors teach, why can't USABDA just come back and say, OK, we won't let American style competitors compete?

It is simply a standoff. USABDA has failed miserably at getting more corporate sponsorship for Dancesport athletes and the NDCA is trying to protect the livelyhood of its registrants and member organizations like Arthur Murry.

Can either of these organizations truely help Amateur Dancesport? Who is really losing out? The non-championship level competitors. They can't teach, but still the same they must pay more for Dancesport Athlete membership from USABDA and now the NDCA requires registration and charges a fee as well. The NDCA used to accept the USABDA membership but not any longer. And USABDA has raised its fees.

If you can't tell, I am upset with both for how they are handling this. USABDA makes decisions in favor of top level competitors or Social Dancers, it has yet to make a decision that hasn't cost me more money. The NDCA, charges me for a membership, but still cannot make Amateur couple competition more popular at its comps. The last one I went to, it was a 5 dance Championship exhibition, there were no other couples signed up. And the self governing and self enforcing of rules that USABDA uses for the Dancesport Athletes is just loaded with confusion and abuse.

I think it is time for Amatuer Dancesport to create it's own entity. With a group of people that will govern without worrying about teachers making money or social dancer membership dropping. The NCAA is a prime example of what I am talking about. A group like that could be out there getting corportate sponsorship, getting TV airtime, and organizing and governing the competitors. Most think without the volunteers that USABDA has it would fail. But with people in charge that know how to solve monitary issues, it would get better faster. I think it is time to start thinking outside the NDCA and USABDA.

That is a steal. Negatives included WOW

Though heres another thing to consider. A mark of a good professional is not underpricing your work. You can find wedding photographers that will do you wedding for $300 I find that sad. I guess you get what you pay for but still..

tasche said:

That is a steal. Negatives included WOW

Though heres another thing to consider. A mark of a good professional is not underpricing your work. You can find wedding photographers that will do you wedding for $300 I find that sad. I guess you get what you pay for but still..

Click to expand...

Well, remember also that I'm in Music City, and there's a lot of competition for professional headshots--plus I got this photographer from another professional recommendation, and she comes down for struggling actor types.

But yes, you're right. I don't like underpricing--it makes it look like you don't have any respect for your own work.

Yes. That is a steal!

DanceAm, Wow! You have a lot to say about this topic. I'm going to have to go back and read through your post carefully before I reply fully.

What I know already I can agree with is that neither NDCA nor USABDA has a working definition of amateur vs. pro that works without exception. (I guess that's what makes this such an interesting thread LOL!)

Your suggestion that amateur dancesport have its own organization? I don't know. My approach has always been to work within an existing organization first, before starting something new. But you clearly have more expereice than I with both NDCA and USABDA. You may be right. It may be time for something completely different. Let me ponder, then come back and post. 8)