That’s probably right. Never attribute to intent and cunning that which can easily be explained by neglect and indifference!
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
PSIA - CSIA Compare and Contrast the Organizations (Training, Certification, and Teaching)
- Thread starter DavidSkis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aasi canadian ski instructors’ alliance csia csia level 1 ski instructor qualification csia level 2 ski instructor qualification csia level 3 ski instructor qualification dedicated to teaching people how to ski professional ski instructors of america psia psia and csia comparison psia-aasi's certification process ski instructor training
That’s probably right. Never attribute to intent and cunning that which can easily be explained by neglect and indifference!
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Posts
- 168
A couple thoughts, from a part time CSIA level 2 (I just instruct on weekends)
I know several people who have taken level 1 and 2 with no intention of instructing. For them, it's personal growth, a greater insight into the mechanics of skiing, and access to CSIA resources. They look at level 1 and 2 as a great deal on technical lessons with a high end instructor. They also go on numerous CSIA clinics every winter, as where else can you get instruction from a level 4 at such a price?
Going into higher levels, it's a lot of work, for not much reward. The pay isn't great, and combined with the seasonality of the job, it's very hard to make it into a serious career. It's people who adore the sport so much that they are willing to put up with the downsides who even try for more than a few years.
I know several people who have taken level 1 and 2 with no intention of instructing. For them, it's personal growth, a greater insight into the mechanics of skiing, and access to CSIA resources. They look at level 1 and 2 as a great deal on technical lessons with a high end instructor. They also go on numerous CSIA clinics every winter, as where else can you get instruction from a level 4 at such a price?
Going into higher levels, it's a lot of work, for not much reward. The pay isn't great, and combined with the seasonality of the job, it's very hard to make it into a serious career. It's people who adore the sport so much that they are willing to put up with the downsides who even try for more than a few years.
I've always been a critic of the low pass rates and have advocated for PSIA acknowledging its partial responsibility for the candidates' misunderstandings of what is required to pass. But I've never suspected that the organization's leadership wants to fail a certain percentage of candidates in order to bring in more revenue. The organization does need more money, but getting it that way, deliberately, just doesn't square with the character of the people I know who hold positions of leadership.
Examiners have to jump through many hoops just to get to be examiners. It costs them years of prep and they have to pay for the education that gets them that far as does everyone else seeking higher certification. Once they have that "job," then they have to go and disappoint the candidates who show up unprepared. Their professionalism is strong and they know the standard by the time they are grading candidates. I have no doubt about that. I also hear them talk about how much they dislike having to give those low grades. Probably some examiners do enjoy failing some candidates in order to knock their arrogance down a notch, but I suspect most don't.
But those issues are different from a system in which examiners are told by people above them to fail a certain number of candidates no matter how they perform. The examiners I have gotten to know would quit being examiners if they were not allowed to evaluate candidates according to their hard-earned understanding of the "standard." They worked for that autonomy and I can't see them giving it up.
What bugs me isn't some conspiracy theory about the leadership wanting more $$. It is the confusion candidates harbor as they go into these exams. Yes, that confusion is partly the candidates' fault for not looking hard enough to get clarity about the standards and their ability to ski to that standard. But it's also the educational organization's fault for not making their lack of readiness so obvious to them that they will know when they should not yet take the exam. PSIA is herding cats, yes. But I remain convinced that herding cats can be done better if the leadership is determined to do so.
Now that binomial formula that shows that even when people are seemingly prepared enough to pass, the failure rates will still be enormously high --- that's disturbing. It just doesn't feel right. I must be misunderstanding the numbers.
Examiners have to jump through many hoops just to get to be examiners. It costs them years of prep and they have to pay for the education that gets them that far as does everyone else seeking higher certification. Once they have that "job," then they have to go and disappoint the candidates who show up unprepared. Their professionalism is strong and they know the standard by the time they are grading candidates. I have no doubt about that. I also hear them talk about how much they dislike having to give those low grades. Probably some examiners do enjoy failing some candidates in order to knock their arrogance down a notch, but I suspect most don't.
But those issues are different from a system in which examiners are told by people above them to fail a certain number of candidates no matter how they perform. The examiners I have gotten to know would quit being examiners if they were not allowed to evaluate candidates according to their hard-earned understanding of the "standard." They worked for that autonomy and I can't see them giving it up.
What bugs me isn't some conspiracy theory about the leadership wanting more $$. It is the confusion candidates harbor as they go into these exams. Yes, that confusion is partly the candidates' fault for not looking hard enough to get clarity about the standards and their ability to ski to that standard. But it's also the educational organization's fault for not making their lack of readiness so obvious to them that they will know when they should not yet take the exam. PSIA is herding cats, yes. But I remain convinced that herding cats can be done better if the leadership is determined to do so.
Now that binomial formula that shows that even when people are seemingly prepared enough to pass, the failure rates will still be enormously high --- that's disturbing. It just doesn't feel right. I must be misunderstanding the numbers.
As a psia Level 3 and staff trainer, a large issue with pass/fail rates for L2’s/L3’s at many mountains is simply volume of training. Many schools that I know (albeit it is a relatively low sample size) are simply swamped/over run with clients, which in turn leads to very limited time left for training. As a candidate, you’ve got to get in more than a handful of days of training as season to progress, and for many it is very difficult to have time for.......this point is in opposition to any organizational conspiracy.
My 2 cents
zenny
My 2 cents
zenny
I have to agree with @rustypouch, I too am a non working CSIA 2. The 3 is quite a step up and with no local help, I would not pass. I do attend every seminar I can get to though. I'm not working as my business is taking too much time. But keeping myself up to date so that when and if I should retire I could teach. Not that every day I get asked at Tremblant if I'm available.
The CSIA launched an initiative a couple of years ago because there is a lack of qualified L4 women. In fact there is a lack of L3 too. Ladies Edge Camps were started and it is the best week of training available.
Insurance for snow schools dictates that all instructors must have a certification level. So L1 is a 3 day course in Ontario with an on-line component. L2 is split into 2 - 3 day sessions to make it easier for candidates to get to. There is a pass or fail criteria to all levels now. So most of the instructors in Ontario and Quebec are 1 or 2's. I don't know the actual numbers but based on the events that I attend at least 75% of the instructors are 1 or 2's.
Not only is there time involved to obtain any level, there is the financial component. I'm lucky I have a full time other job and can attend the member's convention and the Ladies edge camp. But these 2 events are held at a major resort so they are expensive. The Members convention (aka 3 day clinic) probably costs most attendee's close to $1000.00 if they need accommodation, lift passes and fee. Add in food to that too. And it's only 3 days!
And I would have to agree with @Zentune, most instructors are working and just don't have the time to work on that next level.
As for pay....Tremblant's snow school is unionized, so yes a higher level, gets higher pay. But so does a lower level instructor that has been there for years. So going for that next level may not result in a pay increase. In Ontario technically an instructor must be paid the minimum wage ($14/hr) and must be paid for 3 hours a day. So if you have a certification that gets you $16/hr, but you only work 1 1/2 hrs, the other 1 1/2 hrs is paid at $14/hr. It at least helps pay the gas money to get there.
Living and working in two provinces makes for an interesting perspective on things.
The CSIA launched an initiative a couple of years ago because there is a lack of qualified L4 women. In fact there is a lack of L3 too. Ladies Edge Camps were started and it is the best week of training available.
Insurance for snow schools dictates that all instructors must have a certification level. So L1 is a 3 day course in Ontario with an on-line component. L2 is split into 2 - 3 day sessions to make it easier for candidates to get to. There is a pass or fail criteria to all levels now. So most of the instructors in Ontario and Quebec are 1 or 2's. I don't know the actual numbers but based on the events that I attend at least 75% of the instructors are 1 or 2's.
Not only is there time involved to obtain any level, there is the financial component. I'm lucky I have a full time other job and can attend the member's convention and the Ladies edge camp. But these 2 events are held at a major resort so they are expensive. The Members convention (aka 3 day clinic) probably costs most attendee's close to $1000.00 if they need accommodation, lift passes and fee. Add in food to that too. And it's only 3 days!
And I would have to agree with @Zentune, most instructors are working and just don't have the time to work on that next level.
As for pay....Tremblant's snow school is unionized, so yes a higher level, gets higher pay. But so does a lower level instructor that has been there for years. So going for that next level may not result in a pay increase. In Ontario technically an instructor must be paid the minimum wage ($14/hr) and must be paid for 3 hours a day. So if you have a certification that gets you $16/hr, but you only work 1 1/2 hrs, the other 1 1/2 hrs is paid at $14/hr. It at least helps pay the gas money to get there.
Living and working in two provinces makes for an interesting perspective on things.
My personal experience may be different than most. Full disclosure: I now live in Canada where I no longer teach and I finally gave up my PSIA membership last year.
I made L3 in RM, even though I was only a part-timer. I had the advantage of working for a destination resort with some excellent trainers and being able to clinic with some of the best trainers from other resorts, so I benefitted from some excellent mentors. In addition, instructor clinics could board the chairlift an hour before opening, allowing early morning clinics nearly every day, despite client loads. I don't know if other resorts do this, and I don't know if my former home resort still does it.
Another issue with pass/fail rates is that skiing is a physical skill in which an individual's performance can vary from day to day depending on snow conditions, psychological/stress issues, physical issues (all rapped up in "How do I feel today?"), etc.
I myself am not a "natural" skier. I am highly analytical and I rarely perform complex physical tasks automatically. I have to acquire the necessary body consciousness slowly and repetitively over a long period of time. I know people who can drop into the necessary movements easily and without thinking too much. I have trouble with this.
This combination of personal attributes meant that I passed the written and teaching portions of the exam on the first attempt. The skiing portions were quite another thing entirely. The issues stated above, plus the binomial probability discussed earlier, made it so that I required several attempts to pass L3 skiing. Nonetheless, I made it, despite being a part-timer well into middle age at the time. And I made it on miserable, evil, re-frozen crap at Loveland in April, a condition I never, ever ski anymore!
PSIA tries to define the physical tasks as precisely as possible, but because it is a physical skill and physical movements, there will be variations in execution for many reasons, particularly with something like bumps, for example. Your performance today may be too far outside the box, even though you put on an awesome demo in clinic. Tomorrow, or next year, may be different. I have seen examiners and demo team members face plant on relatively moderate bump runs. Sometimes, it's nothing but net. Sometimes, it's an air ball, even though you nailed the last 9 shots.
Though last I looked, you don't fail an exam for augering in. In my L2 exam, the examiner (regional tech team, very strong skier, good guy, etc...) augered in hard the second lap of our bump pitch. In fairness, what we skied were much more L3 bumps on a 20-25 turn short, steep pitch with very large, soft, 'unrythmic' moguls. Chances of a bobble where very high. We all relaxed a good bit after the examiner crashed.
You're right. If you demonstrate the correct fundamentals and show a little spirit before blowing up, you might pass anyway. If you hammer the bumps with your feet and knees nailed together in the style of a competitor, you may fail to demonstrate the desired fundamentals and may fail the task, even though it would be a good run for competition.
The bumps you describe sound pretty nice, actually.
"Rhythm? We don't need no steenking rhythm!"
The bumps you describe sound pretty nice, actually.
"Rhythm? We don't need no steenking rhythm!"
You're right. If you demonstrate the correct fundamentals and show a little spirit before blowing up, you might pass anyway. If you hammer the bumps with your feet and knees nailed together in the style of a competitor, you may fail to demonstrate the desired fundamentals and may fail the task, even though it would be a good run for competition.
The bumps you describe sound pretty nice, actually.
"Rhythm? We don't need no steenking rhythm!"
The bumps we did that day could not be zipper lined. You would NOT be failed for comp level zipper lining. You would be asked to show different tactics (slow line fast, how you might demo for an intermediate level client, etc... It's about versatility. We have a friend who's a local L3 that did a lot of comp bump skiing. To the best of my knowledge, he had no trouble in his L2/3 exams however he was asked to ski them. So did Glen Plake. A good friend was his L2 examiner.
The bumps were lovely actually. We have a bunch of terrain with similar size/shaped bumps at the area were I was teaching at the time and ski them a lot, so it wasn't a big deal. For folks from some other mountains, it was.
Years ago, I knew a fellow who did OK at the regional level in competitive bump skiing. He could zipper line faster and prettier than I could ever dream of, with his feet and knees in near perfect unison. However, speed control wasn't in his vocabulary and he didn't show any independence between his feet. He could have done it on a monoski, and he was quick enough so he mostly didn't much care about speed control. He couldn't ski them with any different tactics or style, but the competition judges apparently liked it.
He failed his L2 bumps the first time and was really pissed!
He failed his L2 bumps the first time and was really pissed!
But did he fail it the second?
I think he passed on second attempt, but he had to learn a few things that were previously beneath his dignity.
I'm another who has done CSIA L2 for the PD. Also had a go at L3 this year, again for the PD. Never worked as an instructor and unlikely to for the time being.
The situation on pass rate is not that clear. In my group there were 16 candidates and only 2 gained their pins outright. One other got the missing component (either teach or ski - not sure which) to complete their pin. So I assume that would look like 3 out of 16. However another 5 got their ski and one got teach so the situation was not as bleak as may first appear. OTOH one of the new pin holders said it was the 3rd time she'd gone for L3 that season and she had not passed either component before.
Of the 16 candidates 2 of us were mature age (another Aussie from the prep course) and we gave away 3 decades to the others who, as far as I am aware, were all full time ski instructors in the 20s. So, yes, CSIA L3 is a tough level to attain. So be it.
I had done a 6 week L3 prep course prior to the assess including the 2 std CSIA L3 modules Advanced Train & Advanced Teach. Neither of the CSIA course conveners on those modules came right out and said it in the personal feedback sessions but I certainly got the impression I would be a borderline candidate at best. And so it turned out. Passed the bumps and was in the 5s for the rest (6 is a pass). I would have done the assess even if they'd come right out and said no chance - just for the experience.
Although no cigar I felt I'd achieved quite a bit of ski improvement - which was the original goal. Really, before the prep course I couldn't even spell AP, let alone demo enough form to put up a good show. Now I have an objective score, some things to work on and I'm looking forward to another attempt.
All of these quotes are why I joined this forum. Bang on.
CSIA Examiner
CSIA Examiner
Was I talking to you a couple of weeks ago at a wedding? BJ and Amy?
@Bendzeekneez, welcome to the forum.
Last edited:
Love the avatar - Erik!!
Welcome from the Ice Coast!!
Welcome from the Ice Coast!!
If this is directed at me, I am afraid not. There is a glut of Level 4's here though so could be someone I know. Feel free to send me a message and we can see who our mutual connections are...if not directed at me then forget about it!
Thanks Bud. Seems like a revival of the old epicski forum in these threads.
Well I did spend a lot of time talking to a lovely lady by the name of Stormy, thought you might be her SO. Wedding was for the former GM of Monod's.
I'm just a lowly L2 in Ontario...But it's great to see a 4 on this site.
Welcome to Pugski. Glad to have high level instructors come on board.
Hopefully Pugski is friendlier than what was seen on EpicSki at times in the instruction threads. We try to keep it that way. However, there are always a few people that can get carried away. But on a whole the noise to content ratio is low.