Bob et al.,
I took the Fundamentals class before it was pass/fail, and since then I've been around maybe half a dozen more as an observer, helper or videographer. I've seen six different GUE instructors give the class. I just haven't seen the level of organizational problems that some people have been complaining about here. I agree that the class is not perfection on earth, and the structure and content have definitely evolved. But I think the class is structured in a way to strike a reasonable balance between many competing considerations. Because it's a compromise solution, it isn't going to be the optimum "scuba renaissance" for every participant.
The way I see it, some of the criticisms in this thread are founded on over-optimistic expectations of how much it is possible to accomplish in the available time. The basic intent of the course is to impart a large amount of information and skill training in a compressed time frame. All by itself, this is going to create some pressure on both the students and the instructors.
Some posters here have said there is too much lecture and not enough time in the water. Others have criticized the quality of the written handouts. There is a lot of material covered in lectures. In the beginning there were no written materials at all given to the students, and that has changed and improved over the intervening years. No doubt there is room for further improvement. But the oral and written lecture material is important to the class because it is intended to explain why GUE does things the way it does. If the lectures are pared down much more than they are and that time devoted to more in-water skills and practice, the result will be that there would be not enough time to explain the "whys" behind the system. The explanation for why GUE teaches something the way it does would end up being "because we said so". This is just not acceptable - one of the take-aways from the class is supposed to be at least the beginning of understanding the reasoning behind GUE standards and procedures.
Some posters have complained that they didn't get enough time to practice the in-water skills. There is a long list of in-water skills to be explained, demonstrated, practiced and then used. Given the fact that every class participant comes in with a different level of skill and experience, the amount of time devoted to teaching particular skills has to be adjusted on an ad hoc basis. Some people will find it frustrating to be paired up with buddies who are not as skilled as they are. The priority is to work on basic skills like sharing air without losing buoyancy control, and if participants are having trouble mastering the basic skills, sometimes there is not enough time to get to other skills like shooting a bag. Other people would like to spend more time perfecting a particular skill, but devoting the time to that would mean leaving out other training that is on the agenda. This is an inherent part of taking a class with other people. If you want a class devoted to just working on the skills you want to work on, you have to pay for private lessons. In a group setting, and with the limits of the time available, the intent is to show the participants what the skills should look like and how to train to achieve the goal. There is just not enough class time to do the repetitive training necessary to actually hone the skills. That is something people have to practice and perfect after the class, and I don't see how it could be any different than that.
Some posters have complained that their post-class evaluations were too short. As far as I recall, in the beginning there weren't any individual debriefings for the students after the class. When the class went to the pass/fail format, class-ending debriefs became a more formalized element, so the students could get some feedback on whether they passed or not, and what they needed to work on. Some people seem to expect more out of this de-briefing process than others, and they are entitled to their opinions, but again, there are limits to the amount of time that an instructor can take talking just to you about your issues. It seems to me that people get more important feedback, and make a more realistic self-assessment, from the video sessions during the class. If a student wants more feedback after the class is over, I don't understand why following up by email is a problem, and I have not heard that any GUE instrucor refuses or neglects to do so.
GUE has a *very* active quality assurance program, and the organization has worked hard to improve the class and to respond to criticisms and complaints. It is my understanding that GUE decided recently that Fundamentals classes should take place over three full days, instead of the previous standard two and a half, in response to many students' comments that the class was too rushed. There was some internal opposition to this because holding the class over three full days requires that both students and instructors will have to take a day off from work to participate in the class. Not everybody can do that. Those that can't are going to be shut out of the class. GUE had to decide between allocating more time to the class but potentially excluding some people who can't get off work, and compressing everything into a long weekend but keeping the class more available to participants. GUE made its choice in favor of a less rushed teaching environment, knowing that some potential participants would be excluded. I think this just illustrates that there is no one perfect answer to the problem, and that no matter how the class is structured, somebody is going to be unhappy.
This is simply my opinion, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect that the class includes future free re-evaluation services from the instructor until you pass. The Fundamentals instructors I have been around routinely agree to do pretty much that, but as far as I know, they are doing that out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they have to. Because they aren't getting paid, they set up the re-evals when it is convenient for everyone involved. With that in mind, getting irritated because an instructor hasn't bought a plane ticket and flown 2000 miles just to do your re-evaluation seems a bit harsh to me. I would hope that you contacted your instructor about your re-evaluation, although it sounds as if you have made some resolution with Joe you find acceptable.
My view is that the Fundamentals class is an intense but rewarding learning experience. It appears to me that the content and structure of the class have been carefully thought out, and designed to strike a reasonable compromise between competing time demands. Like all endeavors, it can stand improvement and doesn't always succeed in meeting its goals, but I think it's head and shoulders above the competition.
