PADI tables finally going away?

[Pullmyfinger]

"Multiple instructors have taken part in this thread. Many us have had the opportunity to choose if they we teach tables, computers or both and we have given our reasons for choosing not to teach tables. Some posts have been quite detailed about the reasoning process the individual went through. I don't recall anyone stating that they choose to use computers to cut down the class time. Indeed, quite a few of us have indicated that using the time we had more effectively was a component of our decision on what to include in the class."

As I've posted, I have both but prefer one. I've also stated that I believe they both should be taught.
Nobody here may have directly stated that they no longer teach table to cut down classroom time, but it doesn't take much analysis to see that as a side effect of the decision. Less classroom time would be the obvious result, if something is taken away from the course material. And now that eLearning has been introduced into the recent post, there's clearly less classroom time....essentially none. You, as an individual instructor may be adding some other content to replace what was taken away, but YOU may be the exception. I strongly suspect that you are.
Since eLearning and content have been put on the table.....what online material was added to replace the now removed dive table instruction? Anything?
Has anything been added to the OW course book? If so, was is so much of an additional benefit, that teaching the tables couldn't have remained?
You are of the opinion that a time savings or a shortening of the course wasn't part of the agency decision?
Just because none of the instructors on this board haven't specifically stated it here doesn't mean that wasn't part of the decision to remove it from the course.
Is there a maximum amount of time that you are allowed to devote to classroom time? If not, then why not just cover everything you want to, in as much detail as you choose?
Of course some instructors prefer to exclusively use online learning, so classroom time is a non-issue. But for instructors that prefer the classroom environment for directly teaching their students.....why remove anything at all? Why not have some extra time to cover what you want to?


"Blatant misrepresentation of our thoughts for the benefit of scoring cheap rhetorical points is utterly disingenuous and disrespectful on your part."

I haven't misrepresented any of your thoughts at all, nor have I been attempting to score any cheap points. I was specifically responding to some of the points that NetDoc has made. I don't see you commenting on those.
Some comments were getting thrown around that implied those that disagreed with this change were some how intellectually incapable of even using a computer, or were robotic and unthinking. There were others, you've read them as well. None of this is a big deal, I mention it only to point out that there are plenty of "cheap point" being thrown around. Pointing out my comments seems a bit selective on your part, but I may be mistaken. We're cool.
I will add that I haven't been disrespectful. My post are evenly aligned with the tone of the ones I've been responding to, is this thread anything other than a two-way street?


"Moreover, if the only reason you have seen presented is around class time, then you have clearly not been paying attention to what has been said on the subject here. "

I only mentioned the classroom time in response to one point.....the suggestion by NetDoc that his training was somehow more evolved. He mentioned that his training was improved when compared to other methods of dive instruction (I'll be looking for your response to NetDoc, admonishing him for scoring cheap points and being disrespectful ).
He then goes on to say he exclusively used online training. I responded that I didn't see that as an improvement. Which led me to point out that one benefit I saw was shorter classroom sessions, a clear benefit to the instructor.


"You're obviously fairly literate given your post. So are we to conclude you're simply fundamentally intellectually dishonest?"

I believe my response above will adequately answer this question.


"Or, if not and you actually intend a discussion, maybe you can stop trying to make points long enough to actually read the responses instructors have taken the time and effort to write."


I thought this thread was a discussion. As I've stated in previous posts my opinion is this:

The teaching of dive tables should still be taught. I do not see how not teaching this is of a benefit to a student. If it were for the benefit of providing better instruction, then both computer use and dive tables would be taught.

I have also stated that, I have both and see the benefit of each. I was taught both, and feel that it was a benefit to me as a student.

I don't gather that instructors are in agreement on this. As I've already mentioned, it's a moot point for those agencies that have already made this change. This thread has the feel of an instructor only thread, if it is then I'll not post anymore.


"Perhaps you could respond to real points instead of trying to lie about the positions others have taken."

Once again I will point out that many of the things I posted were to directly respond to some of the opinions that NetDoc has posted recently. You posting this and accusing me of "trying to lie" tells me your aren't really interested in this being a discussion either. The conclusions that I made from some of Net Doc's post didn't take much of a stretch for me to make. You may be biased for whatever reason.

Care to show me where I've drawn the wrong conclusions?

Any reason you have singled me out as being disrespectful and lying, while conveniently overlooking the recent posts that are similar in tone to mine?

Take care,
Mitch

 

[Pullmyfinger]

I didn't realize you were referencing someone else's previous statement. I understood you statement to mean that this would be one of your options.
Which is why I made the conclusion.

That's a leap to a conclusion. I never stated that. One of you stated how THEY would abort such a dive.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Nobody here may have directly stated that they no longer teach table to cut down classroom time . . .

Correct, so choosing to state that the only reason is cutting down classroom time is disingenuous, period.

. . . but it doesn't take much analysis to see that as a side effect of the decision. Less classroom time would be the obvious result, if something is taken away from the course material.

Only if the instructors choose not to use that time to more thoroughly cover other material.

You, as an individual instructor may be adding some other content to replace what was taken away, but YOU may be the exception. I strongly suspect that you are.

I'm actually not aware of any instructor who simply dropped time from their course when choosing to no longer teach tables. I know a fair number of instructors, from several different agencies, in a variety of geographic and cultural locations. Those I know may not be a representative sample, but I feel very confident stating that if we aren't the norm, we're a very significant minority.

You are of the opinion that a time savings or a shortening of the course wasn't part of the agency decision?

I wasn't privy to the decision making process, but I honestly don't think it was a major consideration. What really was the talking points from my agency to the instructors was the observed lack of dive planning happening in the field and the need to address that failure.

Just because none of the instructors on this board haven't specifically stated it here doesn't mean that wasn't part of the decision to remove it from the course.

Given some agencies (including mine) gave instructors the option to include it or not, your comment reads as if you are trying to suggest that me or my fellow instructors are misrepresenting our position to remove it from the course. I suspect you mean this to apply at the agency level. However, the dynamic really wasn't one of dictation from on-high as to what would happen. That decision came after a fair amount of discussion between instructors and the agency.

Is there a maximum amount of time that you are allowed to devote to classroom time? If not, then why not just cover everything you want to, in as much detail as you choose?

Oddly enough, when scheduling classes students ask when the class meets, and how long the class takes. So we schedule both a start time and a finish time. We also respect our students enough to actually adhere to those times.

But for instructors that prefer the classroom environment for directly teaching their students.....why remove anything at all? Why not have some extra time to cover what you want to?

Asked and answered multiple times.

I will add that I haven't been disrespectful. My post are evenly aligned with the tone of the ones I've been responding to, is this thread anything other than a two-way street?

Not at all. I enjoy a good discussion. But a discussion isn't going to happen when people ignore one another, let alone where they decide that what was said isn't a true representation of a person's thoughts. Doing so is insulting.

The teaching of dive tables should still be taught. I do not see how not teaching this is of a benefit to a student. If it were for the benefit of providing better instruction, then both computer use and dive tables would be taught.

Which of the many points made on why to remove tables do you not understand? I'll be more than happy to try to explain it again. It is a benefit to the student because classroom time is a zero-sum game. You don't get to add time without increasing your costs. Moreover, it is a double charge to the student, who will need to pay more in dollars and time. Maximizing value to the student is very important to good instructors.

I have also stated that, I have both and see the benefit of each. I was taught both, and feel that it was a benefit to me as a student.

No one is suggesting that knowing how to use a table is a bad thing or of no value. It is, however, of marginal value for typical US based divers compared to other material.

I don't gather that instructors are in agreement on this. As I've already mentioned, it's a moot point for those agencies that have already made this change. This thread has the feel of an instructor only thread, if it is then I'll not post anymore.

It's not instructor-only. However, when the people who actually have experience teaching divers are ignored, misrepresented and told they don't understand what they're talking about it, it becomes very difficult to take the responses seriously.

Any reason you have singled me out as being disrespectful and lying, while conveniently overlooking the recent posts that are similar in tone to mine?

Honestly, it's nothing personal. Your post just happened to be the one I was reading when some little part of me said "OK, I care enough that what's been said in this ludicrously long thread is being ignored and misrepresented to respond."

 

[notivago]

Notivago, I'll say one thing for you, you are unwavering in your stance! But here again, you are illogically drawing conclusions from events relating to one set of issues to inform your views on an entirely different issue.

I think I was called "unwavering" before, well, not exactly like that. =)

But I am hardly illogical, although many times I may skip some connections along the way. Maybe I am just bad expressing myself, for that I am sorry, I do try to compensate writing extensively but:
When you try to compensate your lack of competence with effort, there is no limit to what you can not do.

That you have heard all these horror stories--whether they are strictly true or exaggerated, as I suspect they are, makes little difference--

They are not exaggerated, that much I can guarantee you.

these stories have ZERO to do with teaching tables or not to Open Water students.

But they do. They show a trend, a trend which I have observed based on my little experience, nevertheless. The original purpose of the certification processes was to allow people wanting to dive to do so in a secure, proven way.

In the days of yore and even now-days, anyone can get some gear and jump in the water and be on theirs own devices(literally), why spend money on certifications if you can do it for free? Diving started this way.

The problem with the solo approach is that you can get that little disease called Death. Thus certifications processes were created so that people could enjoy diving at reduced risk. But diving has become a business and it seems it is gradually moving away from the "safe" to the "fast and easy" approach.

Foregoing the teaching of tables is part of this trend, instead of instilling the student with the habit of planning dives, checking gear, using redundancy, etc there is a shift to the disregard with the security, total reliance in the gear and blindness to the risks, all the while pushing new and shinny gear to the customer.

The curriculum is one thing; unscrupulous instructors who break standards, sheep-like divers who are responsible for their own dive plan and yet follow DMs beyond recreational depths, skippers who suggest dangerous dive sites, these are all something different. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

The curriculum is but one more facet of the same thing, the will to please the customer and put as many people and as fast in the water and sell as much as possible.

Pleasing customer should only go so far, putting him in danger due to his own ignorance is not acceptable. Diving is dangerous. That is why certifications were needed in first place, that should never be let out of sight.

And notivago, tell me why we would need to teach a course that encompasses all computers? Did your table instruction teach you to use all the variations on tables that are out there? When I teach tables, I teach PADI tables because that's the agency I certify students under; when I teach computers, I teach the one they have in their hand for the course.

Because computers are not standard, tables are for the agency. Tables across agencies also look pretty alike(at least as far as I know), computers vary wildly.

So, all your students computer are the same? Or do you go over each student teaching them individually? How this is best for the students?

You sell them the computer? So you are forcing them unto one brand and model?

Or do they borrow yours? What do they do when they buy theirs one that potentially is very different than yours?

I think that gives students much more than a general idea since all dive computers have the same basic functions (some fancy computers have additional functions, but by the time a diver needs/wants one of these, they no longer need a class in dive computers).

And yet, I don't see how computers figure in the planning stage of the dive. Mine does not. If I want to plan the next 2 dives, I have to use a table.

 

[BDSC]

I was told that PADI was doing away with all of the tables, including the Nitrox ones.
Based on that, I gather any future nitrox training will be computer only.

-Mitch

I just did my Nitrox course last week when I was in Cayman Brac and we didn't go over any tables and when I took the test there were no questions on it that had any reference to the tables. I did show my instructor my computer and I showed him that I knew how to set it up for Nitrox. After the test he showed us how to analyze a tank and record the info and that was it. Because I had already obtained the book before my trip and read through it, the time at the resort was maybe an hour or so.

 

[Charlie99]

It looks like the PADI tables will be long gone and forgotten before this thread finally dies.

 

[DiveNav]

It looks like the PADI tables will be long gone and forgotten before this thread finally dies.

This thread should NOT die ... it is so entertaining

Long live the thread!

Alberto (aka eDiver)

 

[Pullmyfinger]

"Correct, so choosing to state that the only reason is cutting down classroom time is disingenuous, period."

I never said it was the only reason, I stated that it was probably one of the biggest reasons....in my opinion. Also...what I meant by the statement you are referencing is that (of course) no instructor is "saying" ithere. But that there is that benefit from the change. Or potential benefit for those that choose to take advantage of it, which some will likely do. Evidenced by the numerous short classes out there.

"But a discussion isn't going to happen when people ignore one another, let alone where they decide that what was said isn't a true representation of a person's thoughts. Doing so is insulting."

Yet this is exactly what you seem to have no problem doing. I stated that it was one of the biggest reasons....you read what you wanted to rather than actually reading what I said. You chose to responed to what you wanted to see which was "only", which is different from what I posted. I won't get in a huff about it and pretend to be insulted. I am sorry if something I said made you feel personally insulted, I certainly never intended that.

It's not a big deal, but then you quote me on it, and use it as your rationale for calling me a liar or disingenuous (same thing really).

You also seemed to snip a portion of what I said rather than the complete point, which allowes you to misrepresent what I was stating....again, you see the parts that you want to see. You can save the mock outrage about my response being disrespectful, disinginuous, lies, etc.
Seriously....you are overplaying that angle.

Also there is a post above describing a very short amount of classroom time for a nitrox class, that omitted the tables from the block of instruction. Just because you may not be cutting your classroom times short, doesn't mean that many other instructors aren't out there doing it.

There are plenty of people on this board that have posted similar observations and experiences...it's widely known that there are plenty of short classes being conducted. My opinion is on the mark....removing something from a course would allow the class to be:

(a.) longer
(b.) shorter
(c.) none of the above
(d.) you are not worthy to even question this.

Many people believe it to be (b.)

It seem that you and some other instructors believe it to be (d.) based on the vibe I'm picking up.


"I'm actually not aware of any instructor who simply dropped time from their course when choosing to no longer teach tables."


You are not? seriously? You mean that in all of your time as a member of this board you have never read any post lamenting the fact that dive classes have gotten increasingly shorter? You may not personally know any instructors that are cutting class times down, but you would have to be aware of the practice. My point all along has been that cutting table out, would OBVIOUSLY be a contibuting factor to a shorter classroom session. Many instructors will probably do exactly that........Just to clarify, I am not saying ALL of them will, or that YOU will......just that MANY of the will.


"I know a fair number of instructors, from several different agencies, in a variety of geographic and cultural locations. Those I know may not be a representative sample, but I feel very confident stating that if we aren't the norm, we're a very significant minority."


I didn't go back to read all of this part, but if you are stating that you and the instructors you are referencing here are the significant minority...meaning that you guys are teaching longer, more comprehensive dive classes. Then we are in agreement.
In fact, you and these types of instructors are exactly what I seek out when looking for quality instruction, many other divers do to. Thank you.
It seems that none of what I have posted on this really applies to you.
This is something all divers have to weed through when seeking instruction. That's why we see "how to find a good dive instructor threads".
This is related because it means shorter classes for most. Not all.
Less is not more in this instance...in my opinion. Many disagree of course.
Instructors have different approaches, and students have different expectations........There's an as$ for every seat.


"I wasn't privy to the decision making process, but I honestly don't think it was a major consideration. What really was the talking points from my agency to the instructors was the observed lack of dive planning happening in the field and the need to address that failure."


We agree, I don't see it much either.
I'll admit, in most cases a computer is very likely a better tool for the job. For one main reason...versatility. Hands down, a much better tool.

"Given some agencies (including mine) gave instructors the option to include it or not, your comment reads as if you are trying to suggest that me or my fellow instructors are misrepresenting our position to remove it from the course. I suspect you mean this to apply at the agency level. However, the dynamic really wasn't one of dictation from on-high as to what would happen. That decision came after a fair amount of discussion between instructors and the agency."


My opinion stems from the fact that it's no longer included in the PADI OW book, so the decision has been made. It does appear that many instructors here are posting in lock step along with it, then start to pitch it as an improvement. An evolved way of training. Some will make a concession and state that they'll teach it upon request.
In reality, over time the tables will just fade away. It's just a discussion point now.


"Oddly enough, when scheduling classes students ask when the class meets, and how long the class takes. So we schedule both a start time and a finish time. We also respect our students enough to actually adhere to those times."

I am not the sort of person who's going to feel disrespected by my instructor if I'm told the class sessions have to go on longer. What if a student in class requires more time to grasp something? It takes however long it takes.
If my instructor says I have to do more dive because skill in a certain area was lacking, then so be it...we'll do more dives. It may cost me some more time/money/scheduling wrinkles....but I'm glad for the time and attention to detail.

**That would go beyond an OW class, but my point is that sometimes things take a little longer.....I can't imagine a student would be right in feeling "disrespected" about something going a little longer than planned. I agree with having a rough schedule, but students should be flexible.



"Not at all. I enjoy a good discussion."

So do I.

"Which of the many points made on why to remove tables do you not understand? I'll be more than happy to try to explain it again."

Seriously? Do you really imagine that there is a side to the arguement that I don't grasp? Really? Nice jab there.


"It is a benefit to the student because classroom time is a zero-sum game. You don't get to add time without increasing your costs. Moreover, it is a double charge to the student, who will need to pay more in dollars and time. Maximizing value to the student is very important to good instructors."

See above. When I'm taking a class I revolve around that, I've already budgeted time and money to meet that goal.......That is THE thing that I'm doing, if things run over then there's more boat fees, gas fills, and dinner I'm buying. Just the way it is.
I do realize that I'm probably much different than many other people in that regard.


"No one is suggesting that knowing how to use a table is a bad thing or of no value. It is, however, of marginal value for typical US based divers compared to other material."

I don't disagree with this either.
But I look at it this way....If I'm devoting my time/money/resources towards training, then I want it all taught. Even if it's of marginal value.


"It's not instructor-only. However, when the people who actually have experience teaching divers are ignored, misrepresented and told they don't understand what they're talking about it, it becomes very difficult to take the responses seriously."


I haven't ignored anything (see above for explanation), I haven't misrepresented anything either. I have drawn logical conclusions from specific statements that have been made. Show me where I have done this, I will gladly retract it and apologize for it.
I have never told an instructor that they didn't understand what they are talking about!!! show me where I have said any such thing!

There's a BIG difference between disagreeing with instructors, or responding to some of the things they say to those that disagree them....and to the way you have chosen to characterize it.

Many instructors here seem to be simply "pitching" the party line when defending the cutting out the dive tables move.

You do seem to have not taken my responses seriously, while accusing me of exactly that.
Hell, you've even called me a liar a couple of times about my posts and then go on to state that you enjoy discussion.


"Honestly, it's nothing personal. Your post just happened to be the one I was reading when some little part of me said "OK, I care enough that what's been said in this ludicrously long thread

It's long partly because it's not agreed upon, and many that disagree with the move seem to get squashed by instructors such as yourself. There are two sides of that of course....which is why this is such an epic thread.

"is being ignored and misrepresented to respond."

I've done neither. I have addressed this at length.

Stop calling me a liar.:cool2: *sniff* ;-)

Take care,
Mitch

 

[Brendon]

Who cares what PADI does or doesn't do? It's not like members of that certification agency have any say in what stays or goes. So what's the point? Hopefully the majority will continue to exceed the minimum requirement, despite what their governing authority says... I got an idea, show your discontent and join another agency. Go some where you have a voice.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

I don't have a problem with PADI, I only cited them as an example since it was their O.W. book I looked at.
How would I "join" another agency? Do they have recruiters?

I'd take another PADI class in a heartbeat, there are plenty of good instructors out there. I know enough instructors, DM's and candidates to know that it takes a lot of work to become either one.

I'm sorry if I came across as being critical of PADI specifically. They were the only example I could point out in the context of this thread, since I don't know anything about what the other agencies are doing.

-Mitch

Who cares what PADI does or doesn't do? It's not like members of that certification agency have any say in what stays or goes. So what's the point? Hopefully the majority will continue to exceed the minimum requirement, despite what their governing authority says... I got an idea, show your discontent and join another agency. Go some where you have a voice.