 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
interesting to see that most instructors are arguing for a race test of some description even if they would struggle to meet the criteria...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| interesting to see that most instructors are arguing for a race test of some description even if they would struggle to meet the criteria... |
Yup, turkeys do vote for Christmas...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| in the 3 valleys there are 3 schools with the centre status for instance. Magic academy, ski supreme and the ESF. |
Is Supreme that big?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| Should only rally drivers be allowed to teach driving? |
I don't know anything about rallying or about teaching people to drive, but I do know that skiing GS gates is a really good test of core ski technique. I think all ski teachers should have that, including when they are teaching novice skiers (actually, especially when they are teaching novice skiers). I don't see the problem with having a test of ski technique as part of a ski instructor's assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| would you be happy with an instructor who can't ski well? |
I would hope that only people who could ski well would be passed at ISIA/ISTD level anyway, thereby making the argument about the Eurotest at least substantially obsolete. I would also expect that someone who wasn't a good skier wouldn't be able to pass an entry level course either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether or not a speed test should be part of a qualification is not the issue for me: it is to what extent (if any) the law should prohibit willing buyers and sellers from contracting for skiing lessons. The latest French case is a move in the right direction IMV.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Mon 24-03-08 22:41; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite my reservations about the Eurotest, I do think that the comparison with driving instructors is somewhat obsolete. Different methods of teaching - one is done with visual demonstrations, the other through explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
The biggest problem with the Eurotest that I can see is that it isn't handicapped by age - that would be much fairer and more appropriate imo. A system that deprives itself of the life experience that older entrants have would seem to be shooting itself in the foot somewhat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| skisimon wrote: |
| I would also expect that someone who wasn't a good skier wouldn't be able to pass an entry level course either. |
I've seen some people with Grade 3 who I was very surprised at because of their poor technique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| Axsman wrote: |
| Should only rally drivers be allowed to teach driving? |
I don't know anything about rallying or about teaching people to drive, but I do know that skiing GS gates is a really good test of core ski technique. I think all ski teachers should have that, including when they are teaching novice skiers (actually, especially when they are teaching novice skiers). I don't see the problem with having a test of ski technique as part of a ski instructor's assessment. |
But (with respect) that isn't what I'm questioning. Does skiing at some percentage of a racers speed constitute a good test of skiing and teaching technique? Is speed the determining criteria or are other factors equally or more important?
If the 'test of technique' excludes a significant number of otherwise excellent and skilful teachers because they are just not fit/athletic/quick enough to match an arbitrary racers time, isn't that a loss to the profession? How many instructors over the age of 40 could meet that test? should all instructors be 35 or younger?
IM (very) HO, the ability to ski gates at speed has its place when the learning goal is to go fast through gates. To teach beginners and 'holiday intermediates' it's pretty irrelevant.
Putting it another way, if I were selecting an instructor to improve my (admittedly sadly lacking) technique, and could ask them only one question, 'how fast can you ski gates' wouldn't be my first choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eng_ch wrote: |
| The biggest problem with the Eurotest that I can see is that it isn't handicapped by age - that would be much fairer and more appropriate imo. A system that deprives itself of the life experience that older entrants have would seem to be shooting itself in the foot somewhat. |
I agree. I've previously argued that there should be age-handicapping of some kind. The Eurotest should be a test of technique not strength/fitness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| Does skiing at some percentage of a racers speed constitute a good test of skiing and teaching technique? |
No, which is why I always say that a timed GS run is only a test of technique and that it must be accompanied by a range of other things when assessing a ski teachers competence, including an assessment of their teaching abilities. As I understand it, the highest level qualification of all the major ski nations includes assessment of skiing ability AND teaching ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| IM (very) HO, the ability to ski gates at speed has its place when the learning goal is to go fast through gates. To teach beginners and 'holiday intermediates' it's pretty irrelevant. |
I fundamentally disagree with that. Skiing gates well is no different to skiing on piste well, and core technique is core technique, regardless of whether applied to snow-ploughing beginners or strong intermediates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| offpisteskiing wrote: |
| Mike Pow, equally some might argue that the PSIA system (and I know having been there and done that) is somewhat 'fluffy' and focuses more on 'soft skills' and 're-selling/re-booking' than on concrete skiing development. Don't get me wrong I took LOADS of great stuff from PSIA, but my overall impression of teaching over there was lots of 'feel-good' 'hey that's AWESOME dude' at the expense of 'Why not try doing a bit more of this?' |
Don't dispute this.
And I've taught and worked with many good skiers who can't "feel" the difference between a good turn and a not so good turn.
| Quote: |
| Similarly encouraging people to try skiing lines different to those they normally make on their skis has a HUGE role to play in developing performance... |
Absolutely. I spend most of my time teaching balance through the turn but not sameness. And IMHO if a student can't interpret what the mountain and snow is telling them then they will more often than not make inappropriate manoeuvers.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 24-03-08 22:56; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| IM (very) HO, the ability to ski gates at speed has its place when the learning goal is to go fast through gates. To teach beginners and 'holiday intermediates' it's pretty irrelevant. |
I think what we as Brits - for whom skiing is almost exclusively a recreation - forget is that the alpine countries are looking for the next H Maier/A Deneriaz etc. so the racing aspect is important to them when teaching children.
I wonder if anyone has ever done a comparison of the proportion of adult to child learners across the countries? I suspect the number of British adult learners would be much higher than any alpine nation. Therefore racing is an irrelevance to most Brits - but not to the alpine nations where most European teaching occurs.
I have no argument with the need for almost all instructors to have some experience of racing - even if it were something like completion of e.g. min. 2 Snoworks race courses or equiv. - but am sympathetic to the arguments against the Eurotest, especially in its present form. I see a need for specialist racing instructors for talented kids (for whom the Eurotest would then be eminently appropriate) but I could envisage a system where such instructors were "referrals" as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Axsman wrote: |
| IM (very) HO, the ability to ski gates at speed has its place when the learning goal is to go fast through gates. To teach beginners and 'holiday intermediates' it's pretty irrelevant. |
I fundamentally disagree with that. Skiing gates well is no different to skiing on piste well, and core technique is core technique, regardless of whether applied to snow-ploughing beginners or strong intermediates. |
I don't have any argument with that, but would question whether (for instructional, as opposed to medal winning purposes) 'fast' = 'well'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Axsman wrote: |
IM (very) HO, the ability to ski gates at speed has its place when the learning goal is to go fast through gates. To teach beginners and 'holiday intermediates' it's pretty irrelevant.
Putting it another way, if I were selecting an instructor to improve my (admittedly sadly lacking) technique, and could ask them only one question, 'how fast can you ski gates' wouldn't be my first choice. |
Axsman, it only has a place up to a certain degree. If you are learning to go fast through gates what you seek in a coach is someone who understands skiing dynamics and is able to correct you so that you speed increases. This is primary and far more important than whether the coach can ski gates fast or not.
I would place a wager that a strong physicist specialising in object momentums could make very sensible suggestions as to how a skier could ski gates faster.
In terms of for kids, I agree with you and I would be much more interested in how patient an instructor was and how good there command of english was.
If it was just about being qualified for the discipline, then why don't the French make a higher level which requires a speed test and then these fabled instructors can be the only ones who can teach those thousands upon thousands of individuals each season that have a strong desire to ski gates ..... how ridiculous
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
plectrum, I agree with you completely. I don't see why skiing gates fast is necessary. It might be a good demonstration of a skiers skill but it doesn't mean they can teach, and not being able to scrape in under the clock doesn't mean another individual could not ber a perfectly good teacher. Seems very arbitrary and unjustified to me. (But then I am a punter, and a slow one at that  ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Axsman wrote: |
| IM (very) HO, the ability to ski gates at speed has its place when the learning goal is to go fast through gates. To teach beginners and 'holiday intermediates' it's pretty irrelevant. |
I fundamentally disagree with that. Skiing gates well is no different to skiing on piste well, and core technique is core technique, regardless of whether applied to snow-ploughing beginners or strong intermediates. |
Yes but being the fastest doesn't necessarily mean you have the best technique for general skiing. I know this is a bit out there but 'Bode Miller' is the fastest GS skier or atleast one of them but I do not see people copying his technique and am not sure that it would work well for an intermediate skier to copy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| I don't have any argument with that, but would question whether (for instructional, as opposed to medal winning purposes) 'fast' = 'well'. |
The only way to ski gates fast is to ski well. You just can't busk it. The Eurotest really is a good test of an instructor's technique. Too good a test in my opinion, and I think the bar could be lowered a little without compromising the technical ability I'd like top qualified instructors to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, My argument is with a system that rules out (i.e. denies the right to teach) to people who can't ski as fast as racers. I still haven't read anything on this thread or elsewhere that justifies this.
Maybe as has been suggested there should be a class of teacher that is aimed at racing and for which a test like the current one might be relevant, but as plectrum points out, even race coaches don't HAVE to be able to ski fast themselves, they need to be able to help their pupils ski faster which is not the same thing at all. Does Bode's coach ski faster than him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| plectrum wrote: |
| Yes but being the fastest doesn't necessarily mean you have the best technique for general skiing. I know this is a bit out there but 'Bode Miller' is the fastest GS skier or atleast one of them but I do not see people copying his technique and am not sure that it would work well for an intermediate skier to copy. |
Well, we're not talking about Bode level of performance. The Eurotest is tough, but not that tough. It's not a relevant example, but the only reason that Bode can do what he does is because he has supreme skills, like all the other top flight WC skiers. But if you want to look to racers for examples (which I'm thoroughly in favour of) try people like Raich or Ligety for brilliant technique that we could all learn from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, I tell you my main over-riding issue (and I admit I do not understand the situation like you or other potential instructors do), currently it seems that the 'speed-test' is the deciding factor as to whether you become an elite instructor but I cannot see how what it proves is the most important factor in being a great instructor.
I don't have an argument as to there being a need to learn how to ski very very fast and not necessarily fully in control but I cannot see why this should be the key test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An I just think that (for instructors of the majority of beginner to intermediate skiers who will probably never go near a gate) a 'race based' test is an unnecessarily demanding and to an extent irrelevant bar to entry to the profession.
(But I freely admit to not knowing a great deal about what I'm talking about) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
As far as I can see in the Swiss system, race tests are part of the system almost from the word go, but at the lower levels you have to get an average mark of 4 out of 6 to pass the exams so whilst you have to complete the race test, you do not necessarily need to pass that one module to pass the instructor level providing your other marks (8 modules total) are high enough to keep your average up. This actually seems more sensible to me insofar as it incorporates the race aspect without making it the be all and end all of being qualified to teach. The top levels of qualification entail the Eurotest, however, so I presume the usual Eurotest rules apply
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Mon 24-03-08 23:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Axsman wrote: |
| My argument is with a system that rules out (i.e. denies the right to teach) to people who can't ski as fast as racers. |
We're not talking about a system that requires people who can ski as fast as racers. The system requires people who can ski about a fifth slower. I know a number of teenagers who are already at a level that this will get an exception from their speed test because of their ability learned on dryslopes.
My argument is with a system that allows people with relatively poor ski technique to gain the highest level of qualification because they are primarily assessed on their ability to communicate. I think both aspects are essential, and the Eurotest is just one part of that assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| plectrum wrote: |
rob@rar, I tell you my main over-riding issue (and I admit I do not understand the situation like you or other potential instructors do), currently it seems that the 'speed-test' is the deciding factor as to whether you become an elite instructor but I cannot see how what it proves is the most important factor in being a great instructor.
I don't have an argument as to there being a need to learn how to ski very very fast and not necessarily fully in control but I cannot see why this should be the key test. |
It's not they key test, it's just one test among several. There's a teaching assessment, a technical assessment, mountain safety, plus a whole bunch of other stuff you have to do along the way (such as 1st aid, child protection, race coaching or freestyle, a second discipline, theoretical stuff such biomechanics and sports physiology and pyschology, legal aspects of ski instructing, etc, etc.). Simply passing the Eurotest does not get you the top badge in BASI, nor the French system, nor other systems as far as I'm aware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| plectrum wrote: |
rob@rar, I tell you my main over-riding issue (and I admit I do not understand the situation like you or other potential instructors do), currently it seems that the 'speed-test' is the deciding factor as to whether you become an elite instructor but I cannot see how what it proves is the most important factor in being a great instructor.
I don't have an argument as to there being a need to learn how to ski very very fast and not necessarily fully in control but I cannot see why this should be the key test. |
It's not they key test, it's just one test among several. |
AIUI it *is* a key test insofar as missing out on the Eurotest by a tenth of a second is enough to preclude you pursuing a long-term instructing career that will give you a living. The other modules you mention by and large all have immediate relevance to teaching recreational skiers (who, after all, surely make up the bulk of any ski school's clientele). The Eurotest is also a key test insofar as it is the one that people without a racing background are most likely to fail, however well they ski or teach - oder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| eng_ch wrote: |
| AIUI it *is* a key test insofar as missing out on the Eurotest by a tenth of a second is enough to preclude you pursuing a long-term instructing career that will give you a living. |
Surely you can say the same about all the modules which are pass or fail? So yes the Eurotest is a key test because you can't proceed without it, but so is every other course you have to pass, at every stage of qualification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Axsman, I don't think a speed test is necessary to teach beginners, but I do think that the instructors would have to be regulated to ensure they never leave the nursery slopes. Once they are teaching anyone on the open mountain, actually knowing how to ski is important and an objective test can be argued for. Within a four tiered system as many nations seem to be moving towards, the second level generally doesn't involve any racing or speed test or anything other than a subjective eye. This can result in very variable results but probably isn't too much of an issue for most early intermediates learning to parallel ski (unless they then iron in bad stuff before thinking about progressing further!). Anything higher and the argument for an objective test of technique set at a sensible level becomes stronger. This is obviously not to the exclusion of tests of teaching or any other desirable component. "Race speeds" is an arbitrary phrase. My belief as that of rob@rar is that the Eurotest level is set too high but I certainly feel that an objective test indicating that the candidate understands, can apply and can demonstrate to a high level the fundamental techniques common to all skiing is desirable before becoming an autonomous instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| My argument is with a system that allows people with relatively poor ski technique to gain the highest level of qualification |
But surely a course conductor is equally able to fail a person for this... Thereby omitting the need for an 'aribitary' measure, no reliance on physical attributes that may wane with age, and an ability to actually see the correct technique and the ability to actually demonstrate skills and drills. Which of course they already do to an extent - as I mentioned earlier, I'm not aware of any skiers who weren't very good that were able to pass at ISTD level, which makes the Eurotest for the level at which it is aimed, at least partially superfluous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, I'm a little confused, if a pro racer can ski the course in 100 secs does the potential instructor need to complete it in 118 secs? Also isn't it worth pointing out that in the pro circuit is the difference between Bode's time and the bottom of the roster more or less than 18%. If it is more then even at pro level there is more variance than 18% so undoubtably you'd expect a greater variance in the amateurs but all in the group are still good capable skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
) 