Right - will have a go at trying to be more coherent ( relative term ) today.
If we can accept that different people want both different things and are likely to have different approaches to learning ( in widest sense ), so a range of provision options suits the market - courses do not stay up there if there is no demand.
Of course 'the market' is imperfect - its hard to have all the facts and there is enough fog and misunderstanding surrounding the DSC process as it is - without factoring in exactly what different providers offer. So there is an unavoidable element of uncertainty. A great aspect of a thread like this is to alleviate some of that uncertainty ( once details on opening post corrected - hint, hint
).
But whilst a big step in the right direction, it just isnt as simple as extrapolating 2/3/4/7 day course equals more ( or less ) of quantity X - whether it be detail, wider learning, loss of income or deer data overload etc.
A two day course requiring no prior effort on the part of the student is not the same beast as a two day course with a suggested 4 week home study element. Nor for that matter a 4 day course which seeks to go through the majority of the manual - possibly by simply reading out what's there on the page or using dynamic teaching methods. Factor in one course may have 4 people on it and a seemingly similar one have 25 on it. We end up comparing not so much apples to oranges as apples to I pads. Trouble is, I don't have a ready answer to post here - open to ideas.
The problem is compounded if people make absolute ( and I appreciate completely genuine ) statements of comparison just from a headline. Ultimately the aim must be to assist people thinking about booking a DSC1 to make the best choice for them?
When people go on a course/ assessment and pass - for them, any deficiencies they felt about the learning process will tend to be forgotten in the process of achieving the goal. All good providers strive to elicit from attendees what worked, what didn't and what they'd do differently next time - and change accordingly. I don't know of any provider on here that doesn't do that and take the feedback really seriously. Not just talking about the 'end ex' tick box forms, but chatting direct with customers and politely digging a bit.
Not sure how providers can better communicate there 'product' - to detail everything would make for a snazzy gate-fold brochure 7 foot x 9. The envelopes will be a nightmare!
Taking up the individual issue, there is little to beat actually talking with a potential provider and asking the questions that matter to you. Happy to provide a distillation of the common ones and ones I'd suggest asking if there's an interest in that?
Matters such as Dyslexia, just not being good with books, extreme stress in large groups or with specific aspects - like the shooting test are very, very common concerns. Providers welcome the chance to tell you what they can do to help you.
There is also the personality side of the equation. Teaching is as much about the teacher as the content. Great core content delivered by someone you just don't get on with or put over in a way that is more effective than chloroform will not be as effective as Ok core material given in a way that enthuses. And I speak as someone famed for not only nodding off at the drop of a hat, but doing so LOUDLY
Its why I'm usually sat alone at AW briefings...
I think Mike hit in on the head with the Value v Price comment.
)
