SSI Class - Failed

[JahJahwarrior]

I guess there is one fundamental question you have to ask: are you paying for certification, or for the teacher's time? In technical training, I think it is pretty well known that you are paying for time, not certification.

I guess the second question is, why isn't SCUBA training a little more like academic training? There should be lots of quizzes or tests throughout the course, and people who do poorly should be stopped at that level and helped. The instructor should advertise additional instruction at a reasonable rate. Additionally, shops should heavily advertise the internet and work to set up local resources such as a dive club to help people get advice and learn from other divers.

Unfortunately, most shops seem to shy away from giving divers more information, because then their own shortcomings become obvious. They do have a point, divers on the internet can be ruthless, and sometimes misinformed. There is a lot of bad information out there. And, any little mistake on the part of the shop can be picked apart and people will blacklist the shop for forever...as we see here. We've got one person's feedback on a shop and we are ready to boycott them! What we really need is for dive shops to embrace the internet and information age, and for the internet to embrace dive shops, with their minor foibles and different ways of doing business. We have to learn how to be a little kinder and gentler, and shops have to learn to respond to criticism.

I still think it's ridiculous that an entire class failed, and if he expects you to pay to take the entire class over, I would take it again with a different shop and dispute the charge with your credit card company and report the issue to Groupon. If he really didn't teach anyone enough to pass the class, then it does seem like he was trying to get more money from you all. That doesn't mean Groupon is bad! And, it doesn't mean you pay for certification. But, if true, it does seem like a little bit of an unethical business practice. Or, it might be we have half of the story and that the instructor was better than it seemed and the entire class didn't pay any attention...it's really hard to know without hearing the entire story. We aren't judges, we are just people on a forum, playing monday-morning-divemaster... Talk to the other people in your class, and make a decision, hopefully the information on this forum will help you all make an informed decision about the quality of instruction and what to do going forwards.

 

[Avonthediver]

Hello All,
I am hoping someone can shed some light on my situation. I recently took the SSI open water dive class with the hopes of being certified at the end. Everything was going great, the class had 7 people and we were meeting every Sunday at 9am. On the very last class at the end, the instructor told the entire class that we weren't ready for the quarry/cert and should re-take the class. We were all quite shocked, he didn't really provide any indication that we weren't doing well or missing something. Is the class that challenging to pass?

(Unfortunately I have a theory, but this is pure speculation. Almost the entire class (except 1 person) registered via groupon and paid half of the regular price. Also the majority of the students purchased their gear online rather then through his shop. I would speculate that he didn't make enough money on the class.)

What should I do?

-Sad diver

Back when I did my OW Class a buddy of mine bought all of his gear from a dive con that was leaving the shop for better jobs and the like well the shop owner called Paul out of class and told him that he should just kick him out of his shop for not showing his support! after some very harsh words and a deal later of buying things from the shop My pal was let back in his class. I like the SSI way of teaching and learning but not a big fan of the due's to the shop bit that went on.

This was years ago when the online buying was new and taboo and the shop's demanded your support. I dont know if this still goes on in SSI shop's as I have not been in one for a long time but your post reminds me of this.

I would however demand a new Ins and or get a refund for your class tha seven people could not pass!

BUt dont give up on Scuba!

 

[kdsmithjr]

I agree it sounds very strange that everyone in the class was not prepared

 

[mdax]

In my opinion shopping around for the cheapest "deal" on scuba instruction and equipment is a bad way to go, you end up with crap like this.
Beyond all the marketing hype that scuba is for everyone it can be a dangerous activity that demands the best gear and instruction you can get. Many people love their ebay and internet deals, good for them. I don't gamble my wife's and my life on such b.s.
I stand by my statement, you got what you paid for; you paid little and got little in return.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I guess there is one fundamental question you have to ask: are you paying for certification, or for the teacher's time? In technical training, I think it is pretty well known that you are paying for time, not certification.

I still place that squarely on the seller, not the buyer. The Seller is the party that sets the terms (good or bad). If they are selling a certification, then they are not selling an instructor's time. I understand the danger of both sale types but the reality is, the seller sets the rules when they start selling. It is people like the seller referenced in this thread that cause buyers to stand their ground and refuse to negotiate. If the shop/instructor go above and beyond, then most people will reciprocate and be willing to negotiate. There was no need for this thread to get started as it did. With an ounce of customer service and a gram of honor, the owner could have told the individuals that needed extra work that they needed a little extra work but he wanted some help because he was taking a wash thanks to a smooth Groupon salesperson. Instead he decided to tell everybody they could not move forward unless they paid to take the course again.

 

[oly5050user]

When the shops/instructors charge X amount to get certified, the buyer should be able to expect certification for their money....no extras. When they sell certification at X per hour with a realistic but not guaranteed estimate the extra hour charges are acceptable. This falls onto the shop/instructor....not the buyer.

I do agree that first scenario should be treated by both paries as "within reason".

People should start to understand thay you pay for a scuba course, not a certification card.Its up to the student to EARN the certification card. I agree that this instructor may be up to something.Failing entire class of 7 is unheard of.

 

[tridacna]

I think that we should have a Wall of Shame for these scurrilous instructors and LDSs. OTOH, I'm not sure that Pete has enough disk space to accommodate all the names.

 

[Scuba_Noob]

Strange, I'm curious about the point of view of the instructor, as it seems really weird to fail an entire group of seven OW students without any previous signs/warnings. Kind of unprofessional too.

If all seven students failed, it suggests at least partial fault of the instructor, not just the students.

 

[supergaijin]

Most shops will allow at least one extra training session to allow for 'slower' learners. When prices are low, this could well eat any profit that the course might have brought in unless the groups is that large. I would imagine with the Groupon price, prices are just barely covering costs as it is and the owner/operator was working for free.

I guess there is one fundamental question you have to ask: are you paying for certification, or for the teacher's time? In technical training, I think it is pretty well known that you are paying for time, not certification.

This is another example of where student/instructor contracts come in handy. For some people it can sound a little cold and impersonal but they're tailor made for situations like these.

I guess the second question is, why isn't SCUBA training a little more like academic training? There should be lots of quizzes or tests throughout the course, and people who do poorly should be stopped at that level and helped. The instructor should advertise additional instruction at a reasonable rate.

The basic PADI/SSI OW course is pretty strong on the academic structure IMO. PADI's manual for example has many small 'self-answerable' quizzes and then there are 4 additional quizzes before the exam. IME I have seen people do well ie. 10/10, 9/10 on the quizzes and then absolutely bomb in the exam... but that's a different story.

If we take the supposition that the 7 students in question really were not ready for the OW training dives, the instructor IMO still failed by not communicating early enough about those issues. For some people, this kind of people skills is hard work- personally I hate having to give 'the talk' to students.

In some ways a good instructor should be judged not by how many students he certifies, but by how many times he chooses to give 'the talk'.

In 'failing' the whole 7 it does sound like the owner/operator was trying to cover some losses sustained through Groupon. I'm surprised at the success of such a concept; the idea sounds right but the working reality sounds horrible IMHO.

 

[DevonDiver]

As I see it (without access to any specific facts...and seeing only one side of the story)...

1. Groupon type deals create artificial limits on training - profit margins are low for the instructors, so there is little flexibility to extend or repeat elements of training, when they are needed. Especially so, as the customers are more likely to have an impression that scuba training is of universally standard duration and automatically leads to qualification.

2. Agency course standards dictate a minimum training requirement, but there is no maximum. This is deliberate and accounts for many variables.

3. Cut-price 'deals' on scuba training are priced to reflect provision of service at the minimum training requirement. Economy deals push training provision into a state where 'volume' of students is what determines profitability - necessitating high student-instructor ratios and minimum timescales.

4. Training progression and eventual qualification is based upon the student's 'mastery' of the necessary skills and knowledge. Those standards of 'mastery' are objective and are dictated by the relevant scuba training agency. The instructor should not make a subjective decision based on formal skill mastery, although they must make a prudent risk assessment before engaging in in-water training - and this may include student comfort and general performance in the water.

5. It is ethical for the instructor to extend or repeat elements of the training to ensure diver safety and competence, to achieve that 'mastery'.

6. It is unethical for an instructor to progress training, against their better judgement, for the sake of adhering to cost/time limits imposed on the course.

7. It is not necessarily a failing of the instructor if they cannot develop the students to a competent level within the bare minimum training requirements stipulated for a course.

8. Student progression is dictated by several factors, not just individual student learning ability, but also factors like; group size, group dynamics, allotted training time, environmental conditions, student motivation and expectation.

9. Location of training, coupled with group size, have a significant impact upon the duration of a course; student supervision and control is more difficult in cold-water/limited visibility areas - thus prudent (cold-water) instructors will demand a higher level of student competence within confined/skills training before making the progression from pool to open water.

10. Group size alone has a significant impact on course duration and/or speed of learning. Instructor time/focus is divided between the number of student participants. The capacity for an instructor to refine, correct and repeat training with an individual diver is inversely proportional to the number of students they have to monitor at one given time.

11. Students pay for training, not qualification/certification - but third-party promotions may alter that contract, depending on how they are worded.

12. It is unethical to advertise a course on the basis of an implied or actual guarantee ofqualification/certification, unless training extensions/repetitions are included in that contract, for that agreed price.

13. Engaging on a training course with the anticipation of automatic, assured qualification within the minimum stated limits for the course may be unrealistic and does little to motivate students to attain skills and knowledge. This is an 'attendance course' mentality, not a 'performance based' mentality.

14. Instructors are trained to de-brief students on their performance in each skill and session. Done properly, this feedback should ensure that there are no 'nasty shocks' at the end of each stage of training.