Taking an open water student below 60 ft?

[yle]

My theory is that one reason why retention rates are so incredibly pure is partially due to the fact that most mainstream training is so poor with subjective standards instead of objective requirements, as well as so many students being placed on their knees and having zero buoyancy control after open water. When people start out diving and they are not skilled, they know it subconsciously. I say this on the statistically insignificant observations of my own retention rates when I started teaching (on the knees) versus today (never on the knees). No one corks/craters today. Pretty much everyone did when I started out. Instructors who teach on the knees who say that their students don't cork/crater are lying. I've dove with some of their students and they did exactly that every time.

Everything you mention here is a matter of how an individual instructor teaches their course, has nothing to do with any particular agency or the general state of scuba instruction in the industry. I'm sure everyone generally agrees that the quality of instruction for any scuba course is dependent on the quality of the instructor, regardless of their agency affiliation.

So if you are saying that some instructors are more effective than others, I don't think you'll get much argument.

 

[yle]

My theory is that one reason why retention rates are so incredibly pure is partially due to the fact that most mainstream training is so poor with subjective standards instead of objective requirements

Could be partially due to training quality. But retention rates also seem poor because the people measuring the retention rates tend to be avid divers who are already biased... i.e. they really don't understand how anyone could not be absolutely obsessed with diving. So they look for some kind of explanation.

But the fact is there are some people who try diving and become "hooked", and there are a lot of people who try diving and think "well, that was nice." It's just the way people are. Better quality training might sway some of that latter group to dive more, but you'd probably find that the majority of the "well, that was nice" group is unaffected by the quality of their training.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Could be partially due to training quality. But retention rates also seem poor because the people measuring the retention rates tend to be avid divers who are already biased... i.e. they really don't understand how anyone could not be absolutely obsessed with diving. So they look for some kind of explanation.

But the fact is there are some people who try diving and become "hooked", and there are a lot of people who try diving and think "well, that was nice." It's just the way people are. Better quality training might sway some of that latter group to dive more, but you'd probably find that the majority of the "well, that was nice" group is unaffected by the quality of their training.

I don't think anyone disputes the idea that some people do not enjoy diving at all, or not as much as other activities (which often have less overhead), or not enough more than other activities to compensate for the overhead involved. Using cycling as an example, taking off from your home is zero overhead. Get home, put your bike away and shower. Hardly any muss or fuss. Even diving locally, there's a lot of overhead. The prep/cleanup overhead for the time actually spent underwater is huge.

 

[Bigbella]

No need to get so worked up. You have to keep in mind that PADI's target audience is people that have no knowledge of diving . . .

I am not remotely worked up or jaded about anything. I was laughing the entire time that I was perusing the course catalogue. I just find it absolutely hilarious some of the scheiß that's offered; and what rubes will buy . . .

 

[oly5050user]

My brother and I completed our OW referral on Cayman Brac in 2001. Our first dive as certified divers the next morning started with dropping to a swimthrough that began around 95' (iirc) and dumped us out at 106'. You mean this isn't normal?

Here's the details. It was a boat dive and our instructor was now the DM for the 6 people on the dive. He briefed on the swimthrough and let everyone know we could skip it.

It was not a training dive. No foul. Not recommended but not a violation.

 

[Bob DBF]

Better quality training might sway some of that latter group to dive more, but you'd probably find that the majority of the "well, that was nice" group is unaffected by the quality of their training.

Better quality training will probably only have an effect on those that have an ah sh*t moment and realize they were never prepared properly for the situation in which they found themselves, and that diving can be a lot more dangerous than they had been led to believe. A reevaluation of their intrest in diving will probably not be good for the diving industry.



Bob

 

[TMHeimer]

Could be partially due to training quality. But retention rates also seem poor because the people measuring the retention rates tend to be avid divers who are already biased... i.e. they really don't understand how anyone could not be absolutely obsessed with diving. So they look for some kind of explanation.

But the fact is there are some people who try diving and become "hooked", and there are a lot of people who try diving and think "well, that was nice." It's just the way people are. Better quality training might sway some of that latter group to dive more, but you'd probably find that the majority of the "well, that was nice" group is unaffected by the quality of their training.

Can't give a real good reason, but I tend to agree with this. The "neutral vs. knees" instruction for sure explains why (most of) the neutrally taught start their post-OW diving in better shape. Then again, many instructors and experienced avid divers were taught on their knees--but with regular diving obviously turned out fine.
So I probably agree that retention may be partially due to training quality. But I agree that the majority of "non-avid" are probably unaffected by training quality.

 

[Esprise Me]

I remember when I first signed up for a standard 2 weekend OW course. An acquaintance mentioned he'd taken a monthlong diving course many years ago and then lost interest. I couldn't wrap my head around spending a whole month just learning how to dive. I probably wouldn't have signed up for that. By now I've probably had close to that much instruction (and more dives in the last year than I probably expected to do in a lifetime) and I'm looking forward to spending my whole summer on another course.

A higher bar for entry might improve retention rates by keeping out the riffraff who just want a taste. But some of us riffraffers might surprise you and come back for seconds.

 

[NAM001]

Students need only take the OW course. They never have to take another class in order to dive to recreational limits. PADI encourages divers to take additional training, which can have a real benefit, as much as they wish. Some people like the idea of additional training and find value in paying for an instructor to share their experience, while some prefer to simply develop their experience on their own.

There is no agency telling students "you must take additional courses or we will not allow you to dive (to 30 meters or otherwise)!"

Take a deep breath. Everything is fine. Students are more than welcome to follow your lead, do exactly like you did back in the 70's. But they have greater options now, so they can choose alternative paths if they like.

Things change over decades. It's the way everything in life goes. Try not to take it so personally. No one is saying the way you did it is "wrong" just because there are more options available now.

Is not about taking anything personally. It is about how degraded the quality of diver is and has become because of the sectioning of the beginning class. We are teaching part of the pipeline and not restricting them to part of the full recreational depths that the learned portion prepared them for, I want to say the old course I took was 80 hours to get an OW card. it was the only one you got other than perhaps DM or instructor. And now with say 24 hours and less you get the same card OW and you have learned next to nothing as compared to what the original content was. Why so they can sell more classes under different names. with no consumer benificial additional environment advantage to taking further training. More or less it is either basic OW or tech. And to do tech you are made to buy more classes to get there because of what you don't know and was never taught in the 24 hour OW class.
.

 

[NAM001]

Can't give a real good reason, but I tend to agree with this. The "neutral vs. knees" instruction for sure explains why (most of) the neutrally taught start their post-OW diving in better shape. Then again, many instructors and experienced avid divers were taught on their knees--but with regular diving obviously turned out fine.
So I probably agree that retention may be partially due to training quality. But I agree that the majority of "non-avid" are probably unaffected by training quality.

Good point until the part where you say ""but with regular diving obviously turned out fine."" Most any one can come out fine as long as the dive goes good , then something happens and the so called buddy that has an OW card with a few dives has no clue what to do and is totally depedant on someone else getting then out of the problem. Here is where I make the distinction the old time OW certs meant you could handle yourself and be a rescuing buddy at full recreational depth. OW does not provide those skills.