CRO Experience Requirement

[George Jones]

The students are dumb?? (I come from a family with a number of teachers.)

Troll!

[Nik Habicht]

What, you guys aren't teaching quality???

We try....

But it's both about teachin' and about learnin'

The students are dumb?? (I come from a family with a number of teachers.)

I'm pretty sure George's not saying that. Nursing school had some co-requisites back when it was a three year program. When it got shortened to a two year program, those co-requisites essentially became prerequisites --- not because the teachers were worse, but because the compressed time format required that everyone be speaking the same language at the beginning.

It's tough to teach the CRO course content to someone who's never built a stage, or functioned as an RO in an environment where teaching could occur. This requirement is one way of ensuring that the student is prepared; the problem is that at the moment it's the only way. Hopefully we can change that a bit....

The correspondence course is probably tougher -- because a bit of nuance is lost with the loss of face to face communication....

[mactiger]

This was published in Front Sight.

Troy

"... so effective June 1, 2010, prospective CRO students must work at least two level II matches or one level III match to be eligible to enroll in a CRO course."

page 24, May/June 2010, Front Sight magazine.

We don't have an Ohio Section match scheduled for 2010. (We need a range and a willing MD, for those that are wondering.)

This policy will drain me...the Ohio Section Coordinator...of CRO's.

Please revise. I have a saying, "Involvement equals commitment." We need people feeding into the pipeline.

Let them take the class.

One thing NROI could do that would GREATLY help the core is to increase communication.

This topic is a perfect example. Here I am, CRO...Match Director...Section Coordinator...and, I even get on the shooting forums a bit ... ...and I am hearing about this policy just now???

How about an email sign up list (at least), where NROI news, info and experiences get sent out from time to time?

[rgkeller]

>>This was published in Front Sight.>>

But not communicated directly to all members of the USPSA Board.

Or updated on the NROI Web Page.

Edited May 31, 2010 by rgkeller

[Chuck Anderson]

Seriously guys, Front Sight is the Official Journal of USPSA. That's why we publish the dang thing. Not the USPSA Website, not the NROI website, not a personal phone call or note sent to every member personally signed by John Amidon. If you're not reading Front Sight, it's really hard to complain that USPSA is not providing you with info. We are, you're just not bothering to read it.

As far as the match requirement, is it really that difficult to get two Level two matches or a level three knocked out in a year, or two, or three? Do we need to be training CRO's after 13 months of shooting? I guess maybe I'm lucky here in Oregon. Getting a couple level two's knocked out would take very little time at all. I can't count the number of level 3 matches I've RO'd, let alone level 2's. Is it really too much to ask for an RO to put their skills to work, and demonstrate an ability to do the RO job, before promoting them to Chief and putting them in charge of RO's?

For those who haven't taken the course, you really should before talking about what goes into making a CRO. The course is not just about course design, not just about running/bossing shooters around. There is a reason we don't allow RO's to take the course the month after being certified as an RO.

[Singlestack]

Why are we beating around the bush here? Just because you are a RO does not mean you are a good candidate to be a CRO. Not everyone has the temperament to be a successful CRO. I would rather make it harder to be a CRO than easier. Like say 5 years as a RO and a letter from your SC to be considered.

[Flexmoney]

Sorry about that George, I probably needed a few more smiley faces on that post to convey the jovial nature.

Seriously guys, Front Sight is the Official Journal of USPSA. That's why we publish the dang thing. Not the USPSA Website, not the NROI website, not a personal phone call or note sent to every member personally signed by John Amidon. If you're not reading Front Sight, it's really hard to complain that USPSA is not providing you with info. We are, you're just not bothering to read it.

Come on now. Do you really think members are reading that cover to cover?

I went back through and re-read Amidon's NROI section and still didn't see it. I didn't catch that it was buried in an article.

I am sure that everybody here caught the names of the Abbott's two Dobermans?

The argument that it is in Front Sight and you should have been a good member and read it... Nah, that isn't effective communication. We ought to be able to do better than that with just email alerts or the like.

As far as the match requirement, is it really that difficult to get two Level two matches or a level three knocked out in a year, or two, or three?

Yes, that is the feedback that I am giving as the Ohio Section Coordinator.

The real thing is, it is cutting off the pipeline. If we don't keep it open, our current RMI's are going to be in their 90's being teleported around to do these RO classes...because there is not enough throughput to replace them and let them retire.

[Flexmoney]

Why are we beating around the bush here? Just because you are a RO does not mean you are a good candidate to be a CRO. Not everyone has the temperament to be a successful CRO. I would rather make it harder to be a CRO than easier. Like say 5 years as a RO and a letter from your SC to be considered.

And, just because somebody carries a CRO card, that doesn't mean they get to work the match I am directing.

I am being a little bit tongue in cheek here, but what I am hearing is that members are passing the CRO course, but are under-qualified? Under-qualified for what?

Just because a 16 year old now has his drivers licence, that doesn't mean he/she gets to drive my car.

We still coach, mentor, and keep learning. Always.

=====================

I say train them up. Get them in the class. Get them involved, and they will be more likely to be committed to the cause. Make them jump through hoops to volunteer and I promise you the numbers will dwindle. And no, I don't think that is a quality vs. quantity issue. Just do the math...

(old) If 100 students take the CRO course and 40% go on to be kick-azz CRO's. You end up with 40 CRO's.

(new) Now you might get 60 students in the class due to the increased requirements. Let's say they are now "better students" and you get 50% that go on to be kick-azz. You end up with 30 CRO's.

[Yes, I realize those are my statistics...make up your own! I do theorize that to be a fair representation of the likely outcome, however.]

[Sarge]

Why are we beating around the bush here? Just because you are a RO does not mean you are a good candidate to be a CRO. Not everyone has the temperament to be a successful CRO. I would rather make it harder to be a CRO than easier. Like say 5 years as a RO and a letter from your SC to be considered.

Weak. I guess I fall into your category of one year wonders. You know why your argument won't hold water for me? Because there are CRO's who have been doing it for years and still have no idea what in the hell they are doing. Look at the recent DQ thread. I know for sure one person involved was a CRO.

But hey I'm more than willing to push it off on the "other guys".

[Sarge]

Just because you are a RO does not mean you are a good candidate to be a CRO.

It also does not mean you are NOT a good candidate.

[Sarge]

Do we need to be training CRO's after 13 months of shooting?

Yes, if there is a need for them at the local level.

[Sarge]

The real thing is, it is cutting off the pipeline.

+1

[George Jones]

Sorry about that George, I probably needed a few more smiley faces on that post to convey the jovial nature.

I saw the sushi, I sniffed it, I decided to go for the hibachi table instead.

....our current RMI's are going to be in their 90's being teleported around to do these RO classes...because there is not enough throughput to replace them and let them retire.

I'm not too keen on that unless they give out "frequent teleported miles".

[George Jones]

..... You know why your argument won't hold water for me? Because there are CRO's who have been doing it for years and still have no idea what in the hell they are doing. Look at the recent DQ thread. I know for sure one person involved was a CRO.

You'll get no disagreement from me on that one.

But, it is one of the realities which has us looking at ways to improve the value of CRO credentials. Some may have passed the course when it was less demanding (yes, it has improved over time). Some have not bothered to maintain their rules knowledge following rulebook updates.

But it is just as likely that some went into it without the benefit of sufficient experience and simply "met the minimal standard".

I teach technical subjects for a living. I know the difference that individual eye-to-eye contact makes when I'm in the classroom. The absence of that contact in the CRO correspondence course makes it much more important that a student have a reasonable level of experience before undertaking the course.

These are my opinions only - based on many years of doing this stuff.

[Singlestack]

Why are we beating around the bush here? Just because you are a RO does not mean you are a good candidate to be a CRO. Not everyone has the temperament to be a successful CRO. I would rather make it harder to be a CRO than easier. Like say 5 years as a RO and a letter from your SC to be considered.

You know why your argument won't hold water for me? Because there are CRO's who have been doing it for years and still have no idea what in the hell they are doing. Look at the recent DQ thread. I know for sure one person involved was a CRO.

You are proving my point.

Just because you are a RO does not mean you are a good candidate to be a CRO.

It also does not mean you are NOT a good candidate.

I never said or meant to imply that.

[mactiger]

Why are we beating around the bush here? Just because you are a RO does not mean you are a good candidate to be a CRO. Not everyone has the temperament to be a successful CRO. I would rather make it harder to be a CRO than easier. Like say 5 years as a RO and a letter from your SC to be considered.

And, just because somebody carries a CRO card, that doesn't mean they get to work the match I am directing.

So, why were you complaining earlier that this policy would deplete the Ohio section of CRO's? You don't have to hold the card to be one at a match.

I am being a little bit tongue in cheek here, but what I am hearing is that members are passing the CRO course, but are under-qualified? Under-qualified for what?

Just because a 16 year old now has his drivers licence, that doesn't mean he/she gets to drive my car.

We still coach, mentor, and keep learning. Always.

And that's exactly the point with this new policy. While most of the CRO's certified under the old policy are competent and well-qualified, it seems that we are getting more students without much actual on-the-range experience and practice, and this is reflected in their performance in the program, specifically the correspondence program. Since there seems to be a dearth of in-person CRO seminars these days, the majority of the CRO's being certified are working through the correspondence course. As mentioned before, the course is not all about designing stages; it's about stage management and decision making, and that's hard to judge through email, especially if the student hasn't ever had to do it, hence the new requirement. Working a level II or III match gets those people coached and mentored. What difference will it make if it's before or after they take a level II seminar?

=====================

I say train them up. Get them in the class. Get them involved, and they will be more likely to be committed to the cause. Make them jump through hoops to volunteer and I promise you the numbers will dwindle. And no, I don't think that is a quality vs. quantity issue. Just do the math...

(old) If 100 students take the CRO course and 40% go on to be kick-azz CRO's. You end up with 40 CRO's.

(new) Now you might get 60 students in the class due to the increased requirements. Let's say they are now "better students" and you get 50% that go on to be kick-azz. You end up with 30 CRO's.

[Yes, I realize those are my statistics...make up your own! I do theorize that to be a fair representation of the likely outcome, however.]

I disagree, because your initial assumption is flawed: If 100 students take the class and 100 pass, they are all CRO's. That doesn't mean that some of them will ever act in that capacity (and be good at it), nor does it mean that all of them couldn't. We don't expect students in Level I to automatically be effective RO's, although it's plain to see which ones have been actually participating at their local (or other) matches and which ones haven't. That doesn't mean that all of them won't develop into good RO's. What it does mean is that the ones with experience do better in the class and continue to improve after the class. Experience is the key, and it's essential to producing a good CRO, which is what we are attempting to do with this new policy. I know what my definition of a good CRO is, but I don't know what yours is, beyond "kick-azz". If, by kick-azz you mean competent, that's exactly what we are striving for with this new policy, so if we get 60 students with some sort of match experience, I theorize that we'll turn out close to 60 kick-azz CRO's. There may be some that still don't make very good match CRO's, but that's the case in any endeavor--not everybody excels at it.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

So, why were you complaining earlier that...

I am providing feedback and sharing my perspective. If you read it as complaining, I'll stop.

I respect you point of view and that of the other RMI, from their perspective. I believe I have a valid perspective as well.

[George Jones]

I respect you point of view and that of the other RMI, from their perspective. I believe I have a valid perspective as well.

Yes, you do and so do we. The RMIs have not reached this point in a vacuum. We have MD, SC, AD perspectives too. So your perspective is not unique to you. We share it. It's just that in weighing the cost/benefit of improving the process, we have come to our current conclusion.

Please don't think your perspective has being ignored. That's not the case. We have already discussed it. Our rules and procedures are a living document. They evolve over time as a result of "perspective", yours included.

[rgkeller]

So, should we expect a future decision that pulls the CRO designation from anyone who does not work two Level II or one Level III match within a specific time period.

Seems to follow.

[JThompson]

Do we need to be training CRO's after 13 months of shooting?

Yes, if there is a need for them at the local level.

Hell yes Sarge! I took the class as soon as it was available to me. Hell, I've only been in the USPSA since 6/14/07. I've setup/design hundreds of stages and worked/shot a bunch of majors. I started my CRO course on 3/16 and finished it on 4/6. I have MD locals and assisted in a major, RO/CROed a boat load of shooters. There are a couple of rules changes in the book which I had a part in, or at least I brought up here and spoke to John and others about which now reside in our little blue book. Now I'm up to my ass in MDing an Area match that was homeless because some a_-hole went AWOL on it. I called our Area D and said, hell, we'll take it rather than "possibly" not having an Area 5 match. If the rules were in effect now, I wouldn't be a CRO and I wouldn't be Co-MD for the one of the largest Area matches and THE largest ever Area 5. I've spend literally thousands of hours working for this sport. I'd say for a 1 year wonder, I have a pretty good understanding of the rules of the sport. Do you really want to keep guys like me from stepping up? I can guarantee you if you had set that requirement I would not be a CRO now. Would the sport or the CRO list be any better for it?

To address the availability or CRO/RO, having just had to fully staff a major, I can tell you it's not easy to get enough staff as it is, you reduce that number and we are going to have serious problems. Some Areas have a lot less people to draw on. Some Areas have a lot less volunteers to draw on. Some times there are matches that are close to the same time and you split the available staff between those matches. It's dicey at best...

My thoughts as a, "One year wonder" and the Co-MD of the Area 5 Championship Match.

*** Side note, I had a kick ass mentor who responded to all my questions and emails quickly. In some cases we worked real time via email. I would send one off and had an answer in minutes.

Thanks Ray, you were the best!

JT

Edited May 31, 2010 by JThompson

[JThompson]

So, should we expect a future decision that pulls the CRO designation from anyone who does not work two Level II or one Level III match within a specific time period.

Seems to follow.

If that's the case they can have my CRO/ RO MD, and stage design hats and I'll b go back to shooting matches and having fun.

JT

Edited May 31, 2010 by JThompson

[mactiger]

So, should we expect a future decision that pulls the CRO designation from anyone who does not work two Level II or one Level III match within a specific time period.

Seems to follow.

If that's the case they can have my CRO/ RO MD, and stage design hats and I'll b go back to shooting matches and having fun.

JT

It's definitely not the case, and you both know better. This is a future requirement, and is intended as a prerequisite for the CRO seminar, whether in person or by correspondence. So, within the year or so that someone automatically has to wait to apply for a CRO class, (or however long they may wait) they could conceivably satisfy the match requirements. It's not intended to be retroactive, nor is it designed to be an annual recertification requirement. That will still be done by exam, as it is now. Hopefully, future CRO students will get some match experience while being mentored by an experienced CRO (or even work as a CRO themselves). The whole thing isn't a slam on present CRO's, it's merely a way for us, the NROI instructors, to try to ensure as much as possible that we are certifying competent CRO's.

Troy

[mactiger]

Do we need to be training CRO's after 13 months of shooting?

Yes, if there is a need for them at the local level.

Hell yes Sarge! I took the class as soon as it was available to me. Hell, I've only been in the USPSA since 6/14/07. I've setup/design hundreds of stages and worked/shot a bunch of majors. I started my CRO course on 3/16 and finished it on 4/6. I have MD locals and assisted in a major, RO/CROed a boat load of shooters. There are a couple of rules changes in the book which I had a part in, or at least I brought up here and spoke to John and others about which now reside in our little blue book. Now I'm up to my ass in MDing an Area match that was homeless because some a_-hole went AWOL on it. I called our Area D and said, hell, we'll take it rather than "possibly" not having an Area 5 match. If the rules were in effect now, I wouldn't be a CRO and I wouldn't be Co-MD for the one of the largest Area matches and THE largest ever Area 5. I've spend literally thousands of hours working for this sport. I'd say for a 1 year wonder, I have a pretty good understanding of the rules of the sport. Do you really want to keep guys like me from stepping up? I can guarantee you if you had set that requirement I would not be a CRO now. Would the sport or the CRO list be any better for it?

To address the availability or CRO/RO, having just had to fully staff a major, I can tell you it's not easy to get enough staff as it is, you reduce that number and we are going to have serious problems. Some Areas have a lot less people to draw on. Some Areas have a lot less volunteers to draw on. Some times there are matches that are close to the same time and you split the available staff between those matches. It's dicey at best...

My thoughts as a, "One year wonder" and the Co-MD of the Area 5 Championship Match.

*** Side note, I had a kick ass mentor who responded to all my questions and emails quickly. In some cases we worked real time via email. I would send one off and had an answer in minutes.

Thanks Ray, you were the best!

JT

OK, Jim, you may not have wanted to work the matches to make the CRO requirements, but that certainly wouldn't have stopped you from working or producing any matches. The rules aren't set up that way. Availability of people is something that we all have to contend with, regardless of match level, and most levels don't require certified staff in all positions. It's always better to have certified staff, but it's not a requirement that the entire staff be certified for all matches.

Something to consider: it may not be a shortage of staff, but an overabundance of major matches that makes it hard to staff one. Everybody is always looking for help.

Good luck on the A5, it's not easy inheriting a match on short notice. As for being a "one year wonder", there's nothing wrong with that, and congratulations on your achievements.

Troy

[rgkeller]

After the "paper CRO" comment, I certainly did not know better.

[JThompson]

So, should we expect a future decision that pulls the CRO designation from anyone who does not work two Level II or one Level III match within a specific time period.

Seems to follow.

If that's the case they can have my CRO/ RO MD, and stage design hats and I'll b go back to shooting matches and having fun.

JT

It's definitely not the case, and you both know better. This is a future requirement, and is intended as a prerequisite for the CRO seminar, whether in person or by correspondence. So, within the year or so that someone automatically has to wait to apply for a CRO class, (or however long they may wait) they could conceivably satisfy the match requirements. It's not intended to be retroactive, nor is it designed to be an annual recertification requirement. That will still be done by exam, as it is now. Hopefully, future CRO students will get some match experience while being mentored by an experienced CRO (or even work as a CRO themselves). The whole thing isn't a slam on present CRO's, it's merely a way for us, the NROI instructors, to try to ensure as much as possible that we are certifying competent CRO's.

Troy

Troy,

I don't think either of us actually thought they would retro it... hence, the goof face at the end of my response.

We do want to get our opinions out there because the first we ever hear of some new rule/decision coming down the pike is when we read about it in Front Sight. Then we look it over and see potential issues to late to do anything constructive about it. When we point them out it comes off like we are bashing you guys and that's not the intent, but rather a symptom of not looking at it with a larger audience. We are all volunteers here and I can't speak for everyone, but it would be nice to have some input on such matters "before" they are decided. Ultimately, it will be up to you guys, but it's nice to at least have the illusion of involvement.

I think we all know and agree with what you guys are trying to do. I get tired of hearing AYR when my hand is still on my pistol, but there is always more than one approach to get it done. The more people who look at something the more good ideas you can have.

Jim

Edited May 31, 2010 by JThompson