Recreational agency standards: Ranking and why?

[drbill]

As has been suggested, much of this is dependent on the individual instructor's ability (as long as the agency standards aren't too far apart). We all love to bash PADSI, yet I've had two excellent instructors associated with that agency. Of course they had great material to work with (tee hee).

 

[DaleC]

I think part of the origins of this discussion revolves around the fact that there should be more than those two concerns that a potential diver should have. Being in a university setting that offers scuba diving is a matter of convenience and possibly value if the course is offered at a price that is cheaper than what is available out side of the institution.

For those outside of such a setting, the concerns should be greater. If your only concerns are value and convenience then you may get the easiest and cheapest product on the market. If that is your desire then there seems to be no shortage of such programs. Other considerations may/should include competence, quality (talks with former students or staff), depth of study, goals of the program offered, etc. Part of the problem IMO of this consumer driven market place is that cheap and easy is not always the best way to go when selecting a diving program/Instructor. Works great for disposable pens, not so great when you are faced with a diving challenge for which you are ill prepared.

The dive community leadership is expected, and rightly so, to establish not only a level of professionalism but also educational levels for students to aspire. If the bar is set too low then you produce divers that are ill prepared to function independent of their Instructor. If the bar is set too high then you may not produce many divers at all. When we talk about ranking agencies it is difficult to compare all aspects in an apples to apples fashion. If however we can select the lowest common denominator that can be improved upon across all agencies, the lowest bar can be elevated. With the hope of producing a better final product.

To the point that I quoted :

I would suggest that future divers explore a bit more when selecting a dive program beyond value and convenience. You take your life in your hands when you submerge underwater. Your dive education should be the last thing that you obtained that was cheap and easy.

Interesting points that in retrospect are valid but The non diver would not have an avenue to hear your cautions.They also have no experience with which to evaluate. I think it is a bit much to believe that the average non diver can discern between varying agencies. If you had said agency X teaches CESA's and agency Y does not, I would have said "what's a CESA". By the time I had the criterion to differenciate between training regimes I would have taken the course.

This brings up some points however.

Perhaps criticism occurs in divers who remain in SCUBA for more than a year (I am thinking of the high drop out rate within that time frame). Those that remain are probably commited to the sport, diving without DM's and at the same time beginning to gain experience with other agencies/training regimes. They also may be beginning to see the holes in their initial training. Of course there are holes and in the old days a diver would be told to suck it up but (perhaps) modern agencies promise "too much" and consumer expectations are different as a result.

Does the push to mass market SCUBA draw a customer base where price and convenience (market forces) drives curriculum (I know one agency that does not mass market). Their curriculum and standards can be higher because they are only targeting that segment of the market that wants higher standards. They pay a price for this though in reduce potential sales. Can an agency that "wallmarts" (not meant as a negative word) diver education complain when they draw criticism. Corporations like Wallmart and McDonalds draw negative reactions all the time (some warrented, some not). It's the nature of the beast. An agency with higher standards stands the risk of being called elitist (which in fact one does).

The above are just offered as discussion points. I for one have said a number of times that I got what I needed from my OW/AOW course/agency. It got me in the water and diving. That doesn't stop me from noticing ways in which that class could have been improved or that emphasis could have been stressed in different areas. If memory serves me I was given such a sheet to fill out after the class (evaluation form).

I could write more but work calls
Regards,
Dale.

 

[ScubaDocER]

Interesting points that in retrospect are valid but The non diver would not have an avenue to hear your cautions.They also have no experience with which to evaluate. I think it is a bit much to believe that the average non diver can discern between varying agencies. If you had said agency X teaches CESA's and agency Y does not, I would have said "what's a CESA". By the time I had the criterion to differenciate between training regimes I would have taken the course.

Points well taken. I believe that the agencies, especially those that profess "dive safety through education" should market themselves as such to help differentiate themselves from those that they feel do not. You are right that the non diver has very little to draw upon in terms of knowledge of agency X vs Y. Part of that IMO is due to the agencies not choosing to educate the "customer" on what is of value in their diving experiences and how they can meet those needs. They market gear, more classes, becoming dive professionals without marketing as heavily the reliance on education, the importance of core diving skills, and the need for continued diving experience with appropriate mentors or dive professionals to improve their basic diving skills. Many feel statements such as this means that everyone who enters diving must become a die hard diver. That is not what I am suggesting. On the contrary, I believe those concepts are of value to every diver, regardless of how far they chose to progress in the sport. One of the things I give GUE credit for is that they identified themselves as a dive training organization and set forth to do just that. They marketed themselves as such and have a reputation of producing competent divers. I have yet to see a GUE trained diver, myself included, complain that they were not educated or did not feel more competent as a result of their training. Even if they failed the course!! While I am not advocating agencies duplicate themselves in the GUE image, I would suggest taking a page out of that playbook. It is possible to be a dive training agency and produce competent divers if you market yourself as such AND follow through on that claim.

This brings up some points however.
They also may be beginning to see the holes in their initial training. Of course there are holes and in the old days a diver would be told to suck it up but (perhaps) modern agencies promise "too much" and consumer expectations are different as a result.

I think the flaw is that agencies do not tell divers enough of what they need to know during their training. When they do realize the holes in their training, they are often frustrated and some feel cheated. Others will just "suck it up" and move forward from there. The burden should be on the agency to get it right the first time and not hope that the diver picks it up somewhere down the road or leave it for another class. I think an agency can help define a students expectations. Again I use GUE as an example. My Cave 2 class was very specific in what I should be expected to know, accomplish, and demonstrate by the time I finished the course. This concept can certainly be applied to any diving course. List your expectations. List what you feel a diver should know and be able to complete at the end of their training. Ask prospective students to read that list and attempt to absorb it BEFORE you take their money for the course. You will have an educated consumer who can compare what you have to what the competition offers and make an informed decision. It's not complicated. Probably not financially savvy if you are motivated to make a quick buck from anyone who walks in the door though.

Does the push to mass market SCUBA draw a customer base where price and convenience (market forces) drives curriculum (I know one agency that does not mass market). Their curriculum and standards can be higher because they are only targeting that segment of the market that wants higher standards. They pay a price for this though in reduce potential sales. Can an agency that "wallmarts" (not meant as a negative word) diver education complain when they draw criticism. Corporations like Wallmart and McDonalds draw negative reactions all the time (some warrented, some not). It's the nature of the beast. An agency with higher standards stands the risk of being called elitist (which in fact one does).

I guess I would not have a problem with an agency "walmarting" themselves to the public as long as they are honest about it. McDonalds does not market itself as healthy or "gourmet" or even a preferred food to eat. The market themselves as fast, cheap and convenient. If you're hungry, and it's 2 AM, and you're too lazy to cook, then they're there for you!!! If an agency were being honest by stating as such then I would not have any problem with them existing and finding a place in the complex diving market. A perception of being elitist is a marketing problem. It's in how you present your product. Do it right, and the perception will be not one of elitism, but just being a better product for the discerning customer. And when it comes to diving education, every diver should be discerning.

 

[Walter]

You are right that the non diver has very little to draw upon in terms of knowledge of agency X vs Y. Part of that IMO is due to the agencies not choosing to educate the "customer" on what is of value in their diving experiences and how they can meet those needs.

Most non-divers aren't aware that there are agencies. Those that do know there are choices usually have no idea there are differences. When they ask, they are told the biggest lie in diving today - "it's the instructor, not the agency."

 

[caver]

Can you rank agencies from highest to lowest?

As far as standards adopted by agencies.
For openwater recreational divers SEI is the highest, PADI is the lowest.
Everyone else is somewhere in between.

 

[schaffld]

Why not? I'll jump in here.

The result of all this inter-agency bashing could inevitably inflict a lot of damage on the entire scuba industry. We, the diving community, are essentially policing ourselves when it comes to training and educating safe, responsible, and competent divers. I dread the possibility of the non-diving public tuning in to this internal squabbling and concluding that scuba diving is in a state of chaos and in need of regulation in the name of public safety. Yes, this means government(s) stepping in and potentially creating some kind of uber-agency to dictate all the how, where, when, what, and who of diving. Can we at least agree that this scenario is not the one we want? We would only have ourselves to blame should it occur.

Food for thought... Let's begin with a common and mutual respect for each other irrespective of training agency, location, number of logged dives, etc. We have all worked hard to reach the point where we are at this moment; whether we are newly certified OW divers or seasoned veterans with thousands of logged dives.

Any one of us, regardless of our training agency, can very easily recognize and give credit to the accomplishments of another agency after we shed ourselves of biases, prejudices, ignorance, or simple delusions of grandeur. We can also acknowledge short-comings within any one agency and work collaboratively to improve standards and procedures which will benefit scuba diving as a whole. No one agency should be immune to constructive criticism simply because of a collective heir of superiority within its membership. Of course, there will be differences of opinions, but these disagreements should be seen as positive contributing factors rather than inhibiting us from improving ourselves. Although methods might differ between agencies, the ultimate goal for all of us is essentially the same; promoting safe, responsible, and competent diving, as well as protection and preservation of the environment in and around which we dive.

When I read what I have just written, the cynic in me recognizes the naivity and idealism of it all. Nevertheless, there is no harm in setting the bar that high for those of us who want to see scuba evolve into the fulfilling profession, hobby, activity, or pastime it has the potential to become. The agency bashers will continue their rants, but eventually, I hope, their voices will be ignored to point of oblivion.

I'm a PADI Divemaster and I can't wait until my next dive trip in December when I can hit the water with my BSAC and NAUI buddies...

 

[AndyNZ]

McDonalds does not market itself as healthy or "gourmet" or even a preferred food to eat.

Bear with me on this one..... but in McD's does market itself like this - in New Zealand at least. For the last 2-3 years at least, TV adverts have had a growing focus on "the healthy option", claims that you can go to McD's and have a meal with less than 2g of fat (a salad, but you have to leave the dressing off) and of course the sheer genius of the McCafe.... gourmet food and fine espresso coffee, whilst the kids have their happy meal.

From this, I take two things:

1. Regionalisation is important, as much as standardisation.... if you walk into McD's here, you'll still get a big mac (stable brand image) plus regional variation driven by listening to the consumer

2. Big organisations that we feel don't listen to the consumer.... well maybe they do?


Despite this thread being about all agencies, I will limit myself to PADI.... PADI standards are the big mac. Where ever you walk into a PADI dive centre, you should have the expectation of always being able to find the big mac (and clean toilets, if you're in SE Asia - very useful!). But the salads and wraps should be unique to that environment. There should be more than just the big mac. It is up to the individual dive centres to work out what they want to put on the menu that extend the core brand image.

Maybe I'm stretching the analogy too far here!?

But if consumers educate themselves (about dive training, about healthier meal options...) then they will create a culture of change, even in the largest organisations.

 

[DCBC]

I recently asked the question "How happy are you with today's level of Diver Education?" This was not agency specific. The majority of the respondents did not feel that the training given was adequate for a diver to dive safely with a buddy, without the supervision of a DM or Instructor.

I don't know what everybody thinks of this, but we're kidding ourselves to think that we don't have a problem here...

 

[AndyNZ]

I don't know what everybody thinks of this, but we're kidding ourselves to think that we don't have a problem here...

Be as it may, we can talk about the "problem" as much as we like..... but what is the solution?

I agree there is a problem, I'm perhaps in a different place from you as to the magnitude of the problem. Introducing 100hr courses as an industry standard will just kill the dive industry dead.

I don't think there is a quick fix. Those of us who as involved in both diver training and instructor training need to just chip away. We need to influence new divers to take some ownership of their training and make informed choices. As divers become more experienced, we need to encourage them to think outside a single agency, do different things, be excited about their diving.

For professional level candidates, we need to instill a culture of thought that doesn't necessarily exist today. We also need to instill a feeling in our DM and instructor candidates that it is not only OK to question, but a good thing to question.

I'm reminded of the "tipping point"... at some stage if we keep chipping away, then we will reach the tipping poiint and the "problem" will go away.

 

[cloudswinger]

It usually isn't. I've never trained a science diver. That's about all Thal does train. I don't understand how you got "training science divers" from me saying a person off the street looking to learn how to dive wouldn't care about more than 2 or 3 of the things DCBC listed. Perhaps you can explain.

I was talking about my training. The university offered program I was in was designed to train science divers. Apparently passing the class gave me provisional science diver status, and if I had done something like 12 more dives under supervision of a science diver I would have attained that status. A lot of students took it just for fun, or as PE credit, but I'm sure some were planning careers as marine researchers.