Do you have any actual constructive criticism to go along with your sweeping generalization?
"Anecdotally, the bootcamp graduates that didn't previously know how to code who I have worked with have provided net negative value - that is the productivity cost to the rest of the team has been higher than the value they have provided - and I think companies who hire them must not be aware of this possibility."
This has not been my experience, but I don't think it is invalid for someone to point out that it has been theirs. Net negative work is definitely a real thing, it just isn't my experience that it is only or mostly a bootcamp graduate phenomenon. I think anyone early in their career is likely to provide net negative value (I sure did). Companies have to make an investment in the value entry level employees will eventually create for them. This isn't new or unique, it's the case for all entry level folks in all professions.
On the other hand, I recently interviewed someone from an out-of-state bootcamp that was very impressive. They had been self-teaching for a while beforehand, but from the interview it was clear that they learned a lot more at the bootcamp than they had learned on their own.
We have never considered hiring anyone from the local bootcamp. We are definitely considering the out-of-state person.
In short, your views of coding bootcamps are going to depend on the quality of the bootcamp near you.
I think lots of people really want something like a BS+MS in computer science, minus the part that would be a generic liberal arts AA degree. Practical people do not wish to waste time and money on the political indoctrination courses. Two years of that stuff is 2.5% of a person's lifetime and the cost of a 3-bedroom house.
To your concern of being "politically indoctrinated", part of the value of a liberal arts education is being exposed to ideas you might not agree with. If you don't agree with the opinions expressed in a class -- political or otherwise -- there is real value in being challenged to think critically about why you don't agree, and then justifying yourself logically via argument. Honestly, I often found this type of work more intellectually satisfying than in the cases where I agreed with an author/classmate/professor.
And this skill set is not purely academic; every one of us here likely utilizes it daily at our jobs. This kind of reasoning is necessary in software development all the time:
- Why should I choose X language over Y for this project Z?
- Why is my colleague wrong about the source of this bug?
- How can I convince his boss that I'm right?
(and so on..)
I could count on one hand the places where it goes the other way. Let's see, Bob Jones University...
Practicing this skill isn't worth giving up 2.5% of your life and the cost of a 3-bedroom house. It has absolutely nothing to do with the STEM education that one needs for many jobs in the modern workplace.
Taking different perspectives on the same “data” is a pivotal part of science and engineering. You need to do it to interpret your results in light of different theories, and, more practically, you need to do it to present your ideas and results to different audiences. For example, pitching a project to the NIH is very different than pitching a project addressing the same fundamental questions to DARPA, which is in turn very different from the NSF or private foundations. Likewise, I present the same results differently when talking to other scientists vs. clinicians vs. the general public.
If presenting to NIH and DARPA is what matters, surely there are far more efficient and effective ways to teach this. It doesn't have to suck up 2.5% of a human lifetime and the cost of a 3-bedroom house.
As for efficiency....I'll admit that part of the rationale behind these requirements is the idea that everyone should be exposed to a wide range of ideas. However, I think it's not totally bonkers pedagogically either. A random collection of 18 year olds won't have much expertise--and even less in common. Literature (and, to some extent, history) gives everyone a "data set" to work from, and it's one where there are lots of possible interpretations. No one is going to have a hot take on the contents in Bio/Chem/Math/Physics 101 or 102; that stuff has been settled for decades.
If a person lives 80 years and spends 2 years on this stuff, it is 2.5% of their life. Houses in much of the USA can be had for $100,000. Two years of college can easily exceed that even without including dorms and the opportunity cost of foregone salary. I think you could break $200,000 for two years at the expensive schools, and make that $600,000 if we include trimming a career short by a couple years.
I somehow managed to dodge the worst of this stuff with very careful class selection and a fortunately-timed transfer to a different college. My kids have been hit by unfair grading however, as was my father. For my father: even half a century ago, an assignment to write about nuclear weapons would get you a D- if you argued in favor of getting more of them. (and in case you wonder, he is an excellent writer)
This exposure to a wide range of ideas is not just unidirectional for political outlook. It's also that way by field of study, with the non-STEM majors able to graduate without much science or math. Typically they can get away with something like College Algebra (a repeat of 8th grade), Astronomy, and Nutrition. One shouldn't be able to graduate without Statistics (a calculus-based one), 3 semesters of Physics (again with calculus) with labs, 2 semesters of Chemistry with labs, 2 semesters of Biology with labs, microeconomics, and macroeconomics.