Data Analyst Review

My role centres on data analytics, modelling, and applied data science. On a day-to-day basis, I work extensively with Power BI, Power Query, Microsoft SQL Server, and Excel to extract, transform, and analyse data appropriately. I build dashboards, develop data driven solutions, create machine learning models, and provide insights that support decision-making across the business. Much of my time is spent problem-solving, validating data, and ensuring that the outputs I produce are accurate, meaningful, and aligned with the goals of whatever project I am on.

Content wise the QA programme is split into a number of topic specific modules (mine was 7), and each module has a Discover which is where you learn most of the content needed for the module, Apply which is typically a live event so online class where a teacher will show you how to apply the skills you learnt prior, and a Practice which is a portfolio submission you need to make that evidences where you've used the module's KSBs (Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviours) within a project at work.
I would say that the Discover is much more content than anyone can absorb in the expected time frame, typically QA will say you should spend maybe 20 hours on Discover, but I can only imagine that it must take much longer for the material to sink in. There is a difference between learning and observing, which isn't really taken into account for QA's Discover tasks. Luckily I was familiar with all the material for my programme prior to starting it and often only needed to watch videos once, read excepts once, or answer questions once, before drafting my reflection (which is a mandatory submission after you complete your Discover covering all the questions you answered, and what you learnt from the content).
My gripe with Discover is that it can be immensely unbalanced, sometimes you can be given 18 hours of pure video content to watch, which can be difficult to sit through and sometimes confusing. It is probably good to mention here that the subtitle aids for videos in the Discover are often wrong, and the AI they have does not adequately cover the content provided to an in-depth enough standard, so I'd avoid using any summaries it generates
I've had a Discover before that was mostly reading material, and alternatively a Discover that was mostly demo videos. Realistically you want a balance of videos, reading, and application questions, which I have seen happen, and works incredibly well when it's how the Discover is structured. That said, usually Discovers are hit or miss for me, but the content itself isn't inaccurate which is the most important thing. On a quality front, QA provides current day training, and displays module content which is correct and often best practice. The fact that QA is persistently accurate and correct with the training it offers, is a massive relief, and sets up it's students for success more so than I'd say modern university courses do.
Practice (portfolio submission) is very nit picky, you cannot just research or write about projects you could do for a module, you need to actually provide evidence of the work you're doing day to day that matches the requirements of the current module. This becomes incredibly difficult sometimes as QA will push for as many screenshots, explanations, and as much content as possible, which isn't always easily accessible if you work for a secure client. I've managed with a few challenges to find ways to get portfolio work done 7 times, and every time there have been revisions needed. This is simply because the England apprenticeship requirements are much more strict than the Scottish apprenticeship requirements, which stipulate we need to demonstrate every KSB (Knowledge, Skill, Behaviour) not only be capable of speaking on it, which is a big ask considering how much QA want from us.
All of this is to say that QA is well structured and even logically sequenced, but it takes awhile to wrap your head around everything required. I've never had any issues with the organisation of my programme, simply the management of it.

Overall, I would describe the support I receive from my employer as average. I was given the work I needed to build my portfolio, issues are addressed when they arise, and expectations for QA were always communicated clearly or clarified. That said, there are times when I have to push quite hard to get the resources and opportunities I need, which can make the level of support feel inconsistent even if I do believe that my people manager always has my back.

My trainer is a delight, personally I don't have a bad thing to say about her, and all my quarterly EPARC reviews go swimmingly. In fact my trainer constantly caters my learning to how I prefer to be educated, and has made time to do virtual (face-to-face) mock-exams with me in the past which I really appreciate. Despite this though, receiving feedback from them is a task that can be akin to pulling teeth, not because it's bad feedback, but because I never seem to get it within a reasonable time-frame. Not only this but I have persistently noticed that queries or questions are left for a long duration of time before they are actually answered either via email or on the BUD platform, this seems to be a common occurrence amongst QA apprentices after talking with others.
Previously I have had a few issues with the BUD system itself, typically QA works to a submission deadline but if you are required to make iterative alterations to a submission the system can report that you never submitted any work at all due to the "partial submission" rules which is a stressful ordeal. Not to mention if you go an annual leave, regardless of whether you filled out the correct forms to notify QA, your deadlines on assignments may not move at all and force a situation where you have to explain why you haven't submitted in either 21 days (the usual limit for prompting via the system) or why a submission is overdue. That's not your fault, it's either the platform BUD or your trainer forgetting to update deadlines, but I've heard this happens often.
Additionally, QA get things wrong from time to time, during my quality review a fundamental aspect from one of my portfolio submissions was missing without my knowledge, but I was told on three separate occasions by my coach who reviewed the submission that it was perfect and up to a distinction level of quality. Essentially my coach missed something that the QA Quality (the team you pass your finalised work through before assessment) found when I moved into EPA gateway, and that was a massive oversight on their part, a mistake that took me 3 late evenings and over 16 hours to correct. Furthermore, I have been enrolled in the wrong live event before and was receiving text messages from QA stating that I was going to be penalised for not attending a live event that wasn't even for my course.
Speaking on live events, they can be the most in-depth and interesting sessions, truly a testament to online learning and specialised teaching from professionals with experience and qualification. That said, they can also be the most misinformed, tedious, unengaging tirade, where someone who is incapable of answering any specific questions regarding the topic, simply reads lines off of a screen... I have experienced both a 10/10 teacher and a 1/10 teacher, and It's always a mixed bag as to what you may get.

QA certifications do have equivalency to certain years of a degree or even a degree itself, but that really depends on what you do and at what level. My honest opinion is that a QA certification holds more weight than a degree does simply because you've been taught content that is the modern best practice for your related field, and you are getting in person experience within the industry which is fundamentally gold for career development and market consideration.

Yes

I would recommend Capgemini to a friend. The culture here is genuinely supportive, collaborative, and built around people who care about the work they do. Capgemini has always been incredibly people first, which I believe is a good sentiment that aids the workforce both professionally and personally. The company benefits of course due to this are also excellent, which makes the overall experience feel rewarding and life as a whole very sustainable. Beyond this though, the industry exposure I've gained has been invaluable, the projects, clients, and real-world challenges offer a level of experience that would be difficult to find elsewhere.
I also feel confident in the direction that Capgemini is heading. Its business goals are clear, ambitious, and aligned with where the industry is moving, which gives a sense of long-term stability and purpose. On top of that, the educational opportunities provided, especially through a structured programme like QA and hands on development, are second to none. Capgemini is a place where you can grow both technically as well as within your career.
While there are areas that could be improved, particularly around workload and expectation management, the overall environment at Capgemini is always so positive that I would recommend it to anyone looking to build a meaningful career in IT.