TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
If my colleague is still interested in a course, perhaps you could
recommend one of those first-rate companies.
My colleague is interested in acquiring self-editing skills, not in
editing others' work. CareerTrack's course claims to be appropriate for
this purpose, but I suspect that other companies might serve it better.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Morton
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:43 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: CareerTrack reviews?
I was a presenter for two companies in the seminar business back in the
'90s. I followed CareerTrack as best as I could, thinking that they may
be a future employer of mine should the need ever arise to jump ship.
Through my own informal study of them, I determined that that theirs was
a third-rate program when compared to the companies with which I was
affiliated. Ultimately, it became readily apparent that it would have
been a huge comedown to ever have hooked up with them.
Once I left the seminar field, my wife took one of their courses (I
forget the title) and was underwhelmed. Her experience confirmed
everything that I had long suspected about CareerTrack.
I believe your cohort would be far better served to do a self-study,
relying on published volumes. Then he (she) should equip himself with
the standard volumes, e.g., *Chicago Manual of Style*, *Strunk & White*,
*The Gregg Reference Manual*, et al.
I believe that the best proofreaders inherently possess the skill and
cannot really be trained (except in relation to certain grammar
nuances).
If he is a regular newspaper/website reader and can instantly spot
errors without trying, then proofreading is a good avenue for him. If he
has to pick it up from scratch and--as an adult--is not already both
detail-oriented and a bit of a "grammar snob", then he shouldn't
consider this role. The best proofreaders are also avid readers, being
the type who most often has his nose into some printed material if
eating alone.
This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing, copying, electronic storing or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to the sender, and delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.
Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
