Diver Training: How much is enough?

[boulderjohn]

The real issue is that there seems to be a norm in the industry to only try identifying such instructors *after* accidents happen.

I made this analogy before, and I hope it can explain what I perceive to be the problem.

Right now a school in my area is having a significant problem. It is a school with a very poor student demographic, with the vast majority being recent immigrants with poor English language skills. Consequently, they are on academic watch because of past performance on state exams. They have to improve or be hit with penalties. At the end of last year, they had to hire a new teacher to fill a position, and they formed a committee to do the hiring. As is standard, all applicants had been through a concentrated university program. All had done student teaching. Some had actual teaching experience. All had references that had to be checked personally. All had met stringent state licensing requirements. (And they really are stringent.) All had passed a difficult required exam. The committee was divided between two candidates, and finally decided on one that really seemed to fit the bill. The majority of the hiring committee was sky high in its recommendation, and he was hired.

It took about a month of teaching for them to realize that he was an absolute disaster as a teacher. He was doing nothing right. His students were learning nothing. His students were going to bomb the state exams, putting the entire school at risk for sanctions. Hiring and firing in mid semester is a real challenge. Yes, it would be possible to get him out of the classroom, but how do you find and hire a qualified replacement with such short notice? Despite their most sincere and dedicated effort to get a teacher who would help them get out of their academic mess, they got one who made it far worse.

Something like I just described happens all the time throughout the world of education. As someone who has hired many such people, I assure you that the most careful process I have ever followed has led me to hire people who turned out to be total duds. The teacher hiring process has a thoroughly developed (and very expensive) infrastructure designed to make sure that only the best and brightest teachers are hired. Despite that infrastructure, absolutely incompetent teachers are hired by the thousand.

As things stand now, the scuba industry cannot possibly match that infrastructure. It cannot possibly provide that level of training. It cannot possibly match those entrance requirements. The only way it could would be to put in place a government bureaucracy to match the education establishment, with an unfathomable increase in cost and with no guarantee the results will be any better.

The only solution I can see is through quality control at the local site. If a potential teacher graduates from UCLA and proves to be incompetent after being hired, it is not UCLA's responsibility to investigate and deal with it. The school that hires him or her is responsible for supervision, retraining, and (possibly) firing. If the incompetent instructor Rob mentions works for a shop, then it is the duty of the shop to make sure that he is teaching up to their standards and deal with it if he is not. If he is an independent, then we have only the market to apply such pressure.

 

[Thalassamania]

I agree with you John, and I have seen the problem in both diving and in education, but I suggest also that the "old" process of diver instructor training worked better than the new model.

In the old process there were two one week programs, an Instructor Qualification Course (IQC) and an Instructor Training Course. These programs were run either at the branch level or at a major institution (e.g., University of Michigan). They were run on a regular (yearly, twice yearly, etc.) basis and never ran with less than ten candidates. The staffing level was usually about two to one, all of whom were volunteers (all of the staff were not in attendance all the time). A representative from Headquarters was in attendance. Certification of a new instructor was either a majority vote of the staff with the concurrence of the Course Director or unanimous vote of the staff with disagreement of the Course Director (I only heard of this happening once). In the end, more reliance was placed on individual staff evaluations than on process, though I can not think of a single instance where someone was passed by the staff who did not also pass the process. There were some, however, who passed the process and were failed by vote of the staff.

An additional benefit of this system was that it served as an in-service and cross-calibration for the staff.

 

[They call me Tater]

So the bottom line is that all those not taught by someone who has 40 years of experience and demands weeks of training cannot be safe or competant and should not be allowed to dive. All others are a detriment to the sport. Clearly trying to keep some sort of standards that do not meet with the most stringent guidlines is tantamout to condeming us to death.

What I fail to understand is why is this even called a discussion?...it sounds more like the US Congress. It may be that the old way is better, either way it is gone. I have not doubt everyone on here has more diving skills than I ever will have but I can see the attitudes that I would not take any lessons from those of you who seem to be convinced you know it all. In the same breathe you discuss lifetime learning you express the attitude that you have in fact learned it all and no other opinion is valid, I'm also sure you don't care what I think which is precisly why the whole thread has become a waste. I am only writing because I am disappointed as I had hoped the discussion would teach me more. I've only learned that I don't want a mentor older than I am.

 

[Thalassamania]

So the bottom line is that all those not taught by someone who has 40 years of experience and demands weeks of training cannot be safe or competant and should not be allowed to dive. All others are a detriment to the sport. Clearly trying to keep some sort of standards that do not meet with the most stringent guidlines is tantamout to condeming us to death.

I did not see where anyone with 40 or more years of experience said that, but if that is your position I'm sure that it will get the consideration it deserves.

 

[waterpirate]

So the bottom line is that all those not taught by someone who has 40 years of experience and demands weeks of training cannot be safe or competant and should not be allowed to dive. All others are a detriment to the sport. Clearly trying to keep some sort of standards that do not meet with the most stringent guidlines is tantamout to condeming us to death.

What I fail to understand is why is this even called a discussion?...it sounds more like the US Congress. It may be that the old way is better, either way it is gone. I have not doubt everyone on here has more diving skills than I ever will have but I can see the attitudes that I would not take any lessons from those of you who seem to be convinced you know it all. In the same breathe you discuss lifetime learning you express the attitude that you have in fact learned it all and no other opinion is valid, I'm also sure you don't care what I think which is precisly why the whole thread has become a waste. I am only writing because I am disappointed as I had hoped the discussion would teach me more. I've only learned that I don't want a mentor older than I am.

Please do not let this threads content make you jaded. I also would add that you should not accept or decline a mentor based on age. Good ones come in all shapes,ages,colors, ect. dive within your comfort zone and everything will come up roses, or as we like to say " lobsters".
Eric

 

[vladimir]

I disagree with those who are disheartened by the thread. I think it's a worthwhile discussion—familiar, but worthwhile. Please point me to a better thread if you feel this one is a waste of time.

On the subject of argumentum per diluvium, Pete, I believe you can credibly claim coinage of the phrase. The best evidence of that is Google's failure to auto-complete with diluvium when you type in argumentum per. Congratulations; I think it's a useful term that could catch on. Much better than POV warrior, which is not nearly as catchy, lacks the cachet of Latin (or French ), and is overdue for retirement.

 

[jar546]

I seem to recall at one time, within the past 2 years that if you entered a student's email address when you processed their PADI pic, the student received an email from PADI asking them to fill out a survey about the training received. Many of the questions were very specific to the certification standards where the students were asked if certain skills were taught by the instructor.

If you did not put in an email address for the student, (not required) they never got a survey. We know that not all students will fill it out but it was a decent way to spot check instructors. I am not aware of any other agencies that have similar QA programs.

 

[The Chairman]

I disagree with those who are disheartened by the thread. I think it's a worthwhile discussion—familiar, but worthwhile. Please point me to a better thread if you feel this one is a waste of time.

On the subject of argumentum per diluvium, Pete, I believe you can credibly claim coinage of the phrase. The best evidence of that is Google's failure to auto-complete with diluvium when you type in argumentum per. Congratulations; I think it's a useful term that could catch on. Much better than POV warrior, which is not nearly as catchy, lacks the cachet of Latin (or French ), and is overdue for retirement.

POV warrior was coined on Wikipedia and referred to anti-evolutionists who kept derailing every entry on evolution to promoting their POV, much like Thal and DCBC do with their POV that all agencies are evil, greedy and out to kill their students via bad training.

I remember the tactic of opposing teams throwing out too much evidence and half truths from my debate days in High School and College. I might have been the one to create the name back then, but our professor thought it apt and we pointed out the fallacy whenever it reared it's pompous head. It's an easy trap to fall into because of the feel that the evidence is simply overwhelming. It's simply not there. Accidents are down, not up and no matter how you dance around the issue, that indicates that training is actually superior in regards to safety. The "dumbing down" is actually a re-focusing on what is important in training. The focus is resulting in nominally fewer accidents.

On a side note, I just read a most unfortunate book entitled Living Fossils. The entire book was based on a few false premises including that belief in evolution is incompatible with a belief in God and that the existence of modern flora and fauna during the cretaceous period is direct proof that evolution is false. He want on to to deluge the reader with all sorts of modern day organisms that were also contemporaries of the dinosaurs. I find such intellectual dishonesty appalling and felt quite deceived about the nature of the book. I love fossils and this was simply a huge disappointment. .

 

[Thalassamania]

POV warrior was coined on Wikipedia and referred to anti-evolutionists who kept derailing every entry on evolution to promoting their POV, much like Thal and DCBC do with their POV that all agencies are evil, greedy and out to kill their students via bad training.

Hm ... "all agencies are evil, greedy and out to kill their students via bad training" I don't remember anyone except Pete saying that.

I remember the tactic of opposing teams throwing out too much evidence and half truths from my debate days in High School and College. I might have been the one to create the name back then, but our professor thought it apt and we pointed out the fallacy whenever it reared it's pompous head. It's an easy trap to fall into because of the feel that the evidence is simply overwhelming.

If you feel overwhelmed by the evidence that has been presented here, well ... all I can say is that your a bit deficient in processing power. By the way, would you mind pointing out the half truths? Or have they disappeared like your DAN doctor reference seems to have?

It's simply not there. Accidents are down, not up and no matter how you dance around the issue, that indicates that training is actually superior in regards to safety.

Actually it does not indicate that at all, there is no demonstrable causal link and there are a number of equally or more likely explanations that have already been pointed out by others (e.g. neither DCBC nor I) who are in the thread.

The "dumbing down" is actually a re-focusing on at is important in training. The focus is resulting in nominally fewer accidents.

A completely unsubstantiated supposition presented as though it is a proven fact.

On a side note, I just read a most unfortunate book entitled Living Fossils. The entire book was based on a few false premises including that belief in evolution is incompatible with a belief in God and that the existence of modern flora and fauna during the cretaceous period is direct proof that evolution is false. He want on to to deluge the reader with all sorts of modern day organisms that were also contemporaries of the dinosaurs. I find such intellectual dishonesty appalling and felt quite deceived about the nature of the book. I love fossils and this was simply a huge disappointment. .

If you felt deluged by the rather small quantity of information that Werner put in his book, well ... I suspect that's because you are an amateur in the field and quite unused to the terminology and the concepts. Any trained biologist takes one look at his two central themes:

1. that if a species does not exhibit obvious hard part change over time, then it isn't evolving; and
2. that natural selection is synonymous with evolution;

and immediately sees the work for the claptrap that it is.

But Werner uses the same tactics that you do, "a absurdum ridiculum," to coin a phrase. First the strawman that begs the facts: “Living fossils provided me a simple way to test evolution. If evolution did not occur (animals did not change significantly over time) and if all of the animals and plants were created at one time and lived together (humans, dinosaurs, oak trees, roses, cats, wolves, etc), then one should be able to find fossils of at least some modern animals and modern plants alongside dinosaurs in the rock layers. I set out to test this idea without any foreknowledge of any modern organisms in the rock layers."

Then the specious "proof?: "My results (as laid out in the book & video Living Fossils) showed that many modern animals and plants are found with dinosaurs—far more than I ever expected to find.” All this ignores the fact that the animals that he claims are modern, are in fact, archaic.

Hardly a deluge of information to deal with there. When you have the background and experience to see to the heart of the foolishness of the central ideas, then the deluge becomes a slow drip. Same with diver education and risk management.

 

[MSDT476614]

In Singapore, the title of this thread is about to be answered by the Government. Within a few days the announcement of new rules/regs will be made governing the recreational diving industry.