Concerns About Length of Open Water Course

[The Chairman]

Personally, I don't want to teach the student who's biggest concern is getting the cheapest price. I want the students looking for quality rather than a deal. They are far more motivated to go that extra lap without complaining.

 

[DevonDiver]

Teach 6 students how to deploy and dsmb is an extra 45 minutes + the mini dive planning in the pool is an extra 30-45 minutes + the students planning and executing OW dive 4 is an extra 30-45 minutes.

When you teach in 2 days every minute counts

The skill is DSMB or Safety Sausage at the surface. I doubt the safety sausage option would take anywhere near as long... you can guess what some dive operations will opt for...

Teaching good buoyancy skills should take time too... again, it's not something that stops less ethical operations from running extremely short courses. For as long as standards permit a 2-day course, then there will be temptation for some to adopt the most minimum interpretation of 'mastery' so that they can sprint through a check-list of performance requirements.

I've seen operations in Thailand that complete all the confined water in ~3 hours, along with dive #1 (45 mins). On the second day, they can complete a further three 45 minute dives. Dive planning done en-route on the boat. Theory squeezed in along the way... they only 'need' to mark 5 knowledge reviews that were done as homework and supervise a 60 minute exam. Those courses were 1 instructor and 8 students. Every single performance requirement is 'ticked off', to that instructors'/operations' definition/interpretation of 'mastery'. No standards are broken. The graduating Open Water divers cannot dive for toffee... Plenty enough awards and 'pats on the back' given by the agency to its' "high performance" dive operations for contribution to the scuba industry etc etc... all backed up with glowing QA reports from the clueless students who had a great time (but never dove again afterwards...).

What can you (another instructor) 'complain' about to the agency, when witnessing this? Zilch....

He's said it before: Ethics.

And how is that working out Pete? Agencies relying on operators/instructors applying ethics over profits? Nothing to back that up.... and with such a good role-model set by the agency themselves...

We've got to figure out a way to change the public's awareness about what a decent Scuba class should cost and their perception....

I think it's been figured out. It's plain as day. It's happening. Only it's on a very small scale, because only very small agencies are applying it. Some have been applying it for decades.

There are agencies that beat the 'loss-leader' spiral. There are agencies that promote quality. There are agencies that don't compromise. There are agencies that protect the income and interests of their instructors as a priority.

Sadly, the average diving public probably never heard of them.... because they don't have professional marketing teams, six-figure advertising budgets and franchise-like deals to put their name on every dive center in town...

Yes... call me a cynic... but the solution, so readily illustrated already, causes a decrease in volume sales. Some agencies choose volume sales; because their major profit line stems from selling materials etc, rather than the diving itself.

Probably the best thing posted in this thread so far.

I agree 100%. But self-regulation has to work... it has to be applied ethically. If it doesn't work, then it is no regulation at all.

A couple of years ago, a participant in a thread mentioned a pretty long and expensive PADI OW course in Florida. I looked it up online and found that it was indeed a long and relatively expensive course.... I suspect that people who follow that approach can be successful. I don't think you have to be going after the least common denominator at all times.

John (and Jim), I do agree with this. There is a caveat though, that success varies significantly depending on the region/market.

It's much more successful for specialist diving activities (it's what I do... and is much more prevalent with cave/tech instructors etc)... and it's more successful in markets where students are likely to pre-research training and/or form lasting connections with the training provider.

People vacation repeatedly (sometimes annually) to places like Florida. If happy, they come back every year. Not so much to places on the other side of the globe from major customer markets... Quality builds loyalty and that reaps dividends when, or if, people can re-visit, or if word-of-mouth is likely to network sufficiently to reach other future visitors.

Likewise, the demographics of vacationers varies from area-to-area. Some are high-spenders, others opt for bare-foot. That influences spending habits and perceptions of value.

There are always discrepancies... some remote places might be a 'once in a lifetime' type destination - and people may do a lot more research before visiting on that one dream holiday. They want to 'get it right' and make the most of that one experience.

Other places may attract a higher proportion of affluent visitors (I'd image the Caribbean had many examples of this) - so again, the issue of costing becomes more fluid.. wealthy people don't mind spending more to get more... they recognize that it can have benefits, or simply appreciate exclusivity..

The volume of potential market is also a major factor. If the market is thriving in a given area (high tourism) then there is more cake to share around. Reputation and word-of-mouth is more likely to succeed. Networks can spread. Smaller markets are more cut-throat. That's okay if they attract affluent visitors, but not if they attract bare-footers... Competition can be cut-throat in those areas.

So, yes..... put a dive operation in a prosperous 1st World Country, on the doorstep of the world's hugest market, with enormous spending power... and low overheads for equipment, materials etc... with solid employment laws to protect workers and businesses.... and there is great capacity to dictate whatever business model you wish; bulk/cheap, exclusive/quality, specialist, generalist... and all in-between. You'd have to be a drooling moron to fail.

Heck... just trying applying some strategies in a country where competitors might hire someone to poke a '45 in your face for "unfair competition" because you charge more than them, have a better reputation, or have captured a market they can't reach... or just 'pay off' an immigration official to cease your work visa, or obstruct your business permits through local authorities, because that's cheaper than the money they're losing to your business. As I said, there are realities to which some people are gloriously insulated...

For the record, I've witness all of the above, when working in SE Asia.... some very frequently, and not just in the scuba industry.

I don't know what market forces Austrooper has to contend with in his area. I know enough about the world to not make assumptions; especially to not pontificate that "my way" of succeeding is what is best for him; that the opportunities I enjoy and barriers that I face replicate his...

Going freelance/independent is something to be investigated. So is the option of raising costs and quality. So is the option of targeting niche and specialist markets (there are many). So is the question of changing agency. Any of those may work. Any of those may be financial suicide.

For those working under comfortable circumstances and enjoying the fruits of their success... be thankful. Don't be judgmental of those that aren't.

 

[boulderjohn]

When I was certified, my pool session took less than 3 hours. There were only two of us. That saved a lot of time. They accomplished the rest by skipping a lot of standards.

I was not asked to swim 200 yards. That saved a lot of time.

I was not asked to do a 10 minute float. That saved a lot of time.

I was not required to do any free diving. That saved a lot of time.

I only set up and broke down my equipment once, not the required 5 times. That saved a lot of time.

Being in a pool that was only 5 feet deep meant I could not do certain skills, including the hover. That saved a lot of time.

I don't recall the rest perfectly, but I am pretty sure I did not do a lot of other required skills, including the other snorkel skills. That saved a lot of time.

it still took not that much less than 3 hours.

If I have a class of 8 students and do all all the skills with them, I can't come remotely close to completing the pool sessions in 3 hours. I cannot believe it is done that fast without skipping standards.

 

[DevonDiver]

I cannot believe it is done that fast without skipping standards.

John, that depends precisely on what definition of 'mastery' is applied. What the instructor/center determine to be "in a manner expected of a diver at that level" etc etc etc

Without more specific performance requirements, standards can be interpreted down to meaninglessness...

IMHO, that's why we see some agencies producing higher caliber divers than others - the primary difference lies in the level of definition applied to performance standards for specific skills. As that level of definition increases on courses at all levels (including instructor), the organizational culture shifts to an inherent acceptance of longer time-scales for training.

Acceptance of those time-scales (along with associated cost increase) results from increasing public awareness of the quality associated with that training; especially the consistency of results achieved. It is consistency that signifies value in a certification. Value justifies the relative commitment of time, effort and finance by the customer.

For as long as a certification/course/agency fails to provide consistent high quality, the overall perceived value of the training remains in doubt. If the quality is perceived as consistently low, the value is perceived as low.

There's a reason why nobody cracks 'put another dollar in' jokes about the Fundies course.... What differentiates Fundies? The performance standards...

 

[The Chairman]

What can you (another instructor) 'complain' about to the agency, when witnessing this? Zilch....

I've documented poor instruction and have had an instructor censured. You've got to care enough to do it. That instructor and I are now good friends.

And how is that working out Pete?

It's working fine for me. Thanks for asking.

There are agencies that beat the 'loss-leader' spiral.

No agency promotes instruction as a loss leader. Shops might do that, but not agencies. You can prove your point by showing us an example of an agency doing just this. I look forward to seeing it, but as in the first rule of Scuba diving, I won't be holding my breath.

There are agencies that promote quality. There are agencies that don't compromise. There are agencies that protect the income and interests of their instructors as a priority.

The first two would apply to all agencies, unless of course, you can trot out evidence contrary to that. The third intrigues me. What agency does that and how do they accomplish it?

 

[Colliam7]

My field is public education. In America, all teachers are required to have college degrees and a significant amount of training before they can even take their certification exams.

John, I will add a comment, not to be a smart-ass but to illustrate yet another frustrating aspect of this. I spent almost 3 decades as a tenured faculty member of a reasonably prominent state university (UNC-Chapel Hill). And, I guess I could also say that my field HAS BEEN public education in the past.

What you say is certainly true, for elementary and secondary education. It is - tragically - NOT true at the university level, where the quality of undergraduate teaching is, at worst, awful at times and at best, variable much of the time. So, when you say,

And yet we have many thousands of teachers across the country offering the equivalent of the worst scuba classes you can imagine.

I am (with regret) in complete agreement.

 

[Mr. Black]

The third intrigues me. What agency does that and how do they accomplish it?

GUE have minimum rates that won't be undercut.

Edit: actually, they (no longer ?!?) do " The cost of a GUE class can vary, as GUE HQ does not set guidelines as to what instructors are required to charge. "

 

[DevonDiver]

I've documented poor instruction and have had an instructor censured. You've got to care enough to do it..

I can't speak for every agency, but for certain agencies you can't document "poor instruction", you can only document "breaches of standards".

If the standards are sufficiently low to enable 'poor instruction' without them being breached, then what do you report?

As you, and others, have said: if an agency decides to dictate only 'what' is taught, but not 'how' it is taught; then who can complain about how instructors are teaching?

It's working fine for me.

I was referring to the scuba industry, as was obvious. You may have noticed a trend in my subsequent posts that specifically highlighted that the factors effecting a single instructor cannot be representative of the entire global industry.

Try looking beyond your own comfortable circumstances and empathizing with others who might not share that situation. "You've got to care enough to do it.."

No agency promotes instruction as a loss leader.

Maybe. But some do promote 'success' relative to the volume of certifications issued. A policy reflecting their own interests and sources of profitability.

It's no secret that certain agencies profit greatly from quantity, not quality. Some have share-holders to please, dividends to issue. It'd be naive to think, in any way, that they'd accept a deterioration in the quantity of certifications versus an improvement in quality outcome.

No agency 'promotes' instruction as a loss leader - but some do profit from it. So 'promote' maybe an inaccurate descriptor (your word, not mine). A better description might be 'enable' or 'shape'; through the tools that the agency has to wield; namely syllabus design, standards (or lack of), instructor training and organizational culture and thinking...

And..real-world... no agency is going to publicly state those intentions. That'd be stupid. Multi-billion dollar scuba empires aren't stupid...

That's why McDonalds never ran an advertising campaign to say "we serve sh!t, but it's cheap sh!t, so fill your bellies idiots...". They talk the 'quality' game too... they seek to promote that customers view their product as 'quality'.



Quantity and quality are generally opposing priorities. Very rarely, if ever, can you focus 100% on both. It doesn't matter whether you're talking agencies or instructors, scuba industry or any other.. At some point, there is inevitably a conflict... and one goal is chosen over another... or there are compromises, to a greater or lesser degree.

The 'love of diving' might drive individuals within an agency, but the 'love of money' drives a for-profit business. I accept that the individuals might do "what they can"... but it's within the parameters of their employment.... and inevitably that's just a compromise against the over-riding business goals.

The first two would apply to all agencies, unless of course, you can trot out evidence contrary to that.

Not really. That assumes you can recognize the difference between what organizations say... and what they do.

The third intrigues me. What agency does that and how do they accomplish it?

I teach for an agency that enforces minimum instructor/course fees. That's a policy stated to ensure meaningful instructor/center income and prevent the need for competitive course cost under-cutting and the negative factors that result from that. It works very well. I believe there are several agencies doing that - all of whom have a reputation for high-quality training outcomes.

There are also agencies that establish a very high bench-mark for instructor experience and competency. This includes maintaining currency in the type of diving taught. It includes establishing peer review of performance in diving activity and training outcomes as a core agency value. It shapes the organizational culture whereby competition between instructors/operators is achieved through reputation for quality, not pricing.

It's kinda what you keep talking about - but reflects organizational agency values/cultures, rather than personal instructor/operator values.

---------- Post added December 21st, 2013 at 12:48 PM ----------

GUE have minimum rates that won't be undercut.

Edit: actually, they (no longer ?!?) do " The cost of a GUE class can vary, as GUE HQ does not set guidelines as to what instructors are required to charge. "

I'm not GUE, so I won't assume knowledge of their pricing system. However, there are different cost-centers that make up the total. It's possible to preserve instructor income (set minimum), whilst not capping the flexibility of total course pricing to account for regional and/or logistical variances.

So... GUE might not set guidelines on the total cost of courses (i.e. Fundies must cost $XXX.XX), but within that course cost calculation, instructor might have guidelines on the minimum they must account for their tuition fee component (i.e. the instructor must charge tuition fees of $XXX.XX per student for X, Y or Z course).

That's how it works for me, when teaching for an agency that has minimum 'course' charges. Perhaps someone with GUE knowledge can explain if there's been a change for them..?