|Some quick observations is that in RM the focus was stronger ski related and in the East a bit more teaching related.
I agree. Last winter, 00/01 I taught in Vail and trained hard for my Level III in a number of clinics at Vail. Oz, I think you might have lead a number of these clinics. The emphasis was on skiing. We did little in terms of progressions or movement analysis. And the skiing emphasis seemed to be on big mountain skiing, not precision.
Because of time commitments I never got to take the LIII exam, which, BTW, in RM is 2-days and includes both the teaching and skiing part.
So, I took both parts of the exam in PSIA-E this year. 2-days each for skiing and teaching.
The skiing part was grueling. Two days with three examiners, you needed to pass two of the three examiners to pass the exam. No numerical scoring as in RM, just Pass or Fail.
The teaching part was another 2-days, and you couldn't sign up for it until you passed the skiing part. Two days, with four examiners. It also was grueling, but in a different way.
The difference between RM and E? I'm not sure one is easier than the other, just different. Surely E is more comprehensive and grueling, but, on the other hand because you have seven examiners over the two parts, you can't really blow it by just having a bad day.
A national exam? I don't think that makes sense. Teaching at Vail is a whole different world than teaching at Waterville Valley, NH. Sure, there are lots of commonality, but teaching at a mountain like Vail that is literally 20-times bigger than WV, and all day lessons, rather than 2-hr lessons, you are often as much coach and guide as you are instructor. Your teaching style can be much different in that you have time and terrain on your side.