Diver Training, Has It Really Been Watered Down???

[toddster541]

I don't have a personal perspective of current class structure but here's a telling anecdote: A while back, my wallet was stolen and after some time, I realized that my NAUI C-card from 1980 was among the lost items. It took some correspondence and time on the phone to get it replaced. First, records from 1980 aren't in the current database. Second, they couldn't print up a new card for a certification they no longer have. The best they could figure, my old certification equaled the (then) current "Master Diver." How about that? Maybe by now I could be a "Master Diver of the Universe!"

 

[boulderjohn]

Ei., as opposed to doing them once successfully in today's courses.

I would probably agree that the process you describe is what I may consider "mastering" a skill. As opposed to doing it once correctly.

I am puzzled on how to deal with this. Earlier on, it was revealed that you somehow got through a divemaster certification without having to learn to use the manual. (When you were certified, there was a required exam on that.) You were then corrected on inaccurate statements. You were specifically told the definition of "mastery."

So how do I respond to the fact that you have made two statements within a couple of posts that you know are completely false?

I am searching for your motivation. My best guess is that you are trying to curry favor from the anti-PADI crowd. Is that on the mark, or is there some other reason you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth?

 

[TMHeimer]

I am puzzled on how to deal with this. Earlier on, it was revealed that you somehow got through a divemaster certification without having to learn to use the manual. (WHen you were certified, there was a required exam on that.) You were then corrected on inaccurate statements. Yo were specifically told the definition of "mastery."

So how do I respond to the fact that you have made two statements within a couple of posts that you know are completely false?

I am searching for your motivation. My best guess is that you are trying to curry favor from the anti-PADI crowd. Is that on the mark, or is there some other reason you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth?

I took the DM course in '09 and the 8 twenty question tests on the various sections, my total average mark was 94% (I missed 10 of the 160 questions on the "old course" tests). I don't recall a test being required on the manual, but it's been 9 years--there may have been, but then I must've done quite well on it.
I was specifically told the definition of mastery. I responded that much of the wording used to define mastery--well, they're not words I normally equate to mastery. I am not anti-PADI. Nor do I agree with everything PADI. Years ago on the Going Pro forum I put forth several thoughts on how I think the DM "watermanship/stamina" tests could be improved.
I personally disagree that there are levels of mastery. This is not a disagreement with PADI, it was in response to a post. Yes, there are the greatest violinists in the world--and there are lesser players who have mastered the instrument for all intents and purposes. Just mastering all the major scales may be called some level of mastery by some, but the violin has not been mastered.
It's a wording thing--as I said, "reasonably comfortable" doesn't equal mastered--to ME. "Repeatable"--I agree with--IF the skill is in fact repeated, and hopefully more than once. In my 4 years I witnessed students doing the skills once only and passing--this was the case maybe 95% of the time. Now, one can blame PADI's wording, blame our shop/instructors (all 16 or so of them), or figure it's just the way it is. Here, at least. I don't think we are alone. Of course, one could also say that the one time the student did the skill was so great that it met the standards you mentioned that all PADI instructors are trained during the IDC to recognize. I don't know about that.

You are saying the 2 quotes of mine you replied to are completely false----
The first one about comparing another idea of mastery to a being graded after one successful go through--is a comment on what I have personally seen all the time. It is not false or true. It is a comparison of definitions of mastery. There was a whole thread on that.
The second one about agreeing with someone else's course and definition of mastery is my OPINION. So, I'm sure you know it cannot be "completely false". If it's different from PADI's definition, it's different. So be it.

I have been out of DMing for 3 years. I learned a lot through PADI and agree with most of it. I admit I didn't know all the Standards back & forth, but was very clear on what I had to do as a DM. I've always admired your knowledge of all the Standards and that you are always up to date. Sometimes it does come across that you completely agree with everything the agency says. I would assume that is not true.

 

[boulderjohn]

I was specifically told the definition of mastery. I responded that much of the wording used to define mastery--well, they're not words I normally equate to mastery.

Do you understand that you do not get to define the terms? "The term is defined in the instructor manual--you can;t say, well, that's not how I define it, so it must be wrong."

I personally disagree that there are levels of mastery. This is not a disagreement with PADI, it was in response to a post. Yes, there are the greatest violinists in the world--and there are lesser players who have mastered the instrument for all intents and purposes. Just mastering all the major scales may be called some level of mastery by some, but the violin has not been mastered.

The idea of this has completel eluded you. When you taught music, did you give all your students failing grades because they were not as good as the greatest virtuosos in the world, or did you apply a level of mastery consistent with their grade levels?

You are saying the 2 quotes of mine you replied to are completely false----
The first one about comparing another idea of mastery to a being graded after one successful go through--is a comment on what I have personally seen all the time. It is not false or true. It is a comparison of definitions of mastery. There was a whole thread on that.
The second one about agreeing with someone else's course and definition of mastery is my OPINION. So, I'm sure you know it cannot be "completely false". If it's different from PADI's definition, it's different. So be it.

They are false because you are asserting that PADI is using a definition of mastery that is completely different from the official definition in the course. By stating your option as if it were PADI's actual definition without saying it is your opinion and not what PADI actually says, you are effectively lying.

 

[TMHeimer]

John, I'm saying my definition of mastery differs from PADIs (in most respects).
I'm saying that students at our shop usually passed the skill doing it once correctly in almost all the courses I assisted on.
I'm not saying PADI is doing this or that regarding anything to do with their own official definition.
I passed Band students who performed at the level they were required to perform at. If you choose to define that as they have mastered that level I won't disagree. I would disagree if you said they mastered the instrument. In order to achieve this "level of mastery" of a say, second year player, practice/repetition had to take place. They didn't play one note or scale correctly once and get a passing grade as having mastered that level. Same idea to me as clearing a mask. But, I'm not saying this has anything to do with PADI's Standards or the wording therein. It has to do with the way I observed OUR SHOP grading students. I'm not saying PADI is doing anything.
In replying to CT's post about his extended course in 1980, my educated guess was that fewer hours means less repetition of skills, thus one could consider using the term "watering down". Nothing to do with PADIs definitions.
You are very good with words John, which is expected considering your experience in Education.
I say in all seriousness that my wording in posts may well lead you to feel that my statements are false or I am lying. I only taught Band and maybe don't come across as I would like at times on my posts. I'm not at all being sarcastic when I say it took me a little bit to figure out what you were saying in your last paragraph in your above post.

But, I think you may be complicating what I say.

My definition of mastery differs from PADI's.
My educated guess from what I read on SB is yes, OW courses are in general probably "watered down" compared to 1980. All courses back then and now vary with instructor, but that's an old song.

That's all I mean to say. I think some agree with me.
addendum--I re-read your response to the first quote you listed.-- Yes, I DO get to define the term mastery. I'm not saying that PADI's definition must be wrong because I disagree, just that it is different than mine. We have read on SB that there are many definitions of mastery.

 

[Ghost95]

[QUOTE="Maybe by now I could be a "Master Diver of the Universe!"[/QUOTE]

I had one of those on the boat once!

He didn't need the brief, left his buddy, got lost, ran out of air, flailed around on the surface, lost mask and weight belt, and had to be rescued. I didn't understand. He had all the patches and stickers that proved he knew what he was doing.

In his defense though it was a pretty advanced dive. You know 48' deep, warm, clear viz, no current. The students on their first boat dive looked almost panicked while talking about how many fish they saw and how nice the water was and such challenging things like that.

Super Master Divers of the Universe Unite!!!!!!!!!

 

[Teredge]

Just a basic OW Cert, someone in 2018 could easily watch a few YouTube videos and be able to figure out most recreational level diving as long the person is comfortable being in the water and has an intuitive mechanical/critical thinking mindset.

I've always swam since a kid, and in 1998 got my OW Cert. Dove until 1999.

Took a hiatus for 13 years, went on a "guided" dive in St Lucia with a refresher course, but felt I didn't really need the refresher.

I started to collect my own dive gear again along with another friend who's been in a Scuba hiatus, and spent 2 months of off and on weekends setting up my gear as I collected and making sure everything works in my own Pool.

Me and a friend went to a local quarry 2 weekends ago and had a lot fun. We didn't task load ourselves with anything other than taking it easy and having fun

It's a hobby I'd like to do infrequently, once every two months or a little more and feel very confident in my (limited) abilities.

 

[Clayton122]

I am sorry if you see it as both hostility and bias. Perhaps I can respond to both.

Hostility: I have to admit my dander does get up when I see the same things repeated over and over and over and over again. I have been a part of ScubaBoard for over 14 years now, and I am probably reacting to all 14 years when I see a post, and I sometimes overreact. For that, I apologize.

Bias: So you make a post that says the OW instruction has been steadily lowering its standards. I make a post showing that in that time period the standards have actually increased significantly. You declare an opinion without any factual basis. I provide facts that clearly contradict your statement. You say that providing those facts shows my bias.

Perhaps that bias contributes to the hostility.

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.

Let me clarify my opinion, I suppose.

( Also sorry for the delay in responding. IRL work has been kicking my arse )


My opinion is based soley on those of other instructors that I know who have been involved with teaching back through the 70's. I certainly do not have that range and depth of experience myself, so I would like to point that out right up front.

I have spent a lot of time reading and on this topic and listening to the stories of others. Those who both teach, and those who also took the early training offerings, and have gone through modern day refresher courses. I have also spent a lot of time reading old scuba magazines because I simply find them fascinating, and I find the evolution of the sport to be interesting. ( holy crap!!!! J valve? No thanks!!! )

I certainly as a DMC instructor do not feel like I am putting out divers who are skilled at diving. They know the basic rules, and the basic skills, and have hopefully learned the lessons taught so as not to be a danger to themselves or others and thats about it.

At most, they might get a total of a couple hours bottom time ( unless they are really bad and we make them come back for more pool sessions ) an hour or two. Then maybe another hour of bottom time during the OW dives. As long as that goes well, we give them a card and send them out into the world as "certified" divers. Please keep in mind this is just ballpark. Trouble students will certainly receive more time and care.

But courses back in the early days used to take weeks, even months to complete. They also had fairly high wash out rates from my understanding. I do understand that gear has made great advances, as opposed to the good ole days, and that some of that training has become obsolete in terms of learning requirements.

 

[CT-Rich]

They know the basic rules, and the basic skills, and have hopefully learned the lessons taught so as not to be a danger to themselves or others and thats about it.

This is the heart of pretty much all diving instruction. Enough information to go out and learn. Whether mentored or muddling through it with a buddy, the initial instruction should be just enough to get you started.

Let's not forget the reason you show the card isn't to say you aren't stupid, but to say you've had enough instruction so the fill station or dive boat can honestly say, "he was certified, we had no idea he was that stupid...." beyond that, it means little. So I could clear a mask a little better than my daughter, I never diving off a boat or worn a 1/4" wetsuit. I was just as dangerously stupid as the next guy. I knew the theory, but I was just as incompetent as any newbie diver today. And the gear in 1980 was nowhere near the quality it is to day. I had a Timex watch and a capillary depth gauge. Today, you can take lessons and get supervised on pretty much any new dive experience. unless I was on a boat that had one and someone explained it to me, I would not have known what a John line was. Now I can go and look it up on youtube and take a class on it.

 

[Aloha Joe]

I was trained in the 70's...

I may be jaded after 4 decades of diving but I see too many "divers" who should NOT hold a certification card mostly in tourist destinations.

I was trained less than a year ago and pretty much feel the same way. For a few seconds I thought I'd enjoy being an instructor or guide, but watching the chaos that many of these poor DMs have to deal with, that dream quickly turns into a nightmare.