Random Thoughts - Page 5

You guys don't have exam checkpoint clinics in the East ? Independent observation by a qualified examiner or trainer that you aren't familiar with is a good way to get an honest opinion if you are ready or should save your money and train more.

I have little stake in this argument, if we can even call it and argument (enter Monty Python--this is not an argument, yes it is...etc.). I am not an instructor and have no ego involved in my skill label. I know I am mediocre and hope someday to be better. None the less it is clear to me that your CSIA classification system is logical and coherent and should be helpful for your group with regard to assessment and progression.

That said, I think that you are wrong when you say that the "word" doesn't matter. You say umbridge is taken only because people will always rate themselves higher than they are. This may be true for many skiers and it is commonly held that most males will tend overate their abilities while most females will tend to underate theirs. But none the less, the real sticking point here IS the words. I see it as unfortunate that creators of the system have chose to use the terms intermediate...etc...in a way different from commonly accepted usage. It is bound to at least cause confusion and as it has developed, I would say resentment.

Consider how silly it would seem if the scale said, "once all of these skills have been aquired to the Nth Degree then the skier is classified as a "Tomato". Congratulations Sir, you are a Tomato. What, no I'm not. Yes, you are, the book says so, see... But a Tomato is produce. I'm not produce. Oh yes, you are a Tomato. Your skills have been rated and this is your classification.

You see. This has nothing to do with Ego or over rating. It simply results from use of a WORD (Tomato) in a way inconsistant with its commonly understood meaning. Although this is a more severe example, I believe much of the above discussion is actually based on this principle which here is demonstrated in the absurd.

Is the rating system useful?--perhaps
Do most skiers (at least men) over-rate themselves?--probably
Should a skier have to be the equivalent of a PSIA level II to be called a Tomato, I mean an Intermediate--No, that's just silly

Thanks RiDe, my point exactly - hence my posting dictionary defs, and my earlier comments that this was semantics and that we were arguing over a word.

You have advanced my point, er I mean intermediated it.

Oh and I've seen you ski and you are better then mediocre.

mediocre |ˌmēdēˈōkər|
adjective
of only moderate quality; not very good : a mediocre actor.

Of course I guess somewhere there is a system that would consider mediocre to be an intermediate level term. (Then again I would not call you an intermediate either.)

Oh, never mind.

In PSIA-E the SSD has to sign off on your event application, in theory you won't get a sign off unless you are at or close to the standard, in theory.

That's not the point Bill. It's an independent evaluation that is needed for your chances to be grounded in reality. A SSD might have a desire to support you and see you get that pin but may have a bias towards that aim that makes it harder to assess your chances. .
I wish you a good end to your quest whenever you choose to go for it.

The trainers and ski school directors may want you to get the pin but they also want to demonstrate that the candidates that they are approving to take the exam are, in fact, ready to take and pass the exam. Sending candidates to an exam when they are not prepared well enough to pass the exam reflects poorly on the ski school and the training staff and they do not want that.

PSIA-E does have a practice exam in its listing of events it puts on.

PSIA-C calls their practice events exam preps.

I think both are designed to give "honest feedback" regarding the participant's readiness for meeting exam requirements.

There are prerequisites for taking the LII exam:

• Development Series Skiing - for preparation for Part 1
• Moguls Series - for preparation for Part 1
• Level II Practice Exam Skiing - for preparation for Part 1
• Movement Analysis - for preparation for Part 2
• Foundations of Teaching - for preparation for Part 2
• Level II Teaching Seminar - for preparation for Part 2
• Alpine Snow Pro Jam - track selected for preparation for Part 1 or 2

Preparing for Level II

Prior to completion of the Level II, Part 1 or Part 2, a ski teacher is required to have attended a two-day prerequisite event. Candidates may choose which part of the exam they would like to take a prerequisite for.

And there are exam clinics for LIII prep

• Part One of the event is a Skiing Development Workshop. The workshop will focus on refinement and mastery of skills and tactics needed for high level skiing situations and accurate performance of demos and tasks. Bump skiing will be included in Part One, but will not comprise a major part of the workshop. Movement analysis skills will be practiced and coached during skiing improvement activities.
• Part Two of the event is a Teaching Development Workshop. Primary workshop content will include skill development for coaching upper level skiing, movement analysis, prescriptive exercises, teaching methods and learning preferences. It will also focus on the creative use and mastery of practices outlined in the PSIA Core Concepts Manual.

Another random thought...
... Subjective ratings verses a quantifiable standard.

Like E I see a lot of new instructors who for whatever reason falsely believe their skiing is closer to the standard they are trying to acheive. In my opinion it has to do with too much emphasis on certification labels instead of an honest assessment and a stronger focus on how far they have developed and refined their fundamental skills. The certification is just a milestone and as such it isn't nor IMO shouldn't be the reason for learning. Which also means putting their EGO aside and accepting the reality that they are only so far along that path towards becoming the skier they aspire to be.

This is very interesting.

In my style of karate, a white belt was a novice. Typicaly after about 3 or 4 months of about 9 hrs a week, you could progress to yellow, but ou weren't intermediate until about 3 or 4 years (green). Advanced took 4 or 5 years(brown).

It took me 4 years of intense training 4-7 days a week a few hours each day to reach and also to consider myself at the intermediate level. Yet I do not think I needed 3 years of training to be intermediate in skiing.

Could it be that we are practicing skiin skills in other activities mor so than in martial arts? Is skiing down a steep icy run easier than landing a great sidekick without getting your as handed you by your opponent? Or do i only think i'm above novice when it comes to skiing.

Any martial artists care to chime in?

Well this is an interesting topic ghost. as you probably know, not all martial arts have belts and different degrees of recognition. The three internal arts are what I speak of. Tai Chi chaun, Bagua, Hsing-I. However there are competitions in these arts, which might relate to racing in skiing. for the most part these arts are praticed for personal health, growth, and cultivation. A personal intrinsic journey. Competitve push hands can become pretty physical, So for those needing extrinsic recognition there are always competitions. This is somewhat contrary to the underlying philosophy of the internal arts though.

With respect to teaching, traditionaly it is taken very seriously and only those who have been deemed to have knowledge and skill are given permission to teach by their teacher. Of course this isn't always adhered to and you can find many tai chi teachers who don't always represent the arts in the best light.

Now how does skiing fit into this all? Well I would have to say that I view skiing as being a lot like the internal arts, where we participate for personal enrichment, growth and enjoyment. A persoanl journey. We don't need to have grades and belts for the general skiers, but teaching performance should be guided and controled for quality and skill. For those in the general public that seek outside recognition there is racing and the various competitions. Though just like in martial arts, where all advanced students are not given permission to teach, being good at skiing doesn't always transfer to being good at teaching skiing either so we enter into exams and levels of competance.

While I understand what BigE is saying, I don't think that it is so important. For teaching however we need to have recognized standards to certify to. For the general masses the only ones in my experience who are concerned with what level they are are the overly competitive ones, and they ussually overrate their own skills. But as Rick said so well, this is really unimportant in the actuall student coach relationship.

This does show it's ugly head when we need to split people into cohesive compatable groups though, so life does present us with situations where we need to categorize people's level of performance for our immediate coaching needs. This has little to do with general performance categories, but more like in comparing how ripe the fruit on the various trees is so we don't try to harvest all the fruit from every tree at the same time. It wil all ripen in it's own time.

You guys might find the Johari Window an interesting psychological model in the discussion of "objective evaluation" and the student-coach relationship.

I've dabbled in Tai Chi for a couple of years, and even had an introduction to Pa Kwa (spelling). I've also got a Black Belt in Shorinjiryu Karate Do.

In my style we had tournaments and it was a good idea to separate on ability level. We also had red and white shiai, where you lined up on two sides and went through both lines until one was finished. You could get some interesting fights.

The black belt merely meant that you were deemed qualified to teach our style and what you would be teaching would indeed be our style, but it gave you some sort of landmark. With Tai Chi, there really doesn't seem to be a milepost, just a direction.

Still, I don't think to acquire and consolidate enough skill to be an "intermediate" skier requires as much practice time Karate. Why is that? Does anyone else agree?

I agree with that Ghost. As to why I'm not so sure I have a credible answer. I know that in tai chi chaun, a person is not encouraged to pursue tai chi as a practical martial art until they have practiced daily for a number of years. I've spent a couple of days with two different gold medal champions on several occasions and the amount of refinement and soft power they have is extraordinary. They would be the equivilant to a world cup champion, but they were both very talented and dedicated long term teachers. So the transfer of knowledge happened easily.

My thoughts are that skiing simply doesn't have the refined historical lineage that the martial arts have. Not because skiing is lacking in depth or detail, but for the reason that very few are motivated to pursue skiing to this level or degree. This is not why they ski. They ski for very personal reasons, such as escaping from the drugery of everyday life, to have winter fun outside, and to stimulate and wake up our body and our senses.

If we look at the bulk of skiers that ly in the middle of all the skiing public, from a numbers perspective, it is easy for me to see how the term intermediate paints such a broad brush stroke through middle ground of the skiing public. I have no problem with that.

Pa qua or bagua are both translations I have heard for the same internal art. Ghost if you haven't read this book I think you would find it interesting. "the Power of Internal Martial Arts and Chi" by Bruce Frantzis. One of the few westerners to train on mainland chna wiht some the old masters in the 60's and 70's.

Ghost,

What number of days is spent practicing at the dojo to have "consolidated" all their skills? Is that number greater than the number of days on snow to be ready for Level II certification?

It has been said that one could pass level 2 skiing with 200 days on snow -- that would prove all skills have at least been consolidated.

This is not so say that 10 days/yr and 20 years will do it. More like 50 days/yr over 4 years or 40 days/yr x 5 years.

Is there really that much difference?

In my opinoin, there is a difference in assessed skill level based on the typical average of all the skiers in the immediate area.

For instance; an intermediate skier in the Rockies might be judged to be more of an expert in a smaller hill.

So when we midwesterners visit a real mountain, what do we tell the ski instructor what our level is?

And, just to show that precision of vocabulary is important, this statement can be true, but it often isn't, since much data is skewed so that the arithmetic mean does not divide the sample population in the middle.

However, it is true that 50% (or slightly less, depending on whether n is even or odd) of a sample population will be below the median.

Of course, in order to calculate a mean value, it is necessary to assign numerical values to skiing ability, which opens up a whole new can o' worms!

I think I understand Big E's point, though, which I believe is that CSIA, in order to enforce some precision of terminology, has developed a specific set of standards regarding skill acquisition and internalization in order for a particular term to apply. It bears some resembalance to the "conscious-unconscious" skill aquisition and use spectrum mentioned elsewhere.

Resistance arises, of course, because so many of us are accustomed to rather fuzzy conventional uses of the terms in question, because so many skiers clearly do not meet the standards specified by CSIA, and because our egos (or those of our clients) are involved, so many regard anything less than "advanced" as pejorative. Many (most) practitioners of the sport see it as a purely recreational activity, rather than a discipline like one of the Martial Arts. Skill acquisition and refinement may not be high on the list of priorities for most skiers, but they don't want to be called "novices" by some elite bunch of know-it-alls.

What to do? I certainly don't know. I can understand what CSIA wants to accomplish with respect to a useful vocabulary, but I can sympathize with the more generous use of the term "intermediate" accepted by the rest of the world, as well as most dictionary definitions. Instructors entering the CSIA milieu need to understand, and accept, both the internal definition and the one used by everyone else in order to communicate successfully both with other CSIA instructors and the general public.

And for those in the U.S., the CSIA model may be something that is useful to understand, even if it's not used in daily practice and you don't agree entirely with the application of some of the terms.

Perhaps you misunderstand my question. Roughly 2000 hours of practice time in the Dojo ---> "intermediate"
And according to your CSIA definition about 1600 hours on snow is required. About the same (let's not quibble over 20% ). My problem is that in my recollection, based on me and my daughter, and a few friends and most of the intermediates I've encountered, "Intermediate" i.e. being able to ski down the mountain without worry or thought as to how to make the movements, ie. like a walk in the park, didn't take nearly as much time, more like 400 hours on snow,,,albiet, usually spread out over 2 or three years.

I really like the definitions BigE presented from CSIA. I think they are fair assesments of skill aquisition & accomplishment. It is unfortunate the terms novice & intermediate carry negative connotations for many people. For many others, it does not.

I have to agree ego and the need for many to believe or display what they think they have accomplished or gained in skill is quite prevalent in skiing. To the detriment of safety. Skiing can be filled with injuries and occasional death. Not uncommon. It could be less so if practical assessment of skills by recreational skiers was widespread, along with less ego & less "advanced skier" labels.

The framework for learming & accomplishment BigE references has a built in safety net, as much as there can be one for skiing, utilizing a fairly objective skill progression/acquisition rating. Acquire, accomplish, consolidate before moving on to bigger challenges. This is where safety lies in any sport where a high risk of injury or worse occurs. Putting ego's aside makes a huge difference in safety factors.

You are using the term "intermediate" using the hours necessary to obtain a middle level belt in Karate, and comparing it to the term intermediate using your own and what I think is the publics general understanding of an intermediate skier.

These are two different things.

Clearly, the CSIA term intermediate is different.... the definition you've chosen applies to the 50 day skier.

The CSIA definition of intermediate requires that all skills are at the consolidated level, not that they get down the hill "like a walk in the park". A "CSIA intermediate" would pass the level 2 exam, your average "50 day intermediate" will certainly not pass the level 2 skiing portion and is very unlikely that they would pass level 1 either.

What does the label, whether intermediate advanced beginner, novice or tomato, have to do with safety?

I can see the logic in level 2 being intermediate. After all it is intermediate between level 1 and level 3. I am not familiar with CSIA or PSIA or any other skiing testing or grading system. I'm just saying judging by how well people are able to use thier skis to get down the hill I see more "intermediates" than the CSIA definition would allow. Now that I think about it probably not as many as I had prior to thought, maybe 25 to 35 percent of the people on any given black diamond run.
EDIT: POSTED AT THE SAME TIME AS BIG#'s POST 142.

Agreed: CSIA Intermediate is not the same as generally accepted definition of intermediate.

25-35% is a big enough range to include advanced skiers. That would leave 65%-75% of the people on any black diamond run as being novices.

I find that consistent with the runs at Blue Mountain, although I think the number of novices is low.....

Consider this grasshopper. One is not ready to pass the exam until one knows whether or not they will pass it.

People who think of the skiing portion of a PSIA certification exam as "a ski ability test" are missing a crucial concept. If one considers the test as verifying that one can "walk the talk", then one is on the path towards the concept that understanding the talk can lead to walking the talk and that misunderstanding the talk can lead to crooked walking. Thinking of the skiing portion of an exam as a "ski understanding" test is an approach that will greatly help a candidate pass the exam. If you understand the tasks and the scoring criteria, you will know when you are ready to pass the exam.

TheRusty, I'm not so sure about that. I know a lot of people who have passed both level 2 (and level 3) skiing who don't seem to "know" what specifically is required to pass the level 2 skiing module.

'Knowing' exactly what they're looking for really helps and I recommend it - but it might be years after a skier can pass the skiing component before they really understand exactly what an Examiner is looking for.

Much of the time clinicians tell candidates, "Yeah, that looks really good, you'll probably pass" so the candidate goes and passes the Skiing Exam despite not knowing exactly what it was that got them over their last hurdles.

It isn't the skiing portion that checks for conscious understanding, it's the Teaching/technical portion that does that (and not always successfully).


.ma

I've heard several different versions of that, all from people who should know.

Michael,

I agree. There is a subtle distinction between being ready to take the exam and being ready to pass the exam. There are plenty of people who pass before they are ready to pass, but the majority of people who are not "ready" to pass don't pass. This shows up in the high percentage of fails in level 2 and 3 exams. Because of the high percentage of fails, many people go to exams "hoping to pass" but knowing that there is a good chance that they will not. In the absence of high quality prep training this is not an unreasonable strategy. It makes perfect sense if you have more money than time or effort.

You don't have to have examiner level knowledge to know you're ready. There is a certain level of knowledge below that level that is enough for pros to be able to identify the general "zone" required for passing. The concept is that this is the same level of movement analysis skills that are required to pass the teaching exam (i.e. you should be able to MA your own skiing). You should also be able to feel the difference in your skiing.

Each PSIA division is unique. In the East we have extensive preparation guide material including a video showing skiers who meet the standard, skiers who don't and explaining specifically why. At least for the Eastern division, there is very little excuse for skiers not to be able to know whether they are ready to pass or not. It is not the same in all divisions.

I've been to many prep clinics in the East where you can simply ask the examiners what they are looking for and they will tell you. Obviously, you won't learn everything they are looking for that way and developing the ability to see what they see is a separate task. For many of the tasks in my recent level 3 exams, the examiners identified the major things they were looking for in the task introduction. Still, many people go to exams not knowing what the tasks are or what the scoring criteria are because they have not spent the effort to ask for this information and their clinicians have not gone out of their way to provide unsolicited information.

With the specificity in the "visual cues", school trainers should be able to do much better than "that looks really good". We need to include the specifics of why it looks good in reference to the visual cues. This is an example of good coaching that we need to pass on by example. The examiners that I've skied with the past few seasons have been emphasizing this.

Yes the teaching portion of the exam is THE step for checking conscious understanding. But just like the examiners checking your skiing in the teaching portion (they do this too), the reverse happens in the skiing portion. This may show up as a component of scoring instead of a direct score. This may not formally be the same in all divisions, but it is hard to believe that this is not happening across the board the same way that your professionalism is being tested at all times throughout the exam process. The scoring is not important. The linkage of the concepts is. This is an explanation of why "good skiers" fail the skiing portion of exams.

I tend to agree with theRusty. There is a difference between going to an exam wondering if you are good enough and not feeling totally confident in your skiing and teaching abilities and going feeling good about your capabilities in both skiing and teaching. Knowing that you have applied and trained yourself as best you can, but not knowing exactly where the line is drawn.

I went to clinician tryouts this way. Not knowing where the bar was, but feeling confident in my abilities. I went to the tryout without placing any expectations on myself. I just wanted to learn and put my best ski forward. It worked out and I was one of two out of six that were hired.

Most people know when they find in themselves the ability to change their skiing on demand and find real versatility coming easier to them.

I also think it is a stretch to lay all the blame on the training for failed exams, though good training should be available and consistent throughout the process. People need to be self motivated and responsible for their own learning. If they are, then the available training will become much more usefull. Failing an exam can be a great motivator.

I think the big problem is that a lot of people go to exams knowing that they are a good skier and thinking that they could or should pass because of their own vision and understanding of what good skiing is. They look at the exam as a bar to jump over instead of a process for self improvement. They see the pin as badge that represents a level of skill instead of an "I've been there" bumper sticker acquired during a long journey. Because it is possible to pass the skiing exam based on a having a high level of skill without knowing why or how, some people can pass the exam with only their own perspective. Those who only know that they are a good skier because of the steepness of the slopes they ski and the speed at which they ski them, etc. are more likely to discover that they are failed due to some arbitrary triviality that has no impact on their standard of good skiing. Those without "natural talent" who can see that the exam is more about the process of getting better instead of proving that they are good will find that the exam is easier to pass.