Differences in approaches to diver training are what justifies comparisons of agencies to be valid. If every single agency had the same approach to training and had the same curriculum, then the premise that only the instructor matters would be true. But since different agencies approach training differently and sometimes from totally different paradigms, we as consumers can then make comparisons on what is better for us. I don't think my comparison was unfair. I picked courses that would allow divers to dive to similar levels.
... and the biggest problem I have with this rationale is that it's too simplistic and fails to consider that agencies don't train divers ... instructors do. Agencies specify what must be taught, and in some cases how it must be taught. But they provide just the framework ... it's the instructor who either makes the effort to assure the student understands the curriculum and achieves the class objectives or not.
I've been involved in enough classes and dived with enough divers who trained with your chosen agency to know that the premise that they are all taught to the same level is not accurate. My first Fundies class was NOTHING like my second one ... which is why I took a second one. I know other people on ScubaBoard who have had less than good experiences with a Fundies class ... one in particular that was taught by GUE's training director that was discussed in some detail on here a couple years ago that was, from all accounts I read, not a well-taught class. So while the agency does matter ... the instructor matters far more.
Some agencies take a minimalist approach to training. Just make sure the diver won't kill himself or his buddies, and he's good to go, give him a C card.
No agency take an approach to "just make sure the diver won't kill himself or his buddies, and he's good to go". Granted, some instructors do ... and they do so by following a checklist approach that, while it technically meets standards, fails to correctly define the meaning of the term "mastery". If there is blame to the agency it lies not in the standards, but in the fact that the agency allowed those people to become instructors in the first place. This is where I'll give your chosen agency a nod ... they demand far more from their instructors than other agencies. But it is still ultimately the instructor that teaches the class.
Other agencies take a more stringent approach to training. Train divers beyond their target certification in both knowledge and skills, and make sure they know what they're doing, before giving them a C card.
No agency requires instructors to "teach beyond their target certification in both knowledge and skills". Some agencies make it easier for instructors who choose to do so than others. Some ... like the agency I teach for ... encourage instructors to do so based on the philosophy that instructors are more cognizant of local environment and student needs than the agency. Some allow an instructor to withhold certification if the material added by the instructor is not mastered suitably by the student. But none mandate that an instructor must train beyond the stated goals of the target certification.
I'm not a groupie of any dive agency. I go in with both eyes open to see what they do well, and what they don't.
I'm curious how many different agencies you have actual experience with?
I understand that such comparisons in the big scheme of things are very sensitive topics, as many members, supporters of the forum and some moderator's livelihoods are affected by what people say on these boards, because they are part of the training industry. Perhaps certain things are better left unsaid. From the tone of the discussions, it also seems that support for certain agencies are frowned upon, not because of their training methods or merits as an agency, but for other more personal, irrelevant reasons.
This is the usual rhetoric I've been seeing for the past dozen years in countless agency threads on ScubaBoard ... which invariably go the same direction, often by the same people. It's based mostly on personal preferences and false assumptions about agencies that, I'm willing to bet, you've had no personal experience with.
The reasons I take issue with a lot of the proselytizing that goes on with respect to GUE isn't personal or irrelevant. I've got experience with that agency, and I recommend people in that direction regularly ... I'm the person who originally recommended a GUE class to TSandM, and loaned her a rig to take it in. So it's wrong to state that I have personal or irrelevant reasons for my comments in this thread. I just don't happen to believe it's as universally good as some of you do ... nor do I believe it's an appropriate choice for everyone. GUE has a specific target market in mind, which isn't the majority of people who dive or who participate in ScubaBoard conversations. Sure, they offer things you can't get through other agencies unless you're lucky enough to find a specific instructor who includes them in their curriculum ... but any diver can become adequately skilled through a class taught by any agency if the instructor is diligent (and skilled) enough to teach the class properly ... and within the standards of the agency. I know way too many excellent instructors from many different agencies to believe otherwise.
I get real tired of seeing people making comments like the ones you made in your post above ... because, frankly, it always boils down to rhetoric and agency-bashing by people who have, at best, taken a Fundies class and suddenly decide they know all the issues and inadequacies of the dive industry. To use a phrase that you're perhaps familiar with, you don't know what you don't know.
I've got nothing against GUE. Lord knows I send enough people their way, including a significant percentage of my own students. But it's a good fit for a particular type of diver ... and a poor fit for others. It's one way to attain skills ... but it's not the only way. And frankly, I've seen plenty of people come out of Fundies who were floundering ... I've helped some of them continue to develop their skills, just as I was helped by a local GUE-trained diver when I came out of Fundies. Because no matter what class you take, you don't get skills out of a class ... you get a set of tools to help you learn skills. If you want to say that GUE provides you with a really good set of tools I'll agree ... but it's a very specific set of tools, and it leaves out a lot of choices that are more appropriate for where some people want to take their diving.
My reasons for my comments here are based on recognizing that not everyone will want to take their diving in the direction that GUE classes will take them ... nor will everyone particularly benefit from going that direction. In some cases, it will only hold you back. Choices are there for a reason ... there is no "best" ... there's only a "best for you". For some ... for the reasons stated in TSandM's earlier post ... GUE will be that best way. For others, for many of those same reasons, it won't be. But it'll have more to do with approach and philosophy than it will with skill development.
That's why we have different agencies. Your "favorite" ... like everyone else ... boils down to which one offers the services that best help you take your diving to the level you want to take it. And more often than not it won't boil down the agency at all ... it'll be the instructor and the support group that helps you achieve the skill and comfort level that keeps you diving ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
