Do you know quality training?

[rob_s]

I disagree on the reviewers pedigree part. There are plenty of "professional gun-trainees" that dont know dick. But having a long list for a course resume gives them street cred? I do not buy that.

Look, I understand that you're just looking to have a tantrum on the internut at this point, but....

Nobody is talking about "street cred". That's a stupid metric for whether someone can have any sort of valuable opinion regarding a training class. Frankly, the last person's opinion I want is some SWAT cop or SF guy. What I'm interested in when someone reviews a course is what other courses they've taken so that when they say "best class ever" you have some context for that.

[NoTacTravis]

Of course they do. They're the "good shooters". what do you expect them to say? Which is frankly half the problem. Since they have some innate ability to perform at a higher level, they are less capable of communicating what it takes...

...

Would you be willing to share what skills, drills, and benchmarks you were unable to attain with a pistol to give a better idea of what level of "good" you are referring to here?

[rob_s]

to further some of what @EPF has said about business...

The sooner that you realize that the whole thing is an industry, and an industry largely built around bullshit ("you *need* tactical training or you're going to die", or "you better come to my class and if you do and do what I say you'll be a USPDA MASTER in no time" etc.). Fear and hope. The two best sellers of anything, particularly snake oil, in the world. Add in "belonging" and you have the holy trinity of marketing. So if I can offer you a class wherein you have a belief that I'll make you a better shooter, scare you into thinking if you don't have this training you're going to die, AND make you feel like you belong to some koolkidsklub when you're done... man.

[EPF]

I regret using the word admin/administrative/administrator. Instructors, to me, need to lead the class. Instructorshit, to me, is largely leadership. I think most everyone says it in different ways, but (to me, again) that it is all leadership. Not enough people recognize this (to me).




Ohh no. I have 100% done my homework, fallen for it, then realized it was an abortion. Which to me, calls into credibility my ability to conduct homework, or the so called experts.....

I have seen absolute abortions. But was still able to take things away from it. Not from the course material itself. But everything else. Anything is a learning experience if you look at it the right way.




My frustration is somewhat echoed from above. I have done the proper "research" to see what is legit. Only to have it not be so. Which is why I asked the question. Do people know what messed up looks like?

I think in the last 1.5 years, I have gone to 5-6 open enrollment courses. 3 of them, resulted in me getting a refund or a free class slot because of the issues I raised with the instructors. Im not a business dude, but thats not a good business model.

So you’ve had three bad experiences in the last year but won’t call them out even here in a conversation you started about shitty courses in order to maintain civility. It sort of makes my point about why attending a course is the only way to know for sure

And if no one will say it out loud then it’s not so much about whether people know good training as it is who’s willing to be brutally honest. Not many in a small inbred community.

I hear what your saying about leadership but military folks tend to overuse the word IMO to encompass everything about being “in charge”. For text only anonymous conversations on the net I like to break things down into specifics to ensure I communicate my points.

I think there are several ways to get to a good training product. I’ve hired, trained, and evaluated hundreds of instructors for closed .mil coursework and its very hard to find an individual who encompasses all of the traits required for training large groups in the field. Doubly so in dangerous environments. For me, there was no interview methodology that worked well for identifying those few. Only time on the job brought out those abilities where I could evaluate them.


I had a lot more success making teams of individuals who together had all the necessary skills. I can think of several groups where none had the charisma generally associated with “leadership” but together made a unit capable of leadership in the way I think your using the term.

[Eyesquared]

Look, I understand that you're just looking to have a tantrum on the internut at this point, but....

Nobody is talking about "street cred". That's a stupid metric for whether someone can have any sort of valuable opinion regarding a training class. Frankly, the last person's opinion I want is some SWAT cop or SF guy. What I'm interested in when someone reviews a course is what other courses they've taken so that when they say "best class ever" you have some context for that.

I get that you need to have some class experience to compare various classes against each other but if someone has been to a lot of classes and it doesn't reflect at all in their shooting, then it really calls into question their ability to judge the worth of any classes at all. Like, how can someone say a class was good or bad if it's obvious that they didn't learn anything from either the good or the bad classes?

[KEW8338]

So you’ve had three bad experiences in the last year but won’t call them out even here in a conversation you started about shitty courses in order to maintain civility. It sort of makes my point about why attending a course is the only way to know for sure

And if no one will say it out loud then it’s not so much about whether people know good training as it is who’s willing to be brutally honest. Not many in a small inbred community.

I hear what your saying about leadership but military folks tend to overuse the word IMO to encompass everything about being “in charge”. For text only anonymous conversations on the net I like to break things down into specifics to ensure I communicate my points.

I think there are several ways to get to a good training product. I’ve hired, trained, and evaluated hundreds of instructors for closed .mil coursework and its very hard to find an individual who encompasses all of the traits required for training large groups in the field. Doubly so in dangerous environments. For me, there was no interview methodology that worked well for identifying those few. Only time on the job brought out those abilities where I could evaluate them.


I had a lot more success making teams of individuals who together had all the necessary skills. I can think of several groups where none had the charisma generally associated with “leadership” but together made a unit capable of leadership in the way I think your using the term.

I see your point 100%

I approached them offline with my issues. The praise in public. Reprimand in private thing.

Those same courses, I've seen others praise them for.

Meaning. Am I messed up thinking the wrong thing OR does the average consumer not know any better. Hence this thread.

ETA: To me, leadership is leadership is leadership.

[Moylan]

Am I messed up thinking the wrong thing OR does the average consumer not know any better.

I've been to something like 30 classes over the last 3 years. That's not 30 full-size 2 day shooting classes. The list includes some online seminars with John Hearne, Lee Weems, Active Self Protection. It includes some in-person classes with well-known or relatively well-known trainers, and it includes quite a few in-person classes with local trainers. I have found some of these classes pretty pointless. In quite a few, I've been annoyed by time wasting. In many, I have been thoroughly unsatisfied with the safety briefing/medical kit access, etc. In others, I have had guns pointed at me by fellow students, while the instructors and AI's were completely oblivious to safety violations. In a couple, I've been taught stuff that was incredibly stupid. I have spoken to various instructors to (a) let them know that they were missing egregious safety violations or to (b) report that I had some serious problems from a legal perspective with some of the junk they were teaching. I carry my own IFAK now, and an extra tourniquet. But I also have learned enough from my experiences, good and bad, to do a better job in choosing where to study in the future.

I've never asked for nor been offered a refund. I do suspect that if you're getting comped for half or more of the classes you take, you may have unreasonably high expectations. I don't know you, and so my guess is worth what everyone paid for it. I suppose the obvious reply is that I have unreasonably low standards. Maybe that's true. Anyway, my standards are much higher now than they were a couple of years ago, because I've learned to adjust to the realities of training as it exists in the real world.

[psalms144.1]

Am I messed up thinking the wrong thing OR does the average consumer not know any better.

Not pointing this at you, but can't pass up the chance to quote the great Raylan Givens: “If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.”

Seriously, I've been to plenty of training over the last 38 years of using firearms professionally. Most has been shit. Some has been stellar. The trick is to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. The only way to do that is to have the experience to know when someone is talking out their ass - hence circling around to needing to know a reviewer's bona fides when assessing how much weight you put on their review...

[KEW8338]

I've been to something like 30 classes over the last 3 years. That's not 30 full-size 2 day shooting classes. The list includes some online seminars with John Hearne, Lee Weems, Active Self Protection. It includes some in-person classes with well-known or relatively well-known trainers, and it includes quite a few in-person classes with local trainers. I have found some of these classes pretty pointless. In quite a few, I've been annoyed by time wasting. In many, I have been thoroughly unsatisfied with the safety briefing/medical kit access, etc. In others, I have had guns pointed at me by fellow students, while the instructors and AI's were completely oblivious to safety violations. In a couple, I've been taught stuff that was incredibly stupid. I have spoken to various instructors to (a) let them know that they were missing egregious safety violations or to (b) report that I had some serious problems from a legal perspective with some of the junk they were teaching. I carry my own IFAK now, and an extra tourniquet. But I also have learned enough from my experiences, good and bad, to do a better job in choosing where to study in the future.

I've never asked for nor been offered a refund. I do suspect that if you're getting comped for half or more of the classes you take, you may have unreasonably high expectations. I don't know you, and so my guess is worth what everyone paid for it. I suppose the obvious reply is that I have unreasonably low standards. Maybe that's true. Anyway, my standards are much higher now than they were a couple of years ago, because I've learned to adjust to the realities of training as it exists in the real world.

I have never once asked for a refund.

Good or bad, I will always send an AAR to the instructor. Or speak directly with them. It's not a bitch fest. But how an AAR (imo) should be done .

[KEW8338]

Not pointing this at you, but can't pass up the chance to quote the great Raylan Givens: “If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.”

Seriously, I've been to plenty of training over the last 38 years of using firearms professionally. Most has been shit. Some has been stellar. The trick is to know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. The only way to do that is to have the experience to know when someone is talking out their ass - hence circling around to needing to know a reviewer's bona fides when assessing how much weight you put on their review...

It's ok, you can call me an dick.

I think you are proving my point. The people, who have the "bona fides" at times are reviewing stuff, that's bullshit. Making me think, people don't know what right looks like.

Eta: or people are content with mediocrity