Which is why I think he's reasonably objective; after all, as the major moving force behind shortening classes he has a big ego investment in the idea. Despite that, he's now saying that he thinks he was wrong to do so. That smacks of objectivity to me.
As one who was in the midst of the debate (on the losing side) I think a clearer mia culpa is in order, frankly it smacks to me of the kid who kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy on the grounds that he is, after all, an orphan.
The reason why I think he got the cause for the lack of diver retention backwards is this; He thinks the lack of face time with an instructor in shorter courses leads to lack of motivation. I think that the longer, harder courses require more strongly motivated divers from the get-go. I never needed an instructor to give me motivation to dive, or climb, or ski; these were things I knew I wanted to do. An instructor or mentor just helped me to learn how to do so better or more safely, but boosting my motivation never entered into it. The idea seems ludicrous to me.
I agree with you, in part, I do think that having an easily accessible community of divers that can provide buddies, mentoring and general encouragement may play a part.
As I opined upthread, diving is a niche sport. Always has been, always will be. The resort divers will dive occasionally, just as they may try a jet ski, or a climbing wall, or any other temporary amusement that doesn't require a lot of investment of time or money. In short, little commitment or motivation is required, and a resort diver course is ideal for these people, who make up what I call the recreational dilettante majority.
The much smaller number of people who know they want to become serious divers, just as those who are serious about any other recreation, will be willing to put in the time and/or pay for the training that allows them to expand their abilities to the greatest extent possible. That's why you see people enthusing over more extensive courses, because the people who want that type of class feel that they're finally getting value for their money. They're being challenged to expand their skills and knowledge. And unlike the 'everyone passes' courses, you get a real feeling of accomplishment when you've had to work to learn something. Not everyone can, but why should we encourage everyone to do so? The only excuse is to boost sales, and that has nothing to do with the diver and everything to do with the industry.
Diving is just not that hard. If you are a decent swimmer, you can learn to dive, and learn to dive well. I have only failed one entry diving student in my life (and that was for mental problems that made him a danger to himself and to others).
Since we were talking diver retention i read it to mean, since there are a lack of divers (in his opinion) who feel properly prepared to dive their own local conditions, we are retaining less divers (by percentage) than previous years.
I don't think that statement is necessarily true. I'm not saying it's false either. Just that i haven't seen anything, other than conjecture, to prove that less trained OW divers (by percentage) are being retained because of training changes.
My feeling is it hasn't changed significantly over the years but if it has, retention has actually gone up due to better equipment, better access to equipment, shops, etc.
I used to get my fills at a sporting goods store when i started. Access to air, gear, buddies, etc, really sucked back then compared to now.
My understanding is that when you compare the number of entry level certifications to the number of larger ticket sales (e.g., regulator, computer, dry suit, etc.), the sales have lagged the certs, big time.
Walter although this may be the case, that is not necessarily true. I would agree that longer courses that cover the same material are easier. Longer courses that include more material, or requiring a higher standard may not be.
It depends on what you see as the desired course outcome. If the question is, "Is it easier (I read that as more likely) to take a course and still be diving five years later?" I'd say that the longer course is much, much easier.
The references to Brylske's article remind me of a conversation I had yesterday with a woman who was walking her dog at the dive site. She told me she got certified, but never did a single dive. "I just didn't feel comfortable down there," she told me. "I couldn't see, and it was cold."
I don't know whether spending more time, doing more dives, or developing a closer bond with the instructor would have made any difference to this woman. But I've heard this story more times than I can count.
Lynne, I suspect that it would make a difference. When a student has a longer training experience and is more integrated into a diving community, I think that there is a much higher likelihood that they'll latch onto something that keeps them interested and involved. Diving in cold, low vis water requires that they get to the point where they are warm (dry suit, likely) and have learned enough to look at the little things that abound. That's much easier and much more likely if the new diver comes in contact with others that have walked that path themselves, face it ... most instructors today keep their interest because they get to teach, not many instructors that I come in contact with do a whole lot of non-training diving.
