Toastmasters – critique from a scientist’s point of view

I’ve ranted before about the strengths and weaknesses of Toastmasters.  Probably too much, to be honest.  I’m not saying that they’re a bad thing – just that they need to be taken with a pinch of salt (or a bucket, frankly, in some cases).  I’ve just read a nicely analytical blog about them here which I commend to you, gentle reader.  I suggest you spend five minutes there before you read on here…  I’ll wait….

The issue, basically, is that Toastmasters is what it is. It’s not a training regime, it’s a hobby.  (Read the other blog, you’ll understand.)  My local TM describes itself on it’s website as “Cubs for adults”.

In my experience, feedback is often ineffective and – sometimes – simply wrong (such as to ‘make sure you drink lots of cold water while you make your presentation’!).  Even when it’s effective it’s inefficient, because a professional trainer can give you faster progress.  I don’t know how standardised the fees are, but I’ve just seen a website for a TM in London, citing costs of £25 to join and £60/year after that.  That means your first year costs you £85. Meeting bi-monthly with the typical 20-40 members means you’ll not exactly get a lot of chances to deliver presentations and receive feedback (assuming the feedback is worthwhile in the first place) so I’m pretty sure you’ll not only make faster progress with a professional course but probably cheaper progress too, in the long run.

I could be wrong, of course, as all of this is based on assumptions…. but at the very least the Jury is still out, for me at least.