Dumbing down of scuba certification courses (PADI) - what have we missed?

[D_B]

I think that I'll post a link to my PADI Dry Suit Class here ... http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/advanced-scuba-discussions/260824-padi-dry-suit-class.html
... Not everyone is getting shortchanged when it comes to PADI training ... I do believe that it is the instructor that passes you, not the agency ... and only if and when HE is satisfied with you and your skills

 

[Walter]

I think that I'll post a link to my PADI Dry Suit Class here ... http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/advanced-scuba-discussions/260824-padi-dry-suit-class.html
... Not everyone is getting shortchanged when it comes to PADI training ... I do believe that it is the instructor that passes you, not the agency ... and only if and when HE is satisfied with you and your skills

I don't know of anyone who disputes the fact that there are excellent PADI instructors who teach above standards to give their students high quality classes. This thread is about the fact that PADI standards are low and do not require instructors to give you those high quality classes. I'm glad your instructor was excellent.

 

[GrandpaScuba]

Presume away, but there are no good measurements available,

'cause none of them support your argument.

When quantitative measures fail, as they seem to in this case, the next best thing is the subjective opinions of experts with direct experience. I think that's Sam Miller, and me, a very few others on the board here, but when it comes to opinions concerning the old NAUDC data, I'm about all you can get, since John McAniff passed away last year.

Wow! What's it like up there on Mt. Olympus?

 

[Thalassamania]

You say the number of fatalities is not "the best" measure, so I presume that some other measure is better? I want to see those measurements.

The Y and NAUI gave you numbers because they are both non-profit. The rest of the agencies are for-profit and "customer data" is considered "proprietary intellectual property."

Presume away, but there are no good measurements available, save the general agreement as to the high (70 to 80 percent) dropout rate. It's not just that fatalities may not be "the best" its that total fatalities is likely to be no measure at all, even if we had both a numberator and a denominator, which we don't. When quantitative measures fail, as they seem to in this case, the next best thing is the subjective opinions of experts with direct experience. I think that's Sam Miller, and me, a very few others on the board here, but when it comes to opinions concerning the old NAUDC data, I'm about all you can get, since John McAniff passed away last year.

'cause none of them support your argument.


Wow! What's it like up there on Mt. Olympus?

Dear Bob,

My "opinions" are based on far more intimate knowledge of the contents of the NUADC database than any else alive. Sorry if you don't like that ... but dem's da breaks. You can make all the stupid comments that you like, they are irrelevant, since the fact remains that I have that knowledge and you do not.

If you want to question my opinions, go read all the reports, or go down to Duke and ask Dick Vann if you can read through the files, or get the 9-track backup tapes from me and find a way to read them, but stop with the ad hominem BS, especially when it involves things that you know nothing about.

You want to question my bono fides, fine ... that's your right, this is the internet afterall. But I give you the benfit of the doubt, I don't assume that you are a precocious nine-year old typing away in your school's computer center, please give me the same consideration.

 

[GrandpaScuba]

the fact remains that I have that knowledge and you do not.

Knowledge does not equal wisdom.

 

[Thalassamania]

Knowledge does not equal wisdom.

Maybe not, but if you've never seen the data it is unlikely that you either have knowledge, or develop wisdom.

Hell, you can't even get to the level of a hypothesis. About the best one can do (in your circumstances) are suppositions, untested by anything at all, and that is rather meaningless to anyone who wants more than just to hear themselves talk.

 

[leapfrog]

Knowledge does not equal wisdom.

Wisdom includes all knowledge with the added advantage of deciphering what is true and what is not, super intelligence, which does not gain information from only the past but has the capacity to interpret information from the future. It does not rely exclusively on data input but incorporates vision, instinct, intuition, imagination and innovation.

Knowledge may offer a number of ways which have been proven to be effective, whereas wisdom is in choosing different ways or an even better way. Simply put, knowledge comes from an external source, but wisdom comes from an internal knowing.

There are a people posting on SB that have very little knowledge yet think they are wise......... these are "the wise guys".

Too often these same people enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

 

[300bar]

Maybe not, but if you've never seen the data it is unlikely that you either have knowledge, or develop wisdom.

Hell, you can't even get to the level of a hypothesis. About the best one can do (in your circumstances) are suppositions, untested by anything at all, and that is rather meaningless to anyone who wants more than just to hear themselves talk.

If you are so high and mighty,why not just present this wisdom.
This thread has been about agency bashing from the start,why not present the proof.

 

[D_B]

Point taken

 

[Thalassamania]

You say the number of fatalities is not "the best" measure, so I presume that some other measure is better? I want to see those measurements.

The Y and NAUI gave you numbers because they are both non-profit. The rest of the agencies are for-profit and "customer data" is considered "proprietary intellectual property."

Presume away, but there are no good measurements available, save the general agreement as to the high (70 to 80 percent) dropout rate. It's not just that fatalities may not be "the best" its that total fatalities is likely to be no measure at all, even if we had both a numberator and a denominator, which we don't. When quantitative measures fail, as they seem to in this case, the next best thing is the subjective opinions of experts with direct experience. I think that's Sam Miller, and me, a very few others on the board here, but when it comes to opinions concerning the old NAUDC data, I'm about all you can get, since John McAniff passed away last year.

If you are so high and mighty,why not just present this wisdom.
This thread has been about agency bashing from the start,why not present the proof.

Try reading the thread, or at least the posts above. Well, don't bother, you're clearly not interested in information or insights that differ from you preconceived notions.

Point taken

No , there's no point there, just an inability either to read or to understand the posts that have come before, so we get thinly veiled attempts at weak put downs, instead of reasoned discourse. All that reveals is the paucity of the poster's knowledge, wisdom, ability, and skill.