- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,791
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
The problem with the entire "standards discussion" is that comparing NAUI and PADI standards is "apples and oranges," and from what I've seen it is intentionally obfusticated by PADI supporters, who either simply do not understand or have some rhetorical stake in having it appear as "six of one, half dozen of the other".
NAUI Standards are MINIMUM standards. They are designed to create a floor, but no ceiling. They are centered solely on student needs (I know ... I wrote 'em). If you want to issue a card you need to meet hours requirements, sessions requirements, staffing requirements, a knowledge and skills objectives list (and with the exception of the ESE you can teach them however, and in whatever order you think best for the student) and that's about it. You can add material to the course that you think is appropriate.
PADI Standards are both minimum and maximum standards which makes PADI programs rather rigid. They apepar to me to focus on uniformity in teaching progression, maximizing the numbers of cards issued and the LDS' needs. With rather minor exceptions, everything must be done in an order and a fashion that is delineated by the standards. Little variation is permitted, and it is intentionally made rather difficult to add material to meet additional significant knowledge or skill objectives.
The bottom line is that NAUI courses may be quite variable. An instructor(s) teaching a course to a group of oceanographers, or a team or firefighters, or six tourists from Bosie, needs to meet the same minimum standard, but will likely be teaching three very different courses. Within the PADI world all three groups would get the same entry level course and then a different mix of "adventure dives" (I find that such a precious term) and then a rescue course. Then the oceanographers and firefighters might get different "distinctive specialties" designed to backfill as needed and to teach the additional things about each specific kind of diving that they need.
So I don't think that the real discussion actually revolves about "standards." It has more to do with the tension between who knows what is best for a give group of students: the instructor or some official at the agency headquarters. An official who, likely as not, has no experience whatever with (using the previous examples) underwater science or firefighting and who, quite frankly, does not see those items as markets that are large enough to really give a damn about.
That's a pet peeve of mine, first PADI drops the standards while puffing up the language and then tries to argue that the dictionary does not apply.
No question about that, but when the standards bias both the potential as well as the potentiating of those abilities by discouraging, or prohibiting, a reach beyond the minimum requirements of baseline objectives, then even when there is a good item to item fit between the standards of two agencies, one instructor is operating with a hand tied behind his or her back and simply can not compete in delivering to the student what I feel the student deserves, the best possible personalized training.
... within the envelope that the standards define. With a bigger envelope an instructor is better able to meet his or her student's precise needs. So sure ... whilst the best "Agency X" Instructor that there is may well be better than than the worst "Agency Y" Instructor, from the median value on up the model suggests that the reverse is true, with the gap between the two agencies expanding as one moves to the right and the rigidity of standards come more and more into play as a limiting factor.
If what you are teaching is in the middle of the envelope, most of what's important is in the instructor, and the instructor's signal will swamp the small differences in standards. But ... if what your teaching is on the edge, or outside, of the envelope that the standards were designed for ... then there's a huge interactive term between the instructor and standards limitations.
Last edited:
.
