Bootcamps should be more transparent

I immediately thought, I don't care if he's the best student in the class; he probally will have a horrid time getting a job.

I don't think I've ever seen an industry that's so guilty--actually I won't say the word, but if I was offering a bootcamp, I would just mention the game is geared for youth.

I'm not saying you can't take the courses.

Actually, does anyone know anyone who has taken one one of these bootcamps, who's over forty, who got, and kept a job in tech?

(The older guys I know, interested in programming/web developement all had to work for themselfs. I know one guy who made a killing. The rest are barely supporting themselfs. None went to a bootcamp. They couldn't justify the cost. I don't know if they did the right thing, by not going to a bootcamp.)

I agree with the author but the issue is that it is both very difficult to measure, track and maintain data and it varies wildly. Consider it almost like a vc portfolio. some years, everyone applying to bootcamps will get a job because of timing & numbers ect. However, more bootcamps spring up, and pre existing ones do more cohorts. All of a sudden, there aren't any "hot companies" to invest in(to carry on the vc analogy). You have to keep putting that fund to work though so the pool becomes diluted.

Another issue is accounting for massive disparity within schools & within the wider ecosystem. Some people in my class were very talented & had a lot of peripheral experience. Some codecamps are not selective. I taught myself html/css/js a bit of rails and jquery ect BEFORE, i ecen applied. I laugh at even typing that now as it is trivial, but some students had never even looked at web inspector. not only does that change demographics, but 1-2 students can kill productivity here.

This is why unoversities evolved into what they are. Some schools carve out a niche as elite and their rep allows them to be selective. sone don't, because 10s of $1000s per applicant is crazy to just add 1.

everyone knows this so i wont beleagure the obvious anymore, however, the last bit is tracking. I have a job interview tomorrow, and have been working on my own startup ect. I am financially unsuccessful and sonewhat professionally so. However, I consider it a success in that I can hacn out projects and build shit and as long as I can eat, I love it. Other people got jobs for 2 months right out of bootcamp, were terrible and got fired. Schools with "great" numbers have no idea how they actually look outside of that snapshot. its tech. and its a first job. people have freelance gigs and then go to 1-3 conpanies within a year or so.

tl/dr

transparency is inportant and I am for it 100%. However, if you cant/wont be, then be selective and protect your brand and rep. Being a long term institution that is selective & well known will help you retain teaching talent, attract top applicants and be worth way more than the short term $$$.

Also went to a bootcamp and I agree with this. I think the variance in ability between students is greater than the variance between bootcamps. People come in with different levels of experience and backgrounds. People are looking for work in different places.

I think reviews from former students are a better solution than just numbers.

On the other hand there are people who really make the most of it and come out extraordinarily better. But those top of class folks are by definition a minority. Other people succeed, but don't exceed. Other people pass. It's the same reason why some people devalue college graduates.

Well, management needs more cheap workers early in their careers who can be easily exploited with the prospect of 0.01% share options, but that's not the same thing. If there genuinely was a shortage of workers, there would be no ageism, but it's rampant. Zuck stands up and says "young people are smarter" and no-one bats an eyelid...