DIR- GUE Why are non-GUE divers so interested in what GUE does?

[kensuf]

We dont live in a "theoretical world". But you are still "failing" people by telling them at the door to go home, and my "bell curve" still exists, its just that you fail them before they start, not at the end of class.

In essences, by keeping those you believe to be "failures" out, you would be manipulating the outcome to fit your preconceived bias.

And I admit I do not share you abilities and knowledge of education theory, but I have taken enough calculus and statistics classes to know that, at the end of the day, the math doesn't "lie" there will always be data points at either end of the curve. As you stated in your first sentence, "educational theory", not educational fact.....

I don't want to jump into this sub-thread, but I will anyway because I find it interesting.

The one aspect not being mentioned in the discussion of pass/provisional/fail is time frame and opportunities to practice/develop. Given ample time, most students will eventually pass a course, they just might not pass it outright in the first go-round within the time frame of the original schedule. Approximately 30-40% of my cave students do not pass outright on the first attempt and usually need some additional development time. This is where the "provisional" idea comes into play.

However, every now and then I get someone that does outright fail, usually it's when there is a concern about safety. I think John's story about the cavern instructor that was panicky during a C1 class is a great example of a person that should have failed due to not being mentally/emotionally mature enough to handle technical diving. Not too long ago I had someone show up for a beginning cave class that was very clearly lacking any form of cardiovascular fitness (he was huffing and puffing while walking without gear on), I sent him home after the first field day and told him he needed to work with a medical doctor and get his health in order before he could take a cave class with me. The bottom line here is that diving and tech/cave diving add additional risks and at some point we need to draw a line in the sand and say "sorry, this is not for you."

 

[jadairiii]

Ironically, that was the origin of GUE Fundamentals.

Which circles us back to the "failing" students, which does happen in Fundamentals. Which is my point, unless you manipulate the data, there are always going to be those, regardless of the instructor or length of time teaching, will fail. Bell curve in action!

 

[boulderjohn]

Which circles us back to the "failing" students, which does happen in Fundamentals. Which is my point, unless you manipulate the data, there are always going to be those, regardless of the instructor or length of time teaching, will fail. Bell curve in action!

It's really, really sad that you do not understand that this does not in any way demonstrate the validity of the bell curve. It will obviously take me far too long to explain it all to you.

 

[Manatee Diver]

The one aspect not being mentioned in the discussion of pass/provisional/fail is time frame and opportunities to practice/develop. Given ample time, most students will eventually pass a course, they just might not pass it outright in the first go-round within the time frame of the original schedule. Approximately 30-40% of my cave students do not pass outright on the first attempt and usually need some additional development time. This is where the "provisional" idea comes into play.

Maybe it is because I am from the video game generation, but failure was never seen as an ending point to me. You may decide that it isn't worth the effort, but most times you just need a training montage and come back to triumph.

 

[boulderjohn]

@boulderjohn i'd be curious your take on this article. It's from a different domain but I think a lot of it is broadly applicable

I did not read the whole article, but I think I get the gist of the idea from the opening I did read. As the opening said clearly, they are differentiating between two different kinds of training, one that is designed to bring students to a clearly defined level of competence and one designed to both identify and train an elite, top of the field group. The goals of the two types of training are different, and so it stands to reason that the training would be different. There are still similarities.

You see it sometimes in scuba discussions in which some people argue that scuba training should more closely resemble the training for Navy Seals because it would produce more skilled divers. It would do so, but it would also exclude the very many people who would not be successful in that training but who would be perfectly capable of enjoying the diving done by more than 99% of the world's divers. These people are not going to be going into armed combat requiring those elite levels of skill.

One of the important differences is that it is hard to recognize and pre-assess the prerequisite skills needed for elite performance. Yet, the process is similar.

In standard scuba instruction, nearly 70 years of recreational scuba instruction has taught us that introductory scuba certification is not all that hard. A ten year old child can get certified. Consequently, the prerequisites for scuba instruction are not significant, and those who do not have the ability to get OW certified usually (not always) screen themselves out. As students move toward higher levels of certification, progress is similar to a school setting, with students moving to progressively more challenging certifications. Students do not go directly from OW to cave trimix CCR training. In each case, the student needs to show a level of success at one level before going to another.

The basic idea of the more elite training is really not that different. People progress from one level to another. The big difference is the ultimate goal. In one case, the goal is to have each and every student meet a standard of performance, with no concern about how many reach that goal. The more the merrier, in fact. In the other, the goal is to identify a small group of elite performers who can go beyond what most people can accomplish. That is the primary difference.

 

[boulderjohn]

Which circles us back to the "failing" students, which does happen in Fundamentals. Which is my point, unless you manipulate the data, there are always going to be those, regardless of the instructor or length of time teaching, will fail. Bell curve in action!

It's really, really sad that you do not understand that this does not in any way demonstrate the validity of the bell curve. It will obviously take me far too long to explain it all to you.

I decided to give you this one tidbit for your consideration and personal research. What you describe is not the bell curve. It is the J-curve, which describes the phenomenon of a small group not succeeding while the overwhelming majority reaches or exceeds standard performance. It is the theoretical opposite of the bell curve. The J-curve is the normal result of scuba instruction.

 

[tursiops]

I decided to give you this one tidbit for your consideration and personal research. What you describe is not the bell curve. It is the J-curve, which describes the phenomenon of a small group not succeeding while the overwhelming majority reaches or exceeds standard performance. It is the theoretical opposite of the bell curve. The J-curve is the normal result of scuba instruction.

What is L to J? - Google Trekking

sites.google.com

 

[ginti]

I decided to give you this one tidbit for your consideration and personal research. What you describe is not the bell curve. It is the J-curve, which describes the phenomenon of a small group not succeeding while the overwhelming majority reaches or exceeds standard performance. It is the theoretical opposite of the bell curve. The J-curve is the normal result of scuba instruction.

The J-curve, interestingly, perfectly reflects the results of fundies:

Taken from the annual report 2016, you can look at it here: https://www.gue.com/files/annualreports/2016_Annual_Report_GUE.pdf

Less than 10% is a failure, and the overwhelming majority is a pass (I assume this majority also includes the upgrades). I still don't get why you insist on saying that the curriculum is not well designed but as you wish...

 

[mariosx]

@Wibble You are arguing with someone that is at the Fundies level. I don't see what he is saying because he is on ignore for me, but he isn't going to be able to make a convincing case to you simply because he doesn't have the breadth of experience required to answer your questions.

For context I got in your ignore list due to a discussion on reddit, where you were basically asking new GUE divers (like myself) to suck up when old school b*tthurt divers with "PTSD" from the 90s drama harass them, because "GUE's (negative) reputation is earned".

Unlike some, I am trying to be pretty open-minded, and avoid being (or justifying being) toxic to other new and motivated divers.

-----
I will defend this post as being on-topic since it provides and showcases one more reason why people interact and seem very active in discussions about GUE but never try the koolaid themselves:
They really suffer from (intergenerational) trauma from the drama 20+ years ago, and their only way to cope is continuing the drama and directing it towards new divers that are making their babysteps in this NO-NO organization. I assume they show a much better attitude towards more experienced NO-NO divers, and I am confident most might have a guess on the reasons .

Thankfully this is a minority in the scuba community, at least to my short experience the past years.

 

[crofrog]

In the other, the goal is to identify a small group of elite performers who can go beyond what most people can accomplish.

I think you missed the primary point of the article. The goal is always to get as many people to finish and if you talk about that bell curve example. If you set the performance bar very high there will be a bell curve that forms around that standard with some people exceeding and some people failing to meet it. If you set the standards very low, you're still going to have some people fail to meet the standards, but but the whole curve is moved right.

I think the graphic looks something like this. Regardless of where you put the standards, some people will never be able to meet them and diving probably isn't for them. Some people are going to have diving click very easily and will greatly exceed the standards but the vast majority of people will norm around where the standards are set and with work will be able to meet them. So then the question becomes what amount of training is required to get people to be able to meet those standards. This is the beginning of a different argument but I posit the cost/time difference between the typical recreational standards and the DIR recreational standards is fairly insignificant given the substantial difference individual performance, and I believe we're seeing that even outside of the DIR agencies as more classes are being taught neutrally buoyant and in trim.