To those considering an OW class...

[MikeFerrara]

If someone isn't competant enough to handle diving in OW after taking OW, then the instructor should have never completed their temporary card... That is on the individual instructor, NOT the agency.

The instructor judges competance based on agency standards. If the student meets those standards, they get the card. If they meet those standards but still aren't competant, it's the agency...NOT the instructor.

Put another way, if an instructor teaches the minimum content required by standards and requires the minimum student proficiency allowed by standards, he/she has fulfilled their obligation...per the agencies standards. You see? That's all the agency is asking of the instructor and the student. If the result isn't good enough, it's all the agency.

We all know that a good instructor can teach a good class. Good agency standards, bad agency standards or none at all...it doesn't matter. The question is, what do we get if the instructor does no more or less than follow standards to the letter? There are lots of shops and instructors who teach just exactly that way. The agency and the agency alone sets those minimums. Take that to its logical conclusion and you get an instructor who was trained to those same minimums and there isn't any reason to believe that they know more or could teach more, even if they wanted to. So, read the training standards for OW, AOW, rescue, DM and IDC/IE. If all those courses are taught to the letter of the standards (minimums) we have a new instructor. But, what kind of instructor do we have? Could they teach above the standards? Why would they? Where would thy have learned all that extra stuff?

Sorry, it all starts with the agency standards. If we don't have quality there, there is absolutely no reason to think that it's going to magically appear from some unknown, unidentified outside source. If the standards are junk, we can pretty much expect nothing but more junk right on down the line.

A simple illustration. Some agency standards don't require a student to spend much course time off the bottom. Go watch an OW class. The students don't spend much time off the bottom. Now go watch those divers on their post-cert dives. Come here and read their comments and questions. The agency is getting exactly what they ask from the instructors. The students are getting exactly what the agency standards say they will get. Are the instructors doing wrong? No, because they are doing exactly what they were taught to do and they're doing it exactly as they are required to do it. Now, if you're happy with the results, then it's all good. If not, then we need to let the agency own their part of it and not let them off the hook by saying that "it's the instructor". It's the agency who defines what the instructor must do. It's the agency who is responsible for teaching the instructor how to do it. It's the agency who is responsible for testing the instructors ability to do it. It's the agency who is responsible for monitoring and controling the quality of the classes that are being taught.

 

[Thalassamania]

The instructor judges competance based on agency standards. If the student meets those standards, they get the card ...

well said.

 

[DeepBound]

Advanced Open Water isn't suppose to make you an advanced diver, only diving can do that, AOW is to ADVANCE you forward a little beyond basic OW

Funny, no one told *me* that before I signed up for the course. Is this actually in some agency literature that you've quoted from?
:shakehead

 

[MSilvia]

Funny, no one told *me* that before I signed up for the course. Is this actually in some agency literature that you've quoted from?
:shakehead

From the official PADI AOW website:

Why Advanced Open Water Diver?
After your five dives, you'll be more experienced, feel more comfortable in the water and simply enjoy diving more because you better understand the underwater environment.

Note that it doesn't say you'll be a proficient diver, an expert, or anything of the sort. It just says you'll be more experienced, more comfortable, and enjoy diving more than before you took the class.

 

[DeepBound]

From the official PADI AOW website:
Why Advanced Open Water Diver?
After your five dives, you'll be more experienced, feel more comfortable in the water and simply enjoy diving more because you better understand the underwater environment.

Note that it doesn't say you'll be a proficient diver, an expert, or anything of the sort. It just says you'll be more experienced, more comfortable, and enjoy diving more than before you took the class.

Yeah, see, they call it advanced and say that you'll be more experienced and comfortable.

 

[rakkis]

The instructor judges competance based on agency standards. If the student meets those standards, they get the card. IF they meet those standards but still aren't competant, it's the agency...NOT the instructor.

(emphasis mine)

I would add the following:

---
IF a student does not meet standards, yet an instructor allows them to continue towards certification, it's the instructor... not the agency
---

I believe this is the core issue in the instructor vs. agency debate. I would agree with the quote above as it is written.

However, the assumption behind it is that a student MET agency standards. Sadly, this doesn't happen as often as it needs to. I have personally seen and heard about many situations in which instructors take shortcuts and allow a student's initial shortcomings to stand as accomplishments and "mastery." If you ask the instructor, they followed standards.

I would be surprised if even the staunchest suporter of the agency camp would disagree with the above.

Since an agency does not micromanage its instructors on a day to day basis, subjective things like "mastery", are misinterpreted (sometimes willingly) by the careless instructor. However, they are not following standards when this is done.

Thus, in these circumstances, it's the instructor, not the agency.

 

[DeepBound]

Since an agency does not micromanage its instructors on a day to day basis, subjective things like "mastery", are misinterpreted (sometimes willingly) by the careless instructor. However, they are not following standards when this is done.

Thus, in these circumstances, it's the instructor, not the agency.

Well, there's micromanaging, then at the opposite end of the spectrum there is complete disregard for what the instructors are doing. Do the agencies do *anything* to see if their instructors definition of "mastery" is reasonable?

 

[rakkis]

Well, there's micromanaging, then at the opposite end of the spectrum there is complete disregard for what the instructors are doing. Do the agencies do *anything* to see if their instructors definition of "mastery" is reasonable?

I wouldn't know about all the agencies.

PADI sends scantron QA questionaires to students. At first, every single one of your students, then the percentage that get it goes down with time. It includes a good number of questions to assess that instructors are following standards. I think any more than what is asked would be too unwieldy and no student would take the time to go through it and mail it back.

I don't recall ever seeing anything about mastery on it, though. Though frankly, that wouldn't be the best forum for it since a student would (pressumably) know less about the meaning of "mastery" than the instructor.

Even when mastery is defined, I think the major problem comes down to irresponsible instructors diluting it and letting things slide.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that no matter how specifically and directly you define standards, it is the instructor's responsability to implement them. This is not what ends up happening in your average "bad class." This is the instructor's fault.

 

[Thalassamania]

I wouldn't know about all the agencies.

PADI sends scantron QA questionaires to students. At first, every single one of your students, then the percentage that get it goes down with time. It includes a good number of questions to assess that instructors are following standards. I think any more than what is asked would be too unwieldy and no student would take the time to go through it and mail it back.

I don't recall ever seeing anything about mastery on it, though. Though frankly, that wouldn't be the best forum for it since a student would (pressumably) know less about the meaning of "mastery" than the instructor.

Even when mastery is defined, I think the major problem comes down to irresponsible instructors diluting it and letting things slide.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that no matter how specifically and directly you define standards, it is the instructor's responsability to implement them. This is not what ends up happening in your average "bad class." This is the instructor's fault.

No, no no!!!! the problem is Orwellian newspeak. Its not really "Advanced" it's actually Open Water II or Sport Diver, but we'll call it advanced. Its not really "Master Diver" its Advanced, but we'll call it Master Diver. It's not really "mastery" so we'll change the definition to suit our needs. Spot a trend here?

mas·ter·y (măs'tə-rē)

n., pl. -ies.

1. Possession of consummate skill.
2. The status of master or ruler; control: mastery of the seas.
3. Full command of a subject of study: Her mastery of economic theory impressed the professors.

 

[rakkis]

No, no no!!!! the problem is Orwellian newspeak. Its not really "Advanced" it's actually Open Water II or Sport Diver, but we'll call it advanced. Its not really "Master Diver" its Advanced, but we'll call it Master Diver. It's not really "mastery" so we'll change the definition to suit our needs. Spot a trend here?

I was talking specifically about "mastery" of skills in an OW class. From what you wrote, that was your context as well.

mas·ter·y (măs'tə-rē)

n., pl. -ies.

1. Possession of consummate skill.
2. The status of master or ruler; control: mastery of the seas.
3. Full command of a subject of study: Her mastery of economic theory impressed the professors.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you can't expect a beginner diver to have "consummate skill" and "full command" of all diving after an OW class. That only comes with experience (unless of course you are arguing that an OW class should have at least 100 dives).


To answer your class name post:

I see where you're coming from. And in a way, I agree with you. At face value, these names are a bit misleading. By using them, every agency is basically saying "take X, Y, and Z classes to become the best diver you can be". However, course definitions and the materials (with PADI at least, since those are the ones with which I'm most familiar) delineate what each course is and what you will learn. In fact, the fact that courses are starting point for knowledge and experience is peppered throughout the written material and available online if you visit the primary source.

I'm not particularly crazy about the names either. But you gotta name the classes something. If you want to be philosophical about it, I guess CMAS's * system is the fairest way to name courses. The only way you will get a consistent naming system across the entire industry is government regulation.

And even if you have industry consistency, you're back to the same situation we are in right now. Dive Operators will not take a Diver 1 (Diver*, whatever) on dives they consider more demanding. Then you'll have people saying that "Diver** standards are too lax. Diver** is just a few more dives than Diver*". So it doesn't really matter what you call the class. It's still the same thing.

Sorry to be so lenghty, I guess it boils down to this:
- If you split "diving knowledge" up, you'll never get universal concensus on how to break it up.
- If you don't, the industry will atrophy.

You can always keep telling people more and more about how to drive and the chemistry behind combustion, but you only become a good driver, by driving.

Bubbles... highways... same thing.