Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

Thread: Prerequisites

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    That's far easier to pull off when it's a government agency providing training for government personnel.

    For a "commercial" instructor it would be the kiss of death.
    Understood, but I guess I'm really talking about the "can't hit the berm" guy more than the "can't hit the 3"x5" card but isn't missing by much" guy. I have to assume at some point poor marksmanship and gunhandling skills stop being annoying and start being dangerous, and that those students can't or shouldn't continue with the class. I'm curious where that line gets drawn.

  2. #12
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by LOKNLOD View Post
    For most open enrollment classes I see that working. Some classes have same-instructor prereqs, like having ECQC before VCAST or AFHF before AFHS, make a lot of sense for more advanced classes and seem more enforceable. It doesn't mean you won't have have someone who was "that guy" in the standard class trying to take the advanced class, but at least the instructor might have an opportunity to weed that person out.
    That's why AFHS has two prereqs:
    • First, you need to be an AFHF grad. That's not because graduating from AFHF guarantees you're awesome, it simply means you've heard the lectures and know how I teach various techniques so we don't have to waste time going over the details again.
    • Second, you need to have scored at least Intermediate (9.99) on the FAST during your AFHF class. That provides a polite way to separate folks who need another AFHF from folks who don't.


    I'd eventually like to have a class only for Advanced-level (6.99 or better) shooters but the student pool is very small.

  3. #13
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by TriumphRat675 View Post
    I have to assume at some point poor marksmanship and gunhandling skills stop being annoying and start being dangerous, and that those students can't or shouldn't continue with the class. I'm curious where that line gets drawn.
    Not really. Someone who can't keep his muzzle downrange and rounds in the berm isn't a bad shot, he's inattentive and/or reckless. That's purely a safety issue and I've seen folks who've graduated from Uber Advanced Level Eleventy Tactical Fighting Combat School make those kinds of mistakes. His training pedigree doesn't guarantee that his head is on straight.

    I can think of some AFHF students off the top of my head who were literally buried by the course content but remained safe. Every one of them had done poorly on the initial evaluation. Every one of them got the "as long as you're safe you can stay but I'm not going to stop everything to teach you marksmanship fundamentals" speech. Every one of them decided to stay.

    Most of them were fine and enjoyed the class. Many of them improved over the course of two days. Some paid as much attention and put as much effort into getting better in AFHF as they apparently had in previous classes, which is to say none.

    One guy contacted me after class to complain that the course was too demanding and that, regardless of our little talk five minutes into the first day, I should have slowed the class down and spent as much of my time on him as necessary to get him up to the prerequisite skill level. He literally complained that I spent time helping the best students in class when "they didn't need it." Yeah, because they paid to shoot into the berm and get no instruction... I gave him refund and consider it fair trade for a funny story. (as an aside, said student was one of those "I've been to so-and-so's basic and intermediate and advanced level goblin-killing combat class" types)

  4. #14
    Leopard Printer Mr_White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Gaming In The Streets
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    That's far easier to pull off when it's a government agency providing training for government personnel.

    For a "commercial" instructor it would be the kiss of death
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    I'd eventually like to have a class only for Advanced-level (6.99 or better) shooters but the student pool is very small.
    Our school is a weird one.

    We pretty much take the approach that Todd (correctly) describes as the kiss of death for commercial instructors.

    Our facility was created by funds left by a generous person for the furtherance of public firearms recreation and training, and law enforcement training too. It is now managed by a law enforcement agency.

    The range exists, and will continue to exist, even if we never held another class.

    The progenitor of our current program came from a lifetime of service as the lead firearms and tactics instructor for a California agency and SWAT team who has had to shoot for his own life and others’ lives on a number of occasions, and standards of performance are an important thing to him.

    Our students have to pass tests in every class covering safety, gunhandling, and marksmanship, and until they reach a specified level of performance, we won’t take their money and they can’t come back and take the next class (yet.)

    It’s very hard for us to fill anything beyond the basic classes. We do it, but it takes a lot of effort from both the staff and students.

    When a person comes to us and wants to take classes starting beyond the basic level, they just have to show us they can meet the standards and challenge the test(s.) They usually cannot.

    If we excuse a student from a class for safety violations, there is no refund. We don’t boot them for not meeting non-safety performance standards, though they probably wouldn’t have gotten into a given class unless they could meet the standards for entry anyway.

    We would never survive as a regular commercial school. But we also rarely get someone who is very deficient at safety, gunhandling, or marksmanship (the elements of the tests) in an intermediate or advanced class either.

    This whole scheme severely limits the volume of students we can train. But we are destined to be a tiny school anyway. There are only so much space on the range, so many weekend days per month, and other agency demands occupy the range some of those weekend days. So there is no point in trying to pack the students in. We have all the filled classes we can schedule – they are just overwhelmingly the basic classes.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter Jay Cunningham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by TriumphRat675 View Post
    Completely agree, but obviously it doesn't always happen that way. What do you do with the deluded people? Kick 'em out? I assume yes if they've got unsafe gun handling skills. I've also heard of this not happening when it should have.
    As Todd mentioned, "kicking people out" after they've invested in a lot of time and money to be there is not something I want to do unless there's no other realistic choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by TriumphRat675 View Post
    How do you apply the "hours of formal training" requirement? Or is it just laid out there for the student's reference, in which case it is more of a guideline than a true prereq? Example: my state's CHL training will give you umpteen hours of largely worthless instruction. Would that count, and do your students have to provide evidence of the training?
    All I can do is put out a requirement for "hours of formal instruction". I try to have some defense-in-depth in my prerequisites and that's just one layer.

  6. #16
    Leopard Printer Mr_White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Gaming In The Streets
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    training pedigree doesn't guarantee that his head is on straight.
    Ain't that the truth. I think every trainer has students that didn't learn much out there running around going to other trainers making themselves and their previous trainers look bad. All I have to say is, "You should have seen him before he came to us."

  7. #17
    Site Supporter Jay Cunningham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    The other funny thing about prerequisites is the massive amount of effort some expend justifying why they shouldn't apply.

    I figured if I just refused to use "advanced" in any of my course titles that would be effective, but apparently not.

  8. #18
    Site Supporter CCT125US's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    I'd eventually like to have a class only for Advanced-level (6.99 or better) shooters but the student pool is very small.

    How many students have you had through class? Looks like roughly 125 students have made the FAST wall. Just curious as to the percentage. I would think that laying out the money for class with prerequisites would be a gamble if the student was not honest. Kind of hard to fake it once you get there.
    Taking a break from social media.

  9. #19
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham View Post
    The other funny thing about prerequisites is the massive amount of effort some expend justifying why they shouldn't apply.
    There is a flipside to that, though. SLG and I were almost denied slots to a class years ago because the host was worried we would slow the class down. It was for people who'd already been through the instructor's levels 1 through infinity carbine and pistol programs and now needed a more advanced integrated tactics/fighting class. So here we are, thinking wow any class that's so advanced we can't even make the minimums is going to be awesome! We convinced them to let us in.

    Then the class spent the first couple of hours zeroing carbines. One student kept missing his holster during his particular speed reholster technique, instead throwing the gun muzzle-first into the ground half the time. I could go on and on...

    I figured if I just refused to use "advanced" in any of my course titles that would be effective, but apparently not.
    As soon as I had a level-2 class, I had people who wanted to jump right to it and skip level-1. Prior to the existence of the level-2 class, I never had a single student come through AFHF and say, "Boy, that was just too basic and boring."

    Quote Originally Posted by CCT125US View Post
    How many students have you had through class? Looks like roughly 125 students have made the FAST wall. Just curious as to the percentage. I would think that laying out the money for class with prerequisites would be a gamble if the student was not honest. Kind of hard to fake it once you get there.
    I'm not concerned with people lying about having made Advanced previously... I keep a database so I know who's been naughty and who's been nice. But with only 100 or so total qualified applicants, the number who (a) want to take another class from me and (b) will take the class at a given locale possibly far from home and (c) will be available on the specific date I choose and (d) have the money and ammo to be there gets to be pretty small.

  10. #20
    Site Supporter Jay Cunningham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    There is a flipside to that, though. SLG and I were almost denied slots to a class years ago because the host was worried we would slow the class down. It was for people who'd already been through the instructor's levels 1 through infinity carbine and pistol programs and now needed a more advanced integrated tactics/fighting class. So here we are, thinking wow any class that's so advanced we can't even make the minimums is going to be awesome! We convinced them to let us in.

    Then the class spent the first couple of hours zeroing carbines. One student kept missing his holster during his particular speed reholster technique, instead throwing the gun muzzle-first into the ground half the time. I could go on and on...
    Interesting that you mention that (cue shameless plug in 3... 2... 1...)

    A common piece of wise advice to more experienced shooters is to eventually retake one or two beginner-level “fundamental” training classes. Unfortunately, the reality is that retaking a beginner-level class can wind up being a waste of resources. Drills may be conducted with no external pressure, accuracy requirements may be relaxed, and the more experienced shooter may be largely ignored by the instructors who have their hands full with novice students.

    To address the above, I decided on a new offering. Pistol: Reloaded is a one day fundamentals workshop conducted with strict standards for experienced shooters in an environment of their peers.
    Last edited by Jay Cunningham; 04-11-2013 at 07:35 PM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •