Is it unreasonable to expect someone you pay $75 - $120 and hour to to know the syllabus without looking?

In my opinion I should be able to point to any figure in the ISTD syllabus and the "pro" should be able to immediately be able to demonstrate the proper execution of that figure.

I think there is a difference between being able to describe the figure verbatim from the book and being able to demonstrate it accurately.

For the most part, a pro who is teaching advanced students would be able to demonstrate it accurately - although on occasion I don't think it is a bad thing that they refer to the book to refresh their memory about whether a certain step is a heel, or up or down, or whatever. Especially with a figure that is not used as often or has more than one variation. (and when it's the steps of the opposite gender they're confirming)

Who in any of their professions can remember EVERYTHING they're supposed to know? Doctors, lawyers, teachers... To me there is a difference between temporarily forgetting something and needing to check back - and just plain not knowing. A pro is someone who can properly interpret the information and then deliver it accurately - that's why you pay big money...not because they're a machine that can just parrot back the explanations.

I can't say this applies to everyone's pros - but mine are quite successful in their career and every once in a while we stop to double check something in the book. And it's never been cause for me to put their skills in doubt.

The qualifying examinations of the main teaching societies are meant establish that the technique which is appropriate to the syllabus figures has been committed to memory AND that the figures can be demonstrated, as man and lady, to a professional standard.

Anyone who teaches day in, day out, will find the process of recall gets easier, with experience; and so, yes, a properly trained and qualified teacher should be able to recall and demonstrate anything in the book; but don't forget that an Associate needs to know rather less than a Fellow, and may only be qualified in one branch, such as Ballroom, but not Latin.

Just how much time teachers spend, privately, refreshing their knowledge, is their own business, but I don't expect to pay good money for a lesson, to have the teacher needing to look up the answer to my question.

I absolutely agree! And you must read your own situation and how often it is happening. I'm just saying that for me, when it happens every once in a blue moon, I don't immediately judge their quality of knowledge. People make mistakes and forget things from time to time. (Doing it ALL the time, or frequently, is unacceptable.)

However, anyone who has studied for the exams knows that knowing the book isn't enough to teach well. So much of what makes a good dancer can't be written down.
As well, when teaching you often don't provide all the information all the time (depending on the skill level of your student it would often be over their head!) So yes, the info you repeat will be solid, but you don't use all the info in the book everyday in your teaching - that's why it's called double checking or refreshing your memory. Not reading up to learn how!

I guess I'd be quite impressed if I ever met anyone who could remember everything all the time...

Set your expectations high - but remember you're still working with people.

"In my opinion I should be able to point to any figure in the ISTD syllabus and the "pro" should be able to immediately be able to demonstrate the proper execution of that figure."

Sort of. There are some figures in the book that aren't much in use. Similarly, in competition circles you may find that there are alternative versions that are more viable than the official ones in the book.

So expecting this level of knowledge may be reasonable, but you might more realistically expect knowledge about dancing as it is practiced, rather than dancing as it was once written down. This at least will be useful.

"Anyone who teaches day in, day out, will find the process of recall gets easier, with experience; and so, yes, a properly trained and qualified teacher should be able to recall and demonstrate anything in the book"

This presumes that what is in the book is what is being taught on a daily basis.

There is a generation of teachers with quite solid knowledge for which this is true.

However, their students are not all that distinguished in the grand scheme of things. Most of the successful students are coming from teachers who have had more interesting competition careers, and who use their own experience as a guide to what is worth teaching in what order. While there's a lot of overlap between that and what is covered in the book, there are differences too - different material included, danced with different technique and different emphasis.

So the premise that daily work will reinforce knowledge of the book is not exactly true, but only partially.

In practical terms, dancing by the book, to the exam standards by which teachers are qualified, has fairly rare applicability. It won't win competitions, and only in special circumstances is it usable socially. It's certainly a good background, but complete dancing is a bit more. And ultimately, the complete dancer may eventually come to understand aspects of what is written in the book that would be missed by those who confine themselves to it.

Thanks - that's pretty what I meant to say. :)

I largely agree, but have to say that even if basic syllabus figures are not the whole story (for of course, they are not) no dancer of any quality will get very far, competitively, or otherwise, if their art is not firmly grounded in good basic technique. The syllabus figures are a starting point: technique IS the art - in the hands of a first rate dancer.

"I largely agree, but have to say that even if basic syllabus figures are not the whole story (for of course, they are not) no dancer of any quality will get very far, competitively, or otherwise, if their art is not firmly grounded in good basic technique. The syllabus figures are a starting point: technique IS the art - in the hands of a first rate dancer."

There are two issues here. One is that a number of the basic figures fall almost entirely out of use, so knowledge of their basic syllabus forms is not necessarily very useful.

The other is that the way things are documented in the book is not very intuitive. If you ask a working dancer to document what they do, even if they actually dance in accordance with the book, what they write will probably not be in accordance with it, because they will write what has meaning to themselves and their students, rather than in the rather artificial technical language of the examination manual. You will get a common sense explanation, not an academic one, and as a result you can expect to see changes such as in the distribution of turn between the steps.

Technique books are written in code. You have to pay serious money, as a student, to be let into the secret world, so that you can understand what they actually mean.

Watch a Waltzer take the second step of the outside of a Natural or Reverse Turn, and see how many place the foot side on - Oh dear! "But that's what the book SAYS, isn't it?" Nope. But you can't tell 'em.