Why Agency Bashing Is A Big Bowl Of Wrong

[cowboyneal]

I posted this yesterday in another thread, and some nice things were posted and mailed to me about it, so I decided to make it a post in and of itself.

As a new member, I can see people here are very passionate about their respective agencies, and that is a great thing. But, you know, it is very easy to bash an agency of which you are not a member. However, if you are not a member of an agency you really do not have enough experience one way or the other to say anything about the agency about which you are not a member. Therefore, one should focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the programs one knows first-hand. Also, there is something good (or bad) to be said about any agency/instructor/diver, whomever, and we all have a lot to learn on a day-to-day basis for sure.

One discernable bottom line is this, if any one agency or brand of instructor or diver was better than another, they would be paying less for professional liability or dive-related insurance. Now, before everyone (or one of us) gets all crazy and notes that Vincencia is run by PADI (which it is) the fact is, there are plenty of other dive agencies with their own related insurance companies that insure their own instructors.

However, the applicable litmus test is the impartial 3d party insurance company. For example, Tim Witherspoon (www.diveinsurance.net) offers an independent insurance program for instructors/divemasters, etc. Regardless of certifying agency, the prices are all the same. If there was some big difference from one to the other, this added risk would be reflected in the cost of coverage, or the fact that instructors from certain agencies would not be afforded coverage.

The same analysis would apply to the companies offering dive insurance to divers - the prices are the same regardless of what logo their c-card has on it. I do not see DAN offering discounts to DIR divers or YMCA divers or whatever, so the insurance industry sees no difference (and believe me if they could make an extra 10 cents on someone by formulating a difference they would).

This is the only objective, empirical evidence that I could find and tells me there really is no difference between and among PADI, SSI, NAUI, YMCA, etc., etc. instructors or divers, and I believe that anyone who says there is is just offering an unsupported, and insupportable opinion based on their own, very limited and unscientific analysis.

I do not disagree that some instructors are bad instructors and that some divers are bad divers. But really, as a community, should we not be focusing on our instructors (of whichever agency) that are highly skilled, very conscientious and exhibit great teaching techniques and practices? These instructors should not only be lauded, but should be referred new divers on a regular basis if only to ensure they stay in business! Also, as professionals and/or very experienced divers, we should be focusing on the new and intermediate divers that are looking to the professionals and very experienced divers to help them learn, not to show them that all we do is bicker about who has the longest hose.

Have a great Week!

CN

 

[LavaSurfer]

I posted this yesterday in another thread, and some nice things were posted and mailed to me about it, so I decided to make it a post in and of itself.

As a new member, I can see people here are very passionate about their respective agencies, and that is a great thing. But, you know, it is very easy to bash an agency of which you are not a member. However, if you are not a member of an agency you really do not have enough experience one way or the other to say anything about the agency about which you are not a member. Therefore, one should focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the programs one knows first-hand. Also, there is something good (or bad) to be said about any agency/instructor/diver, whomever, and we all have a lot to learn on a day-to-day basis for sure.

One discernable bottom line is this, if any one agency or brand of instructor or diver was better than another, they would be paying less for professional liability or dive-related insurance. Now, before everyone (or one of us) gets all crazy and notes that Vincencia is run by PADI (which it is) the fact is, there are plenty of other dive agencies with their own related insurance companies that insure their own instructors.

However, the applicable litmus test is the impartial 3d party insurance company. For example, Tim Witherspoon (www.diveinsurance.net) offers an independent insurance program for instructors/divemasters, etc. Regardless of certifying agency, the prices are all the same. If there was some big difference from one to the other, this added risk would be reflected in the cost of coverage, or the fact that instructors from certain agencies would not be afforded coverage.

The same analysis would apply to the companies offering dive insurance to divers - the prices are the same regardless of what logo their c-card has on it. I do not see DAN offering discounts to DIR divers or YMCA divers or whatever, so the insurance industry sees no difference (and believe me if they could make an extra 10 cents on someone by formulating a difference they would).

This is the only objective, empirical evidence that I could find and tells me there really is no difference between and among PADI, SSI, NAUI, YMCA, etc., etc. instructors or divers, and I believe that anyone who says there is is just offering an unsupported, and insupportable opinion based on their own, very limited and unscientific analysis.

I do not disagree that some instructors are bad instructors and that some divers are bad divers. But really, as a community, should we not be focusing on our instructors (of whichever agency) that are highly skilled, very conscientious and exhibit great teaching techniques and practices? These instructors should not only be lauded, but should be referred new divers on a regular basis if only to ensure they stay in business!Also, as professionals and/or very experienced divers, we should be focusing on the new and intermediate divers that are looking to the professionals and very experienced divers to help them learn, not to show them that all we do is bicker about who has the longest hose.

Have a great Week!

CN

Great post!

I agree with most of what you said.
As far as I know all organizations, profit or non-profit, are out to make money.

Much of the bashing seems to focus on profits and skills.

Profits are a good thing in my mind. I like money. :money:
Skill I believe you addressed well.

Scooter

 

[TSandM]

I was actually thinking this morning that threads which allow negative statements about agencies run to many, many pages, while kidspot's thread about what we LIKE about our agency died a quick death. Somehow it must not be as fun to say nice things.

Not sure, though, that you can do a really fair extrapolation of training quality from insurance rates. For example, people who take training through technical agencies are more likely to do technical diving where the risks go way up -- they're almost certainly better trained than OW divers, and safer in the same environment, but they dive in different environments and therefore aren't safer -- make sense? There is probably more validity in using that approach to compare all agencies that do OW certs.

 

[matt_unique]

The agency bashing (and of course that is almost always specifically PADI) is very annoying. What matters to me is my own training experience. I'm a consumer like everyone else - if I did not like the product I would look elsewhere. With the right instructor and the right student attitude - PADI is absolutely fantastic with the best world wide recognition.

If you were to take the best divers from every agency - they would all be at the same skill and experience level regardless of what many would like to think. The most experienced divers I know represent and have training from several different agencies anyway.

--Matt

 

[SKBRDVR1]

CowboyNeal...Graet post. I hesitate to answer any questions because there's almost always a dissenting opinion (great..if we were all alike..what a boring place) but I think presenting it in a constructive way rather than negatively would serve everyone better. I also get a kick to lok into the "experience" of those bashers. Most of them fall into 2 categories..either they have something to gain by bashing the "competition" or their experience level shows they have none with the agency, type of equipment, etc.

 

[nauidiver2004]

That really is a great post. Thank you.

 

[kidspot]

. . . while kidspot's thread about what we LIKE about our agency died a quick death. . .

R.I.P.

Cowboyneal - Welcome to the Board and thank you for a very well thought out post - Good Job! I did find it interesting that diveinsurance.net is so much less than any other liability insurance I've seen - I wonder why more instructors don't go with them? Not enough exposure perhaps?

Aloha, Tim

 

[SDdiver1]

Great post and needed to be said. It's easy to pick on the big organization, but give credit where credit is due, they have a great marketing plan.

 

[StSomewhere]

As a new member, I can see people here are very passionate about their respective agencies, and that is a great thing. But, you know, it is very easy to bash an agency of which you are not a member.

:06:

I think maybe you assume too much. The agency I have a problem with is (or was) my agency. By design, they teach to what I feel are lowered standards. There instructors are all encouraged to teach down to the same level, as evidenced by the IDCs they run. Check recent threads, the instructors-to-be are actively discouraged from improvising or adding to the process if they want to pass. I've seen threads elsewhere where potential instructors have recently been advised to actually memorize (vs. "knowing") material. Its a systemic problem, and that goes back to the agency.

 

[matt_unique]

:06:

I think maybe you assume too much. The agency I have a problem with is (or was) my agency. By design, they teach to what I feel are lowered standards. There instructors are all encouraged to teach down to the same level, as evidenced by the IDCs they run. Check recent threads, the instructors-to-be are actively discouraged from improvising or adding to the process if they want to pass. I've seen threads elsewhere where potential instructors have recently been advised to actually memorize (vs. "knowing") material. Its a systemic problem, and that goes back to the agency.

Great example of the agency bashing BS referenced in this thread. Like anything else, get your certification then run your class as you choose. I have 13 certifications, and not once have I seen 'agency police' preventing the instructor from doing what they want. "We've finished the agency material - now let's get into some other things".

--Matt