DIR- GUE Why are non-GUE divers so interested in what GUE does?

[LiteHedded]

Well, it varies by instructor. A lot. Typically newer instructors schedule more days. I asked an IE about the variance and he said something to the effect that as you become a better/more experienced instructor you figure out how to do it faster. But I think it also goes into experienced instructors knowing when there isn’t enough time to fix some things and finish the class on time.

Sure but there is a minimum requirement of dives and hours and newer instructors aren’t typically teaching the big boy classes anyway.

My classes were with what I would call “experienced” instructors and they were about a week long fundies not included

 

[mariosx]

Do the GUE instructors act as instructors/educators or just concentrate on being a "Pass/No Pass" filters?

Yes and yes. They need to protect the student and other GUE divers by gate keeping, and 100% of the GUE-I I have met are also incredible instructors themselves with meaningfula nd to the point feedback.

As a neutral observer here, I come away from monitoring the talk about "failure" of people in GUE courses with the impression that GUE instructors and agency thrive and want people to fail rather than help and guide students to learn and succeed. This is the recurrent theme in ALL the posts I have been reading and monitoring related to GUE.

This is plain wrong to my experience. I "failed" with a rec-pass during my GUE-F. Good, because I should. I had great improvement during the class. The insturctor truly tried his best to help me and I came very close to a tec pass, but still my skills were not there. I have yet to meet a GUE diver that "failed" a class and they didn't know why, or that they were disagreeing with the outcome.

NOTE: When the failure rate in any given course is high or even intermediate, this is a reflection on the agency and instructor NOT on the students. It isn't something to boast about by the instructor and agency. The instructor failed the students.

I fundamentally disagree with this assesment. The goal of GUE-F is not for all people to meet the tec-pass standards, but for all people to get new skills, refine the ones the already have, and IF they happen to be able to meet the standards due to talent, experience, or else, to continue their training to the next level.
You seem to use an inclusive perspective that applies better on public education were some absolute minimum standards need to be met by everybody, but GUE-F is not that.

If somebody fails NASA's astronaut training it's not because NASA's instructors suck and need improvement, but simply not everybody is meant to become an astronaut. They instructors could fail if they could not train a minimum percentage of all the applicants and candidates, not if they fail some of the candidates. Actually, they are successful foor failing some candidates that could introduce risks in a mission.

To me, a GUE-I could fail their role if:

• They don't pass some percentage of students per year (startistically it looks hard to not find a single student that could get a tec pass for a year, unless the instructor is not good enough)
• They pass everybody without meeting the standards
• Not all motivated students ended up at a better place as divers in comparison to their first check-dive.

A student that didn't meet the GUE-F standards is not a failed student by the instructor. A motivated student that was not improved is a failed student.

 

[BoltSnap]

The goal of GUE-F is not for all people to meet the tec-pass standards, but for all people to get new skills, refine the ones the already have, and IF they happen to be able to meet the standards due to talent, experience, or else, to continue their training to the next level.

That isn't what an educator and education all about. If you are going to test people at a certain level, you better training and coach people to that level or even a better level.

What you are trying to rationalize is to justify for an uncaring and unqualified instructor to not do their job properly and educate the students on how to comply with certain standards. Testing in this context is more of "evaluation" to determine student's (and instructor's) deficiencies for them to remedy the deficiencies to reach acceptable level of competence and knowledge. Essentially, just to give an excuse to the "instructor" to not live up to their responsibility.

You seem to use an inclusive perspective that applies better on public education were some absolute minimum standards need to be met by everybody, but GUE-F is not that.

That's not what I said at all. please don't put words into my mouth I didn't say.


At the end, do you want to train people and help them to achieve success or you want to haze people and let them fail because you failed them with your lack of instructor/coaching skills?

 

[grantctobin]

At the end, do you want to train people and help them to achieve success or you want to haze people and let them fail because you failed them with your lack of instructor/coaching skills?

Do you believe that all divers, regardless of background, have the capacity to perform at a minimum-acceptable-for-the-next-stage-of-education level, within a 4-6 day class?

I firmly believe there is some percentage of divers that cannot do so within that timeframe, regardless of instructor. I’d also assert that there are some percentage of divers that will never have that capacity. In fact, there’s an active full cave instructor that has been unable to complete said class to that level on multiple occasions.

 

[LiteHedded]

Do you believe that all divers, regardless of background, have the capacity to perform at a minimum-acceptable-for-the-next-stage-of-education level, within a 4-6 day class?

I firmly believe there is some percentage of divers that cannot do so within that timeframe, regardless of instructor. I’d also assert that there are some percentage of divers that will never have that capacity. In fact, there’s an active full cave instructor that has been unable to complete said class to that level on multiple occasions.

It’s silliness. Not everybody can get to that level in the time allotted and that’s ok.

If you can’t, you shouldn’t be moving on to high level training anyway. Take some time and practice and you’ll get there.

 

[BoltSnap]

Do you believe that all divers, regardless of background, have the capacity to perform at a minimum-acceptable-for-the-next-stage-of-education level, within a 4-6 day class?

No, not at all. There are many people that either don't have what it takes, don't have the required background or the ones that just don't give a shiit and want a free ride. This isn't what I am talking about at all.


I am arguing against the extreme going to other side where an instructor ends up a mere filter with people boasting about how many students fail rather than an educator who is bent on educating the students and doing all he can do to get them to the required level to pass.

 

[LiteHedded]

I am arguing against the extreme going to other side where an instructor ends up a mere filter with people boasting about how many students fail rather than an educator who is bent on educating the students and doing all he can do to get them to the required level to pass.

You’re arguing against something that isnt a thing

 

[BoltSnap]

You’re arguing against something that isnt a thing

Well, as I started out, this is the impression that one gets from reading this thread and others. Not just me, many others do.

 

[LiteHedded]

Well, as I started out, this is the impression that one gets from reading this thread and others. Not just me, many others do.

That’s why I said this thread is dumb. Most commenters don’t know what they’re talking about

 

[BoltSnap]

That’s why I said this thread is dumb. Most commenters don’t know what they’re talking about

I have no camel in this race and certainly don't care, but the people that are doing the most harm are those that are "GUE" advocates not the critiques.

(Going back to lurk mode)