Look, it's certainly possible that NOLS has been overrun by the trippy dippy hippies to the point that it has now bitten them, or rather their students, in the butt. But you're really displaying a lot of ignorance to refer to them as a 'so-called outdoor leadership school'. Check out their history and pedigree to help tame your inner keyboard commando.

Alaska Daily News:

The hikers carried three canisters of bear spray, but there was no initial indication that the hikers used the repellent

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/24/1983379/grizzly-sow-attacks-group-of-seven.html#ixzz1T8XtRIFV

Pray and use a suitable firearm, not necessarily in that order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjHiu4RWMBk&feature=channel_video_title

I would not trust bear spray in that situation. What if there's an oncoming wind, or if I accidentally spray yourself for another reason? Imagine that. There's too much risk there. I would not fully trust a firearm either, but I'd trust it a lot more than bear spray.

Bears doing what bears do. I guess you shouldn't try and sneak up the rear of a Grizzly bear going about its business with its youngster. People are much much more dangerous, but pulling a gun on everyone on the trail isn't recommended.

Guns aren't much of an option around these parts, but I don't feel ill-prepared with just bear spray as a last line of defence.

The only study I've heard referenced found bear spray was effective at stopping aggressive bear behaviour in 92 percent of case while firearms were effective in 67 percent of the cases. This was study of 20 years worth of bear encounters in Alaska.

This same study also suggested wind wasn't as big of a factor in bear spray's effectiveness as commonly thought. Also, interestingly, it found the hissing sound and visible cloud are in themselves an added deterrent (from this article).

What will be interesting is what if any policy and procedure
changes will come of this. Or if they decide that Alaska trips are too risky.

I have been told by many, that grizzly's won't attack a group of
4 or more and that such an attack has never happened. That this alone is the best defense against attack. Here were 7 people.

NOLS not allowing firearms under any circumstance seems like
hubris.

Here is another report.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/24/alaska.bear.attack/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Says the teens WERE in critical condition. The first responders
were afraid to move them. They had to wait for better equipped
help.

According to the article Colorama linked to above, the attack began when the lead guy was up ahead and the others were still crossing the river ... specifically it said:

"The first hiker had apparently made it out of the water and was out of sight of the others when he began screaming, Palmer said."

Based on this and the earlier suggestion that the river could have masked the hiker's noise, it seems very possible the bear only became aware of the other hikers after the attack had begun.

But it kept attacking after it discover the other students. At least four were attacked and it went back to do extra damage to the first one it encountered.

That bear apparently didn't know the rules.

I'm no expert, but I am thinking the rule is referring to attack prevention as opposed to the dynamic when an attack is already under way.

In other words, I am wondering if things might have gone differently had the 7 hikers come across the bear as a group as opposed to the lead hiker running into her while effectively alone (assuming that is what happened based on that news article).

Actually, this makes me think about what it means to travel as a group in bear country.

This weekend, for example, there were 5 of us out hiking and one of us had bear spray. Looking at this on the surface, this seems like a good and fairly safe set-up.

However, realistically for many stretches of the hike we were effectively a group of 3 and a group of 2. A bear isn't going to know that lead group of 2 was actually a part of a larger hiking group; its just going to see 2 people.

Added to that, this also meant one group had bear spray and one didn't. Had the lead group of 2 startled a bear they would've had no defence and those of us following behind would have been of limited assistance.