>"Maybe if you give them too much information, they won't want to come in."
Perceptive, since that's exactly the reason I ask so many questions before I physically drive out to meet someone. On the other hand, refusing to answer questions is pretty much guaranteed to put my guard up, too, which is contrary to their goals.
I'm an ITT graduate. I experienced none of what was in the article. That may have been their tactics at some point, but it wasn't used on me in the early 00's. Perhaps the person who was talking to me knew their job really well and knew it wasn't a good idea.
In the end, I learned nearly nothing (I was self-taught already and mostly wanted the paperwork) and got a 4.0 GPA. I watched others around me struggle with basic programming. Most of them quit, and I graduated with about 4 others in that program.
They claimed that a high percentage of their graduates had jobs when they graduated, but what they didn't make clear was that those jobs weren't necessarily in their field. I didn't have a job at all, most others didn't have a job in IT, and the 1 who did got it on their own at their current employer, Disney. Despite them providing no leads, they blamed my lack of job on me and how I approached it. No attempt was made beyond basic resume and interview coaching. That guy ended up getting fired after my father made a huge stink about it repeatedly. (He wasn't the only one, I gathered.)
When I did get hired, it was by a company that cared more about my skill than anything, and I actually looked worse on paper than the other main candidate. The company paid for BrainBench exams and I blew the other guy away, which got me hired. The paperwork I cared so much about has never been useful. The original estimate was $30k. I paid $23k because I transferred in some credits and tested out of others.
>The paperwork I cared so much about has never been useful.
Going to school just for the paperwork is kind of a bad idea. Ideally, one should learn something useful when getting a degree. Just pointing out the obvious which seems to be overlooked here.
> learned nearly nothing (I was self-taught already and mostly wanted the paperwork) and got a 4.0 GPA. I watched others around me struggle with basic programming. Most of them quit, and I graduated with about 4 others in that program.
Went in 04 with a HighSchool buddy. Neither of our parents went to college so we didn't really know any better. We put forth absolutely no effort and were miles beyond our classmates. Both graduated with 4.0 without ever touching the material. After I got my first position the education stopped mattering as much. I split test leaving education off of my resume and linked profile to see if it makes a difference.
>The rule set out in the ITT training materials instructs recruiters to call "a minimum of three times a day for the first three days." This was known as the 3x3 rule.
That is bordering on harassment by most standards. Taking advantage of the underemployed has been happening for years, and in tech I remember when MCSE training programs were mostly marketed towards blue collar employees. Many graduated as "paper MCSEs" who were largely unable to get a job.
I hope that bootcamps and accelerated learning programs for developers don't eventually go this route. They seem to be behaving to this point.
I don't even understand bow that 3x3 rule would work to woo anyone. When I get more than one call like that be it car dealer, hardware vendor, solutions provider, etc. I tend to run away from them --it just loudly announces "desperation".
That said, if they do it this much, it must work enough for them to pursue this tactic.
They already are. I've talked to some recruiters who laugh at bootcamp programs on a resume. A few years ago nobody would ask me about my academic background in a job interview, but now they've started asking explicitly. I've been out of school for seven years, and nobody cared about my CS degree until this year.
The reality is that degrees and certifications will be used in hiring as long as they are a useful indicator of aptitude. HR departments need to eliminate candidates from the hiring pool. At their zenith, the bootcamp programs were useful for recruiters because only the truly dedicated survived the bootcamp long enough to graduate. But with the proliferation of such programs, I think the day is quickly approaching when the market will be oversaturated with graduates and it will cease to be a useful indicator of aptitude.
> And it got personal. On-campus visits began with a questionnaire, the WITY, or "what's important to you."
Interestingly, I remember the same tactics being used by the last Marine recruiter that I talked to. He had little flashcards you were supposed to rank in order, with various ideals like honor and financial security that you were supposed to rank in importance. I thought at the time that it was a pretty transparent trap, but I imagine it works pretty well. However, if we're going to suggest that these tactics and empty promises are immoral, are we to also hold the military accountable?
Military recruiter service schools are dominated by sales training. Wouldn't you expect that its omission would be a waste of taxpayer funding?
The key difference between the standard sales techniques when they're used by ITT or by any other organization is that ITT was making promises it couldn't keep. When I get the hard sell about a new car, at least I get a functional car even if I overpaid. If I take out loans to attend ITT, it's likely the training won't help me get a job.
> ...are we to also hold the military accountable?
The military trains you, pays you, houses you, feeds you, and provisions your family. Apparently, these for-profit scams can barely address the first the first bullet, let alone a full-ride-all-expenses-paid program, regardless if it's as bumpy as the Marines make it.
I would hope so, especially because the military is unlike any other kind of employment - you can't simply say "fuck you, I quit" once you're signed up and realize the promises made were empty ones.
I worked recruiting in the military. I've also done sales outside of the military. Recruiting is basically just high pressure sales. Many recruiters are facing nearly impossible numbers and will do just about anything to get a candidate into the system.
To be honest, every single tactic mentioned in the article sounds like Marketing/Sales 101. What's really scary is how effective they are. It boggles my mind how many people make life decisions, both major and minor, on the basis of such sales tactics, instead of doing their own research or relying on trusted sources.
> They're looking for not just any customer ... but a customer who's likely to be kind of desperate to enroll, and likely to be eligible for the highest amount of financial aid
Pushy marketers are all good and well until you start raiding the public coffer while under-delivering. If ITT Tech wasn't dependent on your tax dollars and other legal protections, they'd still be in business today.
[+] [-] wccrawford|9 years ago|reply
Perceptive, since that's exactly the reason I ask so many questions before I physically drive out to meet someone. On the other hand, refusing to answer questions is pretty much guaranteed to put my guard up, too, which is contrary to their goals.
I'm an ITT graduate. I experienced none of what was in the article. That may have been their tactics at some point, but it wasn't used on me in the early 00's. Perhaps the person who was talking to me knew their job really well and knew it wasn't a good idea.
In the end, I learned nearly nothing (I was self-taught already and mostly wanted the paperwork) and got a 4.0 GPA. I watched others around me struggle with basic programming. Most of them quit, and I graduated with about 4 others in that program.
They claimed that a high percentage of their graduates had jobs when they graduated, but what they didn't make clear was that those jobs weren't necessarily in their field. I didn't have a job at all, most others didn't have a job in IT, and the 1 who did got it on their own at their current employer, Disney. Despite them providing no leads, they blamed my lack of job on me and how I approached it. No attempt was made beyond basic resume and interview coaching. That guy ended up getting fired after my father made a huge stink about it repeatedly. (He wasn't the only one, I gathered.)
When I did get hired, it was by a company that cared more about my skill than anything, and I actually looked worse on paper than the other main candidate. The company paid for BrainBench exams and I blew the other guy away, which got me hired. The paperwork I cared so much about has never been useful. The original estimate was $30k. I paid $23k because I transferred in some credits and tested out of others.
[+] [-] narrator|9 years ago|reply
Going to school just for the paperwork is kind of a bad idea. Ideally, one should learn something useful when getting a degree. Just pointing out the obvious which seems to be overlooked here.
[+] [-] johnward|9 years ago|reply
Went in 04 with a HighSchool buddy. Neither of our parents went to college so we didn't really know any better. We put forth absolutely no effort and were miles beyond our classmates. Both graduated with 4.0 without ever touching the material. After I got my first position the education stopped mattering as much. I split test leaving education off of my resume and linked profile to see if it makes a difference.
[+] [-] beachstartup|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fecak|9 years ago|reply
That is bordering on harassment by most standards. Taking advantage of the underemployed has been happening for years, and in tech I remember when MCSE training programs were mostly marketed towards blue collar employees. Many graduated as "paper MCSEs" who were largely unable to get a job.
I hope that bootcamps and accelerated learning programs for developers don't eventually go this route. They seem to be behaving to this point.
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
That said, if they do it this much, it must work enough for them to pursue this tactic.
[+] [-] ____nope|9 years ago|reply
The reality is that degrees and certifications will be used in hiring as long as they are a useful indicator of aptitude. HR departments need to eliminate candidates from the hiring pool. At their zenith, the bootcamp programs were useful for recruiters because only the truly dedicated survived the bootcamp long enough to graduate. But with the proliferation of such programs, I think the day is quickly approaching when the market will be oversaturated with graduates and it will cease to be a useful indicator of aptitude.
[+] [-] Unbeliever69|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulcole|9 years ago|reply
Which standards are you referring to and what border is this approaching?
[+] [-] sethrin|9 years ago|reply
Interestingly, I remember the same tactics being used by the last Marine recruiter that I talked to. He had little flashcards you were supposed to rank in order, with various ideals like honor and financial security that you were supposed to rank in importance. I thought at the time that it was a pretty transparent trap, but I imagine it works pretty well. However, if we're going to suggest that these tactics and empty promises are immoral, are we to also hold the military accountable?
[+] [-] linkregister|9 years ago|reply
The key difference between the standard sales techniques when they're used by ITT or by any other organization is that ITT was making promises it couldn't keep. When I get the hard sell about a new car, at least I get a functional car even if I overpaid. If I take out loans to attend ITT, it's likely the training won't help me get a job.
[+] [-] metaphor|9 years ago|reply
The military trains you, pays you, houses you, feeds you, and provisions your family. Apparently, these for-profit scams can barely address the first the first bullet, let alone a full-ride-all-expenses-paid program, regardless if it's as bumpy as the Marines make it.
[+] [-] alasdair_|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RUG3Y|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gohrt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whack|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wnevets|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] talmand|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gohrt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Unbeliever69|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway729|9 years ago|reply
> They're looking for not just any customer ... but a customer who's likely to be kind of desperate to enroll, and likely to be eligible for the highest amount of financial aid
Pushy marketers are all good and well until you start raiding the public coffer while under-delivering. If ITT Tech wasn't dependent on your tax dollars and other legal protections, they'd still be in business today.
[+] [-] johnward|9 years ago|reply