In January of this year I paid a large amount of money to take a week long student Conductor training and no job not even a permit or certificate. I will never do this again.
The Class 1’s want you to take their training, so outside courses are generally not very useful.
Small railroads may take your training as a base, even if you didn’t get any sort of certificate, then train you up to where they want you.
Keep looking.
Though I hear that the Overland Park, KS courses are held in high regard by both UP and BNSF. I believe that is University of Kansas extension there.
Personally, I would rather take a for college credit railroad course so that if it didn’t work out I could apply the credits towards another degree. The fly by night courses advertised that have no college affiliation…I would avoid.
Here you go:
http://catalog.jccc.edu/search/?search=Railroad
Oops! Doesn’t look like it is affiliated with the University of Kanas. Still some credits might transfer, you need to research before you attend. Training here is supported and sponsored direct by BNSF railway.
It sounds like maybe the OP took his class from some for-profit school. generally speaking, those institutions have a [exuse the pun] poor track record. And clearly a one week class is not going to be acceptable to railroad employers. Better to stick with public schools (voc-techs, CCs and extension programs) that offer such programs.
A week long ‘school’ doesn’t qualify on to set foot on the a Class 1’s property, let alone get a job. Sorry for your monetary loss; you have been taken!
Live and learn. It’s a damned shame what some of those “schools” are allowed to get away with.
And it’s also why I believe certain publications should NOT be associated with them or accept them as advertisers.
Exactly! Freedom of the press does not mean taking no responsibility for the honesty of adverts.
Soounds like pretty good advice. Saw a speech on the Senate floor last week by Sen Dick Durbin…Tghe Subject matter was specifically the UNiv of Phoenix and its issues with the Dept of Defense and hjow they had bared it fromrecruiting on US Military Installations. It intimation was that it was not the only “for profit” with questionable recruiting issues surrounding negative student finance issues… They just happened to be the "subject du jure’. With other ‘for profit’ institutions to be examioned in the future(?).
This link might be of some following interest @
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-university-of-phoenix-military-20151009-story.html
A publication cannot be held responsibe for the veracity of advertisers’ claims. The consumer is responsibe for validating claims prior to purchase…that’s how it works. Caveat Emptor.
My impression from talking with students is that U of Phoenix is actually one of the better ones, which doesn’t say much in their favor. The profit motive works great in many fields, but higher education is not one of them.
True, it cannot be held liable legally. However, ethically it should vet the honesty of advertisers. That’s how it works. Caveat emptor has not been the guiding principle for a long time in the US, but Canada may differ:
"The provisions of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law shall not apply to any owner, publisher, printer, agent, or employee of a newspaper or other publication, periodical or circular, who, in good faith and without knowledge of the falsity or deceptive character thereof, publishes, causes to be published or takes part in the publication of such advertisement. (73 P.S. §201-3)
If a newspaper has any knowledge of the false or deceptive character of an advertisement and proceeds to publish the advertisement, then it may be held liable under the UTPCPL. However, there is no requirement that a newspaper investigate advertiser’s claims if there is no reason to suspect impropriety.
See: Com. by Creamer v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 459 Pa. 450, 1974, on remand 365 A.2d 442, 26 Pa.Cmwlth. 399."
And the smart business practice of preserving one’s good name and reputation would suggest that Trains should be more diligent about accepting trade school advertisements, since those places are widely known for often being essentially diploma/certificate mills.
From a practical standpoint there would be no way for a publication to ascertain the accuracy of every advertiser. To do so would be enormously expensive, often highly subjective, and time consuming. Moreover, an advertisement is not the same thing as an endorsement. It remains the responsibility of the consumer to do his/her research prior to purchase. In this example, our hapless student could have asked for five or six references from previous graduates who had successfully completed the program and then went on to a career with a railroad. The host publication shouldn’t be doing that as each reader’s criteria may be different… I might need only three student references and a credit reference, you might need eight student references, and someone else might be fine with only one. If you’re going to make a significant purchase the onus is on you to investigate the product or service. and if you’re not prepared to do that then you suffer the consequences.
Maybe Canadian law and customs arequite different, though I doubt it, and Trains operates under US laws and customs. It is not exacty a secret that many trade schools engage in making false promises of guaranteed jobs after completion of their “programs” and taking large fees. So Trains would not have to investigate all advertisers (an absurd argument); they only need require some proof from the suspicious-looking trade schools in order to accept the ad. Trains is under no obligation to accept those ads. What is so difficult about that?
“some proof” requires some investigation… and as I stated that investigation would be costly, subjective in and of itself, and time consuming.
An advertisement is an enticement, not a disclosure; moreover, one man’s garbage is another’s gold. Almost all ads are a one sided depiction, overstating benefits and understating cost and risk. I don’t know if our laws are so different from yours. What I do know is that there’s a “World’s Best Burger” joint in almost every city in North America… they can’t ALL be right. Maybe I’m just different, but I learned a long time ago not to accept ads at face value. Ads are a call to action… the next step is for the interested consumer to investigate the product or service being offered. Hopefully most of us do that. When you go to Autotrader to buy a car (for example) do you depend on them to tell you that the car you’re interested in is reliable, roadworthy, and comfortable? Of course not, you set up an appointment to take it out for a test drive and then you have it checked out by a mechanic… Autotrader won’t and simply can’t verify the veracity of the claims made by its advertisers. Same for this example here… “suspicious looking” isn’t proof…
Is there any indication that Trains has accepted ads from railroad training institutions that were not reputable? I assume that they do check out their advertisers to make sure those advertisers are not defrauding the public.
Not being happy with a product or service does not constitute fraud on the part of the provider of that product/service.
Yes, I agree with that. I am just wondering why Trains is being mentioned.
Why do you conclude that Trains is not diligent engough about accepting trade school adverisements?
If you read more carefully what I wrote, you wouldn’t make that remark.
If a newspaper has any knowledge of the false or deceptive character of an advertisement and proceeds to publish the advertisement, then it may be held liable under the UTPCPL. However, there is no requirement that a newspaper investigate advertiser’s claims if there is no reason to suspect impropriety.
See: Com. by Creamer v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 459 Pa. 450, 1974, on remand 365 A.2d 442, 26 Pa.Cmwlth. 399."
And the reference to trade school ads was from a long time ago. Zugman repeated it on this thread. I wonder why you are so defensive of those trade schools and Trains advertisements to the point of ignoring custom and law?