Teach Different. Dive Different.

[lowviz]

Interesting observation.

I saw it as a reasonable way to define themselves, in a very non-specific way, from the masses. But, yes, this could be seen as a problem.

I do like the message and intent, though. I'm hoping that nothing more is needed than a bit of polish on the delivery...

Good call, "Q".

 

[The Chairman]

Some criticisms are fair and I see no problem in contrasting distinct ways of teaching people how to dive. For me, fin pivots are indeed anathema and snorkels are superfluous. Buoyancy is a critical skill from the beginning, and all too often I see the results of it being an after thought in classes or even worse: left to a subsequent specialty. Of course, one can always take offense where none was intended. Look at the name DIR. How many people have taken umbrage over a simple name because of a differing philosophy? It's no wonder that some will bristle when the distinction is made. Fortunately, NASE hasn't made the mistake of calling those who disagree with them names, like "stroke". Personally, I like NASE's approach and I am glad that they define competency in the same manner I do.

 

[lowviz]

So it could be said that SB is a good place to adjust one's marketing approach before "going public"?

 

[Quero]

Ah, but Pete, the issue for me is that the blurb doesn't serve to define NASE in terms of what they see as competency. It defines NASE in terms of what they see as somebody else's incompetency. The agency should define themselves by WHAT THEY ARE in terms of excellence rather than outlining what others are not in terms of lack of excellence. Note that I'm not saying anything at all about the actual training, standards, techniques, etc., which, as I've said, I endorse; I'm talking only about the way the blurb is worded. It's like one politician being asked why voters should cast their ballots for him, and he answers, "because I'm not the other guy."

 

[The Chairman]

Yeah, I still think the comparisons are valid and that NASE HQ defines NASE in a very positive light. After all, it appears that these are the very things most of the posters in this thread are looking for in an agency. The real issue for me is that they don't encourage teaching students on their knees. 'Nuff said!

 

[lowviz]

So we can overlook personal bias if we all agree?

 

[BluewaterSail]

I think that the contrast is valuable. Who is going to be reading the description of an Open Water class? Who is going to be asking "Which agency should I go to for my OW class?" Not the average SB diver, but folks that know almost nothing about diving. They are making comparisons and need the information to be able to do that accurately.

One instructor tells them: "Bouyancy is important! We will work on that throughout your course."

The second instructor tells them: "Bouyancy is important! We will work on that throughout your course. In fact we have developed special techniques to assist you in learning: the Buddha hover and the fin pivot."

The potential OW student needs to be able to compare. I think that the material on their website would be very valuable in helping the potential student make an informed decision. I did not find it inappropriate.

It was recent enough that I was an OW student (less than 2 years ago), that I remember how clueless I was. I really wish that I had read something like the NASE website before I made my decision. Something less blunt just would not have helped me to make the right decision.

 

[SeaCobra]

okay, I'll say it - I do not see anything wrong with the initial teaching of a skill, like reg clear or mask clear, while stationary on the bottom. It gives the opportunity for the student to focus only on that skill and get comfortable with it and then quickly progress to mid-water proficiency.

Sorry for the thread hijack. I will be at DEMA and intend to stop by the NASE booth

 

[The Chairman]

okay, I'll say it - I do not see anything wrong with the initial teaching of a skill, like reg clear or mask clear, while stationary on the bottom.

In teaching there is the "Rule of Primacy" and it essentially states that the first way you learn something will almost always be your fallback. While I do initial mask clearing in the kiddie pool, we are still off the bottom when we clear. All other skills, including BCD R&R, are presented and executed mid water. Why? The student never has kneeling on the bottom as a fall back. My students develop an ease at being mid-water from the very beginning of their learning process. Their fall back is to always establish their neutral buoyancy first and THAT solves a number of problems. They are in full control and a lot more relaxed because of it. But hey, NASE may not be for everyone. There are lots of ways to teach diving and staying off your knees is a valid one.

 

[SeaHorse81]

In teaching there is the "Rule of Primacy" and it essentially states that the first way you learn something will almost always be your fallback.

I have to admit, I learned those basic skills on my knees and that's all I saw or was exposed to for a number of years. Now I know better but when I'm uncomfortable, that's what I automatically want to go back to until I catch myself. I fear I will spend the rest of my diving days trying to extinguish this pattern and I think it is truly better to teach people those skills from the very beginning in the ways that the skills will actually be used.