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

[stuartv]

The instructors and students Back Then on the whole worked hard, sure, longer hours, more physical demands, more militaristic approach overall to training. But the training was not as well designed, the equipment required more of the divers, and there is nothing to suggest that the end result was safer, more capable, or happier divers.

I just want to be clear that nowhere did I say that *I* think the average new diver of today is less competent than the average new diver of yore.

What I said was that "some might argue" that today's new divers are less competent. I firmly stand behind that statement. We see posts here on SB all the time about how new divers are terrible and how training programs back in The Day were so much longer and harder and how they turned out more capable divers. Based on that, I believe it is absolutely true that some might say today's new divers are less competent. Not just might, they do say it, all the time.

I did not express my own opinion on that, AT ALL. And that is partly because I have no opinion. My experience with scuba training started less than 3 years ago. So, I have no experience to even base an opinion on that subject on.

boulderjohn responded to my earlier post about "some might argue" that today's new divers are less competent. He basically quoted what someone else said, whose quote implied that new divers (of that time - the time the person made the statement, which I still don't know when that was) were more competent than the instructors were who formed NAUI in 1960. I have asked boulderjohn several times now what his own opinion is on the average competence level of a new diver, from his earliest personal experience, as compared to the average competence level of new divers today, and he has steadfastly refused to share his own opinion based on his own experience.

I highly respect boulderjohn's experience and credentials as an educator and his opinion on the relative competence of today's new divers compared to Yesterday's new divers would carry a lot more weight with me than the vast majority of SB complainers.

 

[Lorenzoid]

What I said was that "some might argue" that today's new divers are less competent. I firmly stand behind that statement. We see posts here on SB all the time about how new divers are terrible and how training programs back in The Day were so much longer and harder and how they turned out more capable divers. Based on that, I believe it is absolutely true that some might say today's new divers are less competent. Not just might, they do say it, all the time.

Do we know whether this is being said "all the time" anywhere but SB?

 

[Bobby]

I don't know why this has evolved into a debate between present and past teaching. What I'm more interested in is whether today's teaching is sufficient with the average time spent learning and knowledge level of instructors. Back to the OP, is it agencies or instructors? I obviously feel that it should fall on agencies to set and maintain standards. I also believe that E learning and two days of face to face instruction is not enough to build muscle memory and competence. Lastly I also believe that it leads to lower retention.

I understand the marketing angle today however I also believe that it is flawed. If we set the bar higher and made it a challenge to gain x,y,z certification then divers would feel and actually have accomplished something that would help retain them in the sport. I've seen too many times divers with questionable skills get themselves into a situation that results in them leaving the sport. I've also been pushed by shops to maintain a time frame when divers clearly needed more time. I've pushed back and given those students the time they needed resulting in competent divers that are still going strong over a decade later. Some of them have gone on to be accomplished and competent technical divers in their own right. I can't say if the would or would not have if they hadn't gotten that extra time and effort however, IMHO, I believe it helped.

Of course if one believes that there is no problem and that the industry is not in decline than the conversation is unneeded.

 

[boulderjohn]

boulderjohn responded to my earlier post about "some might argue" that today's new divers are less competent. He basically quoted what someone else said, whose quote implied that new divers (of that time - the time the person made the statement, which I still don't know when that was) were more competent than the instructors were who formed NAUI in 1960. I have asked boulderjohn several times now what his own opinion is on the average competence level of a new diver, from his earliest personal experience, as compared to the average competence level of new divers today, and he has steadfastly refused to share his own opinion based on his own experience.

I have tried to explain it many times. I am not able to make a comparison to those two eras because I did not experience those two eras. I am not refusing to give my opinion, I do not have that opinion to give.

I also pointed out that for an individual like me, a comparison would not be valid because of limited experience with the whole system, whereas someone who oversaw an entire agency for decades would have a better idea.

This is evidently a very hard concept for you, and I am officially giving up trying to get that point through to you. If there is a language you understand better than English, you can run my responses through one of the translation programs to see if that helps.

 

[kelemvor]

Well then.

Now that this myth has been dispelled, what's up for Part 2?

 

[BDSC]

Well then.

Now that this myth has been dispelled, what's up for Part 2?

Not that I would call it a myth, but one topic of conversation that gets over hyped on SB is "failure points".

 

[kelemvor]

I just want to be clear that nowhere did I say that *I* think the average new diver of today is less competent than the average new diver of yore.

What I said was that "some might argue" that today's new divers are less competent. I firmly stand behind that statement. We see posts here on SB all the time about how new divers are terrible and how training programs back in The Day were so much longer and harder and how they turned out more capable divers. Based on that, I believe it is absolutely true that some might say today's new divers are less competent. Not just might, they do say it, all the time.

I did not express my own opinion on that, AT ALL. And that is partly because I have no opinion. My experience with scuba training started less than 3 years ago. So, I have no experience to even base an opinion on that subject on.

boulderjohn responded to my earlier post about "some might argue" that today's new divers are less competent. He basically quoted what someone else said, whose quote implied that new divers (of that time - the time the person made the statement, which I still don't know when that was) were more competent than the instructors were who formed NAUI in 1960. I have asked boulderjohn several times now what his own opinion is on the average competence level of a new diver, from his earliest personal experience, as compared to the average competence level of new divers today, and he has steadfastly refused to share his own opinion based on his own experience.

I highly respect boulderjohn's experience and credentials as an educator and his opinion on the relative competence of today's new divers compared to Yesterday's new divers would carry a lot more weight with me than the vast majority of SB complainers.

That's an interesting point. I've often heard people make that statement. I've also often heard people (usually people like instructors who sell training for a living) say that training "in the old days" was inferior to training today.

I've seen an interesting example myself. The guy who got me into diving took his open water class around the time I was born. That class, among other things, covered cave diving and included a cave dive during certification. However, he's never used a reel or cookie or arrow. I guess back then, they didn't do stuff like that or something. I believe his agency was NASDS. I don't know where, other than it was likely in the great lakes area. He's from Michigan, and I guess they normally went to Canada for vacations.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Not that I would call it a myth, but one topic of conversation that gets over hyped on SB is "failure points".

Perhaps the common theme among alleged "SB myths" is that they relate to concepts imported from the technical diving community? People exposed to tech diving find that choosing the right instructor to help them reach their goals is indeed more important than what agency issues the card, and so this gets picked up on SB as something that might be good for the diving population in general.

 

[stuartv]

I have tried to explain it many times. I am not able to make a comparison to those two eras because I did not experience those two eras.

I said this in one form or another several times:

I have asked boulderjohn several times now what his own opinion is ... from his earliest personal experience

Maybe my English IS incomprehensible?!?

I don't know why this has evolved into a debate between present and past teaching. What I'm more interested in is whether today's teaching is sufficient with the average time spent learning and knowledge level of instructors. Back to the OP, is it agencies or instructors? I obviously feel that it should fall on agencies to set and maintain standards. I also believe that E learning and two days of face to face instruction is not enough to build muscle memory and competence. Lastly I also believe that it leads to lower retention.

I understand the marketing angle today however I also believe that it is flawed. If we set the bar higher and made it a challenge to gain x,y,z certification then divers would feel and actually have accomplished something that would help retain them in the sport. I've seen too many times divers with questionable skills get themselves into a situation that results in them leaving the sport. I've also been pushed by shops to maintain a time frame when divers clearly needed more time. I've pushed back and given those students the time they needed resulting in competent divers that are still going strong over a decade later. Some of them have gone on to be accomplished and competent technical divers in their own right. I can't say if the would or would not have if they hadn't gotten that extra time and effort however, IMHO, I believe it helped.

Of course if one believes that there is no problem and that the industry is not in decline than the conversation is unneeded.

Is today's teaching sufficient? Sufficient for what end?

It seems that we don't have very many fatalities. Certainly, we have some, but statistically speaking, fatalities seem very, very low. Especially if you factor out fatalities from things like heart attacks.

So, to the "end" of teaching producing "safe" divers, it seems like you could say that it is sufficient. Or, you might think of it as the training industry and the dive charter industry have evolved together, in a mutually beneficial way, to produce "safe" divers (given that the vast majority only participate in the sport via dive charters that, in a lot of cases, totally hold their hand).

If the "end" is teaching that produces divers that want to stick with it indefinitely, then probably not so much. But, is that really an appropriate "end"? It is certainly self-serving to the dive industry. But, does it really serve the customers who are considering signing up for scuba training? The culture has changed. Lots of people aren't looking for a long-term hobby. They just want a short class and a few bucket list experiences. They don't want a commitment, just a good time.

 

[diverintheflesh]

And it shows the limits of any individual's perspective. My experiences with refreshers were just the opposite. I had very few NAUI people in those classes, but the ones I had were close to hopeless and should have gone through the whole certification process again. Those people represent a tiny, tiny fraction of 1% of the possible divers out there--given the millions of certifications that have been completed worldwide, how can anyone diagnose a trend based only on their personal experience? I mentioned recently that my niece was certified after one 2-hour pool session and one OW dive to 10 feet. That was NAUI. Am I going to generalize that and say that represents all NAUI instruction? Of course not.

Whenever people compare the past and the present by comparing the experience they had with their instruction with something they saw another instructor do recently, that comparison is meaningless. Either one could be a total anomaly.

Whenever I see posts talking about how much the standards have been lowered in the last decades, I ask them to give a specific example in the standards. Can they point to something that has been officially removed from the standards by the agency over that time? What happened in YOUR class may have been just something that individual instructor wanted to do--a good example of which is harassment exercises, like shutting off air and ripping off masks.

I was certified a couple decades ago. In that time, the one thing taken from the course officially was buddy breathing, which was optional when I was certified and is now not part of the curriculum at all. In contrast, a number of skills have been added during that time. The OW course now has MORE requirements now than it did when I was certified, but you would never believe that from reading typical ScubaBoard posts.

That's a very thurough and thought out response. Thank you for sharing. As I mentioned, "my insights are by no means statistically significant." -- my opinion, my perspective...

When you say, "should have gone through the whole certification process again," well what happened then? Any instructor from any agency is not obligated to sign a diver's logbook if they are so bad that they, "should have gone through the whole certification process again." Were they pressured to do so by the dive shop owner or other? I realize that we are a self regulating sporting activity and I love that the government hasn't gotten involved in regards to paying state or federal fees and not having to have state or federal licensing requirements for the instructors and students.

You also mentioned that your niece was "certified after one 2-hour pool session and one OW dive to 10 feet." Not only is that not a certification, it goes against good old fashioned common sense. What did you do about it? You could have given her that level of training on your own if not every skill under the sun.

I make it a point in all of my education to reinforce that the student must never follow anyone, including the instructor, if they are being given a crock of ****. I show several videos that mocks this and other concepts so that every student at every level, especially the junior divers, understands that their responsibilities in and out of the water.

There's a saying I've heard several parents use, "catch your children doing something good and reward it rather than wait for for something bad and punish it." If a certification agency and its instructors aren't going to be held accountable for their failing to meet their own standards, then both the instructor and the agency should be sanctioned for it.

I can't give specific examples changing each year prior to 2017/2016 because I don't maintain that information, however standards do change every year, and I can prove what changed in 2017 because it is highlight in the standards and procedures manual AND I do have access to that.

Interestingly enough, there have been 2 issues that I caught and brought to headquarter's attention. It was clear to me because I read the changes when they came out. An editor compiling, printing, and publishing a manuscript with errors happens from time to time, but they are only one person. I can't tell you how many others caught the errors and reported it, but when I called headquarters, they were aware of it and gave me direction on how to handle it. NAUI has always been open to me being an active participant in their internal processes when I wanted to be. I've only been a member for 4 years now, but I was an SSI instructor for 6 years and hit roadblocks often with them. Doug McNeese has an interesting history to say the least.

In fact, in 2013, I had a conversation with him where he mocked my intention to be independent of a dive shop, so I quit SSI and went to NAUI. Everything he said would happen not only didn't, but I've been able to raise the bar, and my bar, even higher and hold my students to even a greater level of accountability, but yes, I concede that is my experience and it's me putting in the time and energy into my business model because I want my program to be better.

For what it's worth, I've been told by a PADI instructor that I do too much work... yes, they proposed that I shouldn't go above and beyond the standards because it wasn't cost effect. I only have to say it is morally effective to not cheat my students just to put another dollar in...

Take care and great diving...

--carlos