Firstly we were asked for an opinion. I'm not of teh mind to argue, but I will explain my thinking on the points you raised
On one hand you want propulsion and buoyancy as an entry standard. And then you want to include them in terms of development.
I personally think that each progression course shoud include a buoyancy and trim entry and exit. They don't need to be onerious, but it should at least show the candidate has made some progression between courses.
Ive seen plently of DM's who couldn't hold either. As a DM you are supposed to be a role model
I'm also at a loss as to why you'd need to frog kick to be a good DM. Or to backfin. Neither are overly challenging to do - however why do you impose them as essential?
Again you're suppose to be a role model. If you're pointing out a critter - it would help if you could manouver out of the way without sculling or silting up the area. You said yourself these aren't challenging to do, so why not include them?
What about people who have been diving for 20 years - and who then want to teach? Are you going to make them doing some extra practise between DM and instructor?
Just because you are good at something doesn't mean you will be a good teacher. To some teaching comes easy to others (like me) you have to be taught to be a teacher. Once you've completed the DM course (or any course, surely there should be some period of consolidation of what you have learnt before taking the next step? Or are you saying that those peopel with 20 years of experiance know it all already
What theory do you think a DM needs? Making things harder for the sake of making things harder leads to an arrogance and perceived elitism. The theory required now if fine in my opinion.
You agreed that Tec 40 would be a good entry course, so obviously some of that would be in the DM exam to ensure the infromation is retained. I personally felt that they could have been more in depth with the dive theory. It's not to be elitist or arrogant, it's to ensure that the people who qualify have a really good grounding and knowlege.
On one hand you are saying the current DM course doesn't produce good enough buoyancy - but then you are saying that the people on your IDC are too good for you to improve. That's a contradiction in my view.
No, not at all. My point (sorry if it didnt' come accross) is that during training you are "teaching" people who can (or should be able to) carry out the skill. It doesn't prepare you for a novice student who is havign difficulity learning.
I had it myself on a reactivate, the person was struggling with buoyancy. I ran out of ideas of how to effectivily communicate the principles in a different way. In the end it took a much more experienced instructor to re teach this person.
So while you are taught standards and principles you are not taught how to teach. I suspect when I come out of IE I will need further mentorship and assistance while I gain experience of teaching new divers. Being an accomplished instructor takes a great deal of experience and practice.
A mentoring role works if you want a small agency and you have instructor candidates who want to spend a lot of time and money becoming an instructor. If you want this there are other agencies that provide it.
Yes I get your point and somewhat agree. But surely there has to be a mid point? After all someone can "zero to hero" in a year with 100 dives which can't be good either, they may have passed the exams but do they have sufficent foundation experience?