UKC

I saw this about low pay in sport and leisure:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=659779

and was thinking about a whole lot of stuff about the "gig economy" and it occurred to me that the pay and conditions of working as a climbing instructor contracted or free lance seemed to have a lot in common with working as an Uber driver or delivery agent for amazon etc.

It struck me that while the working conditions in climbing and the gig economy were both low pay and insecure there is an odd element of "living the dream" in the climbing case. I've not met any climbing instructors that were there because it was just another job.

If it's not just another job and part hobby does this mean its ok to be low paid?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

I'm probably going to get a 100 dislikes but it's low paid as it's low skilled. The less people capable of doing your job the more you get paid.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

It doesn't mean it's OK, but it does mean that someone else will likely do it for less financial reward than "you" though (if you put your prices up)! Like many 'lifestyle' industries, there will be steady stream of new people entering the market place, often with few, if any, responsibilities (mortgage, kids for example) which just perpetuates the issue.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Supply and demand, sorry, but thats the way things work.

The opposite end of the spectrum of the saying, " where there's muck there's brass".

In reply to snoop6060:


What do you mean by "low skilled"? Sure, something like the SPA is not particularly onerous to achieve, and doesn't often involve someone taking masses of responsibility, but in the case of someone with winter skills leading groups of school kids and teachers on high-altitude expeditions, where they handle everything from weather monitoring through minor medical issues, logistics, planning, the technical aspects of going to altitude in cold climates and not least dealing with bunches of unruly teenagers, "low skilled" is the last thing it is, if done properly.

In reply to Route Adjuster:


It was the other way round when I first got into offshore surveying....loads of forty-somethings leaving the RN with their 20 years in and a pension, willing to work for low rates for a "top up" to their pensions and to get out and do something rather than festering in the pub at home.

In reply to snoop6060:


The reason there are more people doing the job than the demand requires is not that it's low skilled (it isn't), but that it's far more attractive as a career choice than sitting in an office all day.

The end result is much the same of course.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

I think there is a difference between level of skills, and how good you are. A mountain guide isn't something you need the brains of a rocket scientist for, and thus a lot of people can reach that required skill level. Thus you have plenty potential people that are able to go for it, driving prices down.That said, I agree fully that to pull off a demanding group in inclement weather takes a lot of skill. If you can guide a group like that and make them feel that everything went effortlessly, you are truly good!

Take for example a car mechanic. Generally seen as low-skilled, but it doesn't mean they can't be really good at what they do. I am in a higher skilled job (as they say), but I can perhaps change a tire or a lightbulb, and that's it. My mechanic is fantastic with cars and knows exactly what's wrong by just listening... He can do things that I really can't, and the other way round.

In reply to JR_NL:

"and thus a lot of people can reach that required skill level" - I'm pretty sure IFMG status is pretty hard to get and doesn't fit your example terribly well. I suspect the are more PhDs around than IFMGs making IFMGs a scarcer commodity than rocket scientists.

In reply to JR_NL:

Car mechanics are only seen as low-skilled by those who have no idea what they do. Or just like to feel superior...

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

It seems implicit in the original post, https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=659779, that instructing is low pay and has dodgy conditions - is that fair? I remember posts here about zero hour contracts and contracts that prevented instructors from working for other walls but I can't remember what the conclusion was!

In reply to snoop6060:


I think it's more a case of supply and demand. Loads of people want to do it and there's not many willing to pay a lot for it?

In reply to snoop6060:


Provided of course your particular skills are in demand. If there's not much call for being able to play the 1812 overture with your butt then no one's going to pay you for it, no matter how unique a skill it may be.

In reply to jonintights:


I don't know about people working at walls, but I know several people who lead youth expeditions abroad, and I think in most cases the parents of the teenagers and students they supervise in remote environments would be astonished to learn how low the day rates are for the level of responsibility expected. And in some cases, how limited the "back office" support is, leaving an even bigger burden on the instructor in the field.

In reply to JR_NL:

Sorry, what? You are right, you don't need to be a modern day Einstein, but I don't think it's quite as easy as you make out.

http://www.bmg.org.uk/become-a-guide/prerequisites/

There's a list of the pre reqs to join the start of the scheme...

In reply to jezb1:

I was under the impression that the time commitment to become a mountain guide (including the training necessary to reach that standard of climbing) wasn't far off that required to do a 4 year master's degree, if not a fair bit more. Any of the instructors I've used in the past seem to have a pretty encyclopaedic knowledge of the area they're working in (possibly in some cases they wouldn't have a good knowledge of more esoteric areas and had just concentrated on a small number of crags but I didn't get that impression with any of them), that kind of knowledge takes time to build up.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Internationally qualified "Guides" get paid more and deservedly so. Most people however seem to be content with CWA and SPA which quite frankly are ten a penny so as others say it's supply and demand.

Al

In reply to JR_NL:


I bet that less than 1% of all UKc members will every have all the prerequisites ticked to even join the scheme. Let alone complete it.

In reply to snoop6060:


Its not quite as simple as that. Some industries just have higher pay than others, regardless of particular skill set.

In reply to spenser:


That's if you ignore the 10 years of experience that they'll have before even joining the scheme. The majority of guides/mic/Mia will have climbed since their late teens or often earlier, but you don't get that many passing their assessment under 30years old.

There are exceptions like Twid, Mic and guide aged 28 or so. But apart from being talented he was out nearly everyday. So had a bit more mileage in his logbook than a spa etc.!

In reply to summo:
I was qualified and sponsored to register on the Guides scheme several years ago with a view to guiding after being made redundant. It would still have taken me 5 years and several thousand pounds in fees so I decided that at my stage in life it was too late.

I know several full guides and they are ALL very good climbers i.e. minimum E2 trad, W5 ice and ED alpine as well as being very competent skiers. It's this last one that catches many Brits out. For all this it's those with some business acumen who tend to make a reasonable living.

Al

In reply to duchessofmalfi:


No. Even if you are accepting of not being paid what the job is worth, for whatever reason, you should not work for buttons as it creates a culture of underpayment. Others who are attempting to pay their mortgages/feed their families will lose out because part-time "hobbyists" are forcing wage rates down. I think the whole notion that because you actually enjoy and are driven by your work you will neither need nor want commensurate reimbursement is dangerous and nonsensical.

"Commensurate reimbursement" is of course widely varied dependent on instructor role/qualification. This thread seems to be trying to compare climbing wall assistants with site-specific sign-offs, and Alpine Guides. Somewhat different.

In reply to jonintights:
"and thus a lot of people can reach that required skill level" - I'm pretty sure IFMG status is pretty hard to get and doesn't fit your example terribly well. I suspect the are more PhDs around than IFMGs making IFMGs a scarcer commodity than rocket scientists."

In reply to jezb1:
"Sorry, what? You are right, you don't need to be a modern day Einstein, but I don't think it's quite as easy as you make out.
http://www.bmg.org.uk/become-a-guide/prerequisites/
There's a list of the pre reqs to join the start of the scheme..."

Guys, you are right in the fact that becoming a mountain guide certainly isn't an easy endeavour at all, and it is certainly something that I will most likely never reach. In fact, I have relied upon Mountain Guides before for training, and will very likely rely on them again to get me through things I wouldn't be able to do on my own. I have full respect for them (and the same for my car mechanic).

The way I understand the term 'low-skilled' (and I'm not a native speaker, so do tell me if I'm off track) is meant in a level of education kind of way. As an example, a plumber would be low-skilled, a rocket scientist high skilled. In that light, a mountain guide would be on the lower skilled end. Not so much because they have low skills (very much the opposite), but as it's more a physical job. Looking at the prerequisites for the training schemes it is primarily what you have done, not what you know. I guess it's more of a street smart than a book smart kind of thing...

In reply to Rick Graham:


I think this is the crux of it. A lot of people see outdoor instructing as "the dream", so there's always a supply of new people who're willing to do the qualifications - at least the lower level ones - in their own time and take the job regardless of the relatively poor terms. See also most other jobs that make people think "ooh, I'd love to do that."

Not passing judgement on whether this is fair, just that this is why it happens.

In reply to snoop6060:


Pay is determined by the lowest of:
a. how much your skills are worth
b. how much your customers can afford
c. how little someone else would take to do the job

The biggest factor influencing these is usually government making buying a service compulsory or taxing it or allowing unions or other barriers to reduce competition.

In reply to JR_NL:
I would suggest as a non native speaker you are mixing skilled with educated.

A professor of physics is clearly educated and perhaps skilled. The opposite for a mtn guide or mechanic..

The debate is to be skilled are you therefore educated, or just possessing some appropriate attributes?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

It' not just a case of supply and demand. Pay in the outdoor sector is appalling and to pretend that an MIC taking climbers up Grade V ice in winter is on a par with a painter/decorator or handyman is ridiculous.

It's time the Association of Mountaineering Instructors (AMI) did something about it and started representing their members!

I realize that trying to compare kid's club instructors with IFMGs is a bit like comparing apples with pears but there are similarities:

- neither are particularly well paid (I'll accept that guides earn a lot more but I've never met a rich IFMG who wasn't well off before they became a guide and most I've met are willing to live like dogs to save money),

- both suffer from job insecurity and a lack the sort traditional in-work benefits that regular work offers (ie sick pay, regular work, guaranteed hours, pensions, paid leave etc) so to me they both fit the specification of non standard employment contracts given in the original post. On this I bet there are more instructors with secure jobs than guides.

- I've not met an instructor or guide who was in it because it was just another job and they are strongly motivated

There is a continuum from kid's club instructor to IFMG guide (and then to professional superstar climber) but the whole way it seems to fit with "non-standard" employment contracts.

In reply to JR_NL:
I think you are misunderstanding what low skilled means in English. Skills are mix of practical abilities (these don't need to be physical) and relevant knowledge (this doesn't have to be gained through a conventional education). This is different to education, which is something you get at school etc. Clearly there is a correlation but you can be highly skilled without being highly educated. You can also be highly educated but do a low skilled job. I think most people would consider experienced car mechanics to be skilled, even if they left school at 16.

In reply to summo:

That is indeed more what I'm after, although a guide would still be educated, but different than a professor of physics.

Either way, I think we're on the same page

In reply to Misha:

And lets not forget common sense. I know quite a few highly educated graduates who are sadly lacking in this department although they know their specialised subject inside out. I think a climbing instructor should have an abundance of common sense irrespective of skills and education.

Al

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

To me, low skilled is things like shelf stacking, basic hospitality, call centre work. Something anyone can turn up and do. I wouldn't include mechanic or guide in this category.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Also the service they provide is not in such massive demand and in particular in such massive demand from those that have huge disposable income.

In reply to jonintights:


Maybe so. But there is probably more demand for rocket scientists, and more money to be made from it.

In reply to JR_NL:


Hymn sheet.

In reply to Jamie B:

I think that this is the key point - it is like the difference between someone who fits tyres and someone who designs cars - they could both be described as 'motor engineers' but there is a huge skill and pay difference.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


Like what, exactly?
I think the real limiter here is not so much the number of 'dreamers' as the size of the market. There are only so many people willing to spend £100-200 on a day's guiding (or whatever the numbers are). You could reduce the number of guides and hence provide the remaining ones with more secure employment and regular income, but the market is likely to shrink further.
What else?

In reply to captain paranoia:


2% reduction in demand apparently by 2024

http://study.com/articles/Rocket_Scientist_Job_Description_Salary_and_Outlo...

In reply to jezb1:

I'm always surprised at how "low" the level/number of the prerequisites are*. I guess it's a lot of variety to have covered, hence the applicants are not normally 22 as per the minimum age requirements!

*This is not say i'd ever achieve them as I'm a chubby seal monkey but if I ditched the mortgage, abandoned the family and became a Chamonix bum I'd fancy my chances.....

In reply to galpinos:

The prerequisites to even start the process of being a full guide are quite high.

Al

In reply to Tom Briggs:


I am afraid it IS a matter of supply and demand. So long as instructors are prepared to carry on working for crap pay their employers will continue to pay crap wages. I suppose if your primary motivation is money you are probably in the wrong job.

What leverage has the AMI got? What can they do?

In reply to GridNorth:

Al, a few years ago I climbed with a guy from on here who was I think a year into the guides' training scheme or whatever it's called. He struggled a little with technical rock-climbing and he wasn't particularly strong. But - far more importantly to my mind - he was utterly competent. He was as steady and safe as it ever gets. We did loads of stuff at a grade that was of use to him.

When it came to ropework, organisation, routefinding etc, I don't mind admitting that he was in a different realm.

Re your previous point, '...And lets not forget common sense,' totally agree. In climbing (as Whymper marvellously noted) judgement is of utter, fundamental importance. You might be a bit unfit, a tad slow with your ropework... but shit judgement will get you killed far faster.

His judgement was absolutely spot-on. You couldn't begin to fault it. Theory, practice - he knew 'em backwards. For me, he might as well have been a guide - he was that good. And yet he was still in the early stages.

One day on the crag we bumped into three other aspirants doing a training day they'd agreed between them. Again their organisation and rope-work was shit hot. Again they seemed totally solid.

I was impressed!

Mick

In reply to galpinos:

The pre requisites are the minimum, if want to race up a V on Ben mid winter, looking untroubled and solid, bring up a second or two.. then all candidates will be happy at VI plus. It's a little like MIA, if 4c is your ceiling then it's going to be tough on assessment. But that's really why the guides process is part mentoring and you have existing guide referees.

In reply to Marek:

What leverage has the AMI got?

Well the AMI / MLTA sit on top of the ponzi scheme that the MT courses represent.

It has always struck me that one of the more stable ways to make a steady living in this area is to instruct the instructors. When you begin to run short of fresh meat there can be a sudden need to "improve standards", requiring everyone to take new qualifications with more steps between the bottom and top. I suspect the vested interests of the instructor instructors count a lot in the design of the career path and that the AMI does more to promote this subset than the wider class of instructors more of a AMII than AMI.

In reply to jonintights:

Have a like.

It is called pulling up the ladder behind you.

Happens in most industries nowadays unfortunately.

I really enjoy reacting against the self serving jobsworths.

But there again I work for the fun of it now and TBH can afford to upset folk if they deserve it.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Interesting. If I climbed guided I would be much, much more interested in all the things you mention when choosing a guide, as well as coaching ability, than I would be in technical ability.

In my other sport, squash, the best coaches I have had have been those who positively chose to be squash coaches, rather than the absolute best players who chose to coach to fund playing. I imagine a similar thing will apply to guides.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Not really, at least not in actual rocket science. It would be more lucrative for them to apply their knowledge in Quantitative Analysis, at the cost of much of their free time and stress levels. And their souls.

As was mentioned above, the industry in which you work has a huge impact on the pay you can expect.

In reply to planetmarshall:
Isn't what most people call 'rocket science' actually engineering?

In reply to baron:


Well, it's not exactly brain surgery...

In reply to jonintights:


Have they actually done that though? I haven't been aware of Mountain Training's qualifications for all that long in the grand scheme of things, only about ten to fifteen years, but the impression I've had during that time is of a relatively stable set of qualifications.

The biggest change I've noticed was the introduction of the CWA and CWLA where they actively avoided an opportunity to do what you've just described by letting SPA holders skip the CWA and jump straight into CWLA. A thoroughly reasonable decision, to my mind, and not at all in keeping with your conspiracy theories. The cynical, money-grubbing organisation that you've described would surely have made CWA the only acceptable pre-requisite for the CWLA, forcing interested SPA holders to pay for a new qual.

In reply to snoop6060:

Are you just trolling? There's no relation at all between skill and pay. Just look at your idiot of a manager; or look at the carer or child carer who is paid nothing for their work. If you're not trolling, you live in a fantasy world.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

There's several issues (aside from the usual descent into guide=IFMGA guide when being discussed on UKC, not a generic term for an ML or above who guides clients in then mountains...), and it's getting a little worse every year:

- Perceived to be a lifestyle industry, as it's seen as being paid to go hillwalking/climbing etc so it's attractive for people to do as a second job (lots of outdoor freelancers who are also treesurgeons, teachers, police, office workers etc etc). So they're happy enough to work for £100-ish per day as it pays for their outdoor adventures elsewhere.

- A lot of young and keen instructors, leaders and assistants entering the 'trade' every year at a rate that outstrips the natural rate of decay from retirement, and the rate of growth/demand from clients

- Several outdoor industry/outdoor tourism-related uni courses pumping out instructors. Most last 12-18 months before buggering off to become a teacher (or work in Cotswolds/GoOutdoors)

- A day rate that has barely risen in the past 12 years (from £90-100 per day to £100-£120 per day in North wales, similar elsewhere for general ML/SPA freelance work)

- More MTA course providers selling training to the next generation of instructors faster than the rate of client growth. see points above

There is more work doing ML/DofE (and some gorge walking) than climbing tuition or development, and these are the awards that most will go for first.

As for being unskilled, well... there are plenty of rubbish instructors and leaders. Being able to lead E5 in the rain or do the PYG Track in an hour and being a good coach/instructor/leader are two completely different sets
of skills. In my experience a good natural ability can stifle the development of good coaching technique and empathy. If you haven't worked out how to be good at something it's very difficult to tell/show someone else how to do it for themselves.
The beauty of this kind of thing is that if you happen to be good at navigating, carrying a rucksack through a bog and living in a van then you will probably pass your ML - but you won't last more than a couple of years in the industry. If you're half-decent and have some business acumen you might end up running your own business and just about earning a living.

Just don't break your leg. Then you're f*cked.

In reply to C Witter:


I think snoop was just having a gentle wind up or maybe not expressing his/her thoughts very well in a short reply.

There is a relationship between skills and pay, but as you point out it may not be a fair or reasonable one.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


The problem is that AMI members are more than happy to make money by training more and more SPAs and CWAs who on realising that their market is limited seek higher awards based on the desire to increase their income.

The market is finite and only the best and those who are the best businessmen will survive.

Things would get very interesting if the AMI tried to limit the supply of qualified instructors.

In reply to MG:


I think the difference here is that squash is happening in a controlled environment and the coach is never in a position to have to take a lead because of their superior ability. Academic knowledge / experience (for want of a better term) and a relatively basic ability to feed the ball is what is required - you can get the squash player to do most of the retrieving and running. A guide may be forced by the mountain environment to take a more physical lead role.

In reply to richprideaux:

"just about earning a living. Just don't break your leg. Then you're f*cked." -- I think that's the sort of thing the survey in the OP is looking at - it's a long way from a normal job in that respect

In reply to Rick Graham:

It's more than that just pulling up the ladder cos you've got to milk the ones left behind as well!

In reply to Luke90:

I hear rumblings about a substantial revision on the way which could downgrade some qualifications and affect some existing holders which is what made me thing of it...

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

In my case it was a broken shoulder and dodgy spinal stuff. Lost £8,000 of immediate work and led to a very lean winter. I'm a lot less brave when on the mountainbike now.

In reply to summo:

Being a guide is a lifestyle choice and for most aspirants their existing level of experience and skill more than qualifies them. It,s not something you should try or can learn. You either have the ability or not. Even with the required skill level you still have to go through the process of fine tuning and lengthy assessments; but who wants to be a 50 + year old guide and take massive risks for not a lot of money and no decent pension. Quite a few guides I know diversify using their qualification in other ways. Big
respect though for people who are prepared to work that dangerously hard for so little reward.

In reply to jonintights:


Doesn't seem very fair to tar them as a ponzi scheme on the basis of rumours about what MIGHT happen when, so far, they seem to have a pretty good track record of not doing what you're accusing them of.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Doesn't always work that way. For example, the electronic engineers that design medical scanners get paid less than the radiologists that look at the pictures because the medics have a great trade union to limit competition. Doctors get paid more in rich countries than poor countries but the electronics industry will hire anywhere in the world which limits the pay differential between rich and poor countries.

Maybe not a tire fitter, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone with their own small garage fixing cars in London couldn't make more money than an engineer designing cars in China.

In reply to Luke90:

That's a fair point about the rumours but the existing structure seems to have more to do with creating and defending an industry of "instructor instructors" than defending the employment rights of the instructed.

I'd be very surprised if the next round of changes means that requires less money needs to be paid to "instructor instructors" than before to reach the same "standard".

I'd be surprise if "instructor instructors" are not overwhelming represented in the design process for the current and future set of qualifications - this isn't surprising but it does mean there is a conflict of interest between those that train and those that are trained.

In reply to Marek:


Put pressure on the National Mountain Centres to increase rates. If they paid more everyone else would and individual instructors could increase their rates. You don't hear of lawyers charging less because of competition.

In reply to duchessofmalfi: it's not supply and demand. It's simply a sector that isn't enormously profitable and thus there ain't much money in it. Work in the right sector and equivalent skills will earn 100k plus.

In reply to snoop6060:


I remember running an SPA training course once with one of the candidates being a self-employed IT consultant.

I seem to recall I charged £80 for the two day course (it was a while ago!). At the end of the course he thanked me, said he'd really enjoyed it and would have charged £400 for an equivalent delivery in his own field.

The Outdoor Sector has always underpriced itself.

In reply to duchessofmalfi and others: Quite frankly much of what's been written so far rather misses the point and is a bit ill informed.

I am absolutely NOT low paid and the same thing applies to numerous colleagues who are genuinely self-employed freelancers. I am however significantly UNDER EMPLOYED on an annual basis.

It is probably worth making a very clear distinction between the two.

There certainly are low paying jobs around but far more people are quite well paid but the work is highly seasonal and insecure. Additionally, there are a small number making a really good living (at least compared to UK median income).

I could fill every weekend between April and October five times over, in many cases on better money per day than most supply teachers or trades people. The problem however is the several months per year where almost no work is available.

I know what genuine low pay in the modern economy feels like. Several years ago, I took a temporary Xmas job in retail on minimum wage. Compared to that, the outdoor industry is easy street - you might still be equally broke over the whole year but you aren't working 6 days per week in, week out and limited to a paltry 4 or 5 weeks annual holiday.

There are numerous issues with the "gig economy" but many other sectors have far greater issues with endemic low pay.

In reply to jonintights:


You seem remarkably ignorant about this 'ponzi' scheme?
Mountain Training courses are administered by the home nation Boards (England, Cymru etc) and the UK Board for the higher instructional awards. The Association of Mountaineering Instructors is a professional organisation supporting and, to a certain extent, 'policing' those in the instructor schemes. The Mountain Training Association is a support organisation which seeks to support and offer further training to those in the 'leader' awards. Membership of both those organisations is optional, NOT mandatory. Continuing training is offered not required.

You might have a case if the MT boards insisted on mandatory re-assessment every three years (as some bodies do!) but they don't.

I can reassure you that the Training Boards (and I speak as an ex-employee) have never 'scrapped' a qualification and are actually scrupulous in trying to ensure that any new awards don't disenfranchise existing award holders.

In reply to richprideaux:


A survey a few years back revealed that the average age of a worker in the 'Outdoor Sector' was 24.........

In reply to jonintights:

I see what you mean about the conflict of interest but there's a natural counter-balance. None of the qualifications are legally mandated so if they make them too onerous or expensive, people will stop bothering with them. Yes, the tickets are effectively pretty obligatory at the moment but only because the industry as a whole finds them useful. If Mountain Training manage them badly, they'll fall out of favour and become less relevant (possibly with competitors springing up).

The "instructor instructors" might have some interest in jacking up the number and cost of quals but if they're smart, they'll recognise that their role relies on the health of the entire system. My experience of the system so far is that they've been doing exactly that.

I also don't think there's any way to avoid that conflict of interest. You have to have the people with the most experience making the decisions, how else would you structure it? They're certainly consulting over the changes, I've had a survey.

In reply to galpinos:

It might not seem like a lot but actually it is due to the variety of the requirements. Also bear in mind that these are minimum requirements. Living in the UK and being a keen weekend warrior, it's relatively easy to get the UK rock and Scottish winter ticks (although Scotland will take several years, especially if you get one or two really poor seasons like this year). However getting the alpine routes and ski touring days (as well as simply having a decent ability to ski) will be a challenge - particularly the alpine TDs which require the right mix of partner, conditions and weather. That's the situation I'm in.

Conversely, you might be a Cham ski/climbing bum and have the alpine and touring sorted but UK rock and winter will be a challenge, particularly the Scottish winter routes. I know a couple of people in that situation.

Of course if you become a year round global climbing bum, you should get it all sorted over a couple of years but we all need to earn a crust and that that severely eats into climbing/skiing time. Even then, there is also a requirement to have accumulated the logs over a period of up to 5 years.

I have a degree from Cambridge, a chartered accountancy qualification and many years of experience of working in a fairly complex tax advisory area but I consider that getting onto and completing the BMG scheme would be a greater challenge than anything else I have achieved to date.

In reply to jonintights:


Last one from me on this topic. Mountain Training England had 250 course providers in 2001. It currently has 147. And about 20 of them are delivering the new Skills courses and the new Lowland Leader (introduced without putting anyone out of work! Prickly? Moi?) so that monolithic and self-perpetuating secret society of 'instructor instructors' is doing a pretty shit job. They've allowed their numbers to halve.

In reply to wbo:


Of course it's supply and demand, that's one element that you have just described.

Al

In reply to rocksol:


Totally agree, I could squeeze in climbing grade wise, but my skiing was pants (relatively), so I made the decision to stick with UK quals as I felt I probably wouldn't enjoy the whole process if I was just making the cut. My skiing is much better now, but my grade may have slipped a little climbing wise thanks to various finger niggles. No regrets here I'm just happy outside regardless of what I do.

In reply to baron:


You beat me to this post.

The science behind rockets is pretty simple, certainly a book of it would be smaller than any of my BMC "skills" books.

The difficult parts are the materials science, the engineering, and the quality control...

In reply to GridNorth: no, it's not a notionally simple supply and demand. Some jobs are inherently poor paying despite constriction of supply as they are in sectors with little money going through them. Care work is an example

In reply to timjones:


People create niches for themselves or do something that gets their name known. Martin Moran's all munros in a seasons, alps 4000ers etc.


It is drifting that way as to remain an ami member etc. You must stay current and accrue career development course which aren't at present very onerous.

Pegging assessment courses to actual active members? But training should be a little more open, on my training cse there was one person who had no intention of doing the assessment they just wanted to raise their game as an ML.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Actually you do I'm married to one. It's a popular misconception that all lawyers are fat cats earning a fortune!

In reply to Andy Say:


Surveys are excellent measures of the sort of people who answer surveys.

In reply to richprideaux:


And your point caller....?

The average age of a worker in the Outdoor Sector was 24.

In reply to wbo:
I thought we were talking about climbing instructors. I will take some convincing that it is NOT supply and demand. In it's simplest form: Lots of climbers wanting to be instructors and not many willing to pay for instruction.

Al

In reply to Andy Say:


That surveys are only useful if they are representative of that community. Unless it is data collected from records that cover all members of that community then it is just a survey of folk who can be arsed to answer a survey.

Anyway, were you were raising that survey result to support my point that there are a lot of young, keen instructors but a lot drift off to other sectors after a short while?

In reply to GridNorth:

It's actually slightly debatable if there are technically many or even any "climbing instructors" in the UK. I don't think I know any.
I know scores of outdoors pursuits instructors, mountaineering instructors, mountain guides, mountain leaders, a good few climbing coaches and even a professional climber or too.
Absolutely none of them could be accurately and solely described as a climbing instructor. In every case there is another better or fuller description of what they do to earn a living.
That's just the nature of what's just recently been termed the "gig economy". The number of people wanting to learn to climb and the number of people holding climbing related qualifications are almost completely irrelevant to wages. What does matter is the wider economy.

The great recession of 2008 put downwards pressure on wages across many sectors including the outdoor industry. This has lasted until perhaps 3 years ago. Wages are now rising strongly in the SE, but holding firm in other areas, almost exactly mirroring wider economic performance.

Wages in the outdoor sector are lower in places like Snowdonia primarily because wages in general are lower. Climbing instruction is such a tiny part of the wider outdoor industry that there is no way for it to have an appreciable impact on daily pay rates.

That said, other structural changes such as the widespread closure (or contracting out) of local authority Outdoor Education Centres probably have had a significant and detrimental impact in particular locations.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

How many people post that getting instruction from a professional is so expensive that they look for a 'cheap' option like joining a club and using the experienced members or looking at film on youtube ?

In reply to snoop6060:


If it's low skilled? What would your definition of a highly skilled job be? I could then give you an honest answer!!

In reply to richprideaux:


Yes.

In reply to JR_NL:


Perhaps there should be a separate forum for this type of thing.

In reply to petenebo:

Hi,
I have a slightly different take on this, which my rather quick reading of the posts above indicates has not been mentioned, and which I think lies at the heart of it.

The reason a teacher gets paid a reasonable wage (at least my wife thinks her's is reasonable), as does a University lecturer (at least I think so) is that they can deliver a defined output: GCSEs, degrees etc. Secondly it it is possible for a manager or costumer to see one person is better than another in terms or some measurable quality that they might pay more for.

I can't see me getting paid much if all I offered was some teaching on a topic, but the output was not measurable (rather than a degree). No one is going to pay £9k a year for something so vague. Wages also climb if the output is measurable and hence when buying you know you are getting better results. Hence University Profs get paid a lot more, as their measurable output (paper quality, research grant income) are measurable. Hence when I interview someone I can simply look at the written record, know they will generate twice as much money for the University and pay more.

Solutions. 1. You need a product. At the moment the only product is for these wanting to go into the industry (SPA etc.) I don't think I can go and get a leading badge, or my alpine grade one. Most climbers would not want these, but that doesn't matter, we are only talking about people who might climb with a guide. (I think it would appeal to reasonable number of climbers). In diving PADI has built a business based on this.)
2. we need a way of judging the quality of the teacher and some simple ways of judging the quality of what is being bought. Normally this is done by separating the delivery from the measure. i.e. my wife is judged by her GCSE and A-level results compared to those around her. And I am judged by 3 numbers: the quality of my papers (judged by a panel), my annual grant income (you can find this on the web for all academics), my teaching score (as judged by the students). These three numbers allow me to be placed in a ranking against everyone else in the University, or any other University (bit like a tennis ranking). I can then stick these on my CV and a future employer needs to know very little more.

This would raise wages even if there is an oversupply of people entering the industry. I would pay more per day for someone who could raise my sport climbing grade by one number, than some who could only raise it by one letter. Or could get me my big wall badge in one day rather than 3.

I would suggest 1 will be easier than 2 in the case of climbing. So, go create a product with an accreditation body behind it (BMC?) and the money will flow.

In reply to David Coley:

Surely qualified mountain guides on £200 per day already earn the same as junior university lecturers? That is to say not a lot next to a chartered accountant but a competitive wage when the financial utility of their services is taken into consideration. A degree is more likely to increase my earning power than taking me from 6c to 7a!!

It's at the bottom end of the experience curve that supply and demand hits far harder than any accreditation scheme will counteract. Have you seen how much Architects earn after their 7 year qualification process vs Doctors after 5 or 6 years' training?

In reply to BnB:


But few university lecturers need to provide over a £1000 pounds worth of constantly replaced kit plus insurance to enable them to work, never mind travel expenses. That would sort of hit at your 'disposable income' a bit.

In reply to BnB:
This thread is about Instructors, not Mountain Guides. Mountain Guides working in the Alps earn double what Mountaineering Instructors working in Scottish winter earn, at least.

In reply to BnB:

A Mountain Guide working for themselves in the Alps has a much higher day rate than that. Think £350 per day, which reflects the experience, education, qualification, CPD, skill and responsibility that a Guide brings to bear.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


Fair enough. My point in response to David was that levels of accreditation already exist and are rewarded disproportionately to their economic utility.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

Aye, Tom. But if you want to criticise how much footballers are paid you have a pop at the Ozils of this world rather than Hartlepool's creative mid-fielder. It's an easier hit

In reply to Andy Say:
You misunderstood me. I am not criticising what Guides earn.

My point is taking people out on the Ben in winter conditions is harder and more serious work than a lot of the guiding that gets done in the Alps. Probably half of the work in the Alps is an afternoon walking to a hut. Clearly guiding something like the Matterhorn is a different matter and personally I think the rates for Alpine guiding are proportionate to the seriousness of it overall, it's just that rates for U.K. Instructors are appalling imo.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


In order to judge the rates you need to define what the customer is buying.

I'd guess that different people will use instructors for different reasons and unless it is "the whole package" that entices them then none of the individual components are as valuable as the whole that the seller perceives that they are offering.

In reply to David Coley:
There are no end of measurables that a good instructor can identify and deliver over a day, weekend, week... at the end of my client day on my Mia, louise say sat down with my two guinea pigs and asked them what they had learnt that day. Luckily they had some answers.

Even over a single day a person can significantly improve their poor vis, winter, night navigation. Learn to abseil safely. Set up much better stances, gain confidence leading etc..

The difference is everyone's measurable product is different and until you meet them on the day, see the weather and conditions you can't even decide for certain what that product is. Then by lunch time it may have evolve a bit more. But that is what you pay for, mountaineering isn't usually so definitive; so it's impossible to teach it that way.

It is the very freedom to tailor a day to suit all the factors that draws many people to work in the mountains in the first place.

In reply to BnB:
The full cost of a starting grade lecturer on a permanent contract is usually significantly more than £200 a day. Thats one reason why the gig economy is alive and well in academic delivery in our universities. Making up the teaching commitments of that same lecturer with part time contracts with full rights would be around £100 a day. Cheaper still on ZHCs and cheaper again with (often dishonest) statements on no marking and/or preparation.

In reply to Tom Briggs:


I know that, Tom. But my point was that when people suggest that instructors are overpaid/have an unskilled job/get paid for having fun its always 'I mean, look at what guides earn' rather than 'look at what someone training a DofE group earns'. I believe its called a straw man argument

In reply to Andy Say:


Hartlepool born and a once only visitor to Victoria Park to watch a match, I need to reply to this post.

Read an interesting and plausible explanation of David Beckhams remuneration once.
Effectively he was worth that much to MU and his sponsors for the return in addition sales and other revenue he created.
Market forces, supply and demand, whatever you wish to call the process.

Who is Ozil ?

In reply to Rick Graham:


Hartlepool's creative mid-fielder.








Next season.

In reply to Andy Say:


Or a Scout Leader? (I instruct climbing, albeit on an artificial wall, for nowt other than that it's quite enjoyable getting young people to achieve things they didn't think possible).

I guess any industry where people will happily do the job for free is going to have difficulties with pay rates.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I'm not sure that this has any significant negative effect.

How do volunteers fulfilling demand within their own organisation influence commercial pay rates?

If we stopped taking Scouts climbing tomorrow would they seek to climb elsewhere or do we actually increase demand outside Scouting by giving youngsters a taste for the sport?

In reply to timjones:


Supply and demand.

If there weren't volunteers willing to do the 'job', then either a) someone who have to be paid to do it, increasing the demand for commercial pay rates, or b) no-one would do it.

I volunteer to do DofE supervision. It actually costs me money, because I have to take leave to do so. I'm effectively taking a possible job from instructor friends who provide the same service commercially. If the group I work with had to pay commercial rates, the group would probably close, or else be much smaller.

I do it because I enjoy it. But I only help with four weekends a year.


That's a more interesting question...

In reply to captain paranoia:


But if you create the demand as well as fulfilling it then your effect on the market is negligible?

In reply to timjones:


I thought that the point of the DoE was to get kids out and self-confident rather than to provide employment for instructors? So how 'negligible'?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

I mean that it's not difficult and does not require extensive training. But I was referring to be an instructor not a guide. Being a guide is obviously more involved and requires a far greater skillset. And as such much better paid. I have hired guides at 200-250euros per day and don't think that is low paid really. It's not highly paid either mind but it a decent rate for a days work.

In reply to Andy Say:



Absolutely Andy. It's a common misconception to compare the amount you pay for a professional service to the amount the professional earns. A junior university lecturer (my wife was one) actually earns a lot less than £200 per day (Low £30k's) . But all of that appears in the salary cheque (after taxes) and is guaranteed each month throughout the year. If you pay a guide £200 per day the guide sees a fraction of this when averaged over the year. It's not just the costs Andy lists above - it's the days not earning: days spent advertising for custom, handling bookings, payments and other admin, and the days when there's just no work to be had.

Martin

In reply to Marek:


I wouldn't know about Dof E I instruct climbing.

I would suggest that if we are providing a good, all-round balanced programme within Scouting then youngsters are unlikely to join specifically because they want to climb and we are therefore unlikely to be having any significant effect on the commercial sector.

OTOH by providing them with a chance to experience a range of activities there is a possibility that they will decide to take up an activity and seek further instruction elsewhere.

In reply to snoop6060:

So an MIC looking after a client on a Ben Nevis winter climb in a hoolie, getting them there and then navigating back, or an MIA coaching someone on their first lead up a multi-pitch route with an eye on how to retrieve the situation if it all goes pear shaped is 'not difficult and does not require extensive training'? Bollocks.

I recall the case of an MIC dealing with a bad fall in winter. They had to ab. back down the pitch. Administer first aid. Solo up the pitch. Haul the casualty up the pitch. Secure the casualty. Solo the top pitch. Abseil back down to prepare a haul. Prusik back up the pitch. Haul the casualty up that pitch. And then drag the casualty across a winter landscape in a storm to try to get rescue. You up for that, Snoop?

'It's not difficult and does not require extensive training.....'

I do get just a bit ticked off with folks who assume that its all sunshine and easy routes and fun, fun, fun working as an instructor all the time. There is actually a fair amount of knowledge, skill, and sheer guts that can be required.

And in a court of law the higher your 'qualification' the harsher you may well be judged if it goes bad.

You know what - its not a bed of roses sometimes. And you just have to cope. And not in an amateur way.

Sorry to pick on you. But people simply do not understand what an instructor might be called on to perform when the shit hits the fan.

Rant over.

In reply to Andy Say:

No worries Andy. What you describe is what I would call a guide. 99% of climbing instructors aren't guiding people on winter climbs on the Ben.

In reply to snoop6060:

But it is the sort of stuff that MIA's and MIC's and them instructors do and might be expected to cope with in the UK. And some of their work is, indeed, best described as 'g'uiding. As opposed to 'G'uiding. Which is done by 'G'uides.

In reply to timjones:


The DofE creates the demand, by encouraging youngsters to participate in the DofE scheme. I am not the DofE. I do not create the demand.

The scheme is implemented by DofE centres. These vary in how they implement the scheme, especially the expedition. Some centres use all-volunteer staff to teach and support the participants. Some outsource all aspects of the expedition to o commercial providers.

I simply provide a service to meet the demand. I take the place of commercial providers who might otherwise be paid to provide the service.

In reply to JR_NL:

Dreadful argument and appalling assumptions which are also meaningless.
Also, poor thinking, patronising guff about Guides - who do need very high order thinking skills to manage clients on serious routes and a complete mis-match of skills between a car mechanic and a 'mountain guide' as there is no comparison between a technology-ridden plastic/metal combo and a human who works directly with peoples' lives, ambitions, skill sets and our wonderful mountain environment.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Plus the cost of replacement kit (particularly for winter climbing) and some pretty long distance travel is a fair bit higher than the cost of occasionally buying a new shirt etc and commuting for an office worker.

In reply to Andy Cloquet:

You're ignoring the fact that your "technology-ridden plastic/metal combo" has to keep you safe whilst travelling at high speed in close proximity to loads of other "technology-ridden plastic/metal combos".

In reply to snoop6060:


But most guides and expedition leaders in UK, and people leading expeditions to remote areas and often high altitude, don't get anything like that, and their required skillsets arguably require more training and sound judgement than some of the guiding in the Alps. Three weeks as the sole experienced person (with a couple of teachers along who may not have travelled much before) on mountainous treks in a remote area of China IMO requires a range of training, technical and personal skills plus unflappability and a level of common sense that I've seen to be conspicuously absent in some Alpine guides. I'm not going to embarrass people by indicating day rates, but in most cases they're a lot less than the 200-250 Euros a day you mention.

And when I was just starting out with winter skills, the instructors on the courses in Scotland that I attended were not just more knowledgeable than guides I've encountered in the Alps since, but had the training and patience not just to teach basic skills such as moving on steep snow and ice, avalanche awareness, emergency procedures, etc, but also took the time to go over meteorology, history and natural history, too, pointing out plants and animals and obviously knowing a fair bit about them. By contrast, the one guide I've used in the Alps (plus other guides I've seen operating there) seem to work on a "shut up and let me drag you up this as fast as possible with as little interaction as I can get away with" basis. Maybe that's unfair as I've only been exposed to a small subset of Alpine guides, but for 3 weeks in the Himalaya I'd rather be with any one of several UK "instructors" I know (from both a technical and personal viewpoint) than most of the Alpine "guides" I've encountered.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Put up your rates if you are not happy, see if the client will pay , is the simple solution.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
I'm happy to say my daily rates. My type of work is nearly all teaching/coaching climbing, guiding, SPA / ML courses, scrambling courses, teaching navigation.

MIA type work, based in N Wales:
Working for other people, £135-£160
Working for myself, £160-£180
Running open courses for myself, £150-£250

I'd love these rates to be higher, who wouldn't, but I'm happy with them. They afford me a nice lifestyle.

I don't employ many people (MIA's), but on the occasions I do, I pay between £135-£160 depending on the work. Again I'd like to pay more but the margins are pretty small.

In reply to BnB:

Hi, I was more thinking all the way up, from instructors up. But the guide is a good example - it is very hard to progress and increase income how ever good you are in the outdoor industry. As it is hard to measure "good".

By the way I work in a dept. of Architecture and civ. eng. Again a good example. Progression is possible and some architects do rather well!

In reply to Andy Cloquet:


The 'mis-match' of skill sets is the very problem here, though. How do you it a value on the different, but possibly comparable (in terms of effort required to acquire) level of skill?

A car mechanic works on things that have inherent value; they may keep your x-thousand pound car on the road, saving you the need to buy a new car. Their skills thus have a tangible value.

Outdoor instruction or guiding does not have any such tangible value (like many 'entertainment' jobs).

I'm afraid the only way is what the market will support; what people are prepared to pay, and be paid.

In reply to Misha:


Is it a fair bit higher? Cars, fuel, insurance, parking or a season ticket for the tube / train is bloody expensive. 000s a year. Commuting ain't cheap.

In reply to BnB:


I wasn't suggesting the world is perfect, and my point is that accreditation of the instructor is NOT the issue . Instructors have accreditation as do those with degrees. My point is that there is no clearly defined metric to judge one instructor over another, and hence hard for a normal pay scale to naturally arise. Ditto my point about delivering a defined accepted product. It is the product that needs the accreditation, not just the person.

In reply to summo:


I don't think we are saying anything different. I was just pointing out that this approach is unlikely to lead to higher wages as it is very hard for Mia and Louise to chose instructor A at £150 a day over instructor B at £300. Word of mouth helps, but other industries use metrics to do this for them. It is hard in climbing instruction to see what this might be. Hence at least having some standard products would I think help (and my PADI example I think shows this). This does not mean that other offerings of a more naturalistic bent would be impossible. In fact I would have thought that if you found the person who got you your multi pitch badge did a great job, you might well return for some more bespoke days.

I'm just done some more research.
I hint the MIA site. There was no list of services - which is what I expected, as there are no defined products. But if I was a possible customer I might have expected to see "learn to lead with the MIA" or "introduction to scrambling with an MIA instructor".

I then hit "find an instructor". There are a lot. So as a customer I need to be able to filter, and filter quickly, at an Amazon-like speed. This needs data. I selected 4 from the southwest. Only one had filled in the profile and other boxes that might of allowed me to select one over another. No prices were on display. And again no clear indication of what I might get if I hired one over another.

I also found no feedback as one finds on eBay etc. Either a ranking from previous customers (zero cost to do this). Or from the accreditor (MIA) making random phone calls to customers asking for their experience of an instructor (very low cost to do this these days).

If there is the desire to increase pay in the industry, then some of these things would I suggest help.

In reply to snoop6060:
Depends how far you need to commute but equally you might be driving a fair way for the best weather / conditions even if working in your local area, while some of the work will be in other areas.

The costs of buying and running a van will be higher than for an average commuter car.

Climbing gear and clothing wear out quicker than office wear, particularly in winter.

In reply to David Coley:
I can see your point, but not all sports are so definitive. Climbing and mountaineering certainly isn't always so black and white. There are many courses either individuals or centres offer that aren't part of the national syllabuses; learn to lead; winter skills, winter nav, classic rock, sea cliffs, scrambling, improvised rescue etc..

But also if a person booked a weekend with X on a learning to lead package. First hour will be spent with them not leading, perhaps seconding and setting up a mock belay so you can assess their skill level. It turns out the person needs a half a day seconding to sort out their belaying, rope work etc... The client may never achieve the goals of learning to lead package, but they've learnt loads and gone home a little bit safer mountaineer.

Everyone's previous experience, ability, fitness and goals differ to try and squeeze them into ready made boxes just doesn't work.

As for finding an instructor, unless you are looking at improving your climbing performance in the higher grades than any instructor will be able to deliver what you are looking for; be it naving, leading, walking, scrambling, rescue or just can you get me up the Inn Pin etc.. the assessment covers it all. What is more important is to email or ring and discuss etc... if a person wants something a little unusual any instructor would simply refer them to a friend who has that niche knowledge.

Generally people might return to an instructor again because they bond with them, think the same, like their teaching style. Again these are things that can't be write down and packaged.

In reply to David Coley:
Thanks for taking the time to write that David.

I look after the AMI site these days and a couple of those points are super quick fixes - it's good to get a different point of view.

Do bare in mind AMI committee members are voluntary, and we're all very busy with our own stuff.

In reply to summo:

Hi,


I agree with "isn't always". I am only talking about an addition that would work for some, some of the time. NICAS seems to have done very well, for example. SPA has too. Might if not be worth at least trying something similar for people who don't want to teach (i.e. SPA-climber for people who jus want to climb; or NICAS-outdoor".


>There are many courses either individuals or centres offer that aren't part of the national syllabuses; learn to lead; winter skills, winter nav, classic rock, sea cliffs, scrambling, improvised rescue etc..

My point is that there are no courses for individuals whatsoever. And no national syllabuses at all. There is just stuff for people who want to do it for a living. School teachers make a living teaching everyone to read - not just those that plan to become teachers. Not offering such courses is I think reducing the size of the customer base.



I agree it doesn't work perfectly, but it would I think work to some degree. One might for example have a pre-course check list. And some will be taking the leading badge because they did the seconding badge, which would help solve the problem.



I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you on this point, and rather strongly - sorry. They will be able to deliver something, but not necessarily what the person is looking for. This is the difference between a good teacher and a poor teacher. Allowing customers some idea of which your instructor is, is I was talking about.


>Generally people might return to an instructor again because they bond with them, think the same, like their teaching style. Again these are things that can't be write down and packaged.

Although not perfect, I believe a system of reviewing of customer thoughts about their instructor run by someone like MIA might well allow this to be written down.

I'm not sure anything I saying is unusual or not common practice in many industries and also within much of the teaching profession.

In reply to David Coley:

Exactly, just go and climb. Do they need a bit of paper from a special course saying I can belay, second or lead? What purpose would it have. It's such a vague skill, as most people can belay, but some will be better than others.. who decides



I think you are trying admin base something that is too varied and dynamic.

> And some will be taking the leading badge because they did the seconding badge, which would help solve the problem.

What would the badge really achieve, I think trying to indicate peoples ability in their hobby is a dangerous route to take. What next more expensive insurance etc..


Mia is just the award with a national syllabus from a central body. Holders are voluntarily a member of the association of mtn instructors. To remain a member, advertise using their logo or through the website you have to remain current and accrue a given number of career development points every 3 years. This is relatively new and the shape of AMI compared to when I joined in the late 90s is significantly different and I'm sure it will change more.


Yes. But these are outdoor based pursuit, which 99% of participants do as a hobby. You can't compared to a classroom or school. Better to compare to other outdoor sports. I don't know of any sport offering course or certificates in I skied a black, kayaked a IV, learnt to roll, did a pull through route caving.

Perhaps I'm wrong and just anti administration!!

In reply to duchessofmalfi:
Re. Courses for individuals, there maybe some at some point, it's one of the things discussed in the climbing review.

Can't say I think they're needed though.

In reply to summo:


Canoeing has long had a series of skill based awards (see eg https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/go-canoeing/build-my-skills/#star-awards ) - not sure I'd want climbing /mountaineering to go down that route

In reply to summo:

Hi
Please understand I am in no way suggesting what is good or bad for the sport. I am commenting just on the topic of the thread. Wages of instructors and how these might be increased.

If you want some examples of out door activities that do roughly as I'm pointing out.
1. Diving. PADI.
2. Skiing for kids.
3. Dinghy sailing
4. Day skipper etc. For bigger boats

These are of such a scale that hotels hang off them.

Very few climbers would want such badges. But very very very few climb with an instructor so the impact could be reasonable. I would not be surprised if it doubled adult intake.

And just to repeat myself. This is wrt to the topic of the thread. Not how I think climbing should go.

In reply to summo:


So what do you think is the point of courses leading to SPA and other teaching or guiding qualifications, then?

David appears to be suggesting that the professional bodies should provide a portal for their members, giving their members' potential customers the means to find members who are qualified and experienced to teach the skills the customer is looking to learn.

Whether you like it or not, people increasingly look to professional tuition, even for the basics of climbing, such as belaying and placing gear.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I'm not doubting the value of any of the above courses, all the qualification, leadership and instructors courses have a purpose.

What he is proposing are non leadership or supervisor courses, that simply say person x can second a route, or lead a route etc..

Not sure if you read my previous post. Never said any NGB course wasn't needed.

In reply to Doug:


Would agree in part but the star awards are at least whole competency awards, not individual skills. And yes, the scheme is very long winded and could only have been designed by instructors generating work.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

I suppose one of the biggest competitors with climbing instructors is self-instruction. Climbing is the kind of thing one can teach oneself. I taught myself from library books. These days I suspect there is no end of info on the web available for free.

You could spend say £20 hiring an instructor for a few hours. Or you could buy a decent book and learn from that. I think you'd get way more out of the book per pound than you would the instructor, plus you have a permanent record to refer back to.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:


"OK" is a moral judgement and a category error. It's about supply and demand. Alpine Guides and (in some countries) ski instructors have succeeded through regulation in curtailing supply and therefore their rates are much higher than applies to hill instruction in the UK. Whether such regulation is justified for any purpose other than constraining supply can be debated; my view is that for guides operating on terrain that can very easily kill you it is, whereas for ski-instructors it is an old-fashioned case of profession as a conspiracy against the public.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that when I were a lad, the local climbing club or course at the Outward Bound were the ways of getting into climbing, unless you happened to be lucky in your Scout troop or wealthy enough to go on a course at say PYB.
Now the noticeboard at Shepherds cafe is full of cards from the purveyors of adventure in all forms, some of whom do a good job, some ( as witnessed personally) do not.
There are a range of degree courses at various Universities channeling young people into a career in the outdoors, they will have to work on poor rates and uncertain terms as observed above, as there is a significant oversupply, more so in the off season. I wonder how many of those stay in the outdoor instructing game long term as opposed to doing it for a while then moving to some other, less precarious from of employment ?
There is also the odd phenomenon of people choosing to be outdoor instructors not primarily because they love the outdoors and are involved in it, witness a young woman who came out for a day with my caving club to get some underground experience as she was about to change careers. Fed up of working as some sort of health therapist in London she was about to do a fast track instructors scheme at enormous cost, because she wanted to live in the country, she had no outdoors experience or interest !
All of these plus the issues noted above about what the market will stand must mean that there will always be downwards pressure on the earning potential of any instructor, from SPA to guide. But one assumes that the compensating factors such as being self employed and so free to go off on long trips, working outdoors, and the freedom to choose when to work ( subject to needing to eat etc) balance some of this out.
For these reasons I decided when having a big career think some years ago, to keep the outdoors as a hobby, not become an instructor. It is a choice, and many of those I know who made that choice would not trade their insecure and poorly paid lifestyle for anything.

In reply to Martin Hore:


...that's assuming the guide has no other income - it's the same for commercial fishermen, the average UK boat does 180 days a year at sea. Many fishermen have a second job - bricky, plasterer, running a tonne bag truck etc. Many climbing instructors/guides will be doing the same thing.

In reply to Toerag:
Isn't working 6 months a year the whole point? I thought it was the climbers dream myself. I'd certainly bite my employers hand off if they offered it me, and so what every climber I know.

In reply to planetmarshall:


If you're able to do this, I vote we have a whip round.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Any idea how long it takes to train to be a radiologist?

In reply to Tricadam:

7 years?

Not to mention the eye watering bills from training, the conditions of working crazy hours in the hospital and the general constant stress of being around hurt, ill or dying people. I've worked on software projects in hospitals, not exactly my idea of a chilled working environment and I didn't work with patients. Not sure I could actually do it permantly for any pay rise on offer. Looks intense.

In reply to snoop6060:

Seems its at least 7 years training after finishing medical school (itself 5 years) to be fully qualified

In reply to snoop6060:


Longer than that. For starters, there's the minimal entry requirement for medical school: realistically, at least 3 A-levels at grade A. So that narrows it down to approximately 3% of the population. And then those have to be science A-levels, reducing that proportion drastically, probably to well under 1%. In order to meet this requirement, applicants will have needed to be in "training" at school for quite some time, to have worked hard and to have reasonable aptitude. Then consider that a minority of those with 3+ A grades at A level who apply to medical school are even offered a place.

Once you're in, it's five years doing one of the most demanding undergraduate courses - in terms of the hours, that is. (The likes of pure maths are substantially more demanding on one's intellect; fine art on one's creative resources, etc. But, in my experience, only architecture students put in more hours, on average.) Then it's two years of junior doctoring, working on average 48-56 hours per week during weeks one is at work. Right from the start, the decisions and actions of junior doctors routinely decide whether patients, live, die, or come to significant harm. Then it's competitive entry into a 6 or 7 year specialty training programme, against other motivated applicants, all of whom will have spent a lot of what little spare time they had as medical students and as junior doctors doing other things (exams - always self-funded, research, audit, courses, etc.) to improve their likelihood of success in this process. During specialty training, these doctors will still be working 48 hours a week and will be making life-or-death decisions on a regular basis.

So, tom_in_edinburgh, there's at least part of your answer.

In reply to Tricadam:

Apologies: "only" five years of specialty training after the two junior doctor years.

Where's always industrial alpinism. Demand is high. And if you have construction skills it's possible to charge up to £500 a day. Damn, even cleaning windows pays better than climbing instructor jobs.