Repetition is not practice

I have been learning music (Hindustani classical vocal) for about 1.5 years now. I have *no* innate talent for it, just a very strong desire to learn. Ever since I started learning, I have become a much better "listener" of the genre (which otherwise fell into the category of "elevator" music -- playing in the background, but not really meant to be focused on).

I've been practicing ever since I started learning, diligently at times (everyday), sporadically at others. Of late, I have been trying what Peter Norvig calls deliberative practice: "not just doing it again and again, but challenging yourself with a task that is just beyond your current ability, trying it, analyzing your performance while and after doing it, and correcting any mistakes. Then repeat. And repeat again." I find that it makes a HUGE difference to improvement v/s just mechanically repeating it all, all the while hoping to get better at what I don't know well.

I've had two teachers in this two year long journey. My earlier teacher was keen to cover ground -- he taught a new "raag" every two classes. As a result my music book quickly filled with "swar" and "lakshan" geets of many raags. In order to achieve this, he was happy to play notes on the harmonium to support my untrained voice.

My current teacher focuses on technique. Three months down the line learning with him, I am still doing various notation sequences with the first "basic" raag, at different "speeds". We started with the basic simple sequence, and are slowly moving on to more complex ones, but no new raags yet (and not for a while as far as I can see).  My music book is not yet two pages filled. Also, he does not believe in providing support to the voice by way of playing notes on a harmonium (other than initially or when I falter). As a result, I have been acquiring what he calls "sur ka gyaan".

The former approach was much easier on me as a student and I enjoyed it while it lasted. The latter approach makes many more demands of me as a student; I find it challenging and see that I am gaining "depth" of knowledge v/s skimming over the breadth of it. It is in this latter approach that "deliberative practice" pays dividends!

Don't catch 'em young

As part of learning about weather, season and climate, my son was taken for a field trip to the Met Dept. (Of course, *he* had a blast walking around the place instead of sitting is school doing "work".)

When I spoke to the teacher, she had a different story to tell. She was disappointed by the level of interest showed by the folks at the Dept. Apparently they first asked which class the children belonged to, and then on learning that they were surrounded by first graders, zoned out and were not too interested in talking to them or showing them around.

This is a trend I see all around me. My son learns karate, music and yoga, and the impression I get at ALL these classes is that they are waiting for him to "grow up" before they can really teach him stuff.

Which is so sad. Children are supposed to be learning sponges when they are small -- that ability diminishes as they grow older. And yet, irrespective of discipline (atleast where I live), we are waiting for them to "grow up".

Is this why when people really do "grow up" and get into the job market they are mostly such blinkered, unable-to-think-for-themselves souls?

I wish I was 6!

How education has changed over the years.

My six and a half year old gets to answer "comprehension" questions based on "The Cat in the Hat" by Dr. Seuss, a "composition" about himself (with questions that he needs to answer), and best of all, a book review where HE gets to choose the book.

The chosen book this time is "Great Snakes", whose "characters" are "snakes, lizards, and eggs". The "setting" is "deserts, seas, mountains, and trees".

The teacher is going to get some creepy submissions this week!

"Leaving Microsoft to Change the World"

Just got done reading "Leaving Microsoft to Change the World".

What struck me as major contributor to the success of Room to Read was the fact that their vision was VERY clear, well articulated and everyone pulled in the same direction to achieve it.
Of course, I am sure having the razor-sharp brain of an ex-Microsoft executive at the helm helped no small measure as well.

This is why their results are so different from other not-for-profits which begin with a huge pot of money and a desire to "do some good". Such not-for-profits, while being good "social badges" for their founders (thanks, Mudita :-)), fail to produce the kind of impact that they actually can given the amount of money that flows in and around them.

Next on my to-read list: Three Cups of Tea :-)