drrich2
Contributor
On the question of whether the agency matters much (in this case, SEI vs. PADI).
I've been following some discussions of SEI on this forum over the years. I do not hold any certifications with them, so my impressions are what I've gleaned from the forum, and my interpretations of it.
If I understand correctly, SEI came about at least in part because there were a number of instructors who believed modern recreational scuba instruction (particularly at the OW entry level) had been so reduced in efforts to make it accessible & marketable to (and profitable by) a larger portion of the public, that the modern training standards were inadequate.
That doesn't mean that a good instructor couldn't do a good, thorough OW course under one of the mainstream agencies (e.g.: PADI, SSI, NAUI), but rather there was a perception that the mainstream agencies' course requirements and practices enabled a culture where some instructors basically became 'certification machines' - checking off students who rather than master the content simply did each skill, more or less, at least once, and were often marginally competent (if that).
Some believed there ought to be an agency with more thorough course content/higher standards required, and more instructor leeway to add content as deemed appropriate and make it a requirement for certification, and I think to give the instructor the option to withhold the cert. card if he believes the diver isn't competent for it, even if the diver managed to do a series of required skills (the idea that you certify someone as if they'd be buddy diving with your loved one).
Such an agency would then attract like-minded instructors more dedicated to a higher quality of finished product (certified divers).
I may be making major errors here, and I apologize in advance if so.
With all that in mind, I suppose that the agency chosen for a course does make a difference (e.g.: SEI includes some rescue skills in the basic OW course, that PADI doesn't require), all the more so if the compared courses are both taught to agency minimum standards.
The sort of thing gets argued repeatedly on the forum. It's pointed out that some excellent instructors manage to do a fine job under the PADI system. Counterpoint - they're not representative of the 'average' instructor. But a minimum standards marginal instructor could probably do a mediocre job in any agency (at least for awhile). And back & forth it goes.
Richard.
I've been following some discussions of SEI on this forum over the years. I do not hold any certifications with them, so my impressions are what I've gleaned from the forum, and my interpretations of it.
If I understand correctly, SEI came about at least in part because there were a number of instructors who believed modern recreational scuba instruction (particularly at the OW entry level) had been so reduced in efforts to make it accessible & marketable to (and profitable by) a larger portion of the public, that the modern training standards were inadequate.
That doesn't mean that a good instructor couldn't do a good, thorough OW course under one of the mainstream agencies (e.g.: PADI, SSI, NAUI), but rather there was a perception that the mainstream agencies' course requirements and practices enabled a culture where some instructors basically became 'certification machines' - checking off students who rather than master the content simply did each skill, more or less, at least once, and were often marginally competent (if that).
Some believed there ought to be an agency with more thorough course content/higher standards required, and more instructor leeway to add content as deemed appropriate and make it a requirement for certification, and I think to give the instructor the option to withhold the cert. card if he believes the diver isn't competent for it, even if the diver managed to do a series of required skills (the idea that you certify someone as if they'd be buddy diving with your loved one).
Such an agency would then attract like-minded instructors more dedicated to a higher quality of finished product (certified divers).
I may be making major errors here, and I apologize in advance if so.
With all that in mind, I suppose that the agency chosen for a course does make a difference (e.g.: SEI includes some rescue skills in the basic OW course, that PADI doesn't require), all the more so if the compared courses are both taught to agency minimum standards.
The sort of thing gets argued repeatedly on the forum. It's pointed out that some excellent instructors manage to do a fine job under the PADI system. Counterpoint - they're not representative of the 'average' instructor. But a minimum standards marginal instructor could probably do a mediocre job in any agency (at least for awhile). And back & forth it goes.
Richard.
