The high cost of a free coding bootcamp
theverge.com
theverge.com
Technically, push and concat can be augmented to achieve the same thing. Same with forEach and map. Might not be the best fitted screwdriver but it’ll still kinda work.
Developers were able to map from one list to another list using for loops before functional-style map-like functions. Map is just semantically more concise about what it’s doing, rather than how.
As for mutation versus immutable copy behavior, that’s for convenience. Developers can also clone collections themselves.
A more charitable means of evaluating the class lead’s comment is that the core of an algorithm is not affected by these things.
One could argue multiplication is just repeated addition.
Bootcamp programs are really crap. Even in a traditional classroom setting, you only get out of it what you put in. I know CompSci majors who graduated only knowing Java and who were totally lost if they had to replace a ram chip in a computer. I knew others who would try new languages every semester and who probably still keep up with tech news in our industry.
Boot camps are more of a filter to find people who are going to put in that effort anyway. You have to in order to be able to make it. But I feel they're also part of this hustle culture bullshit; you're better off taking your time and learning slowly (and more affordably) rather than trying to cram everything in to 12 to 24 weeks.
While I disagree they are "crap", it's definitely a what you get out of it is what you put in situation.
I have students who knew very little about the subject matter, put in a ton of effort and are rocking. I have other students who knew some, put in 0 effort, and are clearly struggling / stopped caring.
I feel that I'm basically a long-term tour guide for the subject matter (Cyber Security in this case). I absolutely cannot teach the ins and outs of all aspects of the subject matter. I regularly remark "I could probably teach a class on this thing we spent 10 mins talking about".
What I feel I can do (and actually do) is give them a subject or concept, introduce it, and let them run with it. I'm then available to answer any questions, provide lots and lots of anecdotes about the reality / theory of theses subjects.
We definitely move fast and skip over more theoretical things...but I think the students want that. I spent 1 day talk about the OSI 7 layer model...in college I spent weeks learning about that.
The rest of your post notwithstanding, I don't see why a CompSci major should need to know how to replace a stick of ram.
Why? That's not Computer Science. Computer science is the science of computation, not the science of computers.
> Nobody expects them to go out there and start fixing computers, however if someone spends 4 years studying the subject and can't even be asked to look inside the box,well then there's not much hope...
Hope for what?
> A couple of weeks ago I was on the sales floor and was about to change RAM on a couple of PCs( it's not my job,just wanted to do it). The sales rep pulled the PC from underneath the desk, took the side cover off, removed the old ram and put the new one in.If sales can do it, I'm confident anyone in CompSci should be able to do so as well.
Why? It's about as related to CompSci as doing field-expedient surgery is to Psychology.
> He recalled in 2011 that he once asked students in an engineering class if they understood how the feedback mechanism in a toilet’s water tank maintained the water level.
> “I asked them, ‘How many of you have ever taken the lid off a toilet tank to see how it works?’” he recalled. “None of them had. How do you get to M.I.T. without having ever looked inside a toilet tank?”
Source: graduate from one of said rare boot camps, and gainfully employed (not on the frontend, though many from my cohort chose that route as well)
It’s not for everyone that’s for sure. But saying you’ll never hire anyone means you’re missing out on some great candidates. Take a look at people making career changes, and where you can use that domain knowledge to broaden the team in a way someone with CS degree necessarily might not.
There will be some filtering required.
> These ISAs are the bedrock of Lambda’s program. They allow the school to market itself as an “accessible” computer science education. But critics, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), have warned that ISAs carry many of the pitfalls of traditional private student loans, “with the added danger of deceptive rhetoric and marketing that obscure their true nature.”
Yeah, except for one massive pitfall that student loans have and ISAs don't: With ISAs you only start to pay once you actually start making money whereas student loans saddle graduates with debt regardless of their job prospects. If the graduates of the Lambda school don't land jobs then the school doesn't get paid. With traditional student loans, the school gets paid even if their graduates are unemployed.
ISAs seem strictly better to me. It shifts the risk burden onto the school, and creates monetary incentives to improve the job prospects of graduates. By comparison, traditional loans put the risk burden on the student and because the university is paid upfront there is not as much incentive to better the job prospects of graduates.
That's not that different from federal student loans, since those all have income-contingent repayment plans (as well as pay as you earn, revised pay as you earn, and income-based, which are generally similar but have different repayment formulas) available. It mainly differs in the reduced flexibility with the ISA.
> If the graduates of the Lambda school don't land jobs then the school doesn't get paid.
ISAs are marketable assets and can be sold even while the student is still in the program, and the school gets paid by selling the asset. The new holder of the asset doesn't get paid if the student doesn't make money.
ISAs can be, and are, better than student loans. But they're not a universal good, as demonstrated in this article: if you are on the receiving end of a crap course that doesn't help you get a job is it really good that you'll have to pay for it (when you get a well paying job from entirely unconnected means)?
When the alternative is:
> if you are on the receiving end of a crap course that doesn't help you get a job is it really good that you'll have to pay for it (with interest, even if you're still unemployed after taking the course)?
Yeah, the former is really good.
Sure, it'd be better if the courses were free. But are you going to spend two years teaching computer science without pay? I'm not going to, and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people won't either.
Your supposition is that there are two options for everyone:
a) go deep into student debt
b) go deep into ISA debt
and no others. I contend that isn't the case. You could do neither. When you're in danger of getting into serious debt via an ISA to a company that doesn't seem to be competently running courses that will lead to employment it's only sensible to question whether it's worth signing up in the first place.
Sure, an ISA from a bad program is not good. But at least you're not paying unless you get a well compensated job.
?!?! Of course there is! What are you repaying when you get a high paying job?
Yes, under both system money is being paid back to someone. But crucially, there's no interest with an ISA. And furthermore, no money is taken until people get a job that pays a certain amount.