The challenge of Level 3

[James]

I’m not sure one even needs a signature approval from ski school anymore to go take an exam.

 

[Disinterested]

In PSIA-RM, you do not, although you do have to get a proficiency log signed off by someone, but that's treated like a triviality.

 

[Kneale Brownson]

I must say I have seen very limited indication that Vail Resorts cares all that much about the performance of their candidates at these exams, and that does comprise a big chunk of the industry.

I greatly enjoyed the training available at Breckenridge during my 11 seasons working there.

 

[Mike King]

Getting to the Level 3 standard is not easy. It is even harder if you are teaching 6-7 days a week. And yet even harder if those are full day private lessons, from 9-3. Where is the time to train? Where is the energy to focus on tasks?

Training time is mandatory to get to level 3. Maybe you can do it without a coach, but that would be pretty unusual. Video is pretty necessary as well, if for no other purpose than you give you a real perspective on what is the actual state of your skiing.

But all of these things are complicated by life, the need for most to earn a living, and the allocation of time to the various tasks that are necessary to make level 3 a reality.

Add to that the fact that PSIA DOES NOT have a prescriptive way to ski. Yes, there are common elements in executing tasks that examiners look for, but PSIA does not have a rigid framework of how to ski. If it did, there might be a more disciplined approach to preparation that might make success more likely.

I had a discussion with Ann Schorling this fall about training. She believes that many Level 3 candidates attend too many training clinics. She said that rather than the candidate taking the coaching from a session and working on that until they had mastery, they were back in another training session, with a different voice, and with a different focus of feedback, with the result that things were a muddled mess rather than a progression.

I've taken this observation to heart this season. I've only attended one cert training session, and that was for teaching. I have a single coach I’m working with. I’m doing @tomgellie ski conditioning course. Yes, there are coaching elements in this course, but I discuss them with my coach. And, to date, those coaching elements have been worked in with my coaching plan.

I’m atypical of most folk pursuing level 3; I’m old, retired, have the financial assets to allow a level of coaching few could attain, and have the time to focus almost solely on my training. Stilll, it makes me realize just how hard it is to attain the level 3 standard. Just getting to that standard in understanding of biomechanics and physics isn’t easy, let alone developING the movement analysis skills. Add in the actual skiing tasks and it is a real undertaking.

personally, I think level 3 is akin to earning a ph.D. It takes at least a similar amount of time, focus, and effort. And that’s probably why I’m pursuing it...

 

[James]

Just getting to that standard in understanding of biomechanics and physics isn’t easy,

Let’s not get ridiculous.
Anytime ski instructors get into physics it’s a disaster. Hell, we’ve had people with phd’s in physics here arguing against each other about very basic stuff.
It might work for you, and kudos for that, but so would being a dumb jock to pass the skiing.

 

[Mike King]

Let’s not get ridiculous.
Anytime ski instructors get into physics it’s a disaster. Hell, we’ve had people with phd’s in physics here arguing against each other about very basic stuff.
It might work for you, and kudos for that, but so would being a dumb jock to pass the skiing.

I didn't say you had to have a ph.D. level of education and knowledge of physics for passing level 3 -- but you do need a clear understanding of what the skis provide in the way of forces and how the body movements may affect force on the skis as well, at least to pass movement analysis (and possibly teaching) in RM.

 

[markojp]

Ditto on the 'over clinicing' thing. I think I said the same earlier on in the thread.

 

[James]

I didn't say you had to have a ph.D. level of education and knowledge of physics for passing level 3 -- but you do need a clear understanding of what the skis provide in the way of forces and how the body movements may affect force on the skis as well, at least to pass movement analysis (and possibly teaching) in RM.

I did not say you needed that level of physics. It was an example of how people with that level of physics have violently disagreed on this site. About basic stuff.

I suspect you may be overcomplicating things. Guarantee we could get an argument going amongst those in your training circle on the physics, and even the movements. Do not forget the history of ski teaching is rife with national methods and violent disagreements.

At some point you have to decide what matters and what works for you, and what makes sense, and own it.
And sorry, don’t overlook that the talented “dumb” jock is likely to pass before you. Now, maybe they’re not dumb, or maybe they understand enough to get it across. Or maybe they invent something that sounds good.

We could get 4 top chefs all making scrambled eggs in a different way, many insisting it’s the way to do it. Yet all would taste very good and one would be happy with any of them. Heston Blumenthal might then come in with his physics eggs and they could be no better than the others. Then a physicist comes in with his eggs from a dfifferent angle, or claims Heston is missing the real physics. He points out how Heston’s physics is wrong. Yet Heston’s eggs taste better...