 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| I see guys working in the Alps, who probably qualified 30/40 years ago and they're still teaching the same way as they did then. I'd rather be taught by someone more recently qualified, who is up to date and keen to impart what they've learnt. |
That's a much more important issue than titles and egos. The reason I stopped ski school for a long time was the rubbish quality of instruction I got from a number of fully qualified ESF instructors. They could have called themselves whatever they wanted: Full Instructor, Senior Instructor, Moniteur National, Full Diploma, etc, etc. Still would have been rubbish teachers, and nowhere near the quality of instruction I provided last week to a group of beginners despite me being a very lowly Level 2 instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
skisimon, I really like apprentice 
rob@rar, yep Junior would work too...
skisimon, yep assistant race coach works well for me for the lower levels...
I'm not that fussed personally - I have a system that mostly works for me... and I've skied with CSIA 4's that sucked and 3's that were awesome! but I do think it is a little unfair on the public that they are not aware that levels of instructors exist... Understanding the idea and choosing the particular instructor over the system is better... but not having a clue reflects poorly on the organisations involved... (or on the egos of the lower level instructors who never seem to explain to the student they are only part way there)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
lungostyle, I can see why what your ex-students said upset you. However, from your point of view, you know you are a far superior skier to them, and if they think otherwise then they are fools. I imagine, however, that they just wanted to thank you for teaching them well in the first place, and enabling them to realise their dreams and open up a completely new opportunity to them.
I'm not an instructor, or a particularly high level skier (though like so many people here, I aspire to improve), so I can't really comment on the merits of Instructor Trainers or Race Coaches. However, I thought I'd just put in my perspective as one of the more ignorant posters on this forum. I've had a variety of coaches with a variety of qualification, and therefore a variety of experiences. I had an outstanding French ESF Instructor/Guide in Belle Plagne (Frederic Le Moullec). I had a reasonable German CSIA 3, though she was recovering from surgery and couldn't ski as well as she would have liked, especially in the bumps. A Japanese CSIA 3 who was an ex-racer was excellent, though I think he had failed CSIA 4. I then had a "semi-retired" ESF guy in Tignes Val-Claret who was not very good. Very old-school style quite different to what I had been taught. At first I was a bit annoyed, but then decided that the more tools you have at your disposal, the better. He also took us on an off-piste route that ran out of snow quite a long way before the bottom necessitating a reasonable hike. I thought that was poor. More recently, I've had two excellent CSIA 4 Instructors (one was CSCF 2, the other CSCF 3) - Leslie Glaysher and John Kindree. They both taught a more modern style despite having being teaching for a number of years.
Someone has already used the analogy of University, so I thought I would too since I spent ages there and did some teaching. More recently qualified PhD students often made better supervisors (1-2 ratio) than Lecturers and Professors for two reasons: they had studied the topic themselves more recently and remembered why it seemed hard at the time; and it is more important in their career in order to become a Lecturer. Having said that, there is no substitute for an inspired Professor who is not only a genius in their field, but a passionate and inspired teacher who really cared about the students. In my experience, Professors in this category make up about 20%. Perhaps skiing is more fun, so the ratio is higher for ski instructors.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 20-01-09 12:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| jcbaragorn wrote: |
| More recently, I've had two excellent CSIA 4 Instructors (one was CSCF 2, the other CSCF 3) - Leslie Glaysher and John Kindree. They both taught a more modern style despite having being teaching for a number of years. |
Someone with a lot of experience, but who has made the effort to teach new styles on the new kit can make an excellent instructor. Our own easiski has more teaching experience than most instructors but seems to have thought carefully about how to teach modern techniques, no doubt updating her own skiing too. The glowing testimony she has got from many people here, me included, shows that effective teaching is not a preserve of the young or not-so-young. For me an important distinction is whether instructors see themselves primarily as teachers or as good skiers. I know which mindset I prefer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Spyderman, Neither - my objection is (as it was before, during etc the trouble) that part time, part qualified instructors pass themselves off (to the public, chalet mates, and clearly to Lungostyle as being at the same level as full time professional instructors (or coaches). clearly, as rob@rar, says it doesn't last long with professionals once you see them ski, but it reduces our credibility with the alpine nations and their professional instuctors. You talk about other professions, but there is a difference between doing it for a living and doing it for fun/whatever at the weekend! In the examples you quoted they were all 'professional' (ie: doing it for a living).
No-one is saying they (you) don't do a valuable job etc. but there is a world of difference. BASI 3 (now L2) used to be 'Assistant Ski Instructor' I've always thought it was a shame when that was dropped.
Part of the problem with the French is that they don't have different levels of qualification, and that should be remembered since they have nothing to fall back on if they don't make the top grade. I'm sorry, but the very fact that so many L1s and L2s don't think there is a problem actually shows the problem.
Brits have long had the idea that ski instructors are just ski bums etc. There is insufficiant respect for the qualifications, and perhaps it's, in part, because they don't understand the levels because it's not 'out there'??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Re: the older guys - yes there is a problem - there have been 2 teaching on the nursery slope here this week and they shouldn't be allowed out. However not all older instructors are like that, and most of the poor ones were old 'Moniteurs' rather than 'Professeurs' when the french changed the system - they all got 'Nationale'!  I'm sure it's the same in switzerland, austria and Italy as well (actually the italian system currently includes down (sitting), pole plant, up, down which I thought had gone out with straight skis!)
rob@rar, I don't doubt you gave them a super lesson, but also don't forget that experience can allow you to do and say things that aren't in the book/training courses etc. and therefore gives you more flexibility.
Is it arrogant to be proud of achieving your aims with all the years of hard work it involves (to say nothing of the money)? I really don't understand why this is considered arrogant, and why it's considered in some way unfair to be a little unhappy when people who haven't made the same effort and committment seem to think it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| easiski wrote: |
| rob@rar, I don't doubt you gave them a super lesson, but also don't forget that experience can allow you to do and say things that aren't in the book/training courses etc. and therefore gives you more flexibility. |
Indeed, which is why I find it all the more frustrating to see fully qualified old-timers give such poor, uninspiring instruction (as no doubt do you).
| easiski wrote: |
| Is it arrogant to be proud of achieving your aims with all the years of hard work it involves (to say nothing of the money)? I really don't understand why this is considered arrogant, and why it's considered in some way unfair to be a little unhappy when people who haven't made the same effort and committment seem to think it is. |
No I don't think it is arrogant at all. I'll never get to ISTD status, but if I did I would be justifiably proud because it's a big achievement especially for those coming from a non-mountain background. But I also hope that I would be keen to give new entrants to the profession a warm welcome, including disregarding any idiocy from the newbies about being as good as the fully qualified guys. Right now, with a just one week of teaching experience under my belt, it doesn't feel to be a terribly warm welcome to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, very quickly before I hit the slopes this morning...
| easiski wrote: |
| rob@rar, I don't doubt you gave them a super lesson, but also don't forget that experience can allow you to do and say things that aren't in the book/training courses etc. and therefore gives you more flexibility. |
This is a very good point actually (not referring to you here rob@rar  ). I too was quite pleased with what I and the group I was teaching achieved this week, with eight of the ten skiing controlled parallel turns down some interesting reds. One more was still in snow-plough most of the time, but skiing down the same runs (occassionally bringing both skis round together). The final one was still struggling (with confidence issues) on blues, but was very ill for the last two days so didn't ski with us - not nice, but it gave the rest of us a chance to try some terrain I would not have taken him on.
Anyway, the SSD (or whatever his title is exactly) watched one of my sessions. He thought it was good, but suggested a couple of changes. Trying to compensate for the day before (day 2) when I had been almost solely occupied with bringing the weakest skiers up to the level of the rest, I spent a little bit too long explaining things (having not really spent enough time discussing things the day before). He commented that I was a bit too focused and 'technical' and that I should just tone it down a bit and ski some more. The remaining three days were better, I felt for acting on this advice. What I still need to work on is his other advice - having more than one or two ways to teach things. Perhaps my weakest member may have been up with the rest of the group if I had the experience of someone like easiski, with a range of experiences and ideas to fall back on.
Still, I was very happy with the week as a whole, and will be taking on the advice and using it when I head out for a second week at half-term. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Right now, with a just one week of teaching experience under my belt, it doesn't feel to be a terribly warm welcome to me. |
Unfortunately I agree (to a degree). This does seem to be a very European thing (and by European I include Britain, which I don't usually). There seems to be a small proportion of old-hands that seem to think you can only teach someone to ski once you've been teaching for a number of years. (How then, does one suppose, you get those number of years under your belt, without being a lesser qualified instructor and gaining experience...)
There does not seem to be anything like this attitude in N America (from my trips and times on Epic) - where they seem to agree that lower level instructors are great things because: they are usually still very enthusiastic; take care of the beginners, so the seasoned pros can concentrate on more interesting and varied client needs; and the qualified ones generally provide a more than adequate service for first timers.
Of course this may stem from the fact that a lot of instructors in the States aren't qualified at all - so even PSIA I shows a level of commitment and development...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| easiski wrote: |
| Part of the problem with the French is that they don't have different levels of qualification... |
I'm struggling to understand what is a Stagiere if it's not a pseudo level of qualification - albeit a time-limited one.
People pay money for Stagieres to teach them to ski. You don't get a discount for a Stagiere. Their work isn't supervised or inspected in the manner that, say, a plumbing apprentice's work would be supervised.
If you asked their clients, 10 out of 10 clients would say "that's a ski instructor".
If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...
(Being properly cynical I salute the Stagiere system for being a beautifully designed pyramid scheme.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
easiski, Unfortunately you and Luca are in the same position as many professionals in that there are many "para" professionals able to do a lot of the low end and standardised stuff that you may have spent a lot longer getting qualified and experienced in. Ask an accountant, conveyancing lawyer, garage mechanic (v Kwik fit fitter) etc.
I can't believe that a good L1 can't deliver a valuable learning experience to a beginner but obviously anyone who understands knows that a 18 year old CSIA L1 isn't the same as a ISTD. Does the general public - maybe not but more fool them, if they think all lessons are equal maybe they get what they deserve? Alternatively maybe the national bodies need to be a bit more market savvy - why is there a niche for independent ski schools in France, because ESF plainly was delivering to everyone's satisfaction? 
Edit to add I am however very sympathetic to your viewpoint, it is not unique to your profession- how do you think chartered engineers feel when a bloke who pitches up to drill a hole in your wall for cable tv is an " installation engineer".
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Tue 20-01-09 19:45; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
okay head above parapet a bit... I kinda agree with lungostyle...
i am a L2 BASI coach and have been coaching for over a year in a snowdome. I work under a highly experienced set of senior coaches and have been learning loads. I teach minis and they have come on leaps and bounds mainly through basic skills development. The better ones i cant claim to have changed much but had some input... I'm proud of the work I've done, and, we all have to start somewhere.
That said i am deeply embarrassed by my lack of experience in racing and don't refer to myself as a race coach. i have only done a very limited amount of training in gates and have never run a competitive race. I plan to rectify that in future but in the mean time i think the jump from a BASI L2 to L3 is too high and that some sort of system should be in place to highlight a race coaches experience and ability.
You can take a 3 or 4 day course never having instructed before and you too can be a BASI L1 'race coach'. I appreciate that it will be very much an entry level role helping out but BASI should adopt the Canadian approach of getting 'trained' status after passing the course and then 'certified' after getting some time under your belt and additional training.
I may be out coaching in the Alps this spring and I for one will keep a VERY low profile after watching the French Coaches hoon down with 2 pairs of skis, a drill and all typically on one ski  Experience in racing counts no matter what level you competed at but you should have to have sat in the start gate at some point IMO to call yourself a race coach....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FlyingStantoni wrote: |
| easiski wrote: |
| Part of the problem with the French is that they don't have different levels of qualification... |
I'm struggling to understand what is a Stagiere if it's not a pseudo level of qualification - albeit a time-limited one.
|
yeah that always bugs me as well, the assumption that all French instructors are fullly qualified. How many of the 15,000 or so ESF guys are full Nationales? I bet it is no more that a few thousand. Perhaps easyski could chip in with some facts.
and its not like they get booted out of teaching if they dont make it within X years.they just have to stay as a stagierre longer and continue to earn less. We all know of stagierres that have been at it a lot longer than 4 seasons.
The French system is a good one. Instructors make a reasonable wack once fully qualified and can work while they train. Any foreigner can enter their system and if you are outside there system and training through say BASI you can teach, earn and train as well as long as you meet ISIA criteria. seems fair to me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
boh .....maybe they joke with me......but not too much......aniway....the assistent instructor or like you want to call ......is in reality someone that have no finished yet is course for become full qualified instructor and so there is no reasone they can work.......because you can go for example in the 3 valley.....courchevel meribel etc etc......they are all there.......they open also ski school......and cause they are british their lessons are more expensive than the other ski school.....and everybodi knows that if you are a basi you gain a lot more than a french or an italian ......the skischool pay you more......and that happen only cause there are too many of these "categorie" of not full instructor........
SO AT THE END FOR ME WE CAN ALSO SAY THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY BE A VERY GOOD SKIER FOR TEACH......BUT LOW LEVEL.....CAUSE FOR HIGT PERFORMANCE OR GOOD SKIERS.....FOR ME WE NEED TO BE ALSO GOOD SKIER.......AND NOT ONLY GOOD TEACHER.......AND THE PRICE OF THE LESSON HAVE TO BE VERY LOW IN THE CASE OF LESSONS WITH NO FULL QUALIFIED INSTRUCTOR......AND STAGIARE AND BASI 2 OR 3.....THEY CANNOT TEACH......BEFORE THEY FINISH THEIR FORMATION.....IN THIS WAY WILL BE NO PROBLEM WITH DIFFERENCE IN QUALIFICATION......AND WHEN A CLIENT GO IN A SKISCHOOL CAN BE SURE ABOUT THE QUALIFICATION OF WHAT HE IS PAIING FOR.......AND WILL BE NICE HAVE ALSO IN SKISCHOOL THE CURRICULUM OF THE TEACHER.........CAUSE i THINK IT IS DIFFERENT IF YOUR TEACHER HAVE DONE 10 YEARS OF WORLD CUP RACE.....OR HAVE DONE 15 YEARS ONE WEEK OF HOLIDAY WITH HIS FAMILY.......THAT FOR ME ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME........
PS: aniway I produce more damage than an earthwake with that post!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
FlyingStantoni, skimottaret, Well - they have levels and they have to pass them en route as it were, but they are not considered qualified until they get that diplome. Actually I was not considered qualified when I first came here in spite of being Grade 1 because I was non diplomé! (I found this a bit insulting, but as soon as I had my equivalence cert and my professional card it was ok)
I don't know how many are nationales, but as far as I know all the 'Permanents' - that is the profit sharing members of the co-operative have to be. Louisa was dead chuffed to be made a permanent at La Plagne a couple of seasons ago. So if you go into our ESF office you'll see a wall of photos and all of them are Nationales - that's at least 100 at a guess. Stagiares ? Not sure but they will have passed at least as much as a BASI L2 and the current level for Preformation seems to me to be a bit higher than that.
Once again that nasty suggestion has been made that beginners do not need or merit the top instructors - I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE. The first week on skis is when the good habits for a lifetime of pleasure are formed - or the bad ones learned. It is the foundation and must be right - sadly it's often wrong and rushed - why????
skimottaret, Stagiares get extra time if they're injured which most of them are at some point! The French tend to be stricter IME with their own than with foreigners.
lungostyle, tell that to the ESF, the ESI and Jeremy! However, the dry ski slopes in the UK do need to part timers, so you cannot actually compare a ski school in resort with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| easiski wrote: |
| Once again that nasty suggestion has been made that beginners do not need or merit the top instructors - I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE. |
I agree. The first few lessons are the most important and should be taught by the best instructors (whether they be the most experienced people or not). Unfortunately that runs against the grain as, like much of this thread, the needs of the client seem to be a fairly low priority compared to protecting instructors jobs or making sure they don't spend too much time on the nursery slopes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
lungostyle, Why can BASI L2's teach legally in the Aosta valley?
I'm confused, are you saying that Secondo Grados cannot be paid to teach in Italy? and only Maestros can?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
easiski, it would irk me if I were ISTD, and a part-time L2 with no other redeeming features presumed to be my equal, but people misrepresenting themselves unless in obvious jest irks me anyway, whether that be bragging or being disingenuously modest. Actually, if my lead theatre nurse started describing herself as a surgeon, in a professional context it'd be a matter both for the courts and for her professional regulatory body, but in a social context I think I'd just find it mildly entertaining as she would represent no threat to me and would take in no one but a fool for long. I do take your point though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
beequin
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
If your chief surgical nurse started describing herself as a surgeon, you'd be annoyed wouldn't you?
|
Isn't it more a case of comparing Kew under-8s with coaching Manchester City? |
Obviously you're someone for whom the pretence would be successful for a while longer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| easiski wrote: |
Spyderman, Neither - my objection is (as it was before, during etc the trouble) that part time, part qualified instructors pass themselves off You talk about other professions, but there is a difference between doing it for a living and doing it for fun/whatever at the weekend! In the examples you quoted they were all 'professional' (ie: doing it for a living).
|
How about John Travolta flying a Boeing 707 as his private jet, or Bruce Dickinson flying commercial jets part-time for Astreus. Proves the point to me that you don't have to be full-time to be good at something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
You don't have to be either full-time or even qualified to be good at some things. But not others. You can also be full-time and top qualified and still not be very good. However experience and insight count for a lot. I know BASI Level 2s who are imo very good part-time dome teachers. Don't know how that translates to a mountain environment but would suspect it would take a significant but perhaps not insurmountable translation. I've had/seen lessons from top qualified instructors who can ski very well but appear disinterested or arrogant and deliver a poor product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lungostyle, While I agree with alot of what you say your grasp of economics is perhaps flawed (in my view..)
If there really are so many 'non-fully qualified' instructors working in say the 3 valleys, then they cannot possibly charge or pay lots more than other ski schools/instructors. Simple laws of supply and demand.
Can a 'non-fully qualified' instructor open a ski school? Yes why not. Its a business like any other. Perhaps if more French (or other) instructors took the (very big) plunge and committed themselves to organising & finding their own work then they could earn more than they currently do.
Incidentally I gave a lift down the hill to a French instructor working for one of the large independent schools yesterday, and they are well down in numbers of British stagiares this year...
Gotta go, more fresh powder to ski...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
and they are well down in numbers of British stagiares this year
|
the fairly recent change of having to do the Test Technique might have something to do with that.. most guys i speak with say why bother with France as an ISIA, you make as much working elsewhere and you just train for your Eurotest and ISTD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
We are using France an Italy as the examples on this thread, but its worth remembering there are about 36 member nations of ISIA (professionals) and 32 member nations of IVSI (amateurs). All these nations will use ski instructors in a way that fits their particular needs. Most of the ski instructors in Austria are qualified to Candidate (Anwarter) level the county seems to run a thriving ski industry. As mentioned before on here I have seen fully qualified instructors giving a poor service, and newly qualified lower levels giving a great service!
The issue arises when it is miss sold in my view. Many of my past clients had no idea of my level of qualification, is was just their ski instructor. They probably thought I was a ski bum. People are often very surprised when they find out what it takes to be a fully qualified ski teacher. These days, and especially in this forum we are all very aware of the qualification structure. So, if you are aware and you hire what you think is a full cert then you have grounds to be pissed off if you get a trainee, however, if you want to learn to ski and the instructor teaching you does a great job where's the problem?
On another note, this thread started about coaching which is very often not a commercial product, it takes place in a club. Therefore the people receiving the coaching are members, not clients. This seems like a small point but its the very fundamental difference between Professional and Amateur.
PSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gilleski wrote: |
| The issue arises when it is miss sold in my view. Many of my past clients had no idea of my level of qualification, is was just their ski instructor. They probably thought I was a ski bum. People are often very surprised when they find out what it takes to be a fully qualified ski teacher. These days, and especially in this forum we are all very aware of the qualification structure. So, if you are aware and you hire what you think is a full cert then you have grounds to be pissed off if you get a trainee, however, if you want to learn to ski and the instructor teaching you does a great job where's the problem? |
I agree, I can't see what the problem is from the client's point of view, unless they specifically ask for a ski teacher with certain qualifications or experience and get someone who does not have those attributes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
gilleski, I know quite a few people with coaching certification that do not work for clubs... in fact many work for the race dept of ski schools... and they are anything but amateur! Are you saying all the CSCF guys are amateur? That has me very confused because my experience is the opposite... The race dept folks(most of whom are coach certified) were always the ones with the best jobs in the ski school... these were the positions to be aimed for in many cases... In fact one of my instructors was a trainer and examiner then ran the race dept and now the ski school... was he "amateur" when he was with the race dept? Or when he was coaching juniors in between instructing and training and examining?  How would he be amateur part of the time and professional the rest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
rob@rar, the problem is the average customer does not know what to ask for and their perception of what they are getting is not an "apprentice"
Most folks are horrified when I explain that the "instructor" they left their kids with has a good chance of only having done the 5 day hiring clinic - of which only a day or 2 will be devoted to teaching them to teach... Ditto all those pretty suits teaching the beginners... Last time I looked closely most of the folks at line up were Level 2 or less - the resort seemed to be actively discouraging level 3s and experienced folks from returning as they must pay them more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| little tiger wrote: |
| rob@rar, the problem is the average customer does not know what to ask for and their perception of what they are getting is not an "apprentice" |
That's a problem with the ski school's hiring policy, not the instructor. Under the current BASI system anyone who is teaching on a mountain should ski and teach to a particular standard which is continually assessed over three weeks, plus has a basic 1st aid certificate, covered a module on child protection and will have shadowed other instructors for at least 70 hours. Obviously some national systems require much more than this, others much less. As with life, paying for ski instruction is at least partly a case of buyer beware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| little tiger wrote: |
| Are you saying all the CSCF guys are amateur? |
No, I don't think he did say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
little tiger, Using the UK and Europe as examples where coaching is very offten through clubs and coaching is not the coaches full time job. There are thousands of clubs throughout the Alps where the local kids train at the weekend for example. Example: in Mayrhofen the local kids dont go to the ski school for ski lessons, they are members of the local ski club are have access to coaches/trainers. In the UK qualified coaches through the UK snowsports scheme can apply for the IVSI stamp ( Amateur body of ski instructors / coaches). France is a member of IVSI and run a scheme through FFS. These French qualified coaches working for clubs can not be paid for the service they provide.
I know little about the system in the USA or Canada. I know the race department concept is big in NZ and Australia.
Amateur for me is an activity that is not a persons full time occupation (they may be paid though). Professional being a persons full time job. This is how it is defined by the world skiing bodies ISIA and IVSI. Canada and USA are not members of IVSI so probably see things differently.
Amateur activities will take place through a non commercial organisation ie club.
PSG
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Wed 21-01-09 11:07; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
little tiger, Using the UK and Europe as examples where coaching is very offten through clubs and coaching is not the coaches full time job. There are thousands of clubs throughout the Alps where the local kids train at the weekend for example. Example: in Mayrhofen the local kids dont go to the ski school for ski lessons, they are members of the local ski club are have access to coaches/trainers. In the UK qualified coaches through the UK snowsports scheme can apply for the IVSI stamp ( Amateur body of ski instructors / coaches). France is a member of IVSI and run a scheme through FFS. These French qualified coaches working for clubs can not be paid for the service they provide.
I know little about the system in the USA or Canada. I know the race department concept is big in NZ and Australia.
Amateur for me is an activity that is not a persons full time occupation (they may be paid though). Professional being a persons full time job. This is how it is defined by the world skiing bodies ISIA and IVSI. Canada and USA are not members of IVSI so probably see things differently.
PSG
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rob@rar, I would say there are more non-cert than full cert instructors teaching in USA (I have no idea of numbers that is just my perception from those I meet and talk to)... I've skied with an "instructor" who had NEVER traversed (and in fact could not)... and I know plenty who will proudly announce they could not ski but were hired for their personality (and they still cannot ski that well)
gilleski, so that examiner/trainer/instructor/coach I described was ONLY coaching part-time... hence coaching was NOT his full-time job ... then again he was not full-time examining or full-time training... or full-time instructing... so you class him as "amateur"? and I know a heap of people with ISIA stamps that do not even instruct PART-TIME... let alone full-time... they may be certified to ISIA standard but no they do NOT work and have not for MANY MANY years... and the PSIA guys do not even understand the concept of teach another discipline or teach in another language or avalanche training (or didn't when I was posting on epicski... they flipped when I pasted the ISIA stuff on there for them - funny asmany said they HAD ISIA stamps - they just send off for it after they get PSIA 3 - and each region has different criteria but from the stink it seems the 3 above were not part of level 3 in many)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| little tiger wrote: |
| rob@rar, the problem is the average customer does not know what to ask for and their perception of what they are getting is not an "apprentice" |
That's a problem with the ski school's hiring policy, not the instructor. ... As with life, paying for ski instruction is at least partly a case of buyer beware. |
Is this an argument for differentiated pricing depending on the level of qualification of the instructor in the same way that e.g. hairdressing salons do? BASI Level 2 would then be junior instructor, ISIA instructor and ISTD senior instructor? It would at least make for transparency both within the instructing system and to clients and make it easier for the buyer to beware. Obviously at present, if a ski school can get away with charging a flat rate for all instructors regardless of level, then it makes business sense to do so... But likewise, if a school could charge a premium for their ISTDs, then it might generate money that they could conceivably use to fund the stagiere training?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| little tiger wrote: |
rob@rar, I would say there are more non-cert than full cert instructors teaching in USA (I have no idea of numbers that is just my perception from those I meet and talk to)... I've skied with an "instructor" who had NEVER traversed (and in fact could not)... and I know plenty who will proudly announce they could not ski but were hired for their personality (and they still cannot ski that well)
|
Makes me pleased I get all my instruction in France 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| eng_ch wrote: |
| Is this an argument for differentiated pricing depending on the level of qualification of the instructor |
That would be fine by me, especially if it reduced some of the protectionism practices used by national systems and/or big ski schools. I've been happy to pay a premium for high quality instruction from fully qualified instructors for some time. Other people might prefer the lowest cost instruction. Just so long as it is all clear and above board I wouldn't have a problem with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
gilleski, the fact is that USA/Canada/Australia/NZ have many (i not all in soem cases) resorts where the resort owns the right to all business conducted in it... So a club MUST employ a ski school employee - not use a person of their choosing - because otherwise they cannot conduct training... Hence the race dept concept IIUC...
You simply cannot rock up and run lessons on the resort land (partly because they are also legally liable for activities conducted due to owning the rights)... I have a friend wanted to run xc lessons... resort did not offer any... he was unable to establish a business doing so - and he did try quite hard...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
little tiger, If they work for a commercial organisation - Professional, If its a club or no profit making organisation - Amateur. Thats the definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| little tiger wrote: |
rob@rar, I would say there are more non-cert than full cert instructors teaching in USA (I have no idea of numbers that is just my perception from those I meet and talk to)... I've skied with an "instructor" who had NEVER traversed (and in fact could not)... and I know plenty who will proudly announce they could not ski but were hired for their personality (and they still cannot ski that well)
|
Makes me pleased I get all my instruction in France |
Makes me pretty pleased I had lessons with good instructors - much luck going there I think... only 1 really dodgy (funnily enough a PSIA cert)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| little tiger wrote: |
| ... only 1 really dodgy (funnily enough a PSIA cert) |
Which simply proves the point that being fully qualified doesn't necessarily guarantee a great instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gilleski, now that is interesting... FIS biographies have clubs for many competitors... even WC ones... so if their coach works for their club he is an Amateur?
and the Italian guy I skied with coaches at national level but also the local club(via ski school) - he is amateur?
Boy this is confusing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
