...and what if the certifier is very book learned and the certifiee is a highly experienced backwoodsman with outstanding communication skills and teaching credentials -- someone like Ron Hood (RIP). What if the certifier didn't like Ron Hood's curriculum? Who certifies who?

Just curious how you chose Ron Hood, and how do you know his curriculum is any better than the next guys? I am not doubting you and he has a big following (or rather had), but that does not really mean all that much. Most of being certified is as much about marketing as anything else.

One of the problems with this kind of thing is you have guys who will look you straight in the eye and suggest carrying condoms and tampoons in your survival kit. And the sheep go for that kind of nonsense. Is that the kind of guy you really want teaching the class?

How about a guy that walks around barefoot? is he a good choice for an instructor?

I chose Ron Hood because he was an outstanding communicator with teaching creds. IIRC he had an advanced degree in education. I don't know that "his curriculum is any better than the next guys". Where did you read that? But who is to judge?

I'm saying/asking "who certifies the certifiers?" Who writes the standards? Who decides what is or isn't worthy of being in a survival curriculum?

I believe some of the small-time certifications in any field are just money grubbing scams where certification can be had by anyone for doing some online 'courses' and paying a large fee.

Market forces can and do control these operations:

I'm not a survival expert, but if I were to enroll in a survival school, I know more than enough to recognize good instruction. Probably, many who attend these classes would already have some background knowledge gained from scouts, military, EMS, or personal experience. If I felt I did not get my money's worth, I would demand a refund, or post complaints on Facebook and the forums I visit, and tell everyone I knew that this guy was a ripoff. A few people doing this and the business dries up for the imposter.

The other prong is that if I rely on training I receive and it proves to be harmful to me or mine, I may have a reason to file a civil suit. Just one of these could put a small operation under.

Third, these instructers would be foolish to offer classes without insurance, and the insurance risk managers will have much to say about the curriculum, and even if the school survives.

College accreditation does provide a definite degree of legitimacy. However, would any of claim that college courses are always useful and worthwhile (some are, some aren't, and some just provide credit hours)?

Even with a heavy military background you are not assured of competency. I remember quite a few years ago an ex Green Beret had a survival training camp for juvenile delinquints and ended up killing one. Obviously certification was needed to weed him out. I agree that it would be an uphill battle.

don't the people at SURVIVOR suggest to thier contestants that they take a CERTIFIED survival course before leaving the US? Perhaps they could be taught to dress for where they are going lol.

From what I understand about the process of getting a course accepted by a college, it does not mean as much as you might think. It is a long, drawn out, and tedious process that probably drives away the more casual practicioners though.

Having said that, I am not sure that survival classes are appropriate for actual college credit. It seems more vocational school, or adult education in nature to me. I suspect getting it accepted for that type of school probably is somewhat simpler, but still requires enough work and has enough oversight to drive off most of the totally unqualified would be instructors.

At first, a survival certification sounded like a good idea. However, the more I think about it, the more a "Survival Certification" sounds like something that annoying guy from The Office would get and hang on his wall.



That pic sums up my feelings better than any words I could write here. I don't mean to offend anybody.

The word "survival" is so broad and means so many different things to so many different people. Each meaning is no less important than the other. You can get a survival certificate and still be totally useless in many situations, which may be dangerous if you think your cert gives you authority and responsibility. It's not like getting a snowboarding certification, or a martial arts certification, or some other certification that is a lot more specialized than "survival".

I think that the varied type of survival training and the varied or lack of standards is the biggest drawback to a National or International Standards.