or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Full Cert.

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
Ott made some statements in the "Elephant" thread that me think.

"Now if I had my drathers, instructors and their badges would refer only to CERTIFIED, which means now Level-3, and we would go back to Associate and Registered status for Level-2 and Level-1."

What should happen to a full cert who can no longer ski at that level? I would think that most people who passed the teaching and technical part of the exam would still be able to do so, but what if age or injuries kept them from performing at level 3 skiing standards.
Is there a relationship between the pro athlete who can no longer play the game at that level and is let go and a customer who wants an expert level ski lesson and gets a pro who can no longer ski at that level (never mind the MA and teaching skills?)
I don't really have a position on this I am just curious.
post #2 of 10
Tenure comes to mind. And all its possible good/bad.
post #3 of 10
Many professions which have professional designations or certifications require recertification periodically and/or a certain amount of continuing professional education on a yearly basis. For example, I have to take a recertification exam every 7 years and am required to obtain 70 hours of continuing education every 3 years. The reason for this is, obviously, so I can stay up to date with the latest and greatest in my field.

Is this not true of the ski instructing industry? With the many technological changes especially withing the past 10 years in skiing I would assume that those certified before the mass advent of shaped skis have had to learn not only new skiing techniques but also new teaching techniques. Were these "older" instructors not required to take classes on this? If not, how did they pick up the skills necessary to make sure their teaching was not dated. Seems to me that, unless your profession is completely static as far as change goes, some recertification process makes sense for the good of the industry. Just my 2% of a dollar.
post #4 of 10
There is, in fact, a requirement in most (all?) divisions for continuing education once you get any level of cert. But that education may be in any area you wish it to be in. We get alot of older instructors just "polishing their pins" and taking what we refer to as " Cruise-O-matic". It's a cruising on groomed run type clinic, supposedly oriented toward developing updated skills, but is basically a low energy/ low effort skiing day.

Virtually any level of skiing, teaching, or other topics are available for these instructors to take. For them to be stagnant, is a personal choice.

Kill me if I ever get like that, would you? They shoot horses, don't they? :
post #5 of 10

Are you sure you want only Level-3 to be called Certified? Most customers don't need a Level-3 in a lesson, yet they would probably feel cheated if a Registered or Associate instructor gave the lesson. All of a sudden everyone would want certified instructors yet for most skiers that would be like getting a brain surgeon to administer a needle. That is the reason why schools are eager to call everyone Certified.

On the other hand, I admit that I would have a tough time taking a lesson with a Level-1. Even if he/she can analyze and correct my skiing, I would still hesitate because most Level-1s, do not ski with the precision, control and ease that I want to see. It is a psychological thing of course, but I suspect that many advanced skiers would feel that way too. So in the end, calling everyone Certified is OK by me, as long as the Level of certification is disclosed.

As for older L-3 who can no longer perform due to physical restrictions: when a customer asks for a level-3, they should be asked what are their general goals. If steeps, bumps, jumps are the goals, then the ski school better not assign them to a 50 year-old with bad knees. Just use common sense.
post #6 of 10
In addition to some level 3's not making much effort to stay current, some aren't even members of PSIA any more! They still wear the badge, but they don't pay their dues or take any kind of interest in changes in skiing.
I've spent the season trying to hunt down a certain instructor who has been teaching people to start a turn with their upper bodies. Horrible when you get them afterwards. Students keep telling me he has a shiny pin on, like my bronze one, but it's gold and red, they think...
good grief.
post #7 of 10
Thread Starter 
TomB, the quote in my response was not mine it was Ott's.

I don't really care what they call the different levels as long as it makes some sense to informed paying customers. I might take lessons from other than a level 3 if people I trust had a good experience with the person. After all, level 3s had to be level 1 and 2 at some point in their training.

I have to participate in training to keep my certification, but that doesn't mean that I am currently skiing at the level that I am rated.

[ April 19, 2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Lucky ]
post #8 of 10
There is no reason to distrust an intern or a resident in a hospital, just because they are in the process of becoming certified, they have an overseer whom they can consult and they are not performing brain surgery...yet. But when they are done, fullfledged practicing doctors out on their own, we trust them with our lives...

The same goes for aprentice and associate instructors, they are not going to get a mogul clinic or other high advanced class unless the director thinks they can handle it. But a full certified instructor should be able to handle any class within the realm of recreational skiing.

As to the waning physical capabilities of some instructors, that can be a problem of which the SSD is usually aware and if he thinks that the instructor is still valuable in some way he may put him/her to work in an area where the skiing prowess is not paramount.

I started teaching in 1960, got my full certification in 1963 and quit teaching in 1985 at the age of 53 when I still could outski most anyone I encountered. I was still a sought after instructor but I had limited time and couldn't adher to a schedule since my photojournalism job had me now move at a few hours notice, so rather than having to make excuses why I didn't show up, I just retired. If you read my profile it says 'retired level-3 instructor'. I also keep my pins under wraps.

Despite all that I've kept up fairly well with the advances in skiing, and when I don't know something, I ask.

Having said that, getting to level-3 is very easy now compared to then, but as I hear there is a big turnover and people let their certification lapse and the ranks need to be filled.

That's just my take on it... ....Ott
post #9 of 10
You want to know about re-certification at work, I have to do it every 3 months [img]smile.gif[/img]

An athlete can almost always outperform the coach in their discipline, so does that mean that makes them a bad coach? Sure it’s nice to be able to watch somebody do it right and try to emulate them, but what is more important is somebody watching you right and trying to correct you. I would have full confidence in somebody who was once a very competent skier but could no longer ski as aggressively as they could. They have climbed the curve so can empathise with what I’m going through, yet have the wisdom to coach me to a greater level.
post #10 of 10
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, coach!

There are a few who can do both!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching