John nailed this one. There are so many "great ideas" to "fix" so many problems that don't take these simple questions into account.
Appropriate No of Logged dives to become a DM/instructor
- Thread starter Diving Dubai
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
" And the LORD spake, saying, "......then shalt thou dive to sixty, no more, no less. Sixty shall be the number thou shalt dive, and the number of the diving shall be sixty. Sixty one shalt thou not count, neither dive thou fifty nine, excepting that thou then proceed to sixty. Sixty two is right out. Once the number sixty, being the sixtieth number, be reached...."
Well, you get the idea.
Well, you get the idea.
Jeff Scott
Registered
I believe the problem of the "Zero to Hero" DMs that are being produced could be solved by simply putting a time requirement such as "Applicants must be at least three years past OW certification" and perhaps raise the number of dives to say "100 at time of graduation". That wouldn't cost a thing and would require a little more experience on the Candidate's part. It would also break the rush training frenzy that a lot of people get into as well as giving new divers the chance to think if being a PADI Pro is really for them or not.
I believe a lot of people rush into Divemaster because it is the "next" class but they are just seeking new knowledge or trying to improve their skills. It would be nice to see PADI revamp its MSD program more in line with NAUIs just for those people who want the knowledge but don't necessarily want to be PADI Pros. In this case you still have your students and not loosing the training income. The professional level knowledge needs to be taught to those who don't want to be Pros and would probably help reduce the number of stupid things that us "unknowing" divers do as well as help boost PADIs reputation.
I believe a lot of people rush into Divemaster because it is the "next" class but they are just seeking new knowledge or trying to improve their skills. It would be nice to see PADI revamp its MSD program more in line with NAUIs just for those people who want the knowledge but don't necessarily want to be PADI Pros. In this case you still have your students and not loosing the training income. The professional level knowledge needs to be taught to those who don't want to be Pros and would probably help reduce the number of stupid things that us "unknowing" divers do as well as help boost PADIs reputation.
So, you believe that a DM with ~30 dives a year for three years, possibly each of those dives spent at 30-50ft for 25min in the same quarry tooling around platforms and sunken school busses, will help ensure a better quality DM? Do they have to have any particular skill level in your worldview, or are you simply trading one set of arbitrary numbers for you own set of arbitrary numbers.
Trust me, I am not a fan of the zero-to-hero approach where someone goes from OW e learning to DM cert in a few weeks. But what is your "simple" but somehow magical three-year number going to achieve beyond preventing that? All that can do is ensure that an unqualified diver has been diving for three years before starting their DM program.
---------- Post added December 29th, 2013 at 11:24 PM ----------
What "professional level knowledge" do you suppose is taught to DM's that a non-pro would benefit from knowing? Maybe advanced physics formulas or perhaps the real secrets of buoyancy control, that we are nefariously withholding from divers who don't pony up for the DM course?
DevonDiver
N/A
Firstly, BoulderJohns' format of questions are good at enabling a more structured analysis of the issues. However, the actual questions proposed have a tendency to be very one-sided; that side being a justification of inaction. They ask the costs of taking action, but do not ask the costs of not taking action, nor do they consider the rewards. There are many context analysis models available (SWOT, PEST etc etc) - none of them focus solely on negatives (costs) at the expense of positives (rewards).
No wonder some people/organizations think everything is just optimal... or change is impossible... if they use only cost-based (negative) analysis models....
I have taken the liberty of supplementing the questions asked:
1. MASTER SCUBA DIVER
What is the problem being addressed?
Consumer/market perception that the MSD certification is valueless. This impacts the success of branding and devalues overall company reputation.
As the "pinnacle" of recreational, no-professional, diving training - the MSD fails to recognize 'pinnacle' level skills, training, knowledge or experience.
The MSD certification provides nothing meaningful for a proportion of divers to aspire to. I suspect that proportion is majority, but have no statistics to support this.
In parallel with this, there lacks a higher-level certification that recognizes any form of advanced recreational diving competency. There is also no training course that provides a foundation (assessment of fundamental skills) for further development beyond the recreational syllabus (i.e. a pre-tech course).
Other agencies do supply higher-level recreational training and present increasingly competitive attractions to consumers.
Is the proposed solution proportional to the problem?
Changing MSD from a 'recognition' into a training course would require a training course to be written. The agency would have to train/educate instructors to provide this training.
PADI release new courses frequently. There are existing courses, both standardized and distinctive, that already provide varied skills, performance standards and knowledge that could be incorporated into a newly designed MSD course.
The problem of low consumer demand for the MSD certification, and the absence of a true 'pinnacle' certification diminished consumer loyalty and causes a proportion of PADI-certified divers to seek alternative qualification through other agencies; especially at higher levels.
The problem of a training syllabus that does not increase demand/scope beyond the level of Rescue Diver prevents divers continually developing. There is stagnancy. This is most appreciable when recreational divers first enroll upon technical courses - where they are ill-prepared for higher-level demands. There is a discernable 'jump' in performance requirements - that 'jump' would be smoothed over by more continually progressive training to the pinnacle. The training progression from Open Water to CCR Trimix should be progressive in a smooth and seamless manner, without such 'jumps' being made.
What is the financial impact of your solution?
The costs of re-writing the MSD course (small) and re-introducing those changes through existing media/communications; i.e. existing instructor manual/training bulletins (small), is balanced against potential revenue from increased interest in a progressive, competency-assessed MSD course.
If a dedicated instructor manual/notes were deemed necessary, then the costs would be passed forwards to the instructor cadre (as they are with most courses) - a profitable venture for the agency.
An MSD 'Course' would require a student manual. Again, if costed appropriately, this is a profit stream for the agency. Especially so when the increasing proliferation of eManuals is considered (low production costs/high income).
What is the financial impact of in-action?
The loss of revenue from those currently seeking MSD as a 'recognition level' balanced against the increase of revenue from those seeking MSD as a 'pinnacle' evaluation of recreational diving skill. This represents a market change and acknowledges that those divers committed to long-term continued education tend to be 'performance focused' and better educated about what performance can be attained through quality training.
Losing consumers to other agencies at recreational levels impacts upon future revenue streams from technical and CCR courses (as those consumers rarely return to PADI). PADI has done much in recent years to develop and promote technical/CCR training syllabus - but has yet to identify the need to re-structure recreational training to better 'feed' appropriate students to technical/CCR levels.
What will the costs be for the agency? The diver?
Costs for the agency are minimal and generally offset by potential profitability.
The diver would have to pay for a course/dives/tuition, not just certification card application.
For the market segment that merely sought 'recognition', the MSD certification could be replaced by a simple diploma of recognition and/or appreciation.
Will anyone be willing to pay those costs to achieve that solution?
The success of courses such as 'GUE Fundamentals', plus the good market opinion these courses create, seems to indicate a consumer demand for true pinnacle level recreational dive training.
The numbers of PADI-developed divers switching to alternative agencies at advanced-recreational and/or technical levels indicates a willingness to pay costs if the training outcome represents value through increased/higher-level skills acquisition.
PADI could/should investigate consumer demand and trends through effective market research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. DIVE MASTER
What is the problem being addressed?
Community perception that the DM training standards permits inexperienced/incompetent divers to be certified at professional level. Professional level divers may have less experience than the customers they are supervising.
DM training standards may be perceived as promoting a materialistic approach to training progression; a sense of 'credit-card entitlement' for those who "want everything now" without the integrity to apply patience, resolve and commitment to diving education. This creates 'card-holders', but not 'skill-holders' and may be seen as a weak foundation for supervisory or instructional level divers.
That attitude, where it is perceived by consumers, undermines the stated goals of Divemaster training, specifically the need for 'role-model' behavior and the critical formation of leadership potential. A Divemaster is a leader. Leadership demands the creation of respect. The current Divemaster prerequisites and performance standards do not guarantee the creation of graduates who can earn respect. Hence, the leadership model is flawed.
The current prerequisites, performance standards, membership agreement and quality assurance system applied to both Divemaster certification and post-graduation conduct do not achieve their stated aims. They do not guarantee the creation of professional supervisory-level divers with a responsible, risk-adverse mentality, role-model behavior and sufficient skills/experience to ensure the safety of divers under their professional duty-of-care.
This serves to degrade public perception of the Divemaster qualification and the agency that produces them. It also jeopardizes diver safety.
Is the proposed solution proportional to the problem?
In respect of diver safety, it is implausible to expect statistics to define a problem. Only fatality statistics are available. There is no means to globally measure 'near-miss' or non-serious injury (requiring hyperbaric treatment) injuries. Safety cannot be measured only be fatalities or hyperbaric treatments. Fatalities and hyperbaric treatments represent only the 'tip of the iceberg' that is reported to DAN. Furthermore, PADI only take responsibility for safety during training courses. They abjectly disassociate themselves from non-training activities. The bulk of Divemaster employment (in most regions) is within non-training activities (i.e. supervising certified divers). This can create a very skewed perspective on the issue of 'diver safety', especially in relation to Divemaster conduct.
In respect to consumer perspective, the perception that Divemasters do not represent a high-standard of experience and training is detrimental to the overall agency branding and market image. It decreases the value attributed to the work of Divemasters by consumers. Where the QA process fails (or even attempts) to ensure DM training and post-graduate conduct matches the standards and corporate goals/mission of the agency - consumers recognize a disconnect between what is promised and what is delivered. This disconnect causes consumer dissatisfaction.
What is the financial impact of your solution?
The actual expenditure needed to raise prerequsities and/or training standards for Divemaster courses is nil. Such changes are effected through amendments in the routinely re-issued Instructor Manual (annual re-issue) and Quarterly Training Bulletins. PADI has been amending DM courses standards frequently, for many years - but those amendments have typically represented a downwards trend (less prerequisites/less comprehensive training).
The main financial impact from increasing Divemaster entry and training standards would be on professional-level certification revenue. Raising Divemaster training prerequisites (qualifications and logged experience) would decrease the demand for training and reduce profitability of the Go-Pro system. The Divemaster qualification would cease to be something that was easily attained, with little preparation, in a short time-scale and with little expenditure of time or money. As such, it would not represent an attractive option for 'zero-to-hero' training schemes, card-collectors, dilettantes or wannabies.
Reducing the flow of Divemaster graduates would have the proportional knock-on effect of reducing the consumer pool for progression to instructor training, thus further reducing revenue from IDC/IE provision and higher-level membership payments. This is a major revenue line for PADI - and further supports a 'market domination through saturation' business strategy.
There are many dive operations that focus their business model on high-volume training, and this includes professional levels. Reducing turn-over of Divemaster candidates would necessitate strategy chances. If volume reduces and training timescales increase, then a proportionally higher course cost would be charged.
Furthermore, a saturation of qualified dive professionals at Divemaster and Instructor levels creates an 'employer's market' in the diving industry. This enables employers to decrease the salary expectations of employees significantly; often to the point of zero. Reducing turn-over of Divemasters/Instructors through increased training demands/commitment would decrease the pool of available manpower - increasingly shifting the employment market from 'employer' to 'job seeker' - which would result in demands for more equitable financial compensation. The knock-on effect of this would be elevated costs transmitted to the consumer (it would cost more to dive, because the dive operation would have to pay the Divemaster more...)
What is the financial impact of in-action?
Little.
PADI can disassociate itself from the working performance of Divemasters, because it does not concern itself with QA of non-training activities (the majority of divemaster duties). Any post-graduation failings in the Divemaster program are irrelevant to the agency. There is no study of whether graduates from training are meeting the goals of the Divemaster program and performing according to the expectations inherent within those goals. There is no motivation for the agency to conduct such study or to institute QA for non-training activities by it's pro membership. The agency remains liability-proof against those failings through non-agency relationships with professionals and operations.
The dive industry continues to enjoy a status-quo that provides a surplus of cheap manpower.
The diving consumer suffers variable quality (some dangerously so) divemaster supervising dives. The majority of novice/'light' divers are rarely aware of that variable quality. Those that are aware face little option for choice. Where some choice does exist in a given market/region/area, those seeking a preference (having identified a 'good' divemaster) rarely represent enough of a market proportion to significantly influence local business motivations or decision making.
What will the costs be for the agency? The diver?
Cost for agency already outlined - lost revenue for pro training programs.
Costs for operations already outlined - increased workforce costs through higher salary expectations
Costs (financial) for the diver already outlined - increased diving costs through transmission of increased workforce salaries.
Cost (safety) for the diver - undefined because no system exists to monitor diver safety beyond statistical compilation of fatality/hyperbaric incidents through 3rd party organization (DAN). The vast majority of safety issues, including near-misses and issues that require general medical treatment (not reported as diving incidents) do not feature in diving safety statistics.
Will anyone be willing to pay those costs to achieve that solution?
The issue of change would be dictated on an ethics versus profits basis. There would be no profit incentive to increase requirements. The impact of profit incentive has been illustrated by continual requirement reductions over time.
No wonder some people/organizations think everything is just optimal... or change is impossible... if they use only cost-based (negative) analysis models....
I have taken the liberty of supplementing the questions asked:
1. MASTER SCUBA DIVER
What is the problem being addressed?
Consumer/market perception that the MSD certification is valueless. This impacts the success of branding and devalues overall company reputation.
As the "pinnacle" of recreational, no-professional, diving training - the MSD fails to recognize 'pinnacle' level skills, training, knowledge or experience.
The MSD certification provides nothing meaningful for a proportion of divers to aspire to. I suspect that proportion is majority, but have no statistics to support this.
In parallel with this, there lacks a higher-level certification that recognizes any form of advanced recreational diving competency. There is also no training course that provides a foundation (assessment of fundamental skills) for further development beyond the recreational syllabus (i.e. a pre-tech course).
Other agencies do supply higher-level recreational training and present increasingly competitive attractions to consumers.
Is the proposed solution proportional to the problem?
Changing MSD from a 'recognition' into a training course would require a training course to be written. The agency would have to train/educate instructors to provide this training.
PADI release new courses frequently. There are existing courses, both standardized and distinctive, that already provide varied skills, performance standards and knowledge that could be incorporated into a newly designed MSD course.
The problem of low consumer demand for the MSD certification, and the absence of a true 'pinnacle' certification diminished consumer loyalty and causes a proportion of PADI-certified divers to seek alternative qualification through other agencies; especially at higher levels.
The problem of a training syllabus that does not increase demand/scope beyond the level of Rescue Diver prevents divers continually developing. There is stagnancy. This is most appreciable when recreational divers first enroll upon technical courses - where they are ill-prepared for higher-level demands. There is a discernable 'jump' in performance requirements - that 'jump' would be smoothed over by more continually progressive training to the pinnacle. The training progression from Open Water to CCR Trimix should be progressive in a smooth and seamless manner, without such 'jumps' being made.
What is the financial impact of your solution?
The costs of re-writing the MSD course (small) and re-introducing those changes through existing media/communications; i.e. existing instructor manual/training bulletins (small), is balanced against potential revenue from increased interest in a progressive, competency-assessed MSD course.
If a dedicated instructor manual/notes were deemed necessary, then the costs would be passed forwards to the instructor cadre (as they are with most courses) - a profitable venture for the agency.
An MSD 'Course' would require a student manual. Again, if costed appropriately, this is a profit stream for the agency. Especially so when the increasing proliferation of eManuals is considered (low production costs/high income).
What is the financial impact of in-action?
The loss of revenue from those currently seeking MSD as a 'recognition level' balanced against the increase of revenue from those seeking MSD as a 'pinnacle' evaluation of recreational diving skill. This represents a market change and acknowledges that those divers committed to long-term continued education tend to be 'performance focused' and better educated about what performance can be attained through quality training.
Losing consumers to other agencies at recreational levels impacts upon future revenue streams from technical and CCR courses (as those consumers rarely return to PADI). PADI has done much in recent years to develop and promote technical/CCR training syllabus - but has yet to identify the need to re-structure recreational training to better 'feed' appropriate students to technical/CCR levels.
What will the costs be for the agency? The diver?
Costs for the agency are minimal and generally offset by potential profitability.
The diver would have to pay for a course/dives/tuition, not just certification card application.
For the market segment that merely sought 'recognition', the MSD certification could be replaced by a simple diploma of recognition and/or appreciation.
Will anyone be willing to pay those costs to achieve that solution?
The success of courses such as 'GUE Fundamentals', plus the good market opinion these courses create, seems to indicate a consumer demand for true pinnacle level recreational dive training.
The numbers of PADI-developed divers switching to alternative agencies at advanced-recreational and/or technical levels indicates a willingness to pay costs if the training outcome represents value through increased/higher-level skills acquisition.
PADI could/should investigate consumer demand and trends through effective market research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. DIVE MASTER
What is the problem being addressed?
Community perception that the DM training standards permits inexperienced/incompetent divers to be certified at professional level. Professional level divers may have less experience than the customers they are supervising.
DM training standards may be perceived as promoting a materialistic approach to training progression; a sense of 'credit-card entitlement' for those who "want everything now" without the integrity to apply patience, resolve and commitment to diving education. This creates 'card-holders', but not 'skill-holders' and may be seen as a weak foundation for supervisory or instructional level divers.
That attitude, where it is perceived by consumers, undermines the stated goals of Divemaster training, specifically the need for 'role-model' behavior and the critical formation of leadership potential. A Divemaster is a leader. Leadership demands the creation of respect. The current Divemaster prerequisites and performance standards do not guarantee the creation of graduates who can earn respect. Hence, the leadership model is flawed.
The current prerequisites, performance standards, membership agreement and quality assurance system applied to both Divemaster certification and post-graduation conduct do not achieve their stated aims. They do not guarantee the creation of professional supervisory-level divers with a responsible, risk-adverse mentality, role-model behavior and sufficient skills/experience to ensure the safety of divers under their professional duty-of-care.
This serves to degrade public perception of the Divemaster qualification and the agency that produces them. It also jeopardizes diver safety.
Is the proposed solution proportional to the problem?
In respect of diver safety, it is implausible to expect statistics to define a problem. Only fatality statistics are available. There is no means to globally measure 'near-miss' or non-serious injury (requiring hyperbaric treatment) injuries. Safety cannot be measured only be fatalities or hyperbaric treatments. Fatalities and hyperbaric treatments represent only the 'tip of the iceberg' that is reported to DAN. Furthermore, PADI only take responsibility for safety during training courses. They abjectly disassociate themselves from non-training activities. The bulk of Divemaster employment (in most regions) is within non-training activities (i.e. supervising certified divers). This can create a very skewed perspective on the issue of 'diver safety', especially in relation to Divemaster conduct.
In respect to consumer perspective, the perception that Divemasters do not represent a high-standard of experience and training is detrimental to the overall agency branding and market image. It decreases the value attributed to the work of Divemasters by consumers. Where the QA process fails (or even attempts) to ensure DM training and post-graduate conduct matches the standards and corporate goals/mission of the agency - consumers recognize a disconnect between what is promised and what is delivered. This disconnect causes consumer dissatisfaction.
What is the financial impact of your solution?
The actual expenditure needed to raise prerequsities and/or training standards for Divemaster courses is nil. Such changes are effected through amendments in the routinely re-issued Instructor Manual (annual re-issue) and Quarterly Training Bulletins. PADI has been amending DM courses standards frequently, for many years - but those amendments have typically represented a downwards trend (less prerequisites/less comprehensive training).
The main financial impact from increasing Divemaster entry and training standards would be on professional-level certification revenue. Raising Divemaster training prerequisites (qualifications and logged experience) would decrease the demand for training and reduce profitability of the Go-Pro system. The Divemaster qualification would cease to be something that was easily attained, with little preparation, in a short time-scale and with little expenditure of time or money. As such, it would not represent an attractive option for 'zero-to-hero' training schemes, card-collectors, dilettantes or wannabies.
Reducing the flow of Divemaster graduates would have the proportional knock-on effect of reducing the consumer pool for progression to instructor training, thus further reducing revenue from IDC/IE provision and higher-level membership payments. This is a major revenue line for PADI - and further supports a 'market domination through saturation' business strategy.
There are many dive operations that focus their business model on high-volume training, and this includes professional levels. Reducing turn-over of Divemaster candidates would necessitate strategy chances. If volume reduces and training timescales increase, then a proportionally higher course cost would be charged.
Furthermore, a saturation of qualified dive professionals at Divemaster and Instructor levels creates an 'employer's market' in the diving industry. This enables employers to decrease the salary expectations of employees significantly; often to the point of zero. Reducing turn-over of Divemasters/Instructors through increased training demands/commitment would decrease the pool of available manpower - increasingly shifting the employment market from 'employer' to 'job seeker' - which would result in demands for more equitable financial compensation. The knock-on effect of this would be elevated costs transmitted to the consumer (it would cost more to dive, because the dive operation would have to pay the Divemaster more...)
What is the financial impact of in-action?
Little.
PADI can disassociate itself from the working performance of Divemasters, because it does not concern itself with QA of non-training activities (the majority of divemaster duties). Any post-graduation failings in the Divemaster program are irrelevant to the agency. There is no study of whether graduates from training are meeting the goals of the Divemaster program and performing according to the expectations inherent within those goals. There is no motivation for the agency to conduct such study or to institute QA for non-training activities by it's pro membership. The agency remains liability-proof against those failings through non-agency relationships with professionals and operations.
The dive industry continues to enjoy a status-quo that provides a surplus of cheap manpower.
The diving consumer suffers variable quality (some dangerously so) divemaster supervising dives. The majority of novice/'light' divers are rarely aware of that variable quality. Those that are aware face little option for choice. Where some choice does exist in a given market/region/area, those seeking a preference (having identified a 'good' divemaster) rarely represent enough of a market proportion to significantly influence local business motivations or decision making.
What will the costs be for the agency? The diver?
Cost for agency already outlined - lost revenue for pro training programs.
Costs for operations already outlined - increased workforce costs through higher salary expectations
Costs (financial) for the diver already outlined - increased diving costs through transmission of increased workforce salaries.
Cost (safety) for the diver - undefined because no system exists to monitor diver safety beyond statistical compilation of fatality/hyperbaric incidents through 3rd party organization (DAN). The vast majority of safety issues, including near-misses and issues that require general medical treatment (not reported as diving incidents) do not feature in diving safety statistics.
Will anyone be willing to pay those costs to achieve that solution?
The issue of change would be dictated on an ethics versus profits basis. There would be no profit incentive to increase requirements. The impact of profit incentive has been illustrated by continual requirement reductions over time.
I have taken the liberty of supplementing the accuracy of your supplemented questions.
Andy, you've made the critical error of believing that your opinion represents the opinion of the majority, simply because it is shared by a few other people.
MSD may well be valueless from an training perspective. DM training standards may well be ineffective at keeping people out of the professional ranks who shouldn't be there.
However, the real problem is that those perceptions are quite likely not held by the vast, vast majority of current and potential recreational scuba divers in the world. Unless by "the community" you meant "the less than a half-a-hundred SB members who comprise the bi-monthly raising of this subject."
Keep in mind, Andy, that SB "only" has >400,000 members. If even 4,000 SB members were constantly kicking this can... that would still represent less than 1% of SB members. So even if the SB community comprised the ENTIRETY of divers worldwide, the opinions being expressed in this thread are a gnat buzzing in the distance... in terms of community perception.
Marketers tend not to try to address "problems" expressed by the tiniest minority of customers, even if the cost and effort to address those problems is minimal, because they are unlikely to recognize any return on that investment. Unless you believe that there are current divers who want to become PADI MSD or DM certified but are boycotting those courses/certs until such time as the standards are raised... AND that this number of divers significantly outnumbers the group of divers that is currently more than happy to put their money down for things just the way they are?
Again I'm not saying that what you (and I, and others) believe is not accurate. I'm simply saying that those beliefs are are not reflective of what "the market" believes.
Ah, this old chestnut. OK quick thoughts:
- Is MSD devalued? I am not sure a product can be devalued. Those that value it will buy it. Those who don't value it will not buy it. Not sure I see what the problem is. Personally if I ran PADI I would amp it up a bit, but mostly because I think that would increase market demand, not because I see problem.
- Are there millions of underqualified divemasters running around the world? Well, there are certainly plenty of bad divemasters around. But there are also bad policemen, bad doctors and bad bartenders. Let's focus on the doctors first. Scratch that - the bartenders first.
- Is 60/100 dives too few for DM/Instructor? Not all dives are equal. If I meet someone who only dives in the UK and they have 50 open water dives, I count them as a pretty experienced diver. That suggests at least 3 summers full of diving in adverse conditions carrying a lot of equipment.
- What is the real issue behind this thread? Mostly about highly experienced divers who like to emphasise their skills by disparaging the skills / standards / beliefs of others. Same as the previous threads on the same subject.
- Is MSD devalued? I am not sure a product can be devalued. Those that value it will buy it. Those who don't value it will not buy it. Not sure I see what the problem is. Personally if I ran PADI I would amp it up a bit, but mostly because I think that would increase market demand, not because I see problem.
- Are there millions of underqualified divemasters running around the world? Well, there are certainly plenty of bad divemasters around. But there are also bad policemen, bad doctors and bad bartenders. Let's focus on the doctors first. Scratch that - the bartenders first.
- Is 60/100 dives too few for DM/Instructor? Not all dives are equal. If I meet someone who only dives in the UK and they have 50 open water dives, I count them as a pretty experienced diver. That suggests at least 3 summers full of diving in adverse conditions carrying a lot of equipment.
- What is the real issue behind this thread? Mostly about highly experienced divers who like to emphasise their skills by disparaging the skills / standards / beliefs of others. Same as the previous threads on the same subject.
An economist and an engineer are walking down the street, and they see a $20 bill on the sidewalk. The engineer bends down to pick it up, and the economist says "Don't bother. If it were worth anything, someone else would have picked it up."
DevonDiver
N/A
I think neither of us can make a claim to 'accuracy'. That'd require a quite far-reaching survey.
I was merely reiterating the argument proposed earlier in this thread (not by me) and attempting to answer it based on BoulderJohn's rationale. The proposed premise (not by me) was that MSD was seen as of little benefit.
I have heard numerous criticisms of MSD though - and most of them weren't from Scubaboarders, or online. My personal opinion is that MSD is what it is. I think PADI's course structure should represent a better transition to the technical and CCR programs that they are now heavily promoting - but that is nothing to do with MSD.
Which is why I tried to introduce other perspectives - such as brand imaging and revenue steams.
I think PADI can hold up their profit-lines and certification figures as a testament to the wider perceptions of the community. I've never seen results of any study that looked into community perceptions along these lines.... indeed, we could even say that the vast majority of divers aren't even "in the community" - they dive occasionally and scuba is something that happens every few years on a vacation, it is not a 'lifestyle' for them.
That said, McDonalds could hold their sales figures up as a testament to their own success. As we know, that doesn't mean they're producing the highest quality food on the market...
I agree with you on this. That said, I think the MSD rating still raises it's head above the parapet for receiving wider-ranging cynicism about its value. I'd really love to know the uptake on MSD certifications globally... and how they reflect against preliminary certifications...
Love it.
Similar:
Two marketers are walking down the street and a bright red Ferrari drives by. The first marketer says "I'd love to have one of those." To which the second marketer responds, "Obviously not."
Similar threads
