A ScubaBoard Staff Message...
Carolyn:shark2:
Moderator
Last edited:
Philosophy split discussion
- Thread starter LIVES4SHARKS
- 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
Carolyn:shark2:
Moderator
To my surprise, it would appear that the thread has been divided. A new thread entitled: In-depth Discussion of the Pros and Cons of PADI has emerged under the Whine and Cheese section.
I don't know why every time anyone points out a truthful observation about any diver certification organization, that SB Staff automatically jumps to the conclusion that they are Bashing or Whining! Could it not simply be that the person is reporting facts that are worthy of discussion??
I hope that the Moderator who has created this new thread has the foresight to write the first post. Currently, my post is the first one in the In-depth Discussion of the Pros and Cons of PADI. One in-which I did NOT create.
I did however create this thread; as there are factual differences in the training philosophy of PADI and the other training organizations. One of the main difference I see, is the degree an instructor may act as an educator. I would ask that the reader attempt to look at the discussion from an organizational perspective. It has never been my intent to demean any instructor regardless of their certification affiliation. The individual instructor is not the certification organization, so I'd appreciate it if we could focus on the latter.
1. PADI certification requires the instructor to teach to its minimum standards (minimum from the sense of no more than these). The agency does not encourage the instructor to teach anything beyond these minimum standards. The instructor may not test on anything beyond the minimums and the minimums are the only criteria for certification. Once met, the student must be certified.
Advantage: The training course is universal. The same course is presented in all geographic areas worldwide. This allows precise quality control.
Disadvantage: What is required to train a diver is not the same in all locations. Any program designed for warm water omits other requirements.
Other agencies recognize that the instructor's knowledge of the local diving conditions is a valuable resource. Instructors are encouraged to train above the minimum requirement and must ensure that the diver has the necessary skill-sets to dive with a Buddy independently from a DM or Instructor in these local conditions. The onus is not on the organization, rather the instructor to decide when the student should be certified. This is a distinct difference to the PADI training philosophy.
Advantage: Divers are trained to dive safely in the local environment.
Disadvantage: As local environments vary, QA is more difficult to assess. Training requirements are more extensive, which affect the profit margins of those trying to be cost-competitive with PADI shops.
2. The PADI training philosophy is modular in a slightly different way to the other organizations. Using rescue as an example, this is purposely omitted from initial training requiring the diver to take advanced and rescue courses before this is taught.
Advantage: This encourages the diver to seek further training, as his knowledge is insufficient to maintain diver safety. The advantage lies in marketing; additional training programs may be sold. This is advantageous from a business perspective as it increases potential sales.
Program duration is shorted, allowing PADI to market a course for less, or at the same cost as the competition. This increases the individual course profit margin. In other words it costs less to provide 20 hours of training than it does 30 or 40 hours of training.
Disadvantage: The PADI OW diver dives with minimal training. S/he is not in a position to adequately perform the role of a Buddy (the rescue of the buddy, if this is required).
I don't know why every time anyone points out a truthful observation about any diver certification organization, that SB Staff automatically jumps to the conclusion that they are Bashing or Whining! Could it not simply be that the person is reporting facts that are worthy of discussion??
I hope that the Moderator who has created this new thread has the foresight to write the first post. Currently, my post is the first one in the In-depth Discussion of the Pros and Cons of PADI. One in-which I did NOT create.
I did however create this thread; as there are factual differences in the training philosophy of PADI and the other training organizations. One of the main difference I see, is the degree an instructor may act as an educator. I would ask that the reader attempt to look at the discussion from an organizational perspective. It has never been my intent to demean any instructor regardless of their certification affiliation. The individual instructor is not the certification organization, so I'd appreciate it if we could focus on the latter.
1. PADI certification requires the instructor to teach to its minimum standards (minimum from the sense of no more than these). The agency does not encourage the instructor to teach anything beyond these minimum standards. The instructor may not test on anything beyond the minimums and the minimums are the only criteria for certification. Once met, the student must be certified.
Advantage: The training course is universal. The same course is presented in all geographic areas worldwide. This allows precise quality control.
Disadvantage: What is required to train a diver is not the same in all locations. Any program designed for warm water omits other requirements.
Other agencies recognize that the instructor's knowledge of the local diving conditions is a valuable resource. Instructors are encouraged to train above the minimum requirement and must ensure that the diver has the necessary skill-sets to dive with a Buddy independently from a DM or Instructor in these local conditions. The onus is not on the organization, rather the instructor to decide when the student should be certified. This is a distinct difference to the PADI training philosophy.
Advantage: Divers are trained to dive safely in the local environment.
Disadvantage: As local environments vary, QA is more difficult to assess. Training requirements are more extensive, which affect the profit margins of those trying to be cost-competitive with PADI shops.
2. The PADI training philosophy is modular in a slightly different way to the other organizations. Using rescue as an example, this is purposely omitted from initial training requiring the diver to take advanced and rescue courses before this is taught.
Advantage: This encourages the diver to seek further training, as his knowledge is insufficient to maintain diver safety. The advantage lies in marketing; additional training programs may be sold. This is advantageous from a business perspective as it increases potential sales.
Program duration is shorted, allowing PADI to market a course for less, or at the same cost as the competition. This increases the individual course profit margin. In other words it costs less to provide 20 hours of training than it does 30 or 40 hours of training.
Disadvantage: The PADI OW diver dives with minimal training. S/he is not in a position to adequately perform the role of a Buddy (the rescue of the buddy, if this is required).
When will this new thread be opened? Someone has said something about me in a post that has been moved to this new thread and I would like to be able to depend myself.
Also, why is the new thread in Whine and Cheese? It clearly belongs in Basic Scuba Discussions.
- Messages
- 93,359
- Reaction score
- 91,525
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
I still don't understand why the thread was split, "The philospophy of dive training" seemed to encompass everything that was being discussed. I find this all quite confusing and now you have references between threads and none of it makes sense. This was not a PADI bashing thread more a comparison of agencies. Could it be that people on the PADI side are just too defensive about critism? When King starts picking on SEI will we need to peel off again or is that just acceptable? Also as Walter already raised the question why in Whine and Cheese, this once again reduces the thread to "whining" rather than discussion
It amuses me that people talk about standards violations all the time on the board, but forget that representing the agency/agencies you belong to in a professional manner is part of the standards.
Moving a thread to Whine and Cheese, because you think its bashing your agency, is unprofessional and not very good representation of your agency.
What are new divers to think of an Agency that has such hypersensitive representitives?
Moving a thread to Whine and Cheese, because you think its bashing your agency, is unprofessional and not very good representation of your agency.
What are new divers to think of an Agency that has such hypersensitive representitives?
Last edited:
TechBlue:
Also many of the mosts in the new thread have nothing to do with the pros and cons of PADI.
I think if the Moderators keep the focus on "the training philosophies of each organization," we can compare them and better understand what the differences are. I too find it confusing and see no reason to split the thread.
I believe that this thread hits on a critical topic for every diver to comprehend. I for one wanted a good understanding of why something was included (or wasn't) in the training program I was teaching (or being taught) and what elements were deficient and needing improvement.
I understand why Instructors teach past the minimum standards with organizations like ACUC, CMAS, NAUI and IDEA. Even as a PADI Instructor, I didn't just want to include the minimum requirements. Certainly in cold-water, the minimums just don't seem to be enough for me. What's confusing, is PADI prohibits testing on anything outside the minimum? I've known several PADI instructors that try to do more, but they are head butting PADI by doing so (whether they realize it or not).
Many will say that I'm allowed to embellish on the minimum standards, but where the argument falls flat is that PADI prohibits them from testing on anything other than the minimum. This doesn't give any credit to the extra valuable knowledge that these instructors pass on to the student. The benefit to the student is because of the instructor and in-spite of the PADI training philosophy.
As I've noted, there's an advantage from a business perspective, following the PADI philosophy. This definitely puts pressure on the other agencies to be competitive in such an environment. Agency philosophy does have a direct impact on the competence level of the divers that are being certified by each agency. I cannot help but feel that this will have a larger impact on the industry, than is currently recognized.
It's a also a crock that one cannot even post in the split thread if we even wanted to. What this has done is cheapened the entire discussion. There are statements and observations made that propose to reflect my sentiments that do not. TAWNMNBM is really not relevant to my feelings on this issue. It is merely an example that was used to illustrate differences in philosophy that are purported to not exist at the OW level when in fact they do.
If these differences did not exist there would be no need to defend or point them out. This move was IMO childish and totally uncalled for. No one was being personally attacked and we are all big boys and girls who saw that and were having a healthy, reasonable, and from what I could see factual discussion of the issues raised.
And frankly I did not see where King was picking on SEI or me for that matter. In some PM's we had a nice civil exchange and he showed an honest desire to really inform himself. We could have had the same discussion in person and I think really enjoyed ourselves. As could everyone who participated in the thread.
It would have been lively yes but we'd have all gone home unbruised, unhurt, and perhaps with a greater understanding of each other and our views. Who knows we also might have found things we could have used in our classes to benefit our students.
Isn't that the ultimate goal?
If these differences did not exist there would be no need to defend or point them out. This move was IMO childish and totally uncalled for. No one was being personally attacked and we are all big boys and girls who saw that and were having a healthy, reasonable, and from what I could see factual discussion of the issues raised.
And frankly I did not see where King was picking on SEI or me for that matter. In some PM's we had a nice civil exchange and he showed an honest desire to really inform himself. We could have had the same discussion in person and I think really enjoyed ourselves. As could everyone who participated in the thread.
It would have been lively yes but we'd have all gone home unbruised, unhurt, and perhaps with a greater understanding of each other and our views. Who knows we also might have found things we could have used in our classes to benefit our students.
Isn't that the ultimate goal?
Jim, the reference to King was in jest, I too have enjoyed my discussions with him.
Similar threads
