>>This isn't really chatter but I don't see a category which fits exactly, so here goes. I am looking at an opportunity which involves intensive (3 month) training in either C# or SQL Server. After that the company which offers the training assists you in finding a job. I am trying to decide which technology I want to pursue. From the POV of personal preference I could go either way, with maybe a slight edge to C#. Another factor, obviously, will be employment and salary prospects. I have looked on dice.com and there are 200+ openings for both in my area. (Boy, is that refreshing). Am interested to hear from anyone who thinks one or the other has a better job market, both now and going forward. I am also looking for a good reference for salary information. My googling must not be quite up to speed because so far I have not found anything very specific. Maybe I need a better methodology for finding salary data?
>>
>>Anything I should also be considering?
>
>Hmm, typically these shops that train you for "no money down", then help place you later, are pretty hard nosed. It sounds like you're indenturing yourself. Read all the small print on anything you're about to sign, count your digits afterwards, ...
>
>Were you not an MS MVP at one point? Even if it wasn't a .Net MVP, I'd suggest that is enough to differentiate you from the "herd".
>
>MS really, really wants devs to use .Net. I'm sure if you look around there are plenty of low- or no-cost training materials from them. Plus tons of fora. Plus tons of good books.
>
>You have enough experience as a dev already, learn this stuff yourself. You shouldn't need to tie yourself to this company.


Thanks, Al. Believe me, I have been having many of these thoughts myself. I have researched both the company and alternatives. You're right, there are many alternatives, of many types -- free or inexpensive online training classes, classes at local colleges, user groups, online forums (!), pro bono work for volunteer groups, Craigslist, blogs, CodePlex, and more. One piece of advice I found in a number of places was to develop some working code or a site you can demonstrate, so prospective employers will know you have done more than read books (if that).

Yes, I was an MVP for several years. It's on my resume but maybe I should emphasize it more than I have. I should say -- not boasting, just saying -- that I have never had much trouble getting jobs. Most of the time, if I get interview I will get an offer. The problem now is finding the opportunities. Nobody wants what I have experience in. Yeah, I know, I should have made this transition a lot sooner. It's not like I didn't try but the bottom line is it still hasn't happened. Hence the interest in doing something dramatic, or at least different.

(If it sounds like I'm thinking out loud, it's because I am....)

I found some negative comments about the company (SetFocus) and discussed them with the woman who contacted me, who seems all right, no high pressure. She has assuaged my doubts somewhat. One thing that impressed me is that 97% of the graduates of their training program find a job in that area. The training costs do have to be paid back, though, whether you get a job or not. Payment is deferred for one year, that's all.

Maybe I should just try to replicate the way I transitioned into FoxPro / microcomputer development. I had been a mainframe programmer (with a descent into management) for 10 years and wanted to switch to PC development. The original idea was to redevelop my company's inventory control software to run on a PC network, an idea I was unable to sell them on. So I decided to set out on my own. I took a very lucrative 6 month consulting gig (mainframe, old client) that funded a year of income-free development. The software never sold -- I was extremely naive about marketing and selling, thinking all you had to do was build a better, cheaper mousetrap -- but in the process I did learn FoxPro. I also did many of the things that are still being recommended: got involved in a user group, got involved in an online forum, and networked at every opportunity. That was 16 years ago, so I guess it worked. So following the same approach is an idea that has some merit. Maybe wanting to do it differently isn't entirely rational.

Well, thanks for listening <g>.