Dispelling scubaboard myths (Part 1: It is the instructor not the agency)

[sigxbill]

I don't think the organisation has that trend

then I respectfully suggest that maybe you haven't been looking for the differentiating trends?

 

[boulderjohn]

this is just more proof of the myth of 'it's the instructor not the agency.' it starts from the top down - don't need more than three days of training, don't need a bottom timer, don't need tables, don't need a buddy, don't need nitrox - oh wait - we may be losing out on money so now we do need nitrox, but don't need a deep dive.

Sp the fact that an individual group of instructors is systematically violating agency standards proves that the individual instructor doesn't matter as much as the agency.? That logic eludes me.

 

[Colliam7]

then I respectfully suggest that maybe you haven't been looking for the differentiating trends?

Perhaps, you could identify one or more that YOU see.

 

[boulderjohn]

then I respectfully suggest that maybe you haven't been looking for the differentiating trends?

How can any one individual do that?

The other day I posted a facetious comparison to scuba instruction a couple decades ago and scuba instruction today. I pointed out that when I was certified, all sorts of standards were broken in order to get me certified in 3 days. I compared that to the instruction I have seen in Boulder, Colorado over the past couple of years, where I have never seen a standard intentionally violated. I concluded that all instruction worldwide is immensely better today than it was a couple decades ago.

My niece was certified by a NAUI instructor in Okinawa after a 2-hour pool session and 1 OW dive to 10 feet. My next-door neighbor's daughter was NAUI certified in Taiwan with a similar experience. I know of a NAUI instructor who sits in a chair beside the pool and tells the students what to do while they are under water. Those are all the NAUI instructors I know anything about. Do I conclude that 100% of NAUI instructors around the world are like that?

 

[KevinNM]

If I have a million dollars cash to spend I might well find myself with a GUE technical pass and no course to do - who knows? I don't have that much cash or that much need for the ticket

That works until you get to the next class, where the next instructor sees you in the water. GUE is small enough that every instructor knows every other instructor, and they will call up your previous instructor and have a pointed discussion about how such an unprepared student ended up in their class, and what were they thinking when they passed them?

 

[Colliam7]

I am not out to get somebody or change the world of PADI or whoever, nor would I want to rat on a poor underpaid and underappreciated instructor especially not when I suspect that maybe the real culprit might be the shop...

First, it is always the Instructor. The Instructor is the point of interface with the student during training. As an Instructor, I have a choice, it is always within MY power to either adhere to standards, or not. I see no basis whatsoever for shifting the blame to a shop, even if the shop happens to be sloppy, disorganized, badly managed, displays questionable ethics, and directly tells an Instructor to violate standards and / or engage in ethical practices 'or else'. Yes, a shop can be a culprit of sorts. But, the Instructor has the choice. If the price of that Instructor's integrity is something as cheap as keeping a job (where they may whine about being underpaid and underappreciated), I sure as hell don't want them teaching me, when I don't have the knowledge base to determine if the teaching is good or bad. Scuba instructors are not underpaid, and they are not underappreciated. Sure, I would like to get more for teaching. Sure, I would love to get flowery letters of appreciation from every student. But, I get paid what I am willing to work for. And, I get the appreciation that I am willing to receive.

Second, a person actively chooses to become a scuba Instructor - you have to go out of your way to become one. A person actively chooses to teach, and continue to teach, scuba - you have to pay money annually - agency fees, insurance, etc. And, If someone feels underpaid, they can and should seek alternate employment. If someone feels underappreciated, they can and should seek alternate employment.

and if I were sure of the latter, how would I report that to whom ... and what would that then do?

If you think a shop, which conducts training identified with a particular training agency (NAUI, PADI, SEI, SSI, NASE, whatever) is in violation of the standards of that agency, or engages in unsafe practices, or provides a poor quality education product, wouldn't it seem logical to contact the particular agency? How? Just go to that agency's website, and you will find an email address or phone number. The agency may not agree with your concern, or may not conclude the issue is within their domain of authority or responsibility (for example, what a shop charges for a NAUI course, or PADI course, etc is just that - what the shop charges - and the agency does not control the shops' business practices). But, the agency may elect to investigate the matter further, to determine if the agency's product was delivered in a manner that violates standards, or Safe Diving Practices, etc.

In my mind it is not the paying customer's job to help assuring quality in the dive industry. If the tests and demonstrating diving capabilities to earn a certification don't inherently do that, then there also is an issue with how that is all set up and done and monitored ... by the very instructors teaching the class.

And, the whole reason for the agency to conduct QA surveys is because that Instructor is delivering that agency's product, but is not under the agency's direct daily control. I am credentialed as a PADI Instructor. But, I am paid by students / shops - I do not work for the agency. But, my agency - fortunately, I think - wants to know that I am delivering their product according to the standards and practices that they have set forth, so that students are not harmed / injured - which might be the case if I teach in an unsafe manner, or violate standards and fail to equip a student with the basic dive knowledge and skills that I have agreed, in a written 'contract' with the agency, to provide.

Yes, each agency could employ 'secret shoppers' as an alternative example - have individuals sign up and take courses, and report back to the agency. Such a process would be prohibitively expensive, and that cost would have to be passed along to the consumer. Far better to use a more cost-efficient, low impact survey to identify potential problems and trends - by asking specific (often 'Yes/No') questions which directly relate to the training standards, then further investigate individual cases where survey responses suggest there may be an issue. And, that investigation may reveal that an Instructor honestly didn't realize that what they were doing violated standards, in which case the agency may help the Instructor through additional mentoring / training. It is not a matter of being asked to 'rat on' an Instructor. Through the information and feedback you supply through the survey, you may actually be helping them become better. But, it only happens if the 'paying customers' participate.

Virtually every customer-facing industry that I am aware of WANTS the help of their customers in assuring quality. Getting customer feedback is recognized as an essential part of a comprehensive quality management program. But, if you don't believe it is your job, maybe you will do it for pay? Perhaps, PADI and other agencies that use surveys have to sweeten the pot for you, and do what Lowes, Sears, Home depot , etc., etc. etc. do - put your name in a drawing that gives you the possibility to win a cash prize, if you respond to a survey. Would that do it?

Health professional boards - pharmacy, medicine, nursing, dentistry for example - go to great lengths to to ensure that an individual licensed to practice that profession meets the standards of training, experience, continuing education deemed necessary to assure competence. But, they also must deal with situations where those professionals violate the standards of their profession. Those boards would REALLY like to identify such deviations BEFORE a patient is harmed. But, the only way they know that a problem exists is by patients or other practitioners reporting issues. If every patient took the approach that it wasn't their job, as a paying patient, to 'rat on' their poor overworked physician / pharmacist / nurse / dentist, even though they had a terrible experience and know they would NEVER go back to that practitioner, the price would be paid by some poor, unsuspecting subsequent patient.

 

[sigxbill]

@boulderjohn - just for the record - I enjoy your posts which make it apparent that you take your scuba seriously.

regarding standards - I am not debating their systematic violation. My point was that standards are but one of a number of representations of the culture of an agency, that can be used to show a trend. I agree with Diver0001 - standards don't specifically matter - that is why it is difficult to compare agencies / instructors just based on standards. The only way to compare agencies is to develop a picture of agency culture. It is the lack of that picture that causes one to resort to the excuse: "it's the instructor - not the agency."

@Colliam7 - I will add to my previous list / trend: don't need more than three days of training, don't need a bottom timer, don't need to be 15 years old, you need a buddy but no instruction on how to be a buddy, don't need nitrox - oh wait - we may be losing out on money so now we do need nitrox, don't need to go slower than 20m/min, don't need to technical dive - oh wait - maybe we do, etc., plenty more can be added if one takes the time. I call this collectively an agency trend. It is a trend that resulted in my, when hiring a guide for a dive on vacation, getting asked after the dive, "would you like certification" for that one single dive? When I responded, "but I didn't take the class." She responded, "that's ok, it just costs $35." I figured, "what the hell, it'll make a great souvenir." When I got the card, it didn't even have her name on it - it had some dude's name that I never met! See the result of the trend?

Next map out the history of another agency, using their standards, founder history, notable events, values, etc. Then you can compare that trend with the one above and you will start to see differences that can be compared and contrasted. It's not that hard to see once you start noticing ...

cheers

 

[sigxbill]

a person actively chooses to become a scuba Instructor

When they do that, they also have to actively choose an agency. If it's the instructor, and NOT the agency, then how do instructors choose their agency? I submit that if instructors are just falling into any random agency that the tide pushes the instructors into, then for those agencies the trend is that it is the instructor within the agency - hence the need for that excuse. Which means it ultimately is the agency and not the instructor ... because trends within different agencies make it that way ...

 

[sigxbill]

Would that do it?

NO - making sure standards are more closely followed is just putting a band-aid on a symptom. The problem I believe those who subscribe to the, "it's the instructor, not the agency" mantra want to ignore is that the problem is the culture of the agency. You can't change the culture by adding surveys (band-aids), just like you can't solve the problems with managed health care by adding more regulations. It's like trying to make a racial supremacy group inclusive; even if successful, why would anyone want to be a part of it? "Oh - that was our past. We are inclusive now." And so the wind blows ... What is better? To start a separate group with inclusive culture and let the supremacy group die? Or try to change the culture of the supremacy group - despite all the history? Which would you want to be part of? The one that flip flops? Or the one that stands for something?

 

[drbill]

Fortunately when I started diving there were few certifying agencies to choose from. When I was finally told I had to be certified by such an entity, I was able to rely on the knowledge of others who pointed me to a true legend of an instructor, LACs Ron Merker. For later certs I RESEARCHED potential instructors and chose based on that. What prevents a person interested in becoming certified today from doing the same? There are far more options for conducting such research today than there were 50 years ago.