PADI - Concerns about students skills.

[yle]

Wow! Quite an accusation disparaging your own agency, and a standards violation at that!

Oh wait a second... I think I figured it out.

I suggested that PADI actively decided to eliminate the tables requirement. I'm thinking now that's what ruffled your feathers. For that I apologize.

I did assume that since the decision was made to eliminate the requirement to teach tables, that someone (or a group of someones) at PADI actively made the decision to modify the course in that way. And I further assumed it was motivated by trying to make the course more accessible to a math-phobic public.

Mea culpa, self flagellation will now commence.

 

[yle]

Let's start with where you flat out stated--with no indication of speculation--that the entire motivation for creating a computer version of the course in addition to the table version was to make the course easier and more profitable, with no regard to adjusting to the realities of the changing world of scuba.

Untrue... I never used the word "profitable". I don't think any instructor would ever seriously use the word "profitable" to describe scuba courses.

I mentioned "revenue growth", which is not the same thing. Is it a secret (that only I'm privy to) that PADI is interested in revenue growth, i.e interested in making its courses accessible and attractive to as many people as possible?

If it is, I apologize for sharing it. I just didn't know it was classified information.

then we will move to the next whopper, that somehow at the same time they decided diving shallower than 60 feet also made things easier, with no indication whatsoever what that has to do with it.

I did explain exactly what it has to do with it: the OW course teaches divers to keep an eye on their air. Dives shallower than 60 feet are overwhelmingly likely to end due to air consumption. It's very rare (especially for new divers) that NDL will be reached for a dive shallower than 60 feet while the diver still has a reasonable air supply. Which is why the OW course limits dives to 60 feet and de-emphasizes the importance of divers monitoring their NDL.

Evidence? Where in the OW standards, during a dive, are students asked to acknowledge their NDL? They are asked to note the NDL during dive planning, prior to the dive. But now that we're assuming all OW divers have computers, and the computer continually displays NDL during the dive... why is there nothing in the standards that asks a student to check their remaining NDL in the same way they check their air?

The absence of any standard requiring students to monitor their NDL during a dive is pretty strong evidence that PADI de-emphasizes the importance of NDL monitoring in the OW course. It's also why we have OW divers that want to dive deeper than 60 feet but have no idea what an NDL is (like the diver I met a few weeks ago.)

 

[boulderjohn]

I did assume that since the decision was made to eliminate the requirement to teach tables, that someone (or a group of someones) at PADI actively made the decision to modify the course in that way. And I further assumed it was motivated by trying to make the course more accessible to a math-phobic public.

I am still baffled by this. The decision to create a computer version of the course to meet the needs of a public that had already almost completely switched to computers is so obvious that I cannot for the life of me figure out why you would need to speculate on a reason for which you have no basis in established fact. You are acting as if PADI invented computer usage so that people would not have to do math, which is absurd. People adopted computer usage for many, many reasons that have nothing to do with math. PADI did not initiate the change, and PADI was not the first agency to make a computer-based OW course. (I believe SDI was--and there you might claim a financial motive, since its ownership was also in the computer business.)

I taught the tables version of the course for a decade before the computer version. That horrible math you talk about is early elementary school level addition--that's it. I never, ever had a student have any trouble understanding how to do it, although they might at times make silly errors (one of the problems with tables, BTW). The biggest problems students had with tables was keeping their place when moving on the lines of numbers and ending up in the wrong row or column, and that has nothing to do with math.

 

[yle]

I taught the tables version of the course for a decade before the computer version. That horrible math you talk about is early elementary school level addition--that's it. I never, ever had a student have any trouble understanding how to do it, although they might at times make silly errors (one of the problems with tables, BTW). The biggest problems students had with tables was keeping their place when moving on the lines of numbers and ending up in the wrong row or column, and that has nothing to do with math.

I never said the math was "horrible". I said the general public is "math phobic", which is my observation. And I know the math required is elementary level addition. Doesn't change the fact that any mention of "math" tends to put off some people.

Oh wait... in my original post I did refer to the "tedious math". That is very different than "horrible", which was entirely your interpretation of what I wrote. It's unfair to hold me responsible for your interpretations, but I can't prevent you from doing that. I just ask that you acknowledge it.

I've never had a problem with students understanding how to do the tables either, and I've always made a point of teaching the tables so that (a) my students would understand what their computer is doing and (b) I wouldn't have to lose sleep thinking about one of my students later in life being that student that has no idea what an NDL is or why it's important.

I think you're reading way too much into my post. I simply stated that:

1. PADI made a decision to make the course more accessible. If you tell people "hey, you don't have to do the math part anymore!", then more people are going to be attracted to the course. I'm not claiming it's rational... because I agree, it's simple math. But people aren't rational. If they were, marketing wouldn't work.

2. The decision took advantage of the existence of computers. I never said PADI was the first organization to use computers in their OW course. I never said PADI invented the idea of using computers in an OW course. I simply said PADI made a decision to no longer require teaching tables, and it coincided with the rise of computers... which made for a convenient shift.

What exactly does a computer do for a diver in an OW course, besides act as a depth gauge and timer? I know it displays their NDL, but where in the standards are students required to do anything with this?

 

[yle]

Nobody was using tables anymore...

Why noting that tables are rarely used and computers are commonplace would disparage someone who is in that minority that uses tables a complete mystery to me.

All right... first, you do realize that my suggestion that you were disparaging people that use dive tables was sarcasm... right? Ummm... let me see if I can explain it.

I felt you were being overly sensitive to my original explanation of why the 60 ft limit is part of the OW course. (Full disclosure: I still am pretty sure it has to do with NDL training, that NDL monitoring is typically not essential for dives shallower than 60 ft. The OW course standards support this.)

You accused me of "disparaging" PADI and that it was a violation of my professional standards (hey now... them's fightin' words!)

I felt I did no such thing, and asked you for the statement I made that you thought was disparaging. You declined to provide an answer.

But instead you suggested that "Nobody was using tables anymore...", so I took the opportunity to have a little fun and illustrate how sometimes the simple things we say can unintentionally offend people because of how they interpret it.

And that's why I suggested that you disparaged all table users by claiming NOBODY was using tables anymore. In essence, you were calling those table-using divers "nobodies", which is very insensitive because... they are real divers! They are SOMEBODY!

Anyway. If I've offended you by all this, I'll meet you halfway and apologize. You can meet me halfway by not being so sensitive that you misinterpret someone's statements in a way that offends you. And then everyone will be better off for it.

 

[tursiops]

@yle You were way off base in your post, and even worse in your attempted defense of it.
You did NOT present it as speculation, and some of the dots you boldly connect are fuzzy at best. You wrote it as fact, and defend it as a conspiracy theorist would...."Some of it is true, so you can't say the post is false."
BoulderJohn doesn't use tables; many do. Chill.

 

[yle]

@yle You were way off base in your post, and even worse in your attempted defense of it.
You did NOT present it as speculation, and some of the dots you boldly connect are fuzzy at best. You wrote it as fact, and defend it as a conspiracy theorist would...."Some of it is true, so you can't say the post is false."
BoulderJohn doesn't use tables; many do. Chill.

Fair enough. I do appreciate your assessment, and I do apologize if my post came across as if I was presenting every detail as factual. I know that I don't have any knowledge of what goes on at PADI headquarters, but others reading the post don't know that. Lesson learned, thank you.

 

[tursiops]

Thanks. You are an asset on SB; we all cross a line (sometimes we didn't even know it was there) now and then.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

The industry's shift away from tables to dive computers (and SDI was the first) is simply practical. The retention of knowledge for anything does degrade over time. Well designed dive computers have a good indicator of remaining NDL which is straight forward, either through a color coded bar, time values, or whatever (please I do not want to argue about "but this dive computer is confusing....").

Given that the bulk of the market is vacation divers who basically follow a dive guide around, is this bare minimum sufficient to keep divers safe from suffering DCS? I would suspect yes.