Not necessarily. If the class is only half as long, then it should only cost half as much. The net gain is zero. Regardless, I'm not opposed to instructors making a little extra money if it means the applicants spend less time and money on the class.RX8er wrote:The_Busy_Mom wrote:I wish there was a button for "Instructor Applicant" who supports the bill, as that would be me. Texans are an adapting people - Instructors will find a way to keep their income while keeping classes 4-6 hours. I know I already have some ideas how I could make this work for me!
TBM
This just means that you should be able to teach two classes a day instead of just one. Wooohoooo, more money!!!
Also, there's nothing in the bill that would restrict the class time to 4 hours. If an instructor wants to offer a 10-hour (or 10-day) class, he still has that option. It's up to the customers (i.e. the free market) to determine whether the extra instruction is worth the extra time and cost. Renewals are already this way. When I did my renewal last year, I was only required to take the half-day course. However, many instructors were offering a full-day course that included the legally-required instruction as well as range time with coaching, working from cover, etc. It was up to me to decide which course to take. Whoops, I just re-read the bill, and it does limit the class to 6 hours. Not sure what the rationale is behind that. If instructors want to teach a longer class, and there's sufficient demand, why not let them?
One other thing to keep in mind... Studies have shown that people tend to remember the first and last things they're taught in a given setting. (Anyone here have to watch "Where There's a Will There's An A" in high school?) The material taught in the middle tends to get lost. For whatever reason, that's just how we're wired. That makes for a good argument in favor of shorter classes (or at least taking frequent breaks during longer classes).