Build the Perfect Certification Agency

[DaleC]

In building the "perfect agency" we have to realize there are really two main types of divers and so two models are needed. There could never be a "one size fits all" agency.

The first type is the resort or vacation participant. The person who dives once or twice or occasionally but really has no interest in becoming a "diver"; they just wanna go diving. Nothing wrong with that. Accept that for them it is a water cooler experience and adjust accordingly. Make a "vacation" model along the lines of what PADI's OW course currently is, which can be the entry point for most divers and if they want to progress further because they enjoy the activity, they can seek out the "diver" pathway. Expect to pay more, work harder and have more expectations placed upon you.

Oddly, I think a mix of the BSAC and GUE models would work pretty well for that.

I like the fact that GUE does not seek to capture every diver. They don't want the marginal, non committed sort. This exclusivity is a positive in the sense that it self selects and people are proud of their association, expect a high level of instruction and hold themselves accountable to participate in a likewise manner. The members feel invested in the continued strength of the agency and seek to uphold it. I only wish the regime was not as restrictive but I accept their reasoning for being so.

I also like the club approach and mentoring community that the BSAC tried/s to promote. I think divers should be able to develop and refine skills without having to pay for formal instruction at every turn. That model of monetizing creates the atmosphere in which advanced instruction is pushed upon the diver too quickly. You should take a course then spend time reenforcing that knowledge with help from your community. All agencies pay lip service to this idea but fail because there is no post instruction community.

That is the biggest thing I see missing from the mainstream agencies of today. A community that takes pride in its association and holds itself accountable to developing and maintaining core skills: buoyancy, buddy awareness, dive planning. And the reason I don't feel that from my certifying agency is that I know I represent nothing more to them than a cash cow.

It really comes down to core values for the agency: Are you there to build better divers or to sell more courses. You can sell one course, allow that knowledge to be applied, and produce a very good OW diver or.. sell a lot of courses quickly, and produce a crappy advanced diver or instructor. Which mainstream agency promotes pride in just being an OW diver.

 

[SeaHorse81]

In planning the ideal agency, it might be wise to include a bit of real world reality. Perhaps there is a good reason that what you propose is not already in existence.

That was actually my intention, though I really didn't make that clear. The ideal agency has to be able to exist in the real world in order to provide any benefit.

This thread has been a fascinating read so far. Two things that stand out to me the most as a non-pro:

First, while I'd agree that there are practical reasons to not make it too burdensome to become an instructor in the first place, it seems that it is simply too easy as it stands. Ease of entry seems more driven by how lucrative it is to those who develop instructors than by any other factor. People end up in the process who never belonged there. People end up somehow getting through the process who never should have passed. While there is no way to turn out nothing but good instructors, it seems the current systems really could benefit from some form of tightening up. Surely it is not necessary to have the high percentage of problem instructors and poorly trained divers that we currently have.

With fewer instructors, the ones who made the cut would -- on average -- likely do a better job. Since there'd be fewer of them, market forces might actually allow them to charge a bit more for what they do. Unfortunately, I don't ever foresee a world in which scuba instructors get paid commensurate with their skill, knowledge, and exposure to risk and liability, but they could at least do a bit better than they do now.

The second thing that stands out to me is the idea of separating training from certification. Doing so would eliminate a number of conflicts of interest that instructors now necessarily have. How that can be possible is unclear since, as John notes above, incestuous relationships would quickly develop between those professionals who habitually cross-referred, not because anybody's being evil but because that's just human behavior.

Another notion that I liked the second I saw it was the notion of grading rather than pass/fail. For me, there's something attractive about being able to distinguish between "solidly has the knowledge" and "barely met minimum standards that day." Can it be applicable in the real world of diving? I don't know, but I like the idea.

 

[RJP]

What I would really like is for instructor to talk to proprective diver about the first class will really give then. what class people should take after that and the kind of diving that is available (for warm water , cold, cave tech,......) What skill they will need to improve during there diving life. ......

I'm fairly certain that this will REDUCE the number of students taking up diving.

 

[DaleC]

I would challenge the concept that instructors should expect to "earn a living" any more than downhill ski instructors in Saskatchewan would. Why should shops in land locked locales expect to generate a living off a marginal activity that can only be applied elsewhere. Dive centers in Cozumel or Maui should be able to do so, off basic demand for diving, but many instructors/shops, in many places are trying to spin silk purses out of sows ears. And the only way to do that is to monetize every aspect of the experience and lower standards/expectations to capture a larger potential market.

Diving is a sport, pastime, leisure activity for most. It only really occurs in abundance in certain regions, just like skiing, climbing and canoeing. It's part of the insanity of the dive industry that we expect it to thrive everywhere. There are no kayak shops nor self sufficient paddleboard instructors in Death Valley.

 

[RJP]

In planning the ideal agency, it might be wise to include a bit of real world reality. Perhaps there is a good reason that what you propose is not already in existence.

Something that's not commercially viable is far from ideal... no matter how much someone wants an agency to have high standards, conduct difficult 10-week courses that cost $2000, fail many of the students who happen to enroll anyway, be run as a member-owned charity that pays its instructors top dollar, and then sends a crew to look over their shoulder every few weeks. Might as well have it run by Leprechauns riding unicorns too.

 

[boulderjohn]

The second thing that stands out to me is the idea of separating training from certification. Doing so would eliminate a number of conflicts of interest that instructors now necessarily have. How that can be possible is unclear since, as John notes above, incestuous relationships would quickly develop between those professionals who habitually cross-referred, not because anybody's being evil but because that's just human behavior.

This is the big problem with teacher evaluation in the school system. If the principal is the long time fishing buddy of the teacher, is that teacher going to get a bad evaluation?

Another notion that I liked the second I saw it was the notion of grading rather than pass/fail. For me, there's something attractive about being able to distinguish between "solidly has the knowledge" and "barely met minimum standards that day." Can it be applicable in the real world of diving? I don't know, but I like the idea.

Here's your problem. Think about the wording of your two options. They sound different, but they both mean exactly the same thing.

If your required standard is "solidly has the knowledge," then people who must meet that standard are only required to "meet the minimum standard."

Your problem is the negative association of the word "minimum." That is not what the word actually means, though. No matter how high your standards are, the people who pass it are meeting minimum standards. If you set standards so high that only one person in the world can meet them, that person will still have only passed the minimum standards for the course.

The language PADI uses for passing a standard means the same thing as "solidly has the [skill or] knowledge." If you want people to do better than that, then you are saying you want them to exceed that standard. If you require that they exceed that standard, then that is now the new minimum standard.

 

[RJP]

Why should shops in land locked locales expect to generate a living off a marginal activity that can only be applied elsewhere.

As boulderjohn will point out... Colorado has the highest (or one of the highst) percentage of divers of any state in the US. It's #7 on the list of certs issued even though it's #22 in terms of population.

Unless you count the Colorado river... it's about as landlocked as you can get.

EDIT: Took a quick look, Hawaii is slightly higher. But Colorado is #2... beating out Florida, California, and every other non-landlocked state.

 

[Hawkwood]

....
The second thing that stands out to me is the idea of separating training from certification. Doing so would eliminate a number of conflicts of interest that instructors now necessarily have. How that can be possible is unclear since, as John notes above, incestuous relationships would quickly develop between those professionals who habitually cross-referred, not because anybody's being evil but because that's just human behavior....

Call me naive, but to some degree this happens now.

Rarely have I certified an OW diver. The vast majority of my students (and from most other Instructors in the location I am from) receive their OW certification from another Instructor, at another location.

The students recieve their academic and confined water instruction from us and then go off with their referrals in hand to complete their certification dives with someone else.

For the most part, the students demonstrate the required skills to the certifying instructor. The certifying Instructor should have no need to "teach' them all over again. There should be little to no teaching/remediation required, if I have done my job and I assessed my students properly. About the only new skill they have to be "taught" would be the compass navigation and using an SMB.

Bill

 

[Diver0001]

I agree that there should be higher standards for instructors than are found n most agencies

I would find it sufficient if the current standards were truly seen as the base line.

The first thing a new instructor learns in practice is that they aren't going to be able to teach a course, particularly the time intensive courses, the way the standards intend. There is too big of a disconnect between shops setting a time agenda and agencies setting a competence agenda. In reality, shops are who instructors deal with most of the time.

That said, some instructors will put a LOT of energy into increasing their efficiency in order to close the gap and others go back to the letter of the standard and look for the wiggle room. The problem prospective students have is that they can't tell one from the other until it's too late.

That's why I was suggesting in my previous post that an instructor or shop should be rated by their clients so that people can see who knows what they're doing and who is looking for short cuts. As an instructor I would love to have that kind of feedback. In fact, now that I mention it, I might just start giving students an evaluation form of my own. It's not required by the shop I work for or the agency but I would love to hear feedback from students.

There is a high turnover of instructors in all agencies I know of. I know instructors who are not making minimum wage for the work they are doing, and they are barely doing enough instruction each year to pay for their insurance and agency membership. We had a thread in the Instructor to Instructor forum a few years ago that wondered about the extremely high instructor turnover rate at an agency that had such high instructor requirements, and the indication was that the poor ratio of the cost to be an instructor to the financial benefit to being an instructor was the reason.

Yeah, I've said it many times on the board that if you teach scuba for the money you would be much better off working at McDonalds. Less risk and the prospect of making minimum wage would make most scuba instructors do the Snoopy dance of joy.

The other side of that coin means that most scuba instructors world wide are part-timers and/or volunteers. This can be an advantage because nobody would be in this game if they didn't really LIKE it.... on the other hand, the lack of adequate compensation can be very demoralizing, which can lead to some instructors under performing because they do not feel like what they do has real value.

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

What I would really like is for instructor to talk to proprective diver about the first class will really give then. what class people should take after that and the kind of diving that is available (for warm water , cold, cave tech,......) What skill they will need to improve during there diving life. ......

Actually, in the PADI system this is required part of Knowledge Review #5. Even if the instructor were to break standards and skip it during the class, the student will still have had to read that part of the manual and complete the knowledge review.