ok
I don't know anything about ANDI or the NAUI tech program so I can't really address em. So I didn't vote for them but I didn't really vote against them either.
I think GUE has done some great things. So far, from what I've seen, they have maintained good quality. I have a lot of respect for what they're doing but personally I don't want anything to do with certifications that expire. Call it a certificate of training completion or whatever but I meet the requirements of the training and the agency gives me a piece of paper/plastic that says I did it and out business is finished. If I need anything else I'll call them. I'll except responsibility for being ready for any dive I choose to do down the road with no help from them thank you very much. Their teaching also seems pretty narrow ie team diving (caves and tech). They don't address other situations like sidemount in their training. That's ok, I don't teach that either but it exosts and sometimes it's required.
I did take one TDI class but I didn't pick TDI, I picked the instructor.
Overall, I like the IANTD philosophy the best. I think they have some house cleaning to do and some QA issues but I'm talking about what's in the texts and standards. I don't agree with everything but the idea is to teach student to evealuate equipment configuration, evaluate risk and choose an approach to a given dive.
The older agencies like have a confusing array of classes that overlap. I guess that's because as they add new offerings they do it as an additional class rather than integrating it into existing classes. Flexability? Maybe. In comparison an agency like GUE has a cleaner more streamlined list of course offerings.
All things considered I voted for IANTD but if Tom Mount called and asked me my opinion, I'd have plenty to say. LOL