The 4 skills concept is and always was a ridiculous concept that has ruined ski instruction in america. The new thing they are proposing is even worse. At least the old 4 skills didn't try to be so specific. The problem was it was too unspecific. The new approach is being more specific, but with only 4 things. Seriously?
SMJ, I agree with you that it should not be a matter of identifying common problems. It should be a matter of identifying key movements which are elements of great skiing. There could potentially be, for example, 4 different angles to approach those from. For example, in your music example at Berklee, you gave Harmony, Arranging, Ear training and Listening analysis as the 4 courses to redesign. Each one comprises several years worth of study from a different angle on the subject of making music. But each one also is made up of dozens and dozens of more specific things within to learn about and master, coming from different areas of focus, but with many overlapping skills and merging of various skills. They are broad categories and its interesting to approach making music from 4 different ways like that, but there can be no mistaking that there are dozens of underlying and more specific skills to be learned and combined to create good music.
I view the 4 skills concept as being like those broad categories, broad perspectives to introspect the creation of ski turns. And there is nothing wrong with investigating the dozen or two more specific movement patterns we should know are part of good skiing, while looking at these movement patterns from the angle of BERP and DIRT. Where the problem came in is when many instructors overly simplified, demonized the instruction of specific movement patterns, avoided documenting them or discussing them rationally and consistently..and tried to pretend that by just discussing the BERP, as if they themselves are the primary movement patterns, people can learn to ski well.
We lost the detail while obsessing over the higher level broad categories, and the specific ways that those 4 broad skills can and should be combined in various scenarios was tossed out the window in favor of letting people figure out their own DIRT that works for them. There is a lot of confusion among ski instructors because our materials do not define these details, and you hear different opinions from different people across the land.
Yes we need more detail and we need it defined. What use are the 4 broad categories if there is no instruction for specifically how to combine them appropriately while skiing? There could have been some usefulness, but because the details were eradicated, all manner of falsities have arisen in the industry.
The new attempt is even worse. They are recognizing that the 4 skills are not specific enough, so they tried to create 4 specific skills? seriously? That is lame beyond lame. That is taking the overly simple and trying to make it even more simple.
HH has already done what needs to be done, although I feel he is also a bit narrow minded on a few things. But generally, the approach he took is the approach PSIA should have also taken, ideally less narrow mindedly. PSIA should identify a set of specific primary movements that are critical for good skiing just as HH did with his PMTS system. Perhaps PSIA would include more focus on steering and rotary then what HH allows in his system, my point is not that HH's specific approach is the one narrow minded correct approach. My point is that the way he broke down skiing into specific movement patterns that are critical to good skiing, was the right pedagogical approach. PSIA has completely missed the mark with the 4 broad skills, and the new approach is even worse.
Honestly, PSIA could take PMTS, copy 90% of it, tweak it a bit to include more about rotary and steering, and we'd have something great. HH has already done it. If you want to answer JASP's challenge, tell him to study HH's materials, end of story.