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

[Colliam7]

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.,

OK, I then have to ask – where are you specifically seeing these issues as differentiating trends? Most agencies which credential recreation divers have options available for divers younger than 15 to receive training and some level of credentialing. I don’t see that as a ‘differentiating’ trend. I am not aware of an agency that states as a policy that dive students ‘don’t need more than three days of training’. I am not aware of an agency that states as a policy that dive students ‘don’t need to go slower than 20m/min’. Several agencies state that 20m/min is the maximum descent rate, and a slower (10m/min) rate is recommended. Some agencies do not offer technical dive training, because they wisely realize that they do not have the expertise to ‘do it right’, and their market focus is elsewhere. Some recognize that such a market is developing, but elect to wait to enter the domain of technical dive training, until they feel have the necessary expertise and a quality product to offer. I cannot see that as a differentiating trend, as much as a very commendable practice. Can you be more specific, or give a concrete example of where these practices are stated policy of any agency and represent a meaningful ‘differentiating trend’ across specific agencies? Frankly, since many / most scuba training agencies (now including NAUI, by the way) are members of RSTC, would it not seem that standardization is more likely to be the norm than ‘differentiating trends’?

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 coose 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 ...

I confess I am a bit confused by what appears to be a circular argument. And, I am not sure what ‘excuse’ you are referring to. But, let me comment on specific elements. I do not believe that divers wishing to become scuba instructors are ‘falling into a random agency’. I do believe that those individuals frequently select an option to receive instructor training primarily on the basis of: 1) History and familiarity– the agency where they have received most of their training prior to pursuing the instructor credential. And, the selection of an agency for primary instruction is probably less of a factor than the availability of instruction, word of mouth about a shop, etc. I see very few new divers expressing a strong preference for pursing training through a specific agency, because of some ‘differentiating trend’. I happened to go to a PADI shop for my OW training, because a work colleague recommended the shop, and he had gone through that shop because it was very close to his house. I continued training through the shop because I admired the staff, and pursued instructor training there because I was familiar with the (PADI) system and the shop, AND the other students who were going to be in the class. Today, I have a broader interest in teaching approaches across agencies, but that hasn't caused my to question my initial choice. 2) Convenience - divers wishing to become instructors may well select a facility, irrespective of agency affiliation, because it is physically convenient, it is economically accessible, it is geographically attractive (e.g. the Caribbean, or southeast Asia), it offers training and credentialing in a time frame that fits the student’s needs, etc. That is reality, and I don’t have a problem with it. 3) Opportunity - divers wishing to become instructors may well consider the ‘footprint’ of a particular agency in the geographic or professional area in which they wish to ultimately teach. For example, if you are living in Europe, but plan to teach in North America would you choose CMAS, or NAUI/PADI/SDI affiliate for instruction and credentialing. If you want to offer only primary open water instruction, would you pick GUE, or a NAUI/PADI/SDI affiliate? If you want to become a technical diving instructor, would you select SSI, or SDI/TDI as your initial agency for credentialing? The difference is not in the quality of any organization – all are good agencies - rather in their presence in various areas of geography or emphasis.

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 have mentioned ‘culture of the agency’ several times. PLEASE, PLEASE give a specific example of what you perceive to be the ‘culture’ of one or more particular agencies. I simply do not understand to what you are referring. Are you suggesting the ‘differentiating trends’ you mention are the same as ‘culture’ of the agency? I am not disagreeing (or agreeing), I just don’t understand what you mean. I am not a particular subscriber to a ‘ "it's the instructor, not the agency" mantra’. I believe that the outcome and quality of an individual student diver’s experience is a reflection of the standards of the agency, and the educational approach (e.g. materials, and organization of the curriculum) of the agency, AND the performance of the instructor. I think agency standards are more similar than dissimilar. I think there are some differences in curricular organization across agencies - some are more modular, some are more all-inclusive but that is as much a matter of organizational preference and market orientation as quality (some universities prefer a quarter system, while others employ a semester system). But, putting all that aside, I will say that I do not agree, that ‘making sure standards are more closely followed is just putting a band-aid on a symptom’. I do not follow that logic of the relationship that you are apparently outlining. Any organization is better served if they make sure their standards, their policies and procedures, their operating guidelines, whatever are followed. And, any organization is better served if they regularly review / amend / update their standards, policies and procedures, operating guidelines, whatever to ensure that they are meeting both the stated goals of the organization and the needs of their target customer base.

 

[sigxbill]

.

• The annual DEMA workshop banned any presentations on nitrox by anyone from any agency in 1993 on the belief that it was too dangerous. Several agencies were formed for the purpose of teaching nitrox diving. Soon after that, the entire scuba industry realized that it was not that dangerous, and the entire industry changed its thinking. That included PADI. Are you saying that all the other agencies changed for noble reasons, but only PADI changed so it could make more money?
• PADI teaches that you should have a buddy, and the OW class requires that students work in buddy teams, check each other's gas supplies, etc. In the OW checkout dives, they are supposed to plan and execute the final dive in buddy teams. What more are they supposed to do to teach the buddy system?
• I have no idea what you are saying about not needing a bottom timer--are you talking about a specific instrument that some people, mostly tech divers use? Why would that be required?
• The 20m/min ascent rate was created by the Navy in the late 1950s and was the standard for decades, including when PADI created its tables. After that, more recent research has suggested that 30 FPM was better. Computer algorithms now pretty much all use 30 FPM, and PADI says that divers using computers should follow the computer's suggested ascent rate.
• I don't know what the 15 year old reference means.
• PADI taught tech through its subsidiary--DSAT--and then moved it out of that body and into the main body. It is still essentially the same course being taught by the same instructors--just a different name on the certification. Please explain the problem--I am missing it.

1. Regardless of DEMA's ban on anti-nitrox presentations, the anti-nitrox sentiment continued in padi up until recently. When my local SportsChalet closed just a couple of years ago, they still didn't pump nitrox and wrote it off as unimportant to consumers.
2. Regardless of padi's recommending diving with a buddy, along with other agencies, they don't teach how to be a buddy. That is why it is so difficult to be assigned a random buddy when you don't bring your own. And even when you do bring your own, since buddy roles are not taught, "buddies" often find themselves apart. I almost drowned once as a result of standard, "OK, you two be buddies" training. Also, other padi procedures unintentionally encourage breaking the team apart. If you think padi teaches buddy diving good, then great. Since I originally learned how to be a buddy from padi, and now know how other agencies teach how to be a buddy, I am pointing it out as a difference.
3. to the best of my knowledge, Open Water padi students are not required to have a bottom timer.
4. Virtually the entire industry embraces and requires 10m/min - except padi. Regarding computers - I would argue there is no such thing as 'computer's suggested ascent rates." Computers simply relay data to the diver, many with adjustable ascent rate alarms. Computers aren't diver education - padi is - if padi is going to defer to adjustable ascent rate computers to teach their divers how to ascend, then what do divers need padi for?
5. 15 years old means padi has reduced their standard to 10 year olds.
6. There is no problem for many here - it's just padi / dsat was opposed to tec for a long time, then like nitrox, they flipped and decided they wanted to issue those certs too. Others might prefer an agency that doesn't flip flop on issues like this.

Nothing wrong with any of these in and of themselves - especially if they appeal to you. It's just that I find it difficult to describe a meaningful difference between agencies by comparing individual standards alone. Consequently, in my quest to be able to define meaningful difference between agencies, I see agency culture through history and trends like these.

Without defining agency culture, how would you describe the overall differences between agencies?

cheers

 

[sigxbill]

where are you specifically seeing these issues as differentiating trends?

I see them everywhere - dive mags, agency websites, talking to divers, watching divers, studying agency materials, working for shops, reading about / talking to agency founders, etc. Then you start to remember differences in their ideals, history, notable events, standards, they way they train, the resulting student's way of diving, etc. I call noticing these differences culture - that usually represents a trend.

I am not aware of an agency that states as a policy that dive students ‘don’t need more than three days of training’.

there are agencies that require so much material that it would be impossible to complete in three, and there is at least one agency that I know of that requires four ...

since many / most scuba training agencies (now including NAUI, by the way) are members of RSTC, would it not seem that standardization is more likely to be the norm than ‘differentiating trends’?

So let's say we limit our discussion to only rstc agencies, then would you say they are all the same? If so, then why have more than one? Do you think new agencies started because they wanted to be the same? Or is there any way to describe how they are different? I submit that even if their standards were exactly the same, you would be able differentiate if you wanted to.

I am not sure what ‘excuse’ you are referring to.

the excuse of: it's the instructor, not the agency

I confess I am a bit confused by what appears to be a circular argument. I do not believe that divers wishing to become scuba instructors are ‘falling into a random agency’. I do believe that those individuals frequently select an option to receive instructor training primarily on the basis of:
1) History (with) and familiarity
2) Convenience
3) Opportunity

Except for #3, I call this randomly picking an agency. Number three I call picking for money. Compare this to picking an agency based on culture, history of choices at critical junctures, specific standards, ideals, lack of contradictions and founder's history, end goal logic, etc., and then driving farther if necessary. And then marketing to your own clients if lds doesn't subscribe to your own ethos.

There is another recent thread on this board where the op asks how soon they should take fundies. A number of instructors from other agencies answered, anytime, and that it was one of the best classes they took. My question is if it was one of the best classes they took, and / or they highly recommended it, then why didn't those other instructors drop their respective agencies to become fundies instructors themselves? If I were an instructor of one agency, but found myself taking, liking, and then promoting the class of another agency, I would join that agency. Is it possible that staying with the same agency an example of random selection? Why didn't the padi instructors just take Peak Performance Buoyancy instead? PPB theoretically is the same class. because maybe agency culture makes the two classes different?

If you want to offer only primary open water instruction, would you pick GUE

YES - if that were the culture and ethos I subscribed to.

Today, I have a broader interest in teaching approaches across agencies

I would call "teaching approaches" part of agency culture - that when combined with other notable facts about those agencies, result in a trend ...

The difference is not in the quality of any organization – all are good agencies

seriously? I'm pretty sure I could come up with controversial points for readers of this board to argue about every agency.
1. As one develops their scuba value system, I don't see how one can call "all" good, especially if one discovers something within an agency that the contradicts one's own values.
2. I'm pretty sure that the founders of at least some of the agencies created their agency because they wanted to offer what they hoped would be a better product ...

I believe that the outcome and quality of an individual student diver’s experience is a reflection of the standards of the agency, and the educational approach (e.g. materials, and organization of the curriculum) of the agency, AND the performance of the instructor.

this is agency culture. I know you were trying to show that the instructor was separate from the other two items, but I would argue that the performance of the instructor is at least in part the result of the other two items - part of the culture of the agency - as well.

I'll give you a specific example. A couple of padi divers in my local club just completed their tdi advanced nitrox / decompression procedures, and consequently the types of dives they have been doing has changed. Even though tdi offers helitrox, these two new deco divers have been preaching that helitrox is not necessary, and that gear, tolerance, and experience can allow divers, especially themselves, to overcome co2 buildup and narcosis. Consequently they are not at all interested in helitrox - even though they could easily afford it.

My question is: given that tdi offers helitrox, and their instructor is certified to teach trimix, how did these divers come to this conclusion? While there is no way to say for sure, I believe it has to do with agency culture. tdi was founded by a proud deep air world record holder, so deep air has become part of the culture of that agency. So where did the newly certified deco procedure divers get their deep air attitude? Maybe their instructor ... who got his deep air attitude from the culture of the agency. Or maybe he already had that attitude and joined tdi because he perceived their culture to share his same ethos ...

I will say that I do not agree, that ‘making sure standards are more closely followed is just putting a band-aid on a symptom’.

while I agree that following standards is better than not - obviously, my point was that maybe, just maybe, there is a reason (symptom) some instructors don't follow standards (which is why the band-aid of qc is thought to be necessary).

I submit that that reason could include, but not be limited to:
1. lack of logic in the standards
2. which could lead to lack of understanding
3. which could lead to lack of buying into the standards
For example, how logical is it to drag a diver down to 30m on what by minimum standards could be their 5th dive ever! And even worse - tell them they are now certified to do such dives! And with no requirement of any prior experience with a bottom timer! So maybe that dive shop thought it was dumb to require the deep dive. CULTURE
4. possible contradictions in the standards
5. etc.

I would argue that there are some agencies where the standards are less likely to be broken - not because of better qc, but because their instructors buy into the agency culture - of which their standards are part of - and so they just naturally follow the standards - which are the culture...

To deny that there are any differences between at least some of the agencies is, I believe, burying one's head in the sand. I think exploring these differences, and then attempting to find correlation in them is interesting - as do many on this board - shown by the fact that this relatively young string also has over 200 replies! To that end, I have found comparing standards alone to be fruitless, so I expanded my view to look at what I call agency culture and trends. When I did that, the differences became clear to me. I know you would like me to just blurt them all out, but I'm not going to do that. Some would see what I see, but others would start debating singular points to ignore the big picture of culture and trend. I would argue that even if I were mistaken on a point or two, that it wouldn't matter in the big picture of culture and trend.

I hope this better clarifies.

cheers

 

[chrisch]

....
while I agree that following standards is better than not - obviously, my point was that maybe, just maybe, there is a reason (symptom) some instructors don't follow standards (which is why the band-aid of qc is thought to be necessary).

I submit that that reason could include, but not be limited to:
1. lack of logic in the standards
2. which could lead to lack of understanding
3. which could lead to lack of buying into the standards
For example, how logical is it to drag a diver down to 30m on what by minimum standards could be their 5th dive ever! And even worse - tell them they are now certified to do such dives! And with no requirement of any prior experience with a bottom timer! So maybe that dive shop thought it was dumb to require the deep dive. CULTURE
4. possible contradictions in the standards
5. etc.

..

Surely if there were such poor examples as you give which convinced instructors to ignore standards en masse the agency(ies) affected would find themselves without any instructors as people moved to another agency?

I can only cite the one that I know about which is the amateur organisation of BSAC based here in the UK. For reasons best known to itself the BSAC decided to prohibit the teaching of primary donate a while back. Many instructors in BSAC have been exposed to OC long hose diving and were very much in favour of this methodology of providing gas under the correct set of circumstances. As a result a lot of BSAC instructors either left or simply stopped teaching. A very long running and unresolved argument ensued. (Current status is the policy is under review I think).

People do get over serious about their pastime but the reduction in available instructors has certainly caused a shift in thinking in this instance. So maybe it is the instructors (plural) not the agency (singular)?

 

[RayfromTX]

Well this is getting interesting although we have probably lost some of our audience with some of the long and multifaceted posts. When we start rebutting others 10+ points at a time it gets hard to take or take part in.

I will only say this. Bill and Bill are both right depending on the humans involved and often, how they feel that day. It is convenient to want to distill this down and declare how and why things are but it just isn't possible. Humans are so variable that the truth for one is not the same as for another.

sigxbill describes an ah ha moment of understanding but it is his based on his complex experience and understanding. It isn't mine and his explanation and arguments won't make it so. My moments like that take layers of foundation and because my experiences with the world are so different it is unlikely that we will arrive at the same place when we are talking about how complex humans teach complex humans about a complex subject within various sets of protocols.

Viewed in this way the standards become the most similar part of the equation. The protocols are only a little more different. What is widely variable is the humans involved and how their unique ways of thinking and learning interplay with one another to create the easily viewed phenomenon that "every class is different". Even next month with the same people it would be different.

There are differences between agencies and there can even be a perception of an agency culture but the vast differences in humans and how their brains function will always trump the "relatively" small differences between agencies.

My OW class was poor and seemed too much like a sales pitch for gear, trips and more classes. It was under an agency that stresses that. My AOW was awesome. We learned much more than the standards required and there was no hint of a sales pitch. The agency was the same. The instructors were very different and so were the students. It would be difficult for me to have an ah ha moment where I suddenly understood that it really is about the agency and that the instructor is just a product of or attracted to an agency or it's culture.

 

[boulderjohn]

1. Regardless of DEMA's ban on anti-nitrox presentations, the anti-nitrox sentiment continued in padi up until recently. When my local SportsChalet closed just a couple of years ago, they still didn't pump nitrox and wrote it off as unimportant to consumers.
2. Regardless of padi's recommending diving with a buddy, along with other agencies, they don't teach how to be a buddy. That is why it is so difficult to be assigned a random buddy when you don't bring your own. And even when you do bring your own, since buddy roles are not taught, "buddies" often find themselves apart. I almost drowned once as a result of standard, "OK, you two be buddies" training. Also, other padi procedures unintentionally encourage breaking the team apart. If you think padi teaches buddy diving good, then great. Since I originally learned how to be a buddy from padi, and now know how other agencies teach how to be a buddy, I am pointing it out as a difference.
3. to the best of my knowledge, Open Water padi students are not required to have a bottom timer.
4. Virtually the entire industry embraces and requires 10m/min - except padi. Regarding computers - I would argue there is no such thing as 'computer's suggested ascent rates." Computers simply relay data to the diver, many with adjustable ascent rate alarms. Computers aren't diver education - padi is - if padi is going to defer to adjustable ascent rate computers to teach their divers how to ascend, then what do divers need padi for?
5. 15 years old means padi has reduced their standard to 10 year olds.
6. There is no problem for many here - it's just padi / dsat was opposed to tec for a long time, then like nitrox, they flipped and decided they wanted to issue those certs too. Others might prefer an agency that doesn't flip flop on issues like this.

Nothing wrong with any of these in and of themselves - especially if they appeal to you. It's just that I find it difficult to describe a meaningful difference between agencies by comparing individual standards alone. Consequently, in my quest to be able to define meaningful difference between agencies, I see agency culture through history and trends like these.

Without defining agency culture, how would you describe the overall differences between agencies?

cheers

1. Regardless of DEMA's ban on anti-nitrox presentations, the anti-nitrox sentiment continued in padi up until recently. When my local SportsChalet closed just a couple of years ago, they still didn't pump nitrox and wrote it off as unimportant to consumers. You do realize that PADI and SportsChalet are two entirely different organizations? PADI was promoting nitrox during those years that you say Sports Chalet was not.
2. Regardless of padi's recommending diving with a buddy, along with other agencies, they don't teach how to be a buddy. As I wrote earlier, how to be a buddy is an important part of the OW course. the fact that some people do not follow that training later is a separate issue. Do you also assume that the fact that many drivers speed and drive drunk is an indication that driver education courses do not teach staying within the speed limit and not drinking and driving?
3. to the best of my knowledge, Open Water padi students are not required to have a bottom timer. You are required to have instruments to measure time and depth, which is what a bottom timer does. There are a number other instruments that do that, including computers. Why should that specific one be required?
4. Virtually the entire industry embraces and requires 10m/min - except padi. Regarding computers - I would argue there is no such thing as 'computer's suggested ascent rates." Computers simply relay data to the diver, many with adjustable ascent rate alarms. Computers aren't diver education - padi is - if padi is going to defer to adjustable ascent rate computers to teach their divers how to ascend, then what do divers need padi for?You have no idea what you are talking about here. The PADI OW course teaches how to use a computer to manage a dive--it does not just tell them to follow the computer. Different computer algorithms have different suggested ascent rates. the course goes into all of that. The old ascent rate only applies to people using the old PADI RDP, and that is because the numbers in that table were created using that ascent rate, and they do not have validity at another rate.
5. 15 years old means padi has reduced their standard to 10 year olds. That was decades ago--you are calling it a current trend? What are the minimum ages of the other agencies? What data to you have that suggests that the lowered age is not safe?
6. There is no problem for many here - it's just padi / dsat was opposed to tec for a long time, then like nitrox, they flipped and decided they wanted to issue those certs too. Others might prefer an agency that doesn't flip flop on issues like this. So you are saying that PADI/DSAT was opposed to tech when it was teaching it through its DSAT subsidiary?

 

[The Chairman]

There are far more options for conducting such research today than there were 50 years ago.

Including ScubaBoard.

 

[sigxbill]

"PADI was promoting nitrox during those years that you say Sports Chalet was not." true, but I think that leftover padi culture made it easy for SportsChalet to not offer nitrox - due to SC's liability concern. Since SC couldn't offer nitrox, SC padi instructors would often devalue nitrox when talking to customers, which contributed to the anti-nitrox culture of padi - because sc was a big player representing padi in their market. And speaking of SportsChalet, why do you think they left naui for padi? possibly a business model decision, that found the culture of padi more compatible with SportsChalet's than naui? hmmm

how to be a buddy is an important part of the OW course. the fact that some people do not follow that training later is a separate issue.

I'm not saying some people don't follow the training. "we don't know what we don't know" - like the pinned thread in the basic diver's forum. What I am saying is I have discovered that training on how to be a buddy differs between agencies - and that some specifically focus on how to be a good buddy more than padi.

You are required to have instruments to measure time and depth

not according to pages 22-23 and 50 of the 2016 padi instructor manual. general standards allow open water students to dive without a bottom timer. Of course I know that computers have bottom timers built into them, but if one were following minimum standards, an ow student could technically complete the course wearing only a depth gauge.

that is because the numbers in that table were created using that ascent rate, and they do not have validity at another rate.

exactly! if slower ascent rates were important to padi, they would develop a new table based on slower ascent rates like other agencies have. instead, their culture is to defer ascent rate responsibility to adjustable computers. so then many new divers, who can barely pronounce the word 'algorithm', decide to computer dive - with no idea on how to adjust it - and just leave it on default settings ...

padi has reduced their standard to 10 year olds. That was decades ago--you are calling it a current trend?

is it part of their history? yes. So then yes. is this a differentiating fact? yes - other agencies have higher minimum ages.

So you are saying that PADI/DSAT was opposed to tech when it was teaching it through its DSAT subsidiary?

no. what I am saying is that padi was opposed to tech prior to dsat ...

These are all facts that in and of themselves are mostly benign. BUT when combined together, they start to paint the culture of their agency. If you don't see the cultural differences between agencies, then that is fine - they can be all the same to you - then it doesn't matter where you are. Or if you do see the cultural attributes that in combination form a trend - and you like the trend where you are - then that is great too. Since I do notice the cultures, I have chosen to develop myself where I find like minded culture ...

cheers

 

[Scott]

1. Regardless of DEMA's ban on anti-nitrox presentations, the anti-nitrox sentiment continued in padi up until recently. When my local SportsChalet closed just a couple of years ago, they still didn't pump nitrox and wrote it off as unimportant to consumers.

Actually SC wanted to provide nitrox but it was a liability issue with them cautioned by their counsel. Having O2 in a facility where there are a number of untrained handlers was their concern.

3. to the best of my knowledge, Open Water padi students are not required to have a bottom timer.

From the 2017 IM.

Equipment
Standard Diver Equipment
Make sure divers have, at a minimum:
~
10. Dive computer or RDP (eRDPMLTM or Table)
Note: If dives are planned using the RDP, the student diver must have
a timing device.

What constitutes a bottom timer? A device that tells you your time underwater that starts and stops at the surface or could be started and stopped?
A computer in gauge mode is a bottom timer. A computer in dive mode is a bottom timer, a watch can be a bottom timer.
Those all sound like timing devices to me.

5. 15 years old means padi has reduced their standard to 10 year olds.

If I recall it was SDI that first allowed 10 years old to become scuba certified.

 

[stuartv]

Actually SC wanted to provide nitrox but it was a liability issue with them cautioned by their counsel. Having O2 in a facility where there are a number of untrained handlers was their concern.


From the 2017 IM.

Equipment
Standard Diver Equipment
Make sure divers have, at a minimum:
~
10. Dive computer or RDP (eRDPMLTM or Table)
Note: If dives are planned using the RDP, the student diver must have
a timing device.

What constitutes a bottom timer? A device that tells you your time underwater that starts and stops at the surface or could be started and stopped?
A computer in gauge mode is a bottom timer. A computer in dive mode is a bottom timer, a watch can be a bottom timer.
Those all sound like timing devices to me.


If I recall it was SDI that first allowed 10 years old to become scuba certified.

A bottom timer is actually a timer and a depth gauge, isn't it?

From the snippet you posted, it makes it sound like they can dive using a table a dive watch, with no depth gauge (thus, no bottom timer) and no SPG. Is that really correct?