Originally Posted by TheRusty
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
Currently, I think "The Standard" is too vaguely defined at each level. While some descriptions are OK most of them are descriptions of high-level appearances rather than specific mechanical and biomechanical descriptions with sufficient detail to be understood without lots of assistance.
The "Visual Cues" are just that - external visuals - that an observer might see in a candidate and that's why they don't make for a good written Standard for the candidate to understand from their own internal reference point. They're a good series of statements to put on a candidate's final report card and might be easily understood by other Examiners - but not by the candidate that just failed to qualify, raising their irritation level further.
I think an independent observer should be able to read a 'Standard' and with a modicum of terminology comprehension understand what each level entails with reasonable objectivity. I know that's reaching a bit but I think it's doable if key people were willing to make the effort.
In the PNW I'd like to see better dryland training clinics that explain exactly what each Standard level entails with video showing what does, and does not qualify at each level - and why. This might make for a good prerequisite for taking each Exam. It would also prevent the problem I experienced: Poor TD knowledge and outright erroneous information related to what was needed. I only learned what was needed for the L2 Exams by taking the L2 Exams.
It is absolutely true that candidates need to take full responsibility for their own success and failings - but without accurate input by trainers, how exactly does a candidate know what will be successful and what will fall short? That's another reason I'd like to see better, more expansive documentation along with clinics to explain the material.
I also agree that candidates should understand the difference between "a good skier" who is an athletic person able to ski with confidence down steep and difficult terrain vs meeting the L1, L2 or L3 "Standard" which involves proving they can ski well using specific movement patterns while performing specific tasks. Their own athleticism and skiing coolness is a nice-to-have extra, but doesn't in itself qualify, nor does it serve as a substitute for those required patterns.