Tech through PADI or TDI?

[Dan_P]

Are you zeroed in on those two agencies after "scouting the market", or did you land on them due to logistics?
It's fair game in either case, but I would urge to consider accepting a bit of travel time to get the course you want, within reason - regardless which course you decide on.

As for the course itself, I agree with several statements above that it's a good idea to go slow and not focus too much on the plastic cards or increasing limits for the sake of increasing limits.

Finally, I think it's 100% about finding the organization/course you want, and then locate an instructor who can do it, but that's just my take on it
In my view, if you're lucky and end up with an instructor who ascertains a high level of training - bene! And hats off to those instructors.
But if a training organization can't ascertain a high level of training regardless of instructor, then that's something I'd definitely take into consideration.
It's the instructor's job to meet or exceed standards, and it's the agency's job to set proper standards that, if followed to the letter, assure a high and relevant level of training.

If I go to 10 McDonald's "restaurants" for a milkshake and in 9 of them, it's not good, I won't be impressed because in the 10th, it's really good due to the staff taking it upon themselves to change the recipe.
I'll either go to Burger King, or ditch junk food altogether.

 

[TrimixToo]

As long as we're on the topic of instructors, consider that you need not use the same one throughout technical training and there are pros and cons to using one vs. more than one. For me, starting with one and finishing with another happened accidentally because the instructor I started with could not teach more advanced classes. It was one of the best accidents ever. The second instructor's approach was very different, but both of them were excellent. I learned more as a consequence than I likely could have learned from either one alone.

Just something else to stir the pot with.

 

[Schwob]

Good thread. One of probably many on the topic. Somebody linked to some of them above. It is confusing that there are different agencies teaching the same stuff (in the end, diving is diving), coloured and stepped slightly differently. I have no idea, even after reading this and other threads on how to think on the different coloring and stepping stone sizes and differences. It sure would be nice if say one agency had instructors twice as good as the other because they have more rigerous demands on them, but that, reading this and other threads seems to not be the case and that not being the case makes sense of course, because wgy would the agency with all the bad instructors still be around then...
So, the advise them always is to pick the instructor carefully. Probably good advise. This is easier done when willing to travel to a picked instructor or meet at a training site far off... as compared to a limited number of eligible picks around home.
However, travelling to carefully picked instruction can also woefully blow up in your face, as just happened to us with carefully picked OW instrucrion for a very water timid wife. A last minute sickness or other last minute unavailability can really nic the carefully made plans as it (at least for the time window of your travels) eliminates the one thing everything carefully planned hinges on.
Picking an instructor with a matching contingency, seems to be close to impossible (I may be wrong there, enlighten me). That's where one might think the agency or the shop picked could would make a difference. But with aparrently (based on reading here, and I dure also witnessed some in non-tech-context) not so great instructors being well interspersed with good ones in all agencies, one is taught not to think the agency or the shop matters. And of course one could not pick either entity by what say say. Every shop is great if ypu ask them. So references might matter. Those might be hard to get in a new field (e.g. technical diving) if you don't know the good folks doing it, yet wamt to avoid the shop shill who lives for the discounts...

So, from partially related experience:
If you can find an instructor that you end up having reasons to really think will be good and good for you, that works reasonably near where you live, ypu are less dependend on everything falling into place at one time in one place far away.

If you really want to pick "that great instructor far away" it may not hurt to discuss contingencies, e.g
what if I show up that day but you don't and be it for reasons out of your control?
Going with some other local instructor then, who happens to be open with no notice at all could be very defeating the whole point of carefully picking an instructor.
Doing something else during that trip appears to only be an option to those with more vacation time and funds than us. So, tough spot. Happened to us. Just relating this, not to be discouraging, to make the point that:
If you can find the instruction you want near home then that is an argument in favor of doing it near home. It may well nbe an irrelevant argument if you camnot find the instruction you want near home.
.....
A question: So, as tech dive nobody (not a tech diver, just dibbled a little not having the time yet to get serious), it seems that e.g. an agency like GUE is in a way making exactly that point (maybe not directly, but it seems that way, implicitly) that their instructors are in fact better because their standards are so much more rigerous.
But then they belong to those agencies that I would have a harder time finding a choice of instructors near home
... and they belong to those agencies that people here on SB even this thread write things like "won't even get into ..."

So, as much as this maybe opening an however old and however often opened can of worms, what gives? What is one to think of that? Why are they here seemingly excluded from the mix of recommendations?
If one found e.g. a great PADI instructor and a great TDI instructor and a great GUE instructor (and say neither has a great local backup), each selling their own path of how they train so well that it all sounds good, what could be other criteria to consider for making the call? Because it does still seem that one makes sens in deciding for one path (agency) or another even if changing instructors midway for some reason ... or? I mean cutting over to another program with differemtly sized stepping stones would not always be "lossless" or?

I do acknowledge that the OP asked specifically for TDI / PADI differences.

 

[Schwob]

As long as we're on the topic of instructors, consider that you need not use the same one throughout technical training and there are pros and cons to using one vs. more than one. For me, starting with one and finishing with another happened accidentally because the instructor I started with could not teach more advanced classes. It was one of the best accidents ever. The second instructor's approach was very different, but both of them were excellent. I learned more as a consequence than I likely could have learned from either one alone.

Just something else to stir the pot with.

In your case, were the differing instructors batting for the same agency or different ones? If the latter, how does, did that work?

 

[Diver0001]

But if a training organization can't ascertain a high level of training regardless of instructor, then that's something I'd definitely take into consideration.

I don't think any agency currently achieves this. The reason is because standards usually are not the problem. You are right to point out that an instructor *should* meet standards but standards, with the exception of a very small number of skills, only dictate WHAT the instructor should do, but not HOW. I'm sure you know this.

This is done deliberately for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to allow for some creativity by the instructor who is confronted with a student who doesn't "learn" a skill using the most obvious method.

Furthermore, standards are little more than a check list. I pick an example that everyone can relate to, in the Open Water course the student has to learn to clear a partially flooded mask. The instructor is not required to do that in a particular way. There are, indeed, several common ways to teach that skill. Some instructors have the student on the knees and tilting back while pulling the bottom of the mask off of the face, other instructors have the student in a fin-pivot and require the mask to be left on the face and only held against the forehead by pressing on the frame.... and maybe some require the student to be swimming or hovering in the process ... etc. . I've seen variations of the skill in the past that I found very .... interesting... interesting in the sense that you wouldn't normally do that but somehow the instructor came up with that idea because that particular student wasn't learning it otherwise.

The point is that all of the instructors in my example above have met standards. Meeting standards is not a good measure of quality of training. It's the measure of completeness of training.

All agencies have this problem. For example, I've dived in the past with an IANTD instructor who would not meet my personal expectations of a buddy. He's unpredictable under water and communicates badly. As his buddy I would feel a need to supervise him. I've written before about an abysmally bad GUE instructor I witnessed while teaching fundamentals. As a diver his personal skills were very impressive but as a teacher he was utterly clueless and had no chance of transferring his skills or knowledge to his students with any kind of efficiency. All of his students "failed" that fundies course but it wasn't because they were bad students.... and I'm quite sure that he was proud of his "failure rate".

Likewise, I have another buddy, a PADI diver (AI) with IANTD technical training who is among the most sorted scuba divers I have ever met. He's not even an instructor but when he assists me with courses he has such a way with people that he can explain something once and make it absolutely clear. His efficiency with knowledge transfer is outstanding.

All of these people are trained and/or teach by different agencies to different "standards" (different check lists). What makes the difference to how they are as divers is the same thing that makes the difference to how people are in every aspect of life. One guy doesn't communicate well. At his day-job he very likely ALSO has communication problems with his colleagues.... Another one is arrogant and proud of his "failure" rate when what he should be shooting for is pride in his success rate. I'm sure in his day-job his employer hates that about him. The third is an outstanding teacher even though he isn't formally a teacher.... I'm sure he's like this at his day-job too...

Getting the picture?

Another way of looking at it is this: In my day job I have a lot of contact with people who all have a BSc or an MSc in technical trades like computer science and engineering. They all come from different universities (different standards) but their performance at work has about 10% to do with their training, 80% to do with their personality and another 10% to do with their life-style habits. When I choose a team, do you think I spend a whole lot of time on their papers? No. I get to know them, but just like our instructors in the above example HOW they do things is much more important to me than WHAT they do.

So, for the same reason I would not categorically say that a person with an MSc from a given university is "better" for my team than someone who attended elsewhere, I think it is equally ridiculous -- because like it or not diving is *people work* just like anything else you do with people -- to assert that an instructor from a given agency is *better* than another due simply to their agency affiliation. The idea, to me, is absurd.

R..

 

[Schwob]

I don't think any agency currently achieves this. The reason is because standards usually are not the problem. You are right to point out that an instructor *should* meet standards but standards, with the exception of a very small number of skills, only dictate WHAT the instructor should do, but not HOW. I'm sure you know this.

This is done deliberately for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to allow for some creativity by the instructor who is confronted with a student who doesn't "learn" a skill using the most obvious method.

Furthermore, standards are little more than a check list. I pick an example that everyone can relate to, in the Open Water course the student has to learn to clear a partially flooded mask. The instructor is not required to do that in a particular way. There are, indeed, several common ways to teach that skill. Some instructors have the student on the knees and tilting back while pulling the bottom of the mask off of the face, other instructors have the student in a fin-pivot and require the mask to be left on the face and only held against the forehead by pressing on the frame.... and maybe some require the student to be swimming or hovering in the process ... etc. . I've seen variations of the skill in the past that I found very .... interesting... interesting in the sense that you wouldn't normally do that but somehow the instructor came up with that idea because that particular student wasn't learning it otherwise.

The point is that all of the instructors in my example above have met standards. Meeting standards is not a good measure of quality of training. It's the measure of completeness of training.

All agencies have this problem. For example, I've dived in the past with an IANTD instructor who would not meet my personal expectations of a buddy. He's unpredictable under water and communicates badly. As his buddy I would feel a need to supervise him. I've written before about an abysmally bad GUE instructor I witnessed while teaching fundamentals. As a diver his personal skills were very impressive but as a teacher he was utterly clueless and had no chance of transferring his skills or knowledge to his students with any kind of efficiency. All of his students "failed" that fundies course but it wasn't because they were bad students.... and I'm quite sure that he was proud of his "failure rate".

Likewise, I have another buddy, a PADI diver (AI) with IANTD technical training who is among the most sorted scuba divers I have ever met. He's not even an instructor but when he assists me with courses he has such a way with people that he can explain something once and make it absolutely clear. His efficiency with knowledge transfer is outstanding.

All of these people are trained and/or teach by different agencies to different "standards" (different check lists). What makes the difference to how they are as divers is the same thing that makes the difference to how people are in every aspect of life. One guy doesn't communicate well. At his day-job he very likely ALSO has communication problems with his colleagues.... Another one is arrogant and proud of his "failure" rate when what he should be shooting for is pride in his success rate. I'm sure in his day-job his employer hates that about him. The third is an outstanding teacher even though he isn't formally a teacher.... I'm sure he's like this at his day-job too...

Getting the picture?

Another way of looking at it is this: In my day job I have a lot of contact with people who all have a BSc or an MSc in technical trades like computer science and engineering. They all come from different universities (different standards) but their performance at work has about 10% to do with their training, 80% to do with their personality and another 10% to do with their life-style habits. When I choose a team, do you think I spend a whole lot of time on their papers? No. I get to know them, but just like our instructors in the above example HOW they do things is much more important to me than WHAT they do.

So, for the same reason I would not categorically say that a person with an MSc from a given university is "better" for my team than someone who attended elsewhere, I think it is equally ridiculous -- because like it or not diving is *people work* just like anything else you do with people -- to assert that an instructor from a given agency is *better* than another due simply to their agency affiliation. The idea, to me, is absurd.

R..

You made some very good points and you explained them well. Thank you.

Analogous:
The employers that hired these people came to find out about certain strength and flaws in time that they may not have seen at the time of hire. And this despite a careful selection and interviewing process, despite the employer having the subject matter expertise and "job candidate judging" expertise.

In contrast a prospective training customer, selecting his her next instructor has a harder job in that respect. The instructor likely has more expertise and likely knows very well how to say the tight things to wuestions asked, with most of those answers having likely very little bearing on how well the instructor actually instructs.

I just find the advice to find the right instructor both:
- incredibly good and true advice and
- incredibly hard to do, because you really only know after actually having done training with an instructor.

This is not a critique or such, your post was most excellent. I am just expressing that from outside the teaching organisation, by filtering through the sales focussed talk, determining who is a good instructor and who maybe, while an excellent diver, is not ... that's just hard to do. I don't know how to really. I sure can tell after half an hour of instruction if I like it or if I think it's lacking... but then it's a little late...

So, how to know which instructor one will come away from thinking this was a great and effective learning experience and I actually learned a lot.... before having "experienced" him / her?

 

[Diver0001]

I just find the advice to find the right instructor both:
- incredibly good and true advice and
- incredibly hard to do, because you really only know after actually having done training with an instructor.

I think you nailed it right there. As an instructor with 33 years of diving experience and 15 years of industry experience I'm able to assess the instructing skills of colleagues fairly accurately. Students are usually not in that position so the question is what to do?

A couple of years ago I was in that position in a different context. I wanted to do a large scale renovation of my house and I needed to hire a contractor that could do it to my expectations. I knew my expectations but I was absolutely clueless as to the skills required to get the job done.

I talked to a dozen different contractors. They all had different ideas (different standards) and they were all convinced that *their* way was the best way. Some had a good line. Some were arrogant with me. Some listened well, some talked a lot and everything in between.....

After that process I was left confused to the point that I started doubting if I wanted to renovate my house at all.....

After talking to my wife it was clear. The job needed doing and she basically put me in the position of deciding. She said, "you do this all the time at your work. make it happen".

O....K.....

So what I did is eliminate all of the ones whose story, attitude and vision didn't match mine. That left me with 4 out of 12. I liked one of them so I gave them a "test job". This was something simple that needed to be done but was unrelated to the renovation...... He ****** it up, I fired him... and then there were 3.....

Eventually I narrowed it down and hired a contractor to do it. The job was done outstandingly well.... but the process to reach that point was difficult.

I imagine that someone wanting scuba training who reads these forums and hears "it's the instructor" is in the same position..... it's easy to understand and VERY hard to execute.

R..

 

[TrimixToo]

In your case, were the differing instructors batting for the same agency or different ones? If the latter, how does, did that work?

They were both TDI/SDI instructors. At least one was also a PADI recreational instructor, but that didn't enter into it.

 

[Schwob]

Yep! All so true... and of course, you sunk a lot of time and work into determining what is right for you gor a big job for the place you live in, like for your life...
You sure did well.

How much of that can one do for selecting someone to spend very few actual hours UW with...

The test job thing, that is one, that applies a little and it seems like that would favor the training split up in more little tidbits... Then one could maybe change instructors if one stays in that program...and gets the benefit one can get from multiple instructors... maybe.

In reality, how does one change instructors within a shop (#1 do they have several tech instructors for the same program? #2 stepping on toes and egos of the very people you yet may spend time UW with)?
Or one has to be geographically rather flexible...... or?

And:

After talking to my wife it was clear. The job needed doing

...we all understand... it happens...

 

[Schwob]

They were both TDI/SDI instructors. At least one was also a PADI recreational instructor, but that didn't enter into it.

Same shop or different shop?
Asking, because if same shop, how does that work instructor changing?
You know in terms of
"Your training is really great, it's not you, but I do want to try the other guy now"
never sounding that good, no matter how put...