Frustration moving into/towards tech

[JBFG]

I’m still not sure how this whole discussion about GUE is helping the OP with his issue... perhaps this needs a MOD clean up

 

[Jack Hammer]

You are right again. I apologize.

Insincere and condescending apologies are worthless.

 

[CptTightPants21]

I'm not looking for a course that is "designed to easily pass", but quite frankly, ANY training course should be designed such that almost everyone that meets the prerequisites for the course will accomplish the goals of the course. In fact, that is THE gold standard in judging the effectiveness of a training program. If the course cannot meet that standard there are three possible problems:
1. The prerequisites are inadequate to ensure the participants are ready for the course.
2. The course content is inadequate to accomplish the goals.
3. The instructors/teachers are not competent.

I don't believe GUE's instructors to be incompetent, which leaves either 1, 2, or a combination of those things as the issue with their course. Regardless of which it actually is, it's clearly a fault in the design of the program in some manner.

I am going to disagree with this from a number of angles.

Your statement about not wanting an easy pass, but that almost everyone who meets prerequisites should pass as sign of a properly designed course.

This statement might be correct if the previous course work was held to the same standards, but in vast majority of cases it is not. A strong case could be made that the "easy pass" that most students experience in scuba is directly responsible for the failure rate of fundies-- I believe it is around 50%, but don't quote me).

Not all prerequisites are the same. Algebra 1 & 2 at a community college isn't the same as Alegbra 1 & 2 at MIT.

The skills covered in fundies are all skills covered in OW and AOW scuba courses. Air share, valve drill, dsmb deployment, mask removal..Fundies doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it does help illuminate deficiencies in past training.

Military, police, firefighters, EMT, there are countless examples of people taking courses with high fail rates. Striving for excellence means blind standards and standards mean that not everyone will make it.

Learning vs Implementation vs Evaluation
I can take a 4 day course on how to run a marathon or become a master chef. I can learn those techniques, but it still doesn't mean I will be instantly able to run a marathon after 4 days of class. It might take some time to practice and build up those skills and experience level. Some classes should be judged on their ability to convey knowledge. 'Did I learn something new everyday, am I better at X after taking the course?'

I think everyone that has passed fundies and even a good amount of those that have not would answer that they expanded their knowledge and increased their abilities over their 4 (or 5) days.

Perhaps it would be easier for you if you acknowledge fundies as an evaluation more than a course. Fundies is the evaluation to see if a student is worthy of taking Tech or Cave training from GUE instructors--and those classes all have pass rates a little over 80%.

 

[jlcnuke]

I am going to disagree with this from a number of angles.

Your statement about not wanting an easy pass, but that almost everyone who meets prerequisites should pass as sign of a properly designed course.

This statement might be correct if the previous course work was held to the same standards, but in vast majority of cases it is not. A strong case could be made that the "easy pass" that most students experience in scuba is directly responsible for the failure rate of fundies-- I believe it is around 50%, but don't quote me).

Not all prerequisites are the same. Algebra 1 & 2 at a community college isn't the same as Alegbra 1 & 2 at MIT.

The skills covered in fundies are all skills covered in OW and AOW scuba courses. Air share, valve drill, dsmb deployment, mask removal..Fundies doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it does help illuminate deficiencies in past training.

Military, police, firefighters, EMT, there are countless examples of people taking courses with high fail rates. Striving for excellence means blind standards and standards mean that not everyone will make it.

Learning vs Implementation vs Evaluation
I can take a 4 day course on how to run a marathon or become a master chef. I can learn those techniques, but it still doesn't mean I will be instantly able to run a marathon after 4 days of class. It might take some time to practice and build up those skills and experience level. Some classes should be judged on their ability to convey knowledge. 'Did I learn something new everyday, am I better at X after taking the course?'

I think everyone that has passed fundies and even a good amount of those that have not would answer that they expanded their knowledge and increased their abilities over their 4 (or 5) days.

Perhaps it would be easier for you if you acknowledge fundies as an evaluation more than a course. Fundies is the evaluation to see if a student is worthy of taking Tech or Cave training from GUE instructors--and those classes all have pass rates a little over 80%.

You're welcome to your opinion, however flawed I may find it. But quite frankly, I'm done trying to explain to people the basics of proper training curriculum development. I'm still not going to be doing any GUE courses and I'm starting to think that it's adherents can't accept any criticism (even if they don't understand it) and refuse to accept that anyone else might not have their devotion to GUE honestly, and ya'll are actually making me even more and more convinced to not have anything to do with the organization.

 

[helodriver87]

You're welcome to your opinion, however flawed I may find it. But quite frankly, I'm done trying to explain to people the basics of proper training curriculum development. I'm still not going to be doing any GUE courses and I'm starting to think that it's adherents can't accept any criticism (even if they don't understand it) and refuse to accept that anyone else might not have their devotion to GUE honestly, and ya'll are actually making me even more and more convinced to not have anything to do with the organization.

I think it would be a pretty bad fit, given what I've read. So I think enough has been said.

 

[seeker242]

1. The prerequisites are inadequate to ensure the participants are ready for the course.
2. The course content is inadequate to accomplish the goals.
3. The instructors/teachers are not competent.

The problem with # 1 is fundamentals, is itself, the prerequisite to begin with. What do you expect? For people to already know and perform the fundamentals before taking fundamentals? That makes no sense and would defeat the whole purpose of the class to begin with. The whole reason why fundamentals was created to begin with is because everyone was flat out failing the technical classes. So what did they do? They did exactly what you said should be done, they made the prerequisite much more adequate and appropriate. That prerequisite is fundamentals...

The problem with # 2 is the course content is not the thing that accomplishes the goals to begin with. What accomplishes the goals is the student putting in the necessary practice time. For some people, 4-5 days is simply not enough. What do you expect? For everyone to just magically progress in the same time frame? That makes no sense either. That’s completely unrealistic.

Fundamentals doesn’t need to be changed because it doesn’t have the problems you are imagining it has. Your assumptions for both 1 and 2 are way off base to begin with.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

The problem with # 1 is fundamentals, is itself, the prerequisite to begin with. What do you expect? For people to already know and perform the fundamentals before taking fundamentals? That makes no sense and would defeat the whole purpose of the class to begin with. The whole reason why fundamentals was created to begin with is because everyone was flat out failing the technical classes. So what did they do? They did exactly what you said should be done, they made the prerequisite much more adequate and appropriate. That prerequisite is fundamentals...

The problem with # 2 is the course content is not the thing that accomplishes the goals to begin with. What accomplishes the goals is the student putting in the necessary practice time. For some people, 4-5 days is simply not enough. What do you expect? For everyone to just magically progress in the same time frame? That makes no sense either. That’s completely unrealistic.

Fundamentals doesn’t need to be changed because it doesn’t have the problems you are imagining it has. Your assumptions for both 1 and 2 are way off base to begin with.

That's why I suggested for those with deficient skills to work with a GUE instructor to prepare for the course.

There's no need for an additional course.

 

[ginti]

It sounds like it should be at least two different classes.

GUE reccomends to speak with an instructor before to enroll for a class. In case they perceive that your possibility to get a pass is low, they will suggest to split the course into fundamental part 1 an part 2, which already exist...

 

[barth]

So? I'd tell him to go f himself. In my area, there is only one dive site where solo diving isn't allowed (Edmonds Underwater Park). If I'm not diving solo there, it isn't anyone's business.

The point is, GUE fundies is a great skills course. By FAR the best skills course I've ever taken. Best non-skills course was Human Factors in Diving.

The best piece of advice I received prior to taking the course from a GUE diver was "You don't have to drink the Kool Aid, just learn the skills." And that's what I recommend no matter what kind of diving you want to do.

My motivation to do training at gue is that I can join projects and dive with other gue trained people that makes it easy for me to find a buddy. (And the quality of the training is very good. But there are also other good instructors at others agency.)

But if he will choose other training agency after fundamentals it’s just about the skills.

If he’s doing intro to tech and he find a good instructor who will learn him the skills then it would also be ok.

He can’t do much more gue training after gue fundamentals and do still solo diving. Maybe I’m wrong. But if I’m wrong why did gue contact me after somebody was complaining about me and solo diving?

I didn’t even do a solo dive !

In the past I would have told the same as in your post. But I did change my mind.

 

[ginti]

My motivation to do training at gue is that I can join projects and dive with other gue trained people that makes it easy for me to find a buddy.

But if he will choose another training agency after fundamentals it’s just about the skills.

If he’s doing intro to tech and he find a good instructor who will learn him the skills then it would also be ok.

He can’t do much more gue training after gue fundamentals and do still solo diving. Maybe I’m wrong. But if I’m wrong why did gue contact me after somebody was complaining about me and solo diving?

I didn’t even do a solo dive !

In the past I would have told the same as in your post. But I did change my mind.

This fact that they contacted you is a bit weird... during al the courses/training I did, GUE instructors ALWAYS told me that what I do (when I am on my own) is my own business. I did courses with instructors up to Instructor Evaluator level.

Frankly speaking, never discussed about solo diving, so maybe are they more strict about it? I will ask around, because I agree with you, it's particularly annoying that they tell you what to do when you're not diving with them.