Uncertified Instructors

[Rod9301]

I know both Gremans and Austrians. I know they didnt just go out and dobit on their own.

No, they pay to learn how to teach and pas the exam. Not cheap.

 

[OnTheEdgeNotTheWedge]

I’ve been in client facing pro services for over 15y so I am quite practiced at both spotting BS and keeping my skepticism about it to myself. I don’t have to do that anymore now that it’s over.

I was disappointed in the exam structure and general inefficient use of time well before I knew my score.

One thing I’ve learned doing lots of certs is that if they matter to your paycheck, go for it but if it’s purely about skill improvement or status, the test is unnecessary if you actually care about what you’re doing.

 

[markojp]

I’ve been in client facing pro services for over 15y so I am quite practiced at both spotting BS and keeping my skepticism about it to myself. I don’t have to do that anymore now that it’s over.

I was disappointed in the exam structure and general inefficient use of time well before I knew my score.

Well, it sounds like you've found resolution. You seem to have the answers you're looking for that rationalize your opinion. Honestly, the ski school thing probably isn't for you. Just go skiing and have fun. Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[jimtransition]

Like on Europe, they learn how to do on their own, then pass the Euro test, and start teaching, and earn a living wage immediately

Who tells you these things? Europe is quite a large continent and only 2 countries (out of the 40ish countries with skiing) require CTT/eurotest to be an instructor, one of those has a 4 year trainee period first as well. Yes wages are a lot better in some countries than the US, other countries it's worse.

 

[Rod9301]

I know that in France the test if required, but as wages go, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, instructors make decent wages, enough that they can work till they retire.

 

[markojp]

One thing I’ve learned doing lots of certs is that if they matter to your paycheck, go for it but if it’s purely about skill improvement or status, the test is unnecessary if you actually care about what you’re doing.

Hmmmm. So if i have all my certs, i DON'T care what I'm doing? Did i understand that correctly? If that's the case, you really couldn't be more mistaken.

 

[François Pugh]

I’ve been in client facing pro services for over 15y so I am quite practiced at both spotting BS and keeping my skepticism about it to myself. I don’t have to do that anymore now that it’s over.

I was disappointed in the exam structure and general inefficient use of time well before I knew my score.

One thing I’ve learned doing lots of certs is that if they matter to your paycheck, go for it but if it’s purely about skill improvement or status, the test is unnecessary if you actually care about what you’re doing.

No. They failed you for a reason. It may not be the reason they gave you, and they may have had to resort to arbitrary judgement calls to come up with the reason they gave you; they may themselves be poor communicators by not explaining that reason properly. However, they did have a reason.

As someone who has read a lot of material written by both successful and unsuccessful candidates and talked with a lot of these people, I have an opinion, that you will have a hard time (bulk of the body of evidence) reversing.

IMHO you failed because you did not demonstrate that you have aligned yourself 100% with how they have decided skiing should be taught. You did not convince them that you have drunk their cool-aide. As just one example, some half-century ago they decided that the gliding wedge needed to replace the snow-plough, because too many beginners were left with a bad stem habit from repeating the entry to the snow-plough turn by moving the tail of their outside ski to form the wedge too many times before they advanced to parallel skiing. The older method (snow-plough) used strongly tipped skis with a wide V-angle. It really engaged edges. The newer method involved nearly flat skis and a small V angle.

By it's very nature and the laws of physics, even though it is the edges that turn us, the less-ancient method (wedge) made pivoting the skis easier, and produced less force from the edges. There was some controversy when the method was introduced. I've seen instructors reverting to the wider angled. more-edged, plough even in this century, and it helps by providing more turning force (stronger edge engagement) on steeper territory. Unfortunately if improperly taught as a speed control method instead of a stronger turning method, the old method installed a "don't go" mentality instead of a "go-there" mentality. Probably why the new method caught on. It seems to have helped greatly to eliminated the stem habit, but many skiers are left with a permanent pivoting habit, pivoting flat skis at transition. However that rotation is great for getting a bigger steering angle at the start of the turn and thus helping speed control and good for learning traditional short radius (not arc-2-arc) turns.

If you did not start your wedge turns by pivoting the tips of both skis down hill, with the rates of rotation being slightly different to form the wedge, you obviously did not drink the cool-aide. To pass the test, the tail of your outside ski must not move uphill. If you started your wedge by rotating the tail of the uphill ski uphill, you failed the test.

That's just one example of why you may have failed Level 1. To get highest level, not only do you have to appear to have drunk the cool-aide you have to be a staunch defender of the faith.

However, don't listen to me. I'm not even in the organization, so I know nothing about it; listen to one of the highest level members. Listen carefully to what they say, and be sure you fully understand it. You don't have to drink the cool-aide, but you have to know it.

P.S. the link provided to what it is you're supposed to do provided loads of material IF YOU SIGN UP. I'm not joining, just to get that; it should be a free readily available download.

 

[justplanesteve]

some half-century ago they decided that the gliding wedge needed to replace the snow-plough, because too many beginners were left with a bad stem habit from repeating the entry to the snow-plough turn by moving the tail of their outside ski to form the wedge too many times before they advanced to parallel skiing. The older method (snow-plough) used strongly tipped skis with a wide V-angle. It really engaged edges. The newer method involved nearly flat skis and a small V angle.

By it's very nature and the laws of physics, even though it is the edges that turn us, the less-ancient method (wedge) made pivoting the skis easier, and produced less force from the edges. There was some controversy when the method was introduced. I've seen instructors reverting to the wider angled. more-edged, plough even in this century, and it helps by providing more turning force (stronger edge engagement) on steeper territory. Unfortunately if improperly taught as a speed control method instead of a stronger turning method, the old method installed a "don't go" mentality instead of a "go-there" mentality. Probably why the new method caught on. It seems to have helped greatly to eliminated the stem habit, but many skiers are left with a permanent pivoting habit, pivoting flat skis at transition. However that rotation is great for getting a bigger steering angle at the start of the turn and thus helping speed control and good for learning traditional short radius (not arc-2-arc) turns.

If you did not start your wedge turns by pivoting the tips of both skis down hill, with the rates of rotation being slightly different to form the wedge, you obviously did not drink the cool-aide. To pass the test, the tail of your outside ski must not move uphill. If you started your wedge by rotating the tail of the uphill ski uphill, you failed the test.

As someone who (more or less) started to learn to ski some 60 years ago & returned only recently after decades lapse, I've been trying to drink the coolaid in order to be a better beginner teacher. I understand the above & incorporate it; nonetheless your explanation and layout is better than what i've garnered elsewhere so far, including the PSIA materials.

Thank you!

smt

 

[ThomasH]

It seems that the only places that think that way are the smaller Indy resorts that are very much part of the local community and that is a shame.

Nope, sorry to say. My last job was at one of these & it became very clear that management's highest priority was $$$. I could go into lots of specifics but suffice it to say that when we instructors offered literally no-cost easy-to-do suggestions to improve things like SAFETY for both staff & customers, we were told to mind our own business. So until things change, I'm out.

 

[ThomasH]

How am I supposed to know what to tell an instructor what I want to work on? Shouldn’t I be able to sign up for a lesson and tell my instructor to watch me ski and expect them identify a couple of things to focus on for the most significant improvement?

That's what this instructor does. PSIA calls it "movement analysis"- the instructor identifies weaknesses in a student's movements by watching them ski. But a lesson is more than that- a good instructor will know how to correct those flaws, demonstrate the corrections/body movements, explain the corrections understandably, listen/watch for feedback, adjust them if they don't work- all while keeping the student in a safe & appropriate environment. Easy peazy.

 

[Chris V.]

IMHO you failed because you did not demonstrate that you have aligned yourself 100% with how they have decided skiing should be taught. You did not convince them that you have drunk their cool-aide.

Haha, you're the second person to have used that phrase with me, the first being a member of staff. The rest of your message nicely describes some of the improvements in PSIA doctrine. Apart from any built-in limitations of that approach, the devil is in the details. I see many students who end up starting a turn with an aggressive weight shift and big toe edging move, which is a proto-stemming movement. With many instructors, the subtleties haven't sunk in.

The good news is that regardless of what PSIA thinks, once you're teaching, many schools will pretty much let you do what you like, as long as you're effective. Many of the managers don't necessarily subscribe to everything PSIA says. It's just easier for schools to rely on PSIA for assessment and certification, than to set up independent pathways, and it gives instructors certifications that are portable.

P.S. the link provided to what it is you're supposed to do provided loads of material IF YOU SIGN UP. I'm not joining, just to get that; it should be a free readily available download.

Some of could get you pirated PDFs if you like, LOL.

 

[ThomasH]

IMHO you failed because you did not demonstrate that you have aligned yourself 100% with how they have decided skiing should be taught. You did not convince them that you have drunk their cool-aide....To get highest level, not only do you have to appear to have drunk the cool-aide you have to be a staunch defender of the faith.

They probably have a file on each of us they labeled "difficult." Like Elaine Benes.*


*[He said, only half-jokingly.]

 

[markojp]

Nope, sorry to say. My last job was at one of these & it became very clear that management's highest priority was $$$. I could go into lots of specifics but suffice it to say that when we instructors offered literally no-cost easy-to-do suggestions to improve things like SAFETY for both staff & customers, we were told to mind our own business. So until things change, I'm out.

All management is not created equal, and each area will have different priorities. I have yet to work for or with one that didn’t take safety pretty seriously, but i dont ski everywhere in the US.