Frustration moving into/towards tech

[CptTightPants21]

I have experience in training courses. I'm not commenting on the quality of training given by instructors for GUE, I'm commenting on the structure of the training (how the training program is designed). I can see that with their self-published, publicly available materials without ever having to take a course. There is absolutely no need for me to ever take a course to see that, based on the course design, it isn't one I'm interested in giving my money to.

Why that upsets so many people that almost certainly had no part in designing the course is really mind-boggling.

What exactly is your problem with the GUE fundies program? That the requirements of a 3' window are too strict?

The course covers valve drill, OOA gas share, 5 kick types, shooting dsmb, and controlled descent/ascent in 10' intervals. The program can be taken in 4 days or split up into two parts, taken separately, over the course of 5 days.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I have not done any GUE course, but I have dived with GUE divers and had the odd interaction with GUE instructors locally.

My impression is that they are much more reasonable than you would think from the postings made here.

I have found that the GUE folks I've met in person to be quite pleasant. Instructors like Guy Shockey, Kees Leverenz, Alex Adolfi (there's a new local GUE instructor whom I haven't met, but I look forward to meeting). These are people I have met in person and talked extensively. While there is criticism of GUE due to GI3 and others of that same mindset (it certainly exists online), the people I have encountered have been quite approachable.

Due to the value I received in taking fundies is the reason I recommend it so much. Don't judge GUE from online personas, talk to your local instructor. GUE today is not like it was under GI3. That reputation needs to go away.

And even before taking fundies, I recommend just hiring a GUE instructor for an evaluation, working on the areas they see you need most help or something specific.

 

[jlcnuke]

I think it has something to do with the nature of your pre-conceived notions about a course you've never taken.

Is this incorrect information?
https://www.gue.com/files/standards9/Fundamentals-Standards-v9.pdf

Is this incorrect also?
https://www.gue.com/files/annualreports/2016_Annual_Report_GUE.pdf

etc etc..

If not, then all the information I need to determine that the course is poorly designed is right there published by GUE themselves.

 

[jlcnuke]

What exactly is your problem with the GUE fundies program? That the requirements of a 3' window are too strict?

The course covers valve drill, OOA gas share, 5 kick types, shooting dsmb, and controlled descent/ascent in 10' intervals. The program can be taken in 4 days or split up into two parts, taken separately, over the course of 5 days.

I've stated multiple times that my problem is that the course is poorly designed. A training course that has (self-published) results of almost a third of it's participants not meeting the objectives of the training at the end of the training is, by all objective standards, failing and almost certainly that's due to poor design. As someone who makes training programs professionally, I'd rather not give my money to a training program so obviously poorly designed. Why ANYONE in the world would have a problem with that I simply am at a loss to understand.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

I've stated multiple times that my problem is that the course is poorly designed. A training course that has (self-published) results of almost a third of it's participants not meeting the objectives of the training at the end of the training is, by all objective standards, failing and almost certainly that's due to poor design. As someone makes training programs professionally, I'd rather not give my money to a training program so obviously poorly designed. Why ANYONE in the world would have a problem with that I simply am at a loss to understand.

The skill levels of the participants vary so dramatically, so this is to be expected. The whole reason fundies was created was to address that people trying to get into tech with GUE didn't have the basic recreational skills to do so. Instructors would have to provide remedial training. Now if you take T1, you better be up to snuff.

If you have statistics on failure rates of GUE divers who went through rec 1 & 2, and still fail, then I'd agree that the course is poorly designed. I suspect though that such people, a rarity unfortunately, have a high pass rate.

 

[flymolo]

I've stated multiple times that my problem is that the course is poorly designed. A training course that has (self-published) results of almost a third of it's participants not meeting the objectives of the training at the end of the training is, by all objective standards, failing and almost certainly that's due to poor design. As someone makes training programs professionally, I'd rather not give my money to a training program so obviously poorly designed. Why ANYONE in the world would have a problem with that I simply am at a loss to understand.

A disclaimer: I've not actually taken fundies although I would very much like to sometime in the near future. From what I understand, it's the type of course that anyone at just about any level of diving can benefit from.

However, I hear what you are saying about the non-pass rate. A lot of non-tech courses are essentially rubber stamps, and this one isn't. I wouldn't attribute the failure rate to poor course design, but rather, I believe the curriculum is difficult and the standards are fairly high. I think that's a good thing though, because all the divers I've seen who passed fundies were solid in the water.

 

[jlcnuke]

The skill levels of the participants vary so dramatically, so this is to be expected. The whole reason fundies was created was to address that people trying to get into tech with GUE didn't have the basic recreational skills to do so. Instructors would have to provide remedial training. Now if you take T1, you better be up to snuff.

If you have statistics on failure rates of GUE divers who went through rec 1 & 2, and still fail, then I'd agree that the course is poorly designed. I suspect though that such people, a rarity unfortunately, have a high pass rate.

Here's the thing, as a professional developer of training programs, I could probably fix 95% of the failure rate with a simple change to prerequisites of the course. GUE has demonstrated, through their willingness to not make any fixes to such an obviously flawed system, that they don't care if their program is, objectively, failing at accomplishing it's objectives. That's fine. They still get people to take it, and I still have other organizations with great divers to learn from. Everyone gets to be happy (except that those can't accept that GUE is not for everybody, for whatever reasons).

 

[ginti]

The skill levels of the participants vary so dramatically, so this is to be expected. The whole reason fundies was created was to address that people trying to get into tech with GUE didn't have the basic recreational skills to do so. Instructors would have to provide remedial training. Now if you take T1, you better be up to snuff.

If you have statistics on failure rates of GUE divers who went through rec 1 & 2, and still fail, then I'd agree that the course is poorly designed. I suspect though that such people, a rarity unfortunately, have a high pass rate.

Fundamental is a course that does not certify to anything new (maybe nitrox, but I suspect no one would take fundies for nx...). Therefore, I do not understand why people would consider a "provisional" the same of a failure; it is just a postponement of the pass/fail, nothing more, nothing less. If a "provisional" is not considered a failure - I suspect the pass rate is high even for fundies.

That said, opinions are opinions, and frankly speaking I don't think @jlcnuke is hurting anybody, so it's fine, isn't it?

I hope you @jlcnuke find what you wanted and you will manage to move into tech with a lot of fun! Enjoy your ITT

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Here's the thing, as a professional developer of training programs, I could probably fix 95% of the failure rate with a simple change to prerequisites of the course. GUE has demonstrated, through their willingness to not make any fixes to such an obviously flawed system, that they don't care if their program is, objectively, failing at accomplishing it's objectives. That's fine. They still get people to take it, and I still have other organizations with great divers to learn from. Everyone gets to be happy (except that those can't accept that GUE is not for everybody, for whatever reasons).

But is the goal a certification card? Or to be an improved diver? Most people have no interest in technical diving, so for a course to simply improve their skills and they go on their merry way is perfectly acceptable. I would argue that technical diving isn't for everyone (which it isn't). But fundies is for everyone. Like I've said before, go back to your BCD and split fins if you so wish. You'll at least go back a dramatically improved diver. How is that not a win? How is that a failure on the course? So what if someone who has no interest in technical diving doesn't achieve a rec pass?

I'm curious, and I mean this sincerely, what would your prereq course to fundies look like? If it is a test, what is the path to get students to pass that test? Another course? As fundies is also a gatekeeper course for their technical training, should they have a gatekeeper course for their gatekeeper course?

You do accept the fact that most divers are poorly taught in open water, yes? That's not something GUE can fix with one course that will result in a certification card. They can fix the poor training, but then they are offering remedial training, which fundies turns out to be for many.

I don't see why GUE needs to change a thing. But, you and I have different outlooks. You see certification as the indicator of a successful course. I see improved diving skills as a successful course.

I have loads of c-cards for con ed courses where there really wasn't any skills improvement on my part.

 

[OrcasC205]

As someone that came out of GUE Fundies with a provisional pass (from one of the local instructors that @wetb4igetinthewater mentioned previously), I can honestly say the course was still worth every penny and hour I spent on it. I learned an incredible amount and came out of it with a list of specific skills I need to work on and a six month window (actually extended to 12 months now due to Covid) where I can retest free of charge to get my recreational pass. I think it is unrealistic to think there is a set of prerequisites that could be applied to a wide range of divers interested in GUE Fundamentals that wouldn't just lead to another introductory course that has the same distribution between failing, provisional, and passing results.

That all being said, I don't get the impression that anyone is going to convince @jlcnuke to change his mind about the structure of GUE courses.