Discussions like this intrigue me. I am not sure that 'minimalist' is a negative. Most (successful) businesses are continuously pursuing ways to produce their product in a ‘faster, cheaper, better’ way, a minimalist way. In some cases, ‘better’ takes third place and ’not any worse’ becomes the practice, irrespective of marketing claims. Nothing is necessarily wrong with that. It happens in professions, it happens in education, it happens in manufacturing, it happens in other forms of endeavors – pilot certification, issuance of driver’s licenses, etc. It is reality - every organization should be trying to determine the minimal(ist) investment of time and effort required to produce a functional product at whatever standard is required by the user and supported by the marketplace. To do otherwise is inefficient, and foolish. Cost considerations simply DO NOT support the notion of producing a product at a needlessly higher price, or requiring needless excessive time, except where there is a boutique cachet associated with the product (Starbuck’s coffee comes to mind, although I am not sure how universally accepted that is). For commodities, and open water diver training is a commodity, price and convenience guide the process. Personally, I REALLY like the structure and content of the Scripps 100 hour course that Thal has written about. I would like to 'take' a scientific diver course, to further improve my skills as a diver (and as an instructor). I do not think a 100 hour course is a necessary requirement for Open Water divers, not commercially viable as the primary form of scuba training.
Among the things that I really struggle with in these discussions is the terminology, particularly where terms such as ‘higher’ are applied to standards. Questions I am often left with include: What constitutes a ‘higher’ standard, versus simply a ‘different’ standard? Does ‘higher’ always equate to ‘better’? Does ‘higher’ always equate to ‘more relevant’. How do I distinguish ‘higher’ from ‘needless’? Often, I see statements about comparative standards that reflect ‘different’, or more ‘restrictive’, standards. I don’t know if they are ‘higher’.
I will use the GUE information cited, as an example. Before doing so, a caveat: In the following remarks, I
AM NOT criticizing GUE. It is a good organization, highly regarded, well-respected. Having said that, it is also useful as a platform to examine the concept of ‘higher’ standards, since some GUE standards were cited apparently as such an example. Yes, GUE Recreational Diver Level I requires that the student be ‘a non-smoker’, and ‘physically and mentally fit’. Great! (In fact, those are general pre-requisites for all GUE courses). But, is the ‘non-smoker’ standard really a ‘higher’ standard, or is it simply more ‘restrictive’. What difference does that really make? Is a non-smoker a better / safer diver? In 2012, smoking is on the decline among many adults in the US. But, there are still some who smoke, yet they are somehow able to participate in strenuous activity, function effectively as teachers, government officials, airline pilots, scuba instructors, coaches, etc. I don’t smoke cigarettes. I happen to think cigarette smoking is disgusting. But, I am not convinced of the relevance of being a ‘non-smoker’ to recreational diving certification. I actually like the idea that a student is ‘physically and mentally fit’. But, what are the criteria?
Another example that was cited: GUE standards require that the diver ‘Must be able to swim at least 300 yards/275 meters in under fourteen minutes without stopping’. OK, most of us can probably agree that a diver should be able to swim for some distance, and I am OK with 300 yards. And, that is longer (is that a 'higher' standard) than the 200 yards required by PADI, if swimming without mask, snorkel, fins. What does 14 minutes have to do with swimming ability? Why 14 minutes? Why not 15 - it is a nice round number? But, wait, why not really raise the bar ‘higher’, and say 10 minutes? That would obviously be a 'higher' standard, wouldn’t it? And, if we are going to do that, let’s go even further – 7 minutes. The winning time at the 2012 Olympics for the men’s 200m freestyle swim was 1 minute, 43 seconds. Surely, a 'physically and mentally fit’ diver worthy of certification could do 275m in 7 minutes. Yes, I am being a bit perverse. I don't see the relevance of 14 minutes, nor the association with a standard. 'Different', yes. More 'restrictive', yes. 'Higher', not really.
Similarly, GUE’s training philosophy statement asserts that ‘a good education is vital for the safe enjoyment of recreational and technical diving . . .’. I fully agree. It goes on to add ‘and must include both a strong academic component and a rigorous practical one.’ Again, I agree. It then states that ‘ This is achieved by: . . . 2.
Classes: GUE classes are lengthy and rigorous, demanding preparation before they begin.’ Hmm. What about ‘substantive’ classes, what about classes that directly contribute to the development of the skills and attitudes necessary for safe diving? Which is more critical – ‘lengthy and rigorous’ or ‘substantive and meaningful’?
Where I actually worry about GUE standards is in another area. Instead of ‘mastery’ – the PADI standard – the GUE Recreational Diver Level I must only demonstrate ‘
aptitude in the following open-water skills: mask clearing, mask removal and replacement, regulator removal and exchange, long hose deployment.’ OMG, talk about minimalist standards – merely ‘aptitude’, not ‘mastery’? Just kidding. I really don’t see any functional difference in intent.
I spent 26 years as a tenured faculty member of a major health science university. I spent a good deal of that time dealing with some basic science colleagues that seemed to think that a ‘better’ graduate program was simply a ‘harder’ one or a ‘longer’ one, so they would (attempt to) pile on more coursework, and laboratory requirements, while dismally failing to provide any intellectually satisfying basis for those additional requirements, in the context of what students were being prepared to do. (At least, that was my opinion, as a member of our Graduate Education and Research Committee, which more often than not turned down such requests for the additional coursework.) My son is a third year veterinary medicine student in Europe in a school where he was required to take an entire course on radiation physics, supposedly as a foundation upon which to be able to understand and interpret radiographs (x-rays). In fact, the course seemed to be more a desperate attempt on the part of frustrated basic science faculty to retain some semblance of relevance, and curricular control, in an age when clinical disciplines (medicine, veterinary medicine, nursing, pharmacy, etc) are far more focused on relevant clinical coursework and experience. And, in fairness, maybe I will sound like a hypocrite, but I will admit that I think the high school public education curriculum in this country has been ‘dumbed down’ considerably since I was in high school. But, that also doesn’t seem to preclude competent, motivated students from gaining admission to university.
Again, lest I be targeted for assassination, I
AM NOT criticizing GUE. It is a good organization, highly regarded, well-respected. But, I see no functional value in citing such GUE standards as ‘higher’ in this thread – more restrictive, perhaps. Just because a class is ‘lengthy and rigorous’ does not mean it produces a better diver. It may, or may not. Having said that, I do believe there is considerable substance in GUE courses. One of the GUE standards I really like (seriously) is ‘Demonstrate good buoyancy and trim, i.e. approximate reference maximum of 30 degrees off horizontal while remaining within 5 feet/1.5 meters of a target depth.‘ But, just because it isn’t a PADI standard does not preclude me as a PADI instructor, from emphasizing horizontal trim beginning with the first pool session and continuing through Open Water dives, AND having a CA do videography of OW students during their OW dives so they can see how in trim, or not, they are. Actually, I really want to get whatever tool GUE instructors use to document the '30 degrees off horizontal', other than an 'ad oculos' evaluation.
I think I will start a new scuba training agency. I will require that ALL instructor candidates hold a certification as a Commercial Diver. I will require that ALL instructor candidates provide evidence of training as a health professional (physician, nurse, pharmacist, and yes – even dentist
) - after all, there are cases where that will be helpful and merely having first aid certification just won't cut it. I will require that ALL instructor candidates provide evidence of prior training as a NASA astronaut - after all, I want my instructors to be mentally and physically fit. By golly, I will definitely have HIGHER standards. So, there, PADI / NAUI / CMAS / SEDI / NASE / BSAC!
