I can see no reason to post a course report other than with an eye toward helping other potential students make an informed decision whether to choose that course or instructor. As I said in a previous comment, I believe the OP succeeded in that.
I agree with those who believe the few comments alluding to the adequacy of the OP's preparation for the course, namely, the supposed quality of previous instruction, didn't belong here. I don't believe the OP has been directly criticized, but this is a form of indirect criticism. This thread was about the course and the instructor, not the student. However, I appreciate it can be a difficult line to toe; when you're talking about whether an instructor should take time out of the scheduled curriculum to remediate deficiencies, the implication is that there were deficiencies, yet you don't have enough information to be certain that what you saw in the video was due to deficiencies as opposed to something else.
If you post a course report, it is going to draw criticism--and it should! Criticism directed to the course content and/or quality of instruction, that is. Even assuming you could convey every nuance of every minute of the course, I have to believe no course is going to be considered perfect by the entire worldwide instructor corps. Although many instructors may hold their tongues (short of a standards violation in their agency, I suppose), every instructor is capable of critiquing others who teach a similar course. With few exceptions, we students all believed our instructor was the greatest, and the course addressed everything it needed to, because we had no frame of reference. Although it may deflate the exuberance we felt at the time we posted the report, we might keep in mind that the criticism may be helpful to others later. Erring on the side of too much information/opinion rather than too little appeals to me in general. However, I also realize that we students may not have the ability to process it all. What do I make of kneeling? Just how important is it to know when to avoid kneeling and when to deviate from the normal in-trim posture because in a particular situation it makes sense? Some students in an advanced course may be able to process that, while less experienced students may not. I am ambivalent about posting a report on the course I took recently because I know full well that different instructors teach things differently, and although the instructor is highly regarded, there would inevitably be room for criticism. Nobody enjoys the prospect of feeling that maybe they weren't taught all they could have been, or their instructor isn't the super-hero they imagined.
A pitfall with course reports is that it is impossible to convey the whole gestalt of a course, even with a day-by-day replay, and even with videos. (And kudos, OP, for the full-length video rather than a clip that could be interpreted even more out of context than the video may have been.) If you inadvertently omit some detail or leave out some context, someone often picks up on that and runs with it. I agree with those who have commented that a high-level overview of a course and instructor is best, in the sense that it helps avoid needless discussion while at the same time providing some information that would help a prospective student make decisions.
Chatterton, whose name is synonymous with wreck diving in the public's mind, is bound to draw more criticism than an instructor who is not as public a figure. He's controversial. If you have read Shadow Divers, you know he was a cowboy back in the wild west days of Northeast wreck diving, and although the mechanics of how that was done may be long behind him, I suspect he's the same person on the inside. Like any entity that is a giant of the relevant field--owing in part to his own self-promotion--Chatterton is naturally going to be a magnet (target?) for criticism. Although I lack the knowledge to be critical myself, the degree of criticism in this thread did not surprise me at all, as it seemed quite in line with the guy's stature. I did not, however, see the criticism as mere attempts to "knock him down a peg," though that may be a natural way to see it.
Although I don't believe there is enough information in this thread to make such judgments, if you kind of liked what you knew of Chatterton before, you probably like him even more now. If some of his tactics rattle the "figure skater" cave divers as they appear to, maybe you now believe he really is the maverick "hockey player" wreck diver you admired. If before this thread you thought his courses couldn't possibly live up to what you'd expect from such a famous figure in wreck diving, you probably feel affirmed in that belief. If you're like me, and had no feeling one way or the other, you may have actually gotten something out of this thread, despite the contentiousness.
If the OP reads this, I hope he understands that some of us appreciated his efforts. I'm unsure whether I will post course reports, but readings those of others sure is helpful. If you have the stomach for posting them, they can be helpful.
I agree with those who believe the few comments alluding to the adequacy of the OP's preparation for the course, namely, the supposed quality of previous instruction, didn't belong here. I don't believe the OP has been directly criticized, but this is a form of indirect criticism. This thread was about the course and the instructor, not the student. However, I appreciate it can be a difficult line to toe; when you're talking about whether an instructor should take time out of the scheduled curriculum to remediate deficiencies, the implication is that there were deficiencies, yet you don't have enough information to be certain that what you saw in the video was due to deficiencies as opposed to something else.
If you post a course report, it is going to draw criticism--and it should! Criticism directed to the course content and/or quality of instruction, that is. Even assuming you could convey every nuance of every minute of the course, I have to believe no course is going to be considered perfect by the entire worldwide instructor corps. Although many instructors may hold their tongues (short of a standards violation in their agency, I suppose), every instructor is capable of critiquing others who teach a similar course. With few exceptions, we students all believed our instructor was the greatest, and the course addressed everything it needed to, because we had no frame of reference. Although it may deflate the exuberance we felt at the time we posted the report, we might keep in mind that the criticism may be helpful to others later. Erring on the side of too much information/opinion rather than too little appeals to me in general. However, I also realize that we students may not have the ability to process it all. What do I make of kneeling? Just how important is it to know when to avoid kneeling and when to deviate from the normal in-trim posture because in a particular situation it makes sense? Some students in an advanced course may be able to process that, while less experienced students may not. I am ambivalent about posting a report on the course I took recently because I know full well that different instructors teach things differently, and although the instructor is highly regarded, there would inevitably be room for criticism. Nobody enjoys the prospect of feeling that maybe they weren't taught all they could have been, or their instructor isn't the super-hero they imagined.
A pitfall with course reports is that it is impossible to convey the whole gestalt of a course, even with a day-by-day replay, and even with videos. (And kudos, OP, for the full-length video rather than a clip that could be interpreted even more out of context than the video may have been.) If you inadvertently omit some detail or leave out some context, someone often picks up on that and runs with it. I agree with those who have commented that a high-level overview of a course and instructor is best, in the sense that it helps avoid needless discussion while at the same time providing some information that would help a prospective student make decisions.
Chatterton, whose name is synonymous with wreck diving in the public's mind, is bound to draw more criticism than an instructor who is not as public a figure. He's controversial. If you have read Shadow Divers, you know he was a cowboy back in the wild west days of Northeast wreck diving, and although the mechanics of how that was done may be long behind him, I suspect he's the same person on the inside. Like any entity that is a giant of the relevant field--owing in part to his own self-promotion--Chatterton is naturally going to be a magnet (target?) for criticism. Although I lack the knowledge to be critical myself, the degree of criticism in this thread did not surprise me at all, as it seemed quite in line with the guy's stature. I did not, however, see the criticism as mere attempts to "knock him down a peg," though that may be a natural way to see it.
Although I don't believe there is enough information in this thread to make such judgments, if you kind of liked what you knew of Chatterton before, you probably like him even more now. If some of his tactics rattle the "figure skater" cave divers as they appear to, maybe you now believe he really is the maverick "hockey player" wreck diver you admired. If before this thread you thought his courses couldn't possibly live up to what you'd expect from such a famous figure in wreck diving, you probably feel affirmed in that belief. If you're like me, and had no feeling one way or the other, you may have actually gotten something out of this thread, despite the contentiousness.
If the OP reads this, I hope he understands that some of us appreciated his efforts. I'm unsure whether I will post course reports, but readings those of others sure is helpful. If you have the stomach for posting them, they can be helpful.
