Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bootcamps should be more transparent

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#21

Post by yaddayadda »

elliotec wrote: post #16
yaddayadda wrote: post #7

I'm a graduate of an after-hours web development bootcamp who wants to move to a full-time web dev job. I certainly can't move to a full-time web dev job at a reasonable salary after the bootcamp I attended. If I was willing to intern for 6-12 months at minimum wage, I would be able to - but I could have done that without the bootcamp. The bootcamp doesn't share stats, only a post-graduation "employment" percentage.…

Every after-hours bootcamp I've heard of has had awful reviews. You're missing out on the whole "immersive" part of it, which is really what matters in a lot of ways. Like how you learned Spanish a couple days a week in middle school. Do you remember more than how to count to ten and ask where the bathroom is? No, but if you had to live in Mexico for 3 months you'd get pretty adept and be able to make your way around…

I would have preferred to do an immersive, in large part for these reasons, but couldn't afford both the tuition and loss of income for months.

The BC I attended claimed to have a flipped classroom model, which would have been better that in instructor in the front of the class demonstrating code. In addition, I was apparently one of the few students who actually did want to change careers, so my "peers" were never willing to work outside of class. Despite my day job, I put in at least 2 hours outside of class for each how in class.

Even with the after-hours approach, if the classroom model had actually been flipped, and there were several peers to work with outside of class, it would have been significantly better, and I think I could get a junior dev job.

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#22

Post by djloche »

drewrv wrote: post #6

In my mind including "tech-adjacent jobs" is a more interesting number. These programs attract a lot of professionals who are trying to add programing to their resume, but not necessarily become full time code monkeys. A designer who can write html/css/js is more valuable than one who does not. A PM who cannot code is a nightmare to work with. Working with a marketer who can hook up their own jquery plugin is a godse…

Programming skill is a hiring desirability multiplier because the context of the work is usually just as important as the work itself.

Eg. Accountant -> Code Camp -> Tech Consulting -> CTO for accounting firm.

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#24

Post by Bahamut »

adrice727 wrote: post #12

Reactor Core, the parent company of Hack Reactor, recently proposed a standardized methodology for the industry. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/reactor-core-announc...

Where's the link to the supposedly methodology? That's a pretty crappy press release...

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#25

Post by elliotec »

yaddayadda wrote: post #21
elliotec wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every after-hours bootcamp I've heard of has had awful reviews. You're missing out on the whole "immersive" part of it, which is really what matters in a lot of ways. Like how you learned Spanish a couple days a week in middle school. Do you remember more than how to count to ten and ask where the bathroom is? No, but if you had to live in Mexico for 3 months you'd get pretty adept and be able to make your way around…

I would have preferred to do an immersive, in large part for these reasons, but couldn't afford both the tuition and loss of income for months. The BC I attended claimed to have a flipped classroom model, which would have been better that in instructor in the front of the class demonstrating code. In addition, I was apparently one of the few students who actually did want to change careers, so my "peers" were never w…

I think you could still get a junior dev job, if you just do a bunch of projects, even if trivial or done before, that demonstrates you know what you're doing. If you don't know what you're doing, the projects will help you learn. Win-win.

If you don't mind me asking, what program did you go to?

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#26

Post by yaddayadda »

elliotec wrote: post #25
yaddayadda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have preferred to do an immersive, in large part for these reasons, but couldn't afford both the tuition and loss of income for months. The BC I attended claimed to have a flipped classroom model, which would have been better that in instructor in the front of the class demonstrating code. In addition, I was apparently one of the few students who actually did want to change careers, so my "peers" were never w…

I think you could still get a junior dev job, if you just do a bunch of projects, even if trivial or done before, that demonstrates you know what you're doing. If you don't know what you're doing, the projects will help you learn. Win-win. If you don't mind me asking, what program did you go to?

Your main competitor that was just sold.

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#27

Post by cwp »

As someone trying to hire web developers, it looks to me like Bootcamps are more like finishing school than trade school. Candidates that come out of a bootcamp have learned how to signal membership in the Silicon Valley in-group.

Their resumes have all the right keywords, and refer to "projects" they've worked on, built with all the frameworks and tools currently in fashion. They've practiced their interview technique and can talk confidently about continuous integration or opine about React vs Angular or describe how well they cooperate with their teammates.

If they don't get the job, they'll politely ask for advice on how they can do better, and maybe ask for a coffee date, so they can learn about the industry and how to find a mentor.

If you don't look closely at the resume or ask explicitly in the interview, you might think they have actual work experience, but they don't, it's all just coursework.

So I'm a bit ambivalent. Yeah, we desperately need more developers in the tech world. Yeah, startup culture is ridiculously tribal and unfairly biased against those who don't know the secret handshakes. But 3 months does not a developer make. When I'm hiring, I now look very skeptically at candidates that have been to a bootcamp. Experience has taught me that interviewing them is usually a waste of time.

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#28

Post by scottwhudson »

danreedx86 wrote: post #9

I like the idea of transparency from these bootcamps, it'd be a great way to vet them before committing $20k and several months of your time. It makes sense that bootcamps wouldn't be willing to divulge that information though, especially if their numbers aren't great. But it feels a little unfair to hold the bootcamps completely responsible for people not being able to find jobs. Seems like people have this idea tha…

I almost went through one of the bigger bootcamps in Austin a couple of years ago, and I'm so glad I didn't for several reasons.

Everything about the application process felt like a for-profit university: they constantly blasted their impressive placement and salary figures at me, making it sound almost like I was guaranteed a $100k job right out of the program. A 96% placement rate and an average starting salary of 100+k allows them to paint a certain picture in applicants heads, and most people have no idea how hard it is when they sign up.

Funny enough, this bootcamp had all of their current students use the same job title on LinkedIn to show the bootcamp as work experience, which made finding alums VERY easy. I sent several alums who didn't get jobs quick messages asking about their experiences, and the responses were eye-opening. They were coached on how to go to networking events, where they wound competing against all of their classmates for junior gigs. After a few months, they went down in the bootcamp register as "failures", so they didn't count towards the glowing placement figures.

But the icing on the cake came years later, when this same bootcamp contacted a friend about recruiting some of their students. During the conversation, they disclosed that they were a contingency recruiter for their students: these junior candidates were going to cost the company six figures with the recruiting fee, which was crazy.

These students shell out $20+k for these programs and become unattractive candidates because the school wants a recruiting fee for someone that's been coding for 12 weeks, and the students probably don't even know what's going on.

There's absolutely a need for transparency here.

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#29

Post by hanginghyena »

Speaking as a hiring manager, I place a much higher value on verifiable project experience (either I can see it or you can walk me through your unique/non-trivial app in our interview) than any credentials. I've seen a lot of candidates who are focused on credentials crumble in the technical interview.

Granted, there's a huge universe of people out there who are more than willing to take your money (including Microsoft), but the really good people I've hired blew me away with their project descriptions and not their list of certifications.

Re: Bootcamps should be more transparent

#30

Post by daveguy »

Bahamut wrote: post #24
adrice727 wrote: post #12

Reactor Core, the parent company of Hack Reactor, recently proposed a standardized methodology for the industry. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/reactor-core-announc...

Where's the link to the supposedly methodology? That's a pretty crappy press release...

They will teach you that methodology in their bootcamp. Sign up today!
Post reply on HN