Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

The following examples are a bit extreme, but I believe they are clear.

In 1990 roughly 40% of the global population was in extreme poverty, and before it was even worse. Being born in a developed country or from a family who could provide for you, is chance. Maybe you were unlucky enough to be born in a very poor family in a third wolrd country, but still a person like you, with the same abilities and personality, might not survive her 5th birthday if born in a warzone, and could do almost nothing to completely avoid it (best you can do in such situation is to minimize risks, not to avoid them).

Chance is a factor for everybody, for you as well.





It's notthing trickery/slight of hand/magic, and the way it was described to me (both by John and my friend) is purely mathematical.

You first check how many students you need to fail, and how many you want to have the maximum grade. Then you shift all the other grades (usually towards lower grades).

Also, it is legal and transparent, at least in Italy. They do it to increase competition between students.

If your second to last sentence is factual, why have exams in the first place.

All the teacher has to do is put on a blindfold, sit at the front of the class and throw colored spit balls randomly at the students.

White is low average, black is fail, red is max grade.

What have you taught them, nothing.

What will their future be, nothing.

What will be the state of the country, in their future become, nothing

What will their country eventually become, nothing

GETTING PRETTY FAR OFF THE TOPIC OF SCUBA DIVING

Rose
 
If your second to last sentence is factual, why have exams in the first place.

All the teacher has to do is put on a blindfold, sit at the front of the class and throw colored spit balls randomly at the students.

White is low average, black is fail, red is max grade.

What have you taught them, nothing.

What will their future be, nothing.

What will be the state of the country, in their future, nothing

What will their country become, nothing

Rose

As I said, some universities do so to enforce competition among students.

EDIT: To be clear, they usually require a minimum, and they only scale down the higher grades; at school, this might be different, but I do not know how it works in this case, I think teacher have more freedom.... I think @boulderjohn can correct me if I am wrong.

However, I agree with you, this way of giving grades is simply bad in my view. This was also the point of @boulderjohn, if I understood him well. Even if I do not like it***, our system often (not always) works like this.

***Personally, I believe that grades are a stupid thing - for me exams should be pass/fail, period.

You're right, too much OT, let's go back to the topic :)
 
GETTING PRETTY FAR OFF THE TOPIC OF SCUBA DIVING
Not really. This is the essence of the thread, the belief that there should be more people failing scuba classes, by golly.
 
I think someone in authority in your region needs to fire some teaches.
Here are some things I herd, more or less verbatim, from teachers when we met at parent-teacher conferences.

"I have a lot of high-powered, highly motivated students who want and deserve all the support I can give them. That does not leave me any time for the students who aren't working like that."

"Your son failed the last chemistry test, but that is not unusual. Only 4 students passed it. It's too bad, too, because it's the basis for all we do after this, and that means all the students will struggle without that base information. Will I reteach it and retest? Of course not! I never do that!"

"This area has a lot of students who are working hard and doing very well. If I don't find a way to get some lower grades, everyone would be getting A's and B's."
 
My Roman History professor was a notoriously tough grader. When he handed back the first test, the scores for the whole class were abysmal.

One of the students asked, "Professor, do you grade on a curve?"

"Yes, I do. It's a forty year curve, and you kids don't measure up."
 
I haven't read this entire thread, but I would think that drowning during class would be an automatic fail.
 
OW divers are taught to look after themselves and to share air when requested to do so.

Especially for newly certified OW divers, their awareness of anything outside of the tiny bit of space they occupy is usually pretty dim. I wouldn't expect any new OW diver to perform any skill not taught in the OW class.

According to the terms of the junior OW certification, at least for PADI, 10-year-old divers can dive only when accompanied by one of their parents or by a divemaster.

Parents should evaluate their own skills, assess the skills and maturity of their children, and choose dives and dive groups where they can dive safely together with their offspring. In my experience, parents take this responsibility seriously. When newly certified parents and their newly certified pre-teen children dive from the boats I work on, the parents readily acknowledge their limitations and stick close to me or another DM. The only parent-child teams that go off by themselves involve parents with a lot experience.
I believe you. You are talking about responsible parents. I feel that it is not the best idea for ANY two newly certified divers to buddy up. Neither is experienced, and certainly know nothing of rescue skills. But, as is often the case (and was the case with me), a fellow newbie may be the only option available. A new parent and child IMO is even worse.
My point is that the (most?) agencies say it's fine for any parent (new or otherwise) to buddy with their 10 year old (new or otherwise) as long as the depth limits are followed and if new, that it is in conditions similar to or better than those they were certified in. I disagree with that idea.
 
Almost all of the time spent in scuba training is dealing with things that go wrong. Over decades, agencies have tried to determine what is likely to go wrong so that students can be prepared for it. They don't prepare students for everything, though. For example, there is no training on how to fend off a saltwater crocodile attack. There is no training for being extracted from a high wave storm by a Coast Guard helicopter. That is because the risk for those things is too small to be considered worth the time it would take to teach it. In that regard, let's look at carrying a semi-unconscious body through a surf line with no one else there to help. I wonder how often that has happened--I can't imagine it has occurred more than a few times in world history. The scenario of bringing in an unconscious diver on the surface, giving rescue breaths as you go, while removing the victim's equipment and yours is part of the Rescue class, but in most agencies, not at the OW level. That is not just because the need to do that is so very, very rare (and it is), but also because it is even more rarely successful. This discussion comes up nearly annually over the years I have been on ScubaBoard, and I regularly ask people to present an example of a successful rescue using that procedure. No one has done it. Oh, people will always give me an example of someone who was rescued through another process, but I have never seen an example of a successful rescue using that process.

The reason many skills like those are not part of the OW class is related to two concepts: 1) Interference theory and 2) Just in time instruction.

Interference Theory: In curriculum design, the goal is to have students know the essential material well in the class, and one of the things that interferes with learning is interference. To be brief, time spent learning things you don't need to know interferes with the ability to learn what you do need to know. Ironically, teaching fewer topics can result in students learning more material.

Just in Time instruction: This is actually a form of interference. "Just in time" instruction contrasts with "Just in case" instruction. In "Just in case" instruction, students are taught concepts and skills just in case they might need it. That is pretty much what constitutes all OW content. Students may encounter an OOA incident, and they need to be ready in case that happens. "Just in time" instruction is content that is not likely to be encountered without enough warning to give time to prepare. For example, I had logged over 800 dives before I did my first dive in a location where I had to plan for tides, and I got instruction on local tide conditions before planning the dives. I had probably 1,000 dives before I did a shore dive in a location with a heavy surf line. Again, I had time to prepare for the knowledge I needed. Things like that are not part of my OW instruction, because students are likely to forget it all if and when they ever need it, and time spent on it interferes with their ability to learn the critical scuba skills. In contrast, all the local students in Colorado dive at altitude, so altitude considerations for their dives becomes part of the OW class. Students shore diving in California will find surf entries and tides in their OW class.
You have explained this to me before and I don't disagree. There seems to be a consensus on SB that every diver should take Rescue as soon as their diving is in reasonably good shape. For PADI, only Adventure Diver with NAV is now required, not AOW, and the old 20 dive requirement is long gone. Since a lot of these situations are so rare (and of course I believe you when you say that--I certainly have no experience with anything truly scary), why the emphasis on taking Rescue at all?

I understand the Interference Theory. Others have explained it simply that throwing too much at an OW student in the time permitted for the course would be confusing and maybe overbearing. Agree with that as well. So it is the way it is-- unless maybe we double the time and cost of the OW course. I'm not against that. Then again, I'm through spending $ on courses.

To continue on that surf situation-- You mentioned that surf entries/exits would be part of a course in Cal. (well, they have to be I suppose). I don't think that would make a difference regarding a 10 year old's ability to drag a buddy out. But as you said, that would be very rare. Still is not a risk I favour when it involves 10 year olds. I've only had one fairly serious car accident in 49 years of driving (2 years ago). So that (at least for me) was extremely rare. Yet, we don't let people drive until 16, and even then with restrictions and "graduated" licenses.
 
Young drivers are disproportionately represented in traffic accidents so it makes sense to put restrictions on them. I would support it for young divers, but going by our own section on accidents and fatalities for divers, there seems to be disproportionate representation by older divers. Maybe the restrictions should be placed there, if we are to be scientific about it.
 

Back
Top Bottom