Are agencies in cahoots with training mills?

^
I would choose a plumber based on seeing examples of his/her work, word of mouth from credible customers, or visiting the place s/he works (or looking inside his van) to see how tidy and organised it was, and the general attitude in terms of customer service I got from all that, as well as his/her own demeanour and presentation.
If s/he was up front about his/her experience and limitations, and seemed genuinely knowledgeable and keen to work and not to BS me, I’d be well-disposed towards hm/her. I would be less interested in bits of paper beyond the legally required ones like Corgi (or whatever it’s called now).

The trouble is that inbetween your applicant and the people they are going to work with are these other creatures called "HR staff", and they seem to do more harm than good. Though I appreciate that real technicians and engineers don’t want to be distracted from their work by people asking them for jobs and advice all the time (it’s a shame there aren’t HR people with technical backgrounds, but I guess that would cost double).

You surely know what I mean about some aspects of offshore/ship jobs being dependant on some bits of paper that seem to prove very little beyond the ability to remain conscious during an excessively long powerpoint presentation, or just have a single go at doing a thing in isolation.

Taking your plumber analogy one step further, I guess that if you had someone with an MEng in mechanical engineering or something, applying to be a trainee plumber, because they wanted to get away from the computer and get their hands dirty, you’d probably be a bit unsure about whether they could actually do the job, even if they could design all the parts, and whether they’d just get bored and frustrated and move on.
So someone like that is going to need some references from real people that show they can do a job and actually genuinely enjoy doing it, rather than more bits of paper that just say things to that effect.

I’m not a ROV tech, but I guess if I was hiring a trainee, off the top of my head, I would be most interested in people who had worked in the workshop of manufacturers, after them, I’d be interested in people who had been technicians in other fields, maybe marine engineers, ship electrical (or electro-technical) officers, oil rig tiffies, RN artificers, fridge engineers, industrial control engineers, plumbers, and electricians, maybe car/lorry/aircraft mechanics. Maybe proven hand-eye skills like air/land/sea pilots and drivers, maybe people who can program, but only if they’ve done some PLC work or metalwork.
I’d probably want people who do team-based activities. A rigger once said to me that "ROV people were quite egotistical", I don’t know about that, but I’ve certainly seen one or two newbies come on this forum strutting about how wonderful they are, which seems a completely brainless and pointless thing to do. You have to be able to get on with people you can’t stand when at sea or offshore, and keep everything smooth.
I guess I’d also be interested in people who have experience of projects and project management and who understand deadlines and cost control and logistics a little bit… the stuff called "common sense" in old money.

So if I was advising myself, I would guess that the best way in is to try and get work experience in any of those fields, regardless of any degrees and things. I know it’s old ground, but maybe I’ve added a bit more detail?

@lostboy, am I to take it that the chances of getting interviews with ROV operators and manufacturers are slim no matter what your background?

Thanks to you all for your thoughts and advice. 🙂

Maybe the reason why the Agency request relevent experience and recognised qualifications is because their clients expect that. Even project teams onshore have to have their CV’s approved by their Clients – no (or not the right) experience then they are off that team.

They weren’t asking for experience, they were just pushing the 5 grand course and the "IMCA Pilot/Tech cert." as a fundamental prerequisite for anything regardless of anything else someone might have done, which struck me as either ‘knowing and not saying or saying and not knowing’, if you know what I mean; and with all due respect, you can sometimes tell whether someone is:
a. intelligent
b. lying
…when on the phone.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but my experience of the marine world so far (not just ROVs) is making me begin to wonder whether the shoreside part of the whole marine sector is composed of thickies, mickey-takers, and pompous farts who got lucky in the 80s.

Really?, if correct why would you want to be part of it?

I don’t want to be part of the shoreside particularly, or the bits I’ve dealt with so far, and I was specifically referring to shoreside stuff.
I’m really referring to the kinds of admin and paperpushing staff and some trainers I’ve encountered; not professionals who something skilled and of value on a day to day basis (i.e. the people whose job I’d like).
I’m also not talking about the ROV sector, as I don’t have experience of that beyond what I’ve described.
Of course the whole sector is not going to be like this, but there can be attitude trends or attitude norms in some areas; I also expect that change is inevitable in everything.
I think I’m partly describing a culture clash or generational clash; and probably simply experienced the duff end of things.
There are well-intentioned, competent, intelligent people there, I phoned up another agent for a well-known and good rep company, and the attitude and vibe was a complete contrast from the two agencies I spoke to, so I really got a feeling that agencies are not necessarily the most useful things for a lot of people.

I agree with Lostboy and Ray – no company will pay for Agency trainees with no experience, especially this time of year.
Keep hassling the companies direct plenty of companies are looking for the right people with the right attitude.
Best of luck

Thanks for your advice. "Best of luck" and "right attitude" notwithstanding, I take on board that it is a matter of going to actual companies direct and selling yourself.
I don’t think I’ve disagreed with anyone about that. I’m just relating experiences and conclusions and fishing for feedback: that seems to be the point of a forum like this – to ask the stupid questions, and put forward the ropey assumptions to let them be shot at, and then hopefully reveal some reality that you won’t get from marketing shpiel. 🙂

@Rayshields
Thank you for your thoughts.
Sure a lot of people go off into programming and manageent, but some degrees do actually involve some practical work (for at least the first half, and the final project, depending on what you do); and some people who end up with those degrees started off with a practical background.
Paying for a COLU HNC, might be useful and interesting, but doesn’t sound like it would be massively better than an overpriced training course, due to it lacking any workshop time. It seems to me that paying for a workshop-only course or working in one would be a better start.

Looking at some of the CVs of ROV course "graduates":
http://www.theunderwatercentre.co.uk/news/newsitem_5947.asp

I saw one had an EOOW CoC, my understanding is that whilst working in an engine room might be slightly useful-sounding, there’s not really much in the way of metalwork, electronic and hydraulic maintenance that goes on, more just operating and directing maintenance of big filters, engines, and compressors; and the course they do isn’t really as practical as described on paper (this is my understanding from being in an engine room). Does working on a ship count more as "relevant experience" than working on land in some manufacturer that makes the sort of components that you might find on a ROV?

I’m curious about what you all think about the sort of things these training school "grads" are putting on their CVs?
I’m trying to whittle down the advice given on here about "training a technician about rovs, rather than training a rov technician" to a more specific description of what counts as "relevant experience" (which doesn’t mean just listing the HNC distance-learning modules offered by COLU).
your odds of getting it are reduced if you don’t completely know what it is. 🙂