|Originally posted by disski:
So why is APSI 2 an ISIA standard when the highest cert is 3?
Similarly for CSIA 3 & 4?
Could your understanding be wrong?
& what was posted above be correct? [/QB]
I would suggest it might well be for the same reason PSIA-E has a level IV cert. It corresponds to PSIA-RM's Trainer Accred.
As far as "my understanding" goes I can only say I have an ISIA "stamp" and I am simply relating what has been stated here previously cy others vis a vis what cert levels in various countries are given ISIA stamps. Could I be wrong? Yes!
Here is what Bob had to say some time ago on the subject. Take it for what it is worth.
posted October 19, 2003 12:17 AM
Ott--is your PSIA certification still current? If it is, you'll have no problem updating your ISIA stamp. I hope you will do it, and take advantage of the discounts and other perks that credential entitles you to. You do great honor and dignity to all of us in the ski-teaching profession, and there is no one who I'd rather have representing me as a member of PSIA in Europe!
There has been some misinformation in this thread. The ISIA stamp is essentially a credential available to the Full Certified level instructors of most skiing nations. What they call that level varies from organization to organization, and pretty much all instructor organizations offer continuing education and recognition beyond that "Full" level. Canada, as has been mentioned, has 4 levels of certification, but Level 3 is "Full." Level 4 is equivalent to what PSIA recognizes as Trainer Accredited (with various names in different divisions).
It is pointless to argue whether one country's certification standard is higher than another. The standards are different--like apples and oranges--but not necessarily higher or lower. They may emphasize different aspects of the profession--teaching skills, skiing skills, competition, back-country knowledge, resort management, and so on.
And there are the standards for passing Full Certification, the standards for maintaining active status as a Full Certified instructor, and the fact that standards and emphasis do surely drift over time. In any system, unfortunately, there are always a few who somehow slip through, inexplicably passing the exam with obviously inferior skills. Regardless of the reasons, these few do terrible damage to the reputation and perception of all the others. You'll find them in every skiing nation, though, and it is a mistake to assume that they represent "the standard."
In defense of PSIA, it is worth noting that PSIA is pretty widely recognized as the worldwide leader on the teaching, if not the skiing, side of the profession. But it's also worth considering that at least one Australian National Demo Team member failed to meet our Trainer Accreditation skiing standard in PSIA-RM last season, and I know of at least two Austrian (one also Japanese) Full-Certified instructors who failed to meet our Full Certification standard--one twice. I do not suggest that these examples prove that our standard is higher than theirs!
Isolated examples prove nothing--but they can disprove much.