SJSU Program in trouble

[riceboy]

With all this discussion of coaching certification and training going on in here recently, I was going to post an offer to answer questions about the SJSU Fencing Masters Program. For those of you who don't recognize me, I am an Instructor at Arms through the program, and a Provost candidate for the upcoming year (I hope...). I took the last year off and after passing my instructor's exam, and will be going back this semester.

While this was going to be a simple offer to answer questions, the SJSU program is in serious trouble. It seems that it has lost it's sponsoring department within the University and is, so far, unable to obtain a new one. Without a department sponsor, the program will have to leave SJSU and either dissolve completely or move to another institution. For more about the situation, see the article bellow.

http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/09/16/News/Program.Fights.For.Survival-3433012.shtml

While I am sure some of you will respond with comments along the lines of "why should I care" and "about time". Whatever your stance on the content of its training, it remained the last program of its kind in the country and its loss will be a blow to coaching training in the US.

I also offer to answer any questions you might have based on MY experience in the program. You should recognize that I do not speak for the program, or the maestros in charge of the program. When I get to class on Sat, I will try and ask the Mastro Sahm (the director) if he would answer questions that you have, but I can not guarantee that he will agree.

[MdA]

I am sorry for M. Gaugler and M Sahm. Unfortunately, this is another example of a fencing instructors training program sustained by the efforts of one (or a few) persons….at an institution which seems to care little for our sport.

I suspect that the only option is to move the program to another institution (college or club). I don’t think a letter writing campaign will have much effect on the SJSU administration….not to mention, it appears that the deed is already done…these departments don’t usually give you much warning….so that you can’t organize resistance.

I suppose the USFA can send a strongly worded letter of protest. Unfortunately, the SJSU program has no affiliation or accreditation by the USFCA…so I don’t know if support would be forthcoming or appropriate.

I think this is a warning shot for fencing coaches seeking education and training. I think we are in for some lean times. Get your training when and where you can. As institutions cut their budgets…I don’t think coaches training will be anywhere on the balance sheet.

[RITFencing]

I suppose the USFA can send a strongly worded letter of protest. Unfortunately, the SJSU program has no affiliation or accreditation by the USFCA…so I don’t know if support would be forthcoming or appropriate.

Does the USFCA run under the auspices of the USFA? I had always thought the two were separate entities.

The mission and goals of the USFA, taken directly from their website, are as follows:

Mission: The mission of the USFA is to develop fencers to achieve international success and to administer and promote the sport in the USA.

Goals:
•Earn international medals
•Expand membership
•Increase the number and quality of coaches and integrate them into the USFA
•Increase public interest in fencing
•Make the USFA an effective and efficient organization.

While some argument can be made about exactly what they mean by the sport of fencing, and how that applies to what is taught at SJSU, having the program around does, on some level, promote awareness of fencing.

Personally, I don't like the program very much. I'm very much in the modern fencing camp. However, like MdA, I feel for you. I know how difficult it can be to run a fencing program in a school that really doesn't care too much about you, and seems to exist only to cause you problems.

OTOH, though... what exactly was your program doing for the school? If most students aren't even aware that you exist, then I doubt very much that you were a large asset. Furthermore, the TRFT and Aerospace departments? I can almost, maybe, just maybe see a stage fencing argument for TRFT, but why precisely was a course in fencing instruction being offered through aerospace studies? A bit ridiculous, if you ask me.

It sounds like the problem boils down to "they're taking away our free ride." It's true that you may not be costing them much, but for a program to exist at a college (and give course credit, no less) there has to be a benefit, not just a lack of cost. I'm not seeing exactly what benefit they were getting.

If you want to continue, you may want to try to do so as a student run club rather than a university class, or in your own space elsewhere, as I believe was suggested. Try to use this as an opportunity to grow and evolve your program, recruit more people, and end up standing on your own two feet. If you can't, then I have to wonder how solid the organization was to begin with.

In short: welcome to the world most fencing clubs have to live with.

[MdA]

Does the USFCA run under the auspices of the USFA? I had always thought the two were separate entities.

The USFCA and the USFA are separate entities. Sorry, I put those two thoughts too close together in my post. What I meant was that I think it is more likely that the USFA can send a letter of support...for the reasons that you point out.

Since the USFCA has never recognized the SJSU program, it would seem a little silly for us to voice any objections or support now. Basically, Gaugler went to a foreign accrediting organization (Italy) to recognize his diplomas. This is against the USFCA and AAI rules.

I agree that if the SJSU program was a little closer to modern Olympic sport fencing...it might be easier for the USFA (or even the USOC) to make a statement of support.

[RITFencing]

The USFCA and the USFA are separate entities. Sorry, I put those two thoughts too close together in my post. What I meant was that I think it is more likely that the USFA can send a letter of support...for the reasons that you point out.

Totally understandable; there's so much intermingling between the two that they might as well be joined.

Since the USFCA has never recognized the SJSU program, it would seem a little silly for us to voice any objections or support now. Basically, Gaugler went to a foreign accrediting organization (Italy) to recognize his diplomas. This is against the USFCA and AAI rules.

I agree that if the SJSU program was a little closer to modern Olympic sport fencing...it might be easier for the USFA (or even the USOC) to make a statement of support.

Yep. I wonder whether it's best to cling to such semantics in the face of what is good for fencing overall...

I'm not disagreeing with you here, just playing Devil's Advocate. I think that whether or not the USFA (or USFCA) supports an organization or not shouuld depend on how much that organization benefits fencing in the US.

[MdA]

Yep. I wonder whether it's best to cling to such semantics in the face of what is good for fencing overall...

I sent this thread to the USFCA executive committee and the certification board. I will see what can be done.

[MdA]

Unfortunately, letters of outrage or support are not going to get it done. SJSU administration would probably say "send money"!

If you want the program to survive, set up an endowment and pay for it.

The USFCA does not have the funds for such an effort. Perhaps a wealthy donor?

[RITFencing]

Unfortunately, letters of outrage or support are not going to get it done. SJSU administration would probably say "send money"!

If you want the program to survive, set up an endowment and pay for it.

The USFCA does not have the funds for such an effort. Perhaps a wealthy donor?

Might work out. It does for enough other things associated with colleges. The whole institution tends to stay in existence via begging.

You could also try asking the PE department (or whatever the equivalent is) whether they would be willing to host your group.

[Hauptman]

The program used to be under the auspices of the ROTC - Military Science department, but when that was shut down in early '90s they had to find refuge where they could, which turned out to be the Theater Arts Dept.

The PE department is a bad choice unfortunately. There was a running feud, and multiple personality conflicts around the time that the whole San Jose fencing scene imploded in the late '80s. Unless there is someone new in charge of the PE department, there is little hope there.

As for the supposed conflict between the program and "modern" fencing, I would strongly disagree. The differences between modern fencing and the technique taught there are superficial at best. And as someone who has had the opportunity to take lessons from Maestro Gaugler himself, I can say that judging the program by the few graduates you may have met does not do it justice.

It has become a vicious cycle in which many good fencers and coaches are actively discouraged from entering the program, so then the program ends up graduating mostly mediocre fencers and classical fencing enthusiasts as coaches, thus perpetuating the stereotype of the program.

And as with most academic programs, graduation is not the end of learning but merely the beginning based on the foundation of knowledge acquired in school. Please, don't judge the quality of the entire program and it's graduates by the least of those graduates.

It is truly a shame that Maestro Gaugler, his works, and the program he created are far more respected in Europe than here in the United States.

[MdA]

I agree with Hauptmann. Greg Massialas told me he studied with the Gaugler program. He credits it with helping him understand the current Italian system. Things have changed, of course, but he said that the fundamentals he learned in the program help him understand the Italian approach to foil.

I agree that what is taught there is a fundamentally correct foundation for modern fencing. It is just a shame that the program has not aligned itself (in recent years) with any organization directly supporting Olympic fencing like the USFA or FIE.

They have remained true to their roots and have preserved a very specific type/style of fencing. The same could happen to any fencing school/club/team/coach…if it doesn’t constantly adapt and change with the trends of the sport.

[MdA]

Here is an excerpt from an email from Greg M...I think there are several important points in here...I agree with him that this is where coaches education needs to go...it is painful for those involved with the SJSU program.

I am not sure there is anything that anyone can do about it once these large institutions (like SJSU) decide to cut back. The program could continue on it's own at a club in the area, but it would have to pay for itself. Until that is the case, any program will eventually have problems unless they can pay for themselves.

Ultimately, this is where fencing (overall) needs to be, and not depend on donations of space, money, etc.... to exist. Does this mean that fencing will cost more than say basketball, YES. People have to understand that fencing is an expensive sport (equipment, space, coaching, travel) and we will always be so. This means we need to market to those who are able and willing to pay for it (not just willing). The interesting fact is that those who have the ability to pay, usually understand and appreciate the benefits of fencing.

Fencing Coaching education in the USA is something that needs to develop if the USA is going to produce coaches who will go out and start programs in many cities in the USA. Right now, most of the better coaches in the USA, learn their craft outside the USA. This will only last for so long.

Cheers,

Greg

[Eisaffen]

Not a loss, really. Who have they produced over the past 10, 20, 30 years? Give me some names of top fencers or coaches who give credit to the SJSU program with helping them achieve their results. I talk with Greg M pretty often about coaching and Gaugler's name does not come up except as an introduction to Italian theory, which Gaugler states, by his own admission, that he did not create or develop, but merely translated into English.

Good fencers were not discouraged from attending the program; I knew several rated fencers who attended and quit after the first semester because they found the training to be so out of touch with late 20th century fencing that it was useless.

All I have seen from that program over the years is mainly folks who have rarely fenced more than recreationally, never or barely spent any time "in the trenches" of competition, earning their pieces of paper and using the excuse "we train coaches, not fencers" to explain why there are virtually no results from his program.

Maybe things have changed in the past few years. Any rated fencers getting trained up as coaches? Any of their current teaching cadre or candidates have people on the national point list? Any of them have students who earned a rating? How many and what ratings were earned? How many of the candidates are current active members of the USFA? What is the average number of years of USFA competitive experience among the current candidates? Are the candidates encouraged to go out and fence in other schools/clubs to test their skills?

Italian fencing theory is still the best and most adaptable in the world. The way it is presented at the SJSU program is, at best, a farce.

[Hauptman]

Not a loss, really. Who have they produced over the past 10, 20, 30 years? Give me some names of top fencers or coaches who give credit to the SJSU program with helping them achieve their results. I talk with Greg M pretty often about coaching and Gaugler's name does not come up except as an introduction to Italian theory, which Gaugler states, by his own admission, that he did not create or develop, but merely translated into English.

Good fencers were not discouraged from attending the program; I knew several rated fencers who attended and quit after the first semester because they found the training to be so out of touch with late 20th century fencing that it was useless.

All I have seen from that program over the years is mainly folks who have rarely fenced more than recreationally, never or barely spent any time "in the trenches" of competition, earning their pieces of paper and using the excuse "we train coaches, not fencers" to explain why there are virtually no results from his program.

Maybe things have changed in the past few years. Any rated fencers getting trained up as coaches? Any of their current teaching cadre or candidates have people on the national point list? Any of them have students who earned a rating? How many and what ratings were earned? How many of the candidates are current active members of the USFA? What is the average number of years of USFA competitive experience among the current candidates? Are the candidates encouraged to go out and fence in other schools/clubs to test their skills?

Italian fencing theory is still the best and most adaptable in the world. The way it is presented at the SJSU program is, at best, a farce.

Joined just to add your opinion to this conversation?

You pass along more second-hand opinion as fact, but what personal experience do you have with Maestro Gaugler or the SJSU program?

And name me any coach that credits their accreditation for their accomplishments as a coach? Most of the Maitres floating around the country learned to fence effectively, and coach effectively, long before they spent the very short time actually getting their certificates.

The SJSU program starts with mostly novice fencers and attempts to build them into more. You've been a part of many clubs, I'm sure, and after starting a beginning class of a dozen people, how many advance to anything resembling a good fencer or beyond? How many even stay for a second class? Your expectations are unrealistic.

The SJSU program turns out perfectly competent fencing teachers from a small pool of novice fencers. That is a success. And if you want to question their competence try comparing them to the average novice fencer teaching classes in the majority of clubs around the country; don't compare them to elite coaches.

You've confirmed my assertions that there are stereotypes and biases keeping quality fencers and coaches from working with the SJSU program.

[riceboy]

Thanks everyone for your words of support, comments, and the occasional flame...

Some quick responses,

AFAIK, the program was at one time affiliated with the USFCA (in the 80s), and that degrees awarded were from both organizations. When the competitive fencing program at SJSU fell apart (I think this was about 89), the SJSU program split with the USFCA. (Haptman, you were there in the late 80s, do you remember any of this?)

It's my understanding that there was some sort of political/personal (not necessarily pedagogical) falling out between the two organizations, and that the split is not necessarily unreconcilable. (that said, given the stylistic issues, it's still doubtfull on both sides).

In terms of costs, I believe (and could be wrong), that the program director receives little or no compensation for his position. When Gaugler was head of the program, he didn't get paid extra for his leadership, and I'm relatively sure that Maestro Sahm, doesn't take any compensation either. Since classes meet on Saturdays, the room we use is otherwise unused, and the program is covered by the blanket campus insurance. Further, students pay Open University fees which are considerably higher than those of regular students. Thus, the program _should_ result in a net profit for the university.

The SJSU program has spawned a number of classical fencing classes in the immediate area, which in some ways serve as "feeder" groups into the program. Thus, there already is a "club" level program in place.

To agree with Hauptman, modern fencers are often discouraged from entering the program, or leave quickly when they realize that the style of fencing is not what they are used to doing. In fact, of the 16 fencers currently in the program, perhaps 2 are involved with modern fencing (myself, and one other). The program will accept anyone, with any background and will treat them the same. Even one of my friends (an SCA fencer) received exactly the same treatment as a classical fencer, as did I (a more modern fencer).

Thus, the program tends to attract classical or historical fencers who are not active in the olympic fencing scene. I can think of only two maestros level graduates of the program who are currently coaching modern fencing (Harold Hayes, and Peter Burchard). The remainder are involved in classical fencing (5), or historical fencing (1).

The main problem with loosing the connection to SJSU, is that the accreditation is linked to the university. If the university terminates the program, then they will be unable to confer degrees. Luckally, one of the graudates (Maestro Sullins) is a tenure track professor at Sonoma State University, and already has a small mirror of the SJSU program there. Hopefully they will be able to move the accreditation over to SSU, if the program is canceled. No one is entirely sure what this will entail, and it will probably mean that the Italians will have to return to recertify Maestro Sullins' program.

(MdA, this may be a chance for the USFCA to get involved with a new fencing instruction program starting up. While there may be compromises involved, there are few chances to help start a program of this nature attached to a university)

[MdA]

Until the program can pay for itself, I don't think there is much the USFCA can do.

[riceboy]

Just got back from SJSU,

Until the program can pay for itself, I don't think there is much the USFCA can do.

That is the problem, we're pretty sure that the program more than pays for itself.

To, us this is how it works out:

Each semester we take a variable unit class from SJSU Open University. Each unit costs $210. Six units are required per level of the program so, we're looking at $1260, per level (instructor, provost, maestro), so a total cost of $3780 for the program.

Each semester, people will take a varying number of units, depending on their particular goals.

Each student in the program pays a $50 floor fee to cover use of our classroom (we use a dance classroom).

The instructors of the program take no money and work on a volunteer basis.

Insurance is covered by the university's blanket insurance policy, so no additional insurance is required on the part of the hosting department.

The program requires little or no administrative support, aside from student registration and room reservation. All other class activities are handled by the program director.


This semester, we have aprox. 18 students.

Lets say that each student is signed up for an average of 2 units (1 unit for the non-testers, and 3 for the ones who will test).

Thus, in fees the university gets $7560, with $900 for room reservations.

This semester there are 13 class meetings for 5 hours a day, the floor fee thus works out to a little over $13 per hour for the room, not including the university fees.

I recognize that for a university this is not a phenomenal amount of money, but it is almost all profit and we do more than pay for ourselves.

[riceboy]

Just a note for anyone who was wondering what they can do to help.

If you would not mind posting a short message on the "comments" section after the Spartan Daily article, it would hopefully go a long way towards helping demonstrate some community support.

[RITFencing]

A sad spartan here, and the news was in the spartan daily for two consecutive days. Do you think that if the program moves to a university that actually has a fencing team it might survive? Like maybe, Stanford? I'm not really knowledgable in this topic, just a thought though.

I highly doubt the Stanford coaches would allow this.

[Inquartata]

You know, a lot of fencers on the boards seem to embrace the idea that anything which grows fencing is a good thing. They are in favor of just about any and all changes that will in their opinions popularize the sport and bring in more people.

And yet here we see something looming which will actually shrink fencing, and the attitude seems to be yawns and shrugs.

You may not like the sort of fencing the program turns out, but it is still fencing. To the outsider, the know-nothing potential recruit, it's all one, and diminishing the whole should, according to the "any growth is good growth" school of thought, go against that philosophy and should bring out their support...

Or is it really just a matter of personal likes and dislikes after all?

Depending on how the commentary goes as this thread develops and more people weigh in, I may cite it the next time someone tries to argue in favor of Lexan or colored uniforms or even populist rule changes and takes me to task for opposing same...