Frustration moving into/towards tech
- Thread starter jlcnuke
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
Yes, one of the most adamant people I've ever met was a washout from fundies. Got a provisional, drove his friends crazy wanting to practice all the time to the point of an intervention as he couldn't get a recreational pass. Obviously something is wrong with GUE, not him, as he had thousands of dives by that point. Don't get me started on his stories of diving air at Truk to 180 feet and "I'm not worried, if I have a problem, other people will handle it". That's not how technical diving works.
People get too fixated on the card. I recommend fundies to people straight out of open water. I tell them, don't expect to get a recreational pass. It will be exhausting. But you will come out dramatically improved. The people going in who were focused on just becoming better divers excelled. They enjoyed the class, accepted the provisionally as a starting point to continue to improve, and they worked to get recreational passes, and later on technical.
I like the format of teach, have students try, give feedback, test, and if they need further time, they go off and practice and come back for further testing. I get the impression that this is rather controversial in the mainstream market, as I adopted that model for teaching con ed after I took fundies. I was told by two managers from a dive shop chain that I "wasn't a team player" and "how is this going to make the other instructors look?". I don't see why the former. Don't care about the latter.
I get the OP isn't going to go the GUE route. It is as obvious as the sun that he is never going in that direction. Not an issue, as he's got Chris, and he's an amazing instructor and person.
However, for those people that Chris (or Landon or Ryan or a bunch of similar folks) are not readily accessible and travel for training isn't an option, if GUE is close to you, check them out. Just focus on the skills. Don't get caught up in their philosophy, just understand the motivation behind it and become a better diver. Go back to a jacket style BCD and split fins if you want. I don't care. I just care that you will be a dramatically improved diver.
helodriver87
Contributor
I think I got into an argument with you about this a long time ago on reddit. It stands out because it's literally the only time I've ever heard anyone try to make that point.
That's fair. They certainly don't let people look like dive shop christmas trees. And some people really value that freedom, so it's probably not the right choice for them.
Science mostly. And a bit of good old fashioned elitism. It's actually written into the super secret standards.
OP
This has nothing to do with GUE, please don't infer otherwise. Looking for a course that is designed to easily pass is a very poor method of getting into technical diving and, quite frankly, extremely dangerous. Tec isn't Rec and a certain level of skills are required to safely do it. A properly designed technical diving course, from any reputable agency or instructor, should have some level of students who do not pass.
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 didn't start this thread to bash GUE, but ya'll are really asking me to it seems....
OP
I'm not the only one who's made that argument, as I've even received PM's on that subject from people unwilling to have that conversation with others publicly anymore. Anyway, I've said my peace and HOPE that people can accept that I'm simply not a fan of GUE and I don't really want to patronize them as a result of my opinions. I'm not telling everyone else to avoid them like the plague or anything, so I don't know what it's so hard for people to accept that.
- Messages
- 20,647
- Reaction score
- 15,144
- # of dives
- I'm a Fish!
@wetb4igetinthewater we have a similar rationale in our OW class, but especially in our Scuba II class where we are liable to get some dive shop kids coming in that didn't take our Scuba I. We urge them to take the class pass/fail instead of for a grade. If they go in with the pass/fail mentality instead of trying to get an A, they almost always do better with less stress. With Fundies the same mentality should be there. Go in with the outlook of getting everything you can out of it and unless you need the passes for future courses, don't worry about it. That will be the mentality when I take it later this year or early next year. Despite being at the level that I am at, which is way behind @kensuf, if he says he got a bunch out of it, then I know I will. I don't know what that will be yet, but I'm curious.
@jlcnuke your view on the course structure is having inadequate prereqs is sound. That said, you also have to remember this history. Fundies was originally intended as a workshop to help those that wanted to progress into GUE's tech courses that didn't have solid fundamentals do so. Now, their intended prereqs will be their recreational courses which are far more rigorous than normal divers are used to. Unless they come from a handful of universities and independent instructors that teach in that style, they're usually in for a very rude awakening. That course needs to be looked at not as a pass/fail, but as an entry into that style of diving. They have the recreational passes for a reason, and they have the provisional passes for a reason. To get everyone through at a tec pass would make the class unreasonably long and expensive. It all depends on what level you are starting when you get into the class. This is a very strange concept in this industry and in education as a whole, but if you step back and look at it as it was originally designed, it makes a lot more sense.
@jlcnuke your view on the course structure is having inadequate prereqs is sound. That said, you also have to remember this history. Fundies was originally intended as a workshop to help those that wanted to progress into GUE's tech courses that didn't have solid fundamentals do so. Now, their intended prereqs will be their recreational courses which are far more rigorous than normal divers are used to. Unless they come from a handful of universities and independent instructors that teach in that style, they're usually in for a very rude awakening. That course needs to be looked at not as a pass/fail, but as an entry into that style of diving. They have the recreational passes for a reason, and they have the provisional passes for a reason. To get everyone through at a tec pass would make the class unreasonably long and expensive. It all depends on what level you are starting when you get into the class. This is a very strange concept in this industry and in education as a whole, but if you step back and look at it as it was originally designed, it makes a lot more sense.
Keep in mind that people from a wide variety of skill levels take fundies, so the issue is 1. GUE is in no way, shape, or form responsible for the poor training that infests this industry. How can they practically address that? Their philosophy is (my perception of it at least) is that for students who are woefully unprepared will benefit the most from the improvement in skills. Don't worry about the pass, just focus on becoming a better diver.
I don't see that as a bad thing. It just comes down to attitude.
People fall into 3 categories:
1. People proficient already and with a little work, earn a technical diving class.
2 Some people just need more work, and they get provisional passes and are given 6 months to earn a recreational pass.
3. The rest in the middle. I'd guess they are fairly skilled, but may have had some bad habits to break (like me) and needed a bit more work (like me) and get recreational passes (like me)
Now if you had divers come up through the GUE rec 1 and rec 2, and they typically received provisional passes, then I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, not many people have the fortune to go that route, so I can't speak to it.
Just go for the skills. That's what I tell people.
Degenerate
Contributor
It does help people become better divers, that is why the class is extremely good.
Doesn't matter if you plan on going further down the GUE path or not, you would have a hard time to find people who have any actual legit stuff to say that goes against the class.
Your experience with training curriculums in other fields have zero relevance for anyone on this board, you haven't taken the class (or any of the similar classes from other agencies).
A lot of salt in your post here that definitely didn't show up in your first one.
Your main problem with this class doesn't seem to be their requirements on gear, but rather something else.
As someone else put it,
"The cup overfloweth"
Well, I will reluctantly chime in here. I was a career educator, and my last job with education was as the Executive Director of Curriculum for a national education company.
What jlcnuke wrote in post #74 is perfectly correct, although I think he left some points out. Any curriculum designer who does not understand that should not have been hired in the first place. There is nothing wrong with having very high standards, but if you have very high standards, then your curriculum and instruction should be designed so that students can meet those high standards within the allotted time frame for the course. The one thing he left out is prerequisite skills--a course should have a screening process so that students who do not have the necessary skills and knowledge to begin the course do not begin a course they have no hope of passing. Students who have just finished Algebra I are not admitted into a calculus class for that reason.
In any course in any subject, if a student has the required entry requirements and then performs at his or her ability during the class, then failure should be rare. A class with a high failure rate is nothing to brag about. If a class frequently has a high failure rate and it is admitting appropriate students, it usually means the course design is poorly thought out, the allotted time for the curriculum is insufficient (you won't get a class through Calculus I in a month), or the instructional quality is poor.
So if a high school program allows students who have not passed Algebra I to take calculus, then the school bears no responsibility for their failure?
- Status
Similar threads
