GUE Tech vs. TDI Tech classes

[Red Sea Shadow]

Does a student know to ask at an entry level when they don't have full knowledge of the greater picture?

The original post mentioned TDI and NAUI so I think the students are not entry level.

If the students are aware of DIR, then I think they're not entry level. And if they don't have full knowledge of the greater picture, shouldn't they ask instead of making assumptions?

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

Sorry, double post!

 

[TSandM]

I've tried, but I just can't wrap my brain around how marketing a "two part class with the same names as an established agency" is a marketing advantage? I do think UTD has a marketing advantage by breaking the classes up into smaller pieces, but it has nothing to do with the name. The only problem I see with the name is that if somebody tells me they're "Tech 1", I now have to ask them with which agency, in order to know what they're actually certified to do.

As far as monetary influence on certification goes, GUE is a non-profit organization. The individual instructors teach to make money. Some of them derive their entire income from doing that (as well as other dive related activities, like guiding). They hold the high standards that they do because they believe in them, not because they're "non-profit".

 

[Red Sea Shadow]

As far as monetary influence on certification goes, GUE is a non-profit organization. The individual instructors teach to make money. Some of them derive their entire income from doing that (as well as other dive related activities, like guiding). They hold the high standards that they do because they believe in them, not because they're "non-profit".

Ditto.

Even for GUE management staff, I don't think they work for free. That's one of their income sources, away from the fact the GUE (as an agency or organization) is non-profit.

 

[Steve SDI/TDI HQ]

So I think you can expect that, in a GUE class, you will have a very intense experience with a high level of attention to detail and very high performance standards. My guess is that, if you took a class from Steve Lewis (TDI) you'd find it similar...

I appreciate the support. Thank you Lynn.

While unqualified to make objective comparisons between the options available to divers who wish to move their diving up a notch, I would like to suggest that a whole lot depends on the attitude of the STUDENT.

I know that the common belief is that it's mostly about the instructor, and that is certainly a factor to consider; however, we have to face the fact that even the most creative, innovative and experienced instructors can do squat for an unmotivated student. Technical diving takes work and a certain amount of focus, and not everyone is cut out for that.

Therefore, my advice to the OP would be to sit down with a couple of instructors who actually log kickass dives and listen to them explain what a course will entail.

 

[Peter Guy]

SiC wrote

I also don't believe it's fair for someone who doesn't have the credentials to teach a TRUE DIR class....

Pray tell, what is "a TRUE DIR class" in your opinion? Is a GUE "primer" class one? How about UTD "essentials" or GUE "Fundamentals of DIR" done with a single tank -- let alone any number of "technical" classes that teach standardization of equipment (NTEC anyone?), team skills, water column control, need for regular review and skill practice, donation of the primary reg, use of the brain to execute the dive as opposed to a computer, and on and on.

IF you, as so many seem to so believe, that the only "TRUE DIR" class is taught by a current GUE instructor, then why not just say a "TRUE GUE" class so that everyone can really understand your position. That seems to be GUE's position for even ex-GUE instructors aren't teaching "TRUE GUE" classes even though most people believe they are teaching "TRUE DIR."

 

[ScubaInChicago]

SiC wrote

Pray tell, what is "a TRUE DIR class" in your opinion? Is a GUE "primer" class one? How about UTD "essentials" or GUE "Fundamentals of DIR" done with a single tank -- let alone any number of "technical" classes that teach standardization of equipment (NTEC anyone?), team skills, water column control, need for regular review and skill practice, donation of the primary reg, use of the brain to execute the dive as opposed to a computer, and on and on.

IF you, as so many seem to so believe, that the only "TRUE DIR" class is taught by a current GUE instructor, then why not just say a "TRUE GUE" class so that everyone can really understand your position. That seems to be GUE's position for even ex-GUE instructors aren't teaching "TRUE GUE" classes even though most people believe they are teaching "TRUE DIR."

I don't think GUE is the hear-all/say-all of everything "DIR". There will always be exceptions to the rule, the problem is that when you move out of the black and white and into the gray, you will rapidly loose the distinction. I think TRUE DIR agencies (UTD/GUE) have an amazing set of standards that have been put in place that allow someone from one country to travel around the world and do some amazing dives with minimal verbal communication with another diver trained to the same standards.

 

[TSandM]

I guess one of the reasons this devolves into argument is that terms are not well-defined. What is a "DIR" class? If I take a NAUI tech class that teaches NTEC configuration (essentially identical to GUE's), standard gases, uses Decoplanner, and emphasizes team skills, what distinguishes it from GUE Tech 1?

There is only so much to know about this stuff, and none of it is secret. "DIR" is a system you can learn about without taking classes from GUE or UTD -- with UTD's online classrooms and DVDs, you can learn a LOT. The reason GUE has the following it has is because the standards, both for instructors and students, are high. I have never argued (and never will) that you can't find instructors with high standards in other agencies. It's just that the standards appear to be more variable outside of GUE and UTD -- at least judging from the cave divers I've been in the water with.

 

[Scott L]

I have been studying my intended path for tec training long enough to notice that continued refinments and outright changes have been made to the ciriculums and practices of DIR based training agencies. As a consquence, one could argue that they have been doing it wrong in the past.

 

[TSandM]

Well, they can't win; if they remain etched in stone, then they're too rigid and mired in the past. If they change stuff, then, "Aha! So they WEREN'T doing it right to begin with!"

One of the things I like about DIR diving is that it was a system put together by some smart and extremely accomplished divers, who are still smart enough to be willing to put any part of the system under scrutiny and adapt if something proves suboptimal. It is also MY personal opinion that the core of the system is powerful enough to survive being tweaked at the edges -- in other words, the differences between GUE and UTD are far less important than the commonalities.