If there is a "pre-req" issue, then make the testing the entrance exam for the other class(es).
Frankly, GUE (and the rest) ought to do this anyway. Its the only RIGHT way to do these things. PUBLISH the performance bar(s) that must be met, and the diver, when showing up for the class, is tested. If they fail then most (but not all, since the testing takes some amount of time) of their money is refunded and they do not take the class, since they do not meet the requirements.
This way the "card-grabbing" thing goes away, since there is no point. Having the card buys you nothing in terms of admittance to another class. It only means you passed the last one. That's appropriate, since skills unused become rusty, and instructors vary in quality.
The problem with this is that then GUE can't demand that you take DIR-F before Tech 1, for instance, since if you can pass the skills for Tech 1, then you can and do. It also means that I can "score out" of virtually anything, IF I know my stuff, irrespective of how I learned it.
If I can do the DIR-F skills, and meet some OBJECTIVE physical performance criteria, then I can. Whether I smoke, drink, have a BMI of 17 or 36 is immaterial. If the standard is that I must run a 10 minute mile, then it is. If the standard is a 400 meter swim in 12 minutes, then it is. If I must demonstrate an airshare while hovering at no more than 5' and no less than 2' from the bottom, horizontally, then that is what I must do.
If I can meet the standard, then I can. If I cannot, then I cannot, and the reason for my failure is immaterial.
If GUE is really about raising the bar, instead of marketing-speak and bull%hit, then they would go this route.
For instance, if GUE is REALLY about "health" of the diver, then demand a lung and cardiac performance test. Whether I smoke is not material. Whether my lung performance is acceptable is material, if that is truly the issue. Ditto for weight - body mass is an indicator that all may not be well in terms of health, but it is not definitive! There are plenty of fit and (moderately) fat people who have lower risks of cardio "events" than a "skinny rail" person who is otherwise unfit.
Isn't that what GUE claims to stand for? A higher bar, and proficiency, as opposed to card-collecting?
That is what they SAY.
Will GUE walk the talk, or is it just talk?
I think its just talk, bluster, marketing-speak and unverifyable assertions and claims without ANY justification (beyond religion.) I've already skewered MHK on their "claimed" stuff with their Triox class, in that he has made claims of various impairment sources but has said the backup data is all "proprietary".
Uh, no MHK. To prove something with medical (or any other scientific) relavence you peer review it in an open journal. Its published and critiqued, and, most importantly, independantly replicated. Until you do all of that you have nothing more or less than a bald-faced claim that falls into the category of religious belief rather than proven scientific fact.
Dropping the "card flashing" stuff and replacing it with published testing criteria for entrance into each of their classes would convince me that they are more than bluster, religion, and kool-aid drinking.
I suspect it'll happen when Hell freezes over, and that in fact GUE is nothing really different than PADI with a different marketing "spin".
That's why I'm a fan of NOT making this a certification course. However, if they insist, then simply make sure the "bar" never gets lowered. The seperate diploma/c-card would do that, I think.
