I find your arguments ungrounded and troubling.

I just looked at their mission statement (http://www.techengage.org/PublicSite/about.aspx) and it seemed very clear. I believe that in the past they might have had a different mission statement, but I was not aware of it.

I do know of many volunteers and fewer attendees in the past, myself included who have found jobs in some part because of TechEngage. I can understand the way you feel if you are not aware of these lucky (in this current IT job market) individuals. But to claim that TechEngage has failed is just wrong. By also making the claim that you have made, negates the charitable actions of hundreds of volunteers and a large number of companies who really care about giving back to the community.

I believe that if you were to volunteer to help others as so many role models at TechEngage have done by sacrificing their time and talent, that you would experience an epiphany.

John Luce wrote:

Hmmm, sounds like an I-D  10-T  problem here... The Mission of TechEngage was to retrain persons in order to allow them to get jobs, it wasn't meant to amuse Java folks (or Microsoft folks or SAS folks...). There was a clear goal in mind. Part of that process was to then allow persons with this training to use it in volunteer work. That has yet to pan out. So, I never said that $145 was supposed to do that, I did say that the the objectives were not met and the cost was not more than reasonable for what you got, but for what the intent of the mission was it was not working, so in terms of the objectives, the cost did not match the end result. So, let's stop being so parochial about this and understand that people who know object oriented languages and folks who have long time skills in software development using ANY language can learn "yet another language" and do the job as long as the language snobbery ("But you don't have 5 years in "my" language of choice") doesn't get in the way. But it does. It does big time, so no learning even at $5 or $2500 per week will help as long as that attitude is in place. And let's also face it, look in the mirror, most of us are no longer 30-something. Companies are using "not my language" arguments also as a way to age discriminate, but that is a discussion for another time. The planet I am from is the reality planet, you use an educational program to better your chances of employment. In this strict sense, TechEngage has failed. In the sense of self improvement it has not. Thank you for your time, and I'll return you to your current program. 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Juglist] TechEngage III
 So you want $145 to get you professional training and a job? What planet are you from?

John Luce wrote:

They didn't treat Java as 2nd class. But those of us with lots of
programming experience got NO response from employers after taking the
Intermediate Java class. So, why bother?

Of course, that also held true for SAS, C#,... etc.

It's only $145, but the classes have been worth $0 to almost all of us who
have been through TechEngage I and II...

Following up with Volunteer programming (when we could find it) hasn't
helped either...

Great premise, excellent courses in a short period of time, but getting us
in doors... no way.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing list." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Juglist] TechEngage III


On Feb 26, 2004, at 11:04 PM, Don Brady wrote:
David M. Bloom wrote:
Why didn't they carry Java?  Linux sounds good though.
They always treated Java as a second-class citizen.  That being the
case,  we may be better off without their touching Java.....
But what a friggin' bargain to have Stu and Ted Neward teach you Java
for a week for $145 (or whatever tiny amount it is).... wow!

Erik


_______________________________________________
Juglist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org


_______________________________________________
Juglist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org



_______________________________________________
Juglist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org

_______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
_______________________________________________
Juglist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org

Reply via email to