Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vail snopro
 I think many people on this site (and others) use the term PSIA far too loosely, as a monniker for any particular ski school.
I also think you are all giving the general public way too much credit for even knowing PSIA exists! Sure those who frequent this site (or others) will surely be aware. But the average punter out on the hill? Not likely! When they see an instr skiing poorly, they do not say "Gee, PSIA has crummy instrs." They say, "Gee, XXX Mtn has crummy instrs". Most are completely oblivious to the fact there is a connection between XXX Mtn and PSIA. Nor do they care! So to lay much of the blame which seems so prolific here, on PSIA's doorstep, is mostly unwarranted. I will agree that PSIA could, and should, be more proactive in many dimensions of instr training and other instr issues. But the bottom line is still the individual ski schools, themselves! They have the most direct responsibility for the standard of the instrs they hire, and to the quality of the training they receive after being hired. PSIA does not hire instrs for each area, nor do they create, or execute an on going/ daily training program for these areas. So- how is PSIA responsible? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vail snopro
GarryZ is correct. It is a relatively loose structure, in reality.
Though PSIA creates and (to some degree) disseminates an outline of what should be covered by an instr in some general circumstances, the National or Divisional organizations have extremely little influence as to how any particular ski school implements its information. That influence lies in the hands of the ski school management, their philosophies, and how actively involved the ski school is within their respective division. Some schools are very active, have divisional trainers and examiners on their staff (more DO NOT have ed staff members than do), and are more likely to have a stronger committment to the organizational guidelines. But some schools who are more independent (by history or by choice) have less committment, and offer their own take on various teaching methodologies, despite being a part of the larger organization. Many schools do not mandate membership in PSIA as a condition of employment. Of course, it is mandatory to take an exam. But the nuts of the whole thing still comes down to the instr actually teaching the lesson! Each instr may still teach what they are most comfortable with, ie- a PSIA based progression in the Telluride Ski School, or a PMTS based progression taught at Keystone. The type or format of the information transferred is up to the pro. Some schools might be a bit dictatorial about what is taught on their hill. Some may not care, provided the guest is satisfied. Then comes exam time. PSIA does set an exam standard, but each Division may execute their exams as they see fit. And again, there might be some variation among the examiners themselves, as to what the standard is, etc. But a common terminology and general understanding of the PSIA objectives is expected by each candidate, regardless of their orientation. After all, it does say PSIA on the pin... So for the time period of that process, PSIA is unified. But as each candidate (successful or otherwise) goes home to their respective areas, they will pick up right where they left off. N.B.- By the way, for a Ski School to be recognized by PSIA, it must have a Level 3 as it's Director or Asst. Director. Lacking either of these, it may have a Level 3 acting as it's training coordinator. This individual may be contracted in from another ski school. There is no mention of the training coordinator being Divisional Trainer or Examiner, just a Level 3. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vail snopro
Ski junkie-
Since I am one of the trainers and examiners on Vail's staff, I am fully aware of Vail's strengths and shortcomings (and believe me- there are many of both). My point was there there are more ski areas WITHOUT an examiner or trainer on staff than there are with them. RM is maybe a bit different, as there are so many destination resorts, but so many of the smaller areas, ie- Monarch, Sunlight, Powderhorn, A-Basin, etc which do not have an Advanced Educator on staff. I might imagine that the Eastern Division is similar- a heavy concentration of Adv Ed's at the larger, more destination type resorts, and few at the smaller Mom/Pop type areas. When I was in the Western Division (70's and 80's), it was suprising the degree of equal representation there was between the larger and smaller areas. (When I made examiner, I was based at a mid sized area, quite off the beaten track.) But whether that holds true today, I have no idea. So, I stand by my previously stated belief, that the ski school management sets the tone of teaching, training and overall PSIA involvement. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vail snopro
Being a skier is an avocation... Being a ski instr is just a job.
I feel really sorry for those who think of their lives being so closely associated with their jobs... like the Doctor who introduces himself in relaxed social settings as DR. ........ Nobody really cares! |
