I tend to agree with the both of you in some aspects and it certainly is
one of the catch 22's of the sport.  I have had considerable exposure to
the "newbie" instructor who managed to run the gamut of education but,
either because they had a lack of experience or some other reason, were
not really fit to be turned loose on unsuspecting novices.  On the other
hand I have also had considerable experience with divers of several
thousand dives experience, some with considerable amounts of technical
and scientific experience, who did indeed develop "bad" habits, and by
bad I mean that habit which streamlines something or cuts a corner
somewhere that it should not.  Not all instructors that run the minimum
qualification and experience route are poor nor are all experienced
divers with only "basic" level certification guilty of having bad
habits.
    The catch 22 comes about because certifying organizations and dive
operators are both trying to maximize safety, thereby minimizing
litigation.  Some standards have to be used to define the level of skill
and ability.  Such as they are the current practices are, at best, a
compromise in the ongoing evolution in the standards and procedures of
the SCUBA industry as a whole.  If we want to avoid a "BIG BROTHER" type
of setup we have to be tolerent of this evolutionary process and
interject our two cents worth where it is appropriate to facilitate this
evolution.
     This is not really meant to cast my vote in support of the status
quo, after all I have considerable opinions on ways to "improve" the
system, but rather to support the validity of the concerns expressed by
the different factions involved.  Lee is able to use his discussion
groups, the contacts he makes on the echo and his consumer choices to
provide arguments in support of the concept that experience certainly
counts for something and should have a higher "weighting" when
evaluating a divers ability.  You have similer option available to you
to support your positions, I have the same, etc. etc.  From what I can
see actually as a group our positions aren't all that different if at
all on the topic at hand.
     Now for your comment on the written programs and the value of
following them exactly.  I agree that following the educational program
to the letter, when it is well designed and has adequate support
materials, does streamline the process.  I teach CPR and first aid
through the American Red Cross and am required to follow the program TO
THE LETTER.  This gives me little to no opportunity to adress an
individual student's particular weaknesses.  The program is a compromise
that has been developed to meet the majority of the needs that the
students have concerning content and time available for learning the
material.  It is not perfect but does streamline and standardize the
course content.
     First aid and CPR instructors are like diving instructors in that
they come from all kinds of backgrounds and educational levels.  Not
everyone who has the knowledge has the ability to teach it well.  In
these cases it is certainly best to fall back on the standard program,
however, for someone who is a dynamic and inovative educator the
standard program, which is by definition a compromise, can certainly be
enhanced to the benefit of the student.  Sometimes these things are
subtle and flow in well with a strictly standardized program and
sometimes they form a radical departure.  Done the proper way these are
the things which change the programs over time.
   Of course not everyone who views themselves as a dynamic and
innovative educator is but that is why the standard programs are there
in the first place.
   Well I'm running on.
Be wet and well.
     Dennis
--- PCBoard (R) v15.21/10
---------------