Since when did DM's and instructors become experts of everything.

[grouchyturtle]

No offense to the pros out there, but does being an instructor really certify you as an expert of anything other than teaching people how to dive?

Even some these specialties they keep coming out with. If you're really interested in the experience and the skills, and not just collecting a card. Who are you going to get more out of? An instructor, just because they have a card that says they can teach that course? Or someone who's just another experienced diver, but an expert in what it is you want to learn?

Perfect examples are the photo and video classes. Do you want to learn from an instructor with a camera or a kick ass photographer who's just a diver?

DPV: Instructor or just a cave diver who scooters all the time?

Wreck: An instructor or anyone who dives the NE?

PPB: Learned everything there is to that class just from this board. And my trim and buoyancy are better than some instructors. No ego here. I think I suck. I've just seen plenty of bad so called pros in the water over the years.

I could go on, but the point is. And once again no offense to the truly great instructors out there. You know who you are. It really seems that these days DMs and instructors are made out to be these experts on everything that they really aren't

The latest. There's an ad on here looking for people to write for a website, but you have to be a DM or instructor. WHY? Now being a DM makes you a writer and journalist.

 

[Scott L]

Some instructors are better than others. A lot better...

 

[grouchyturtle]

I realize that. I know a few who are GREAT instructors.

I just find it funny that being one seems to somehow be criteria for or qualify you for everything.

 

[DevonDiver]

I don't believe that instructors/DMs ever did become the experts of everything. Most instructors will admit that they have areas of expertise and, also, areas of ignorance. Even where an instructor is qualified to teach a subject (i.e. wreck speciality), they are not necessarily an 'expert' in that field.

However, instructors are trained how to communicate information...and are more accountable for ensuring safe diving practices are upheld. As such, perhaps the website concerned believed that having a qualified instructor write articles would ensure some issues of liability were covered?? (that's just a speculation). I am not sure where DMs come into the consideration... Perhaps the website owners want the articles written to reflect more focus on scuba instruction, rather than just specialised diivng activities...??

I feel that your concern is justified. Professionals within the diving industry must be cautious to ensure that ego does not drive them into commenting about activities in which they are not experienced. I've seen this a few times.... and is also the reason why I stay well clear of discussions that I am not qualified to comment about (i.e. CCR or Cave).

 

[dpaustex]

Well, you probably have a good point.

But as an instructor (one of those guys that can teach a lot of things), there is actually quite a bit of technical training that goes into being an instructor, be it the basic class, or the advanced. We pretty much know the stuff cold, down to all of the in-depth physics and chemistry gas laws.

But the other stuff? Well, the certifying agencies go to a lot of trouble to develop and implement guidelines and procedures. Your case on photography is a good point. The certifying agencies teach the "weak link" theory, in seeking the lowest common denominator in a class, then going from there. But the classes (photography in this case) does go a lot of the nuts-and-bolts of digital, and not so much into the artistic side (composition and framing). So yes, you can have a good photographer teach you stuff, but it would be more one-on-one. But the whole point of the classes is training on a specific subject matter to make you better in that category. Have the various certifications gone overboard? Perhaps. But the whole idea is to present a uniform teaching methodology to a large segment of the diving population.

As a consumer, it may be annoying to have to pay for something, but the agencies do go to quite a bit of trouble to develop a curriculum, print it, etc. So I guess the cost has to go somewhere.

 

[TMHeimer]

The OP's points are well taken. But you have to take it for what it is. I taught Band at all school levels for many years. I am also a professional clarinetist who began playing in 3rd grade (1963). The student who would take a private lesson from me on clarinet is going to learn a lot more than one who would take a lesson from me on trombone. Though my degrees happen to be in clarinet performance, I also hold teaching certificates (most Band Teachers do not hold perf. degrees on specific instruments). To relate back to SCUBA: My Music Teaching Certs.,(like a SCUBA Instructor's or even DM's) hold quite a bit of weight/status. I was "trusted'--and hired-- because I was a certified educator. My performance degrees on clarinet and extensive playing experience means nothing--other than I'll do a hell of a better job teaching someone clarinet privately than your average school band teacher will. Does a Tech. diver with 1,000 dives know tons more about that area that a new instructor with 100 rec. dives does? Of course. Does the average diver realize this? I think so. I don't think being a scuba instructor, or a band teacher, qualifies you as an expert in any one special area--unless you happen to also be an expert in that area.

 

[grouchyturtle]

I guess also the idea is some of these classes are really meant as just a VERY basic introduction.

What really got me started on this whole thing was that website, though. Based on what they described, and the quick peak I took, there was no reason at all someone needed to be a dive pro to do the job.

Hell, even I got hired at as the scuba expert for North NJ for Examiner.com, and I'm no instructor. Didn't last long due to my travel...er or at least escaping NJ plans, though.

 

[TSandM]

There are two parts to being a good teacher. One is that you have to have good knowledge of your subject, and the other is that you have to be able to convey that information in a way that is useful for your students.

I have taken a lot of instruction over 56 years, in many subjects and activities. I have taken instruction from people who were world-renowned in their fields, who couldn't teach anybody anything if they didn't already have the same world-class talent. I have taken lessons from people who were far less than stellar, but were good TEACHERS -- who could convey information, diagnose and correct deficiencies, and maintain enthusiasm and motivation in their students.

An instructor ought to have the humility not to teach what he doesn't know; my husband, who is actually a pretty darned good underwater photographer, refuses to teach the specialty because we have a friend who is a REALLY good one, and who teaches the class. Peter sends the students who want that training to our friend, because he is both superbly knowledgeable and a good teacher. Anybody teaching ought to have the insight to figure out what they can teach, and what they can't.

 

[PatW]

Sure a tech diver with lots of experience is almost certainly a better tech diver. But would that tech diver be better at teaching a bunch of rookies how to clear their masks than an instructor with 100 recreational dives? It is quite possible that a diver of limited experience would be a superb instructor of elementary skills. Teaching people how to learn elementary skills is a whole different skill than being expert at something.

 

[Walter]

Some agencies have Assistant Instructors they call Dive Masters. Perhaps I should say they use Dive Masters as Assistant Instructors, not as Dive Masters. A true Dive Master may or may not be an Instructor or an Assistant Instructor, but teaching has nothing to do with the job of being a Dive Master. A Dive Master is in charge of groups, is responsible for dive safety, but is not a tour guide nor a teacher. Dive Masters rig lines, set limits (but individual divers plan their dives within those limits), and evaluate site conditions (current, weather, etc.). They do not always make the dive, they are often required to stay on board. Dive Masters must be experts in general diving.

does being an instructor really certify you as an expert of anything other than teaching people how to dive?

All to often, not even in that. Some instructors don't really know how to teach, they can plug in a DVD, they can follow directions someone else wrote for them to follow, but think there's only one way to do things.

On the other hand, there are excellent instructors who think independently, are not afraid to question methods they've been using and strive to improve their methods.

Perfect examples are the photo and video classes. Do you want to learn from an instructor with a camera or a kick ass photographer who's just a diver?

I choose C. An instructor with a camera is a poor choice because he probably doesn't know the subject. On the other hand, the average kick ass photographer probably hasn't given much thought to how to present the material. He probably doesn't know how to teach. Given the choice of only those two, I'd agree with you because I can learn more from the good photographer, but it will likely take me years to do it. Now if that same photographer knows how to teach and has prepared a photography class, I can likely learn the same amount in a few weeks instead of a few years. I know such an instructor/photographer, someday nI may get around to taking his class.

DPV: Instructor or just a cave diver who scooters all the time?

I honestly don't see the point in such a class from anyone.

Wreck: An instructor or anyone who dives the NE?

I don't care where they dive as long as they are an instructor with a prepared wreck class and have considerable experience in wreck penetration.

PPB

Needing a dedicated buoyancy class is evidence that the initial instructor didn't do his job in the entry level class.