I fear your expectations from 'courses' are never going to be realised. I spent quite a while taking time out from the real world learning how to be a teacher, with a qualification and the knowledge to maximise learning in young people and adults. I also ended up leading a big department in a busy college - music and performing arts and I have to say this course worries me greatly. It shows the classic solution to what studios do to make money when business is slack. From a business perspective a few things need considering.
People in studios pay for studio time. They object to paying for studio time and discovering the engineer using it as a training session. If they don't object, then their quality threshold and experience is low, because they've not noticed. If the 'training', and I deliberately put it in inverted commas because it will be unquantified, experiential and following no standard that makes it valid as a qualification.
If you need to be shown by other people, and cannot learn in your own studio my experiential learning, you may have an educational disadvantage. Normally, people have one method of learning that is most effective for them. In one to one situations an experienced, professional, qualified teacher will switch delivery to your preferred mode. I really cannot imagine the engineer in a typical studio even understanding this, and if they use approach 2 and you need 5, then the learning experience is poor, the transfer of knowledge is poor and the mismatch usually means people give up. It really is this basic. There is a problem, nowadays it's common to have people with specific educational needs - the autistic scale is so much better understood. People with mild autism find learning a requirement. They are sponges and have a desire, perhaps even a genuine need to know and grow. People sit on the autistic scale and again, the teacher needs to know and understand this or frustration grows exponentially when information is presented badly, or in an unstructured way. I wonder if Phil could be in this category, as his posts show need and frustration in the answers provided - which I have to say are pretty on the mark.
My view is that education by a studio in downtime is a terrible source of knowledge. They will tell you to do X, but forget that the reason they said X, is because they noticed Y and Z and this prevented them saying W. They do things because they do - not because it's the best or most appropriate. They may well always grab an SM57 from the mic box. Ask them why and the answer is that they always do it. They don't ever try anything else. If you ask them a question on where the 57 has it's presence peak they probably won't be able to tell you - why would they need a number to use one?
Do you want facts, or practice?
After all the years of teaching people, I have generated a few kind of rules. Some people are unteachable. Rare, but they exist. Most learn a bit, despite the teacher. However, the real issue is that some people have a need that the teacher cannot provide. sOme people are totally draining - like young children when you tell them something and they say 'Why?" you explain and again they ask why. A studio guy is likely to say "we do it this way", and if you ask why you are told that it's just how it's done.
A short course at a studio is in my humble view great for being nosey, and watching how they do things, but totally rubbish as any form of foundation for learning because they're not teachers, it's not designed for education, and you have no way of assessing the match between teacher and learner. They have a job to do, you are a paying inconvenience. Being an observer during busy sessions can be invaluable to people who can learn that way, but from my own experience with live theatre, having somebody trying to learn while I'm doing a real job means they get less of my time than they need. Grab that mic, cable it back to that patch panel over there - stuff it into 16 or 17 whichever is empty and then tell the sound guy where you plugged it - then I jog off to sort something else to discover they simply had no idea of what I meant - they plugged the mic up where it was, in the wings, and forgot to explain why they were telling the sound guy it was in 18 because 16 and 17 were both in use. The sound guy is waiting for the mic to come up, but never thinks to try 18, and as the mic isn't even being spoken into (not asked for) it goes pear shaped and he has to run to stage, and do it himself.
For anyone considering a paid for short course as some questions.
Can they give you an example of a scheme of work that shows what you will be doing, what you will learn and the sequence of learning?
How much one to one time will I have?
Will I be working on my own, or with other students?
What course materials are provided?
Simple questions that any programme designed to genuinely educate will be able to provide.
If they cannot answer them, then walk away - you are being used to generate funds with the excuse of training.
A good other thing to watch for is any course that have pre-printed certificates with names already on them. These mean nobody ever fails to complete the course.
There are a few excellent studio long and short courses - SAE pop to mind as decent ones, but most are really totally rubbish. I learn best by touching, feeling and experimenting then doing my own research. I learn the least from talk and chalk. This means I can get myself into situations, function and learn. I realise I'm lucky in this. It means I get paid jobs based on bluster and being able to verbally improvise. I then use my skills in a transferable way, and do a reasonable job, but I learn so much. I'm a master of nothing, but I do a huge range of things competently. I exaggerated to get my first studio TV cameraman job in 1983. I'd never used a broadcast camera, but my research was enough to be able to do it without giving the game away, and while I suspect I was a bit slow, I didn't appear a total fraud or an idiot, and got another booking and another - getting better really quickly. I could assess what things would change as I did new roles and coped. I even allow people do do this to me now I use other people, I know they exaggerated, but I also can judge if they are going too be a liability, and if they show the right stuff, I help them along. Equally I get rid of those people who need excessive guidance and ask too many questions - or simply don't have initiative.
I could easily run courses but I am supposed to be putting on shows, not training people for money.