Revature coding program promises jobs but costs $36,500 to quit
onezero.medium.com
onezero.medium.com
They operate like coding bootcamps. They hire tens of thousands of random grads, put them through a “bootcamp” of six months and contract them out to Fortune 500 firms. They also have these kinds of exit clauses where you have to pay them if you quit early. These people often have no CS backgrounds.
These bootcamps will also end up shifting to India and turning into outsourcing firms. Nothing more nothing less. It can absolutely work and be huge but as you scale the quality drops and it’s not a panacea.
If I were the lambda school CEO I’d just start a remote first outsourcing firm in India and cut to the chase.
If I were an IT service company CEO I’d rebrand myself as “disrupting education” to get some of that sweet VC $.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/ites/tcs-to-pay-30...
When they submit H-1B applications, they submit the same form 10 times so their employees get selected because they figured out that the H-1B selection process is literally someone grabbing a random envelope from a mail container.
It's time these visas get a pool per country so we can punish the ones that are trying very hard to abuse it.
You may still submit a form, but it should be immediately be processed into electronic form before actual case processing.
Mailing paper forms is the reason that fraud vector to became possible.
I mean this more sounds like the recipe for yet more garbage code and various levels of disaster.
PRE-INTERVIEW AGREEMENT
[ bunch of non-disclosure terms ]
4. For a period of 48 hours after the Interview, CANDIDATE agrees that if he/she is selected, he/she will positively and unconditionally join the assignment for which REDACTED has represented.
...
7. Because monetary damages are difficult to ascertain and are likely to be inadequate to compensate REDACTED for any breach of this Agreement, CANDIDATE agrees that REDACTED shall be entitled to injunctive relief (both temporary and permanent) for any breach or proposed breach of this Agreement. In addition, CANDIDATE shall be liable for any damages, costs and fees incurred by REDACTED related to any breach of this Agreement. CANDIDATE also agrees to indemnify and hold harmless REDACTED for any and all losses, costs and other liabilities incurred, including costs and fees related to any breach of the obligations set forth herein.
You nailed it.
It's the complete opposite of someone who was a TA during undergrads.
My idea is to hire these devs that aren't ready to write code themselves, and have them do lots of technical QA. Pull down the code, run it on their machine, test all endpoints in Postman, write some simple scripts, etc. Then after several months doing that, give them a raise to move them closer to a dev salary and move them to active dev work.
You get to 1. Hire devs at a big discount since they won't be doing dev work quite yet. 2. Get to work with them for several months before letting them get active on code. 3. Even with the raise post QA period, they would be at a below market rate for junior devs.
Junior devs get 1. Experience in a technical position. 2. Opportunity to continue learning and see what it takes to build professional quality code. 3. On ramp to being a dev.
Maybe I got the numbers wrong on this and it isn't feasible. But it seems like a good tradeoff for agencies to bring on devs. Because devs are crazy expensive in the US and agencies have a hard time bringing them in while staying profitable.
Has the benefit of making sure you know the cost of issues and outages, knowing how to spot bugs, and generally how to be a good citizen both with the dev teams and the rest of the company at large.
And if you're doing it fixed-fee, then you really need to confirm that the QA is either accelerating delivery (and therefore reducing costs) so you can keep the price constant and collect more margin or ensuring a better (i.e. more valuable) outcome to the client to justify an increase in price in a fairly competitive bidding market.
You'll pay every penny of the discount by wasting time tutoring them to the level of a real CS grad.
The only scenario in which you'd pay the full $36,500 is if you found an alternative job that would be at least that much better. In which case you move on and make them collect from you. How difficult that is for them and how much of a hassle it is for you varies by state, but I suspect you could settle the debt for a payment plan that returns at most 50 cents on the dollar.
IMO, more people need to be educated on the debt collection and bankruptcy system they have, and learn what their actual best alternatives are, rather than what creditors want you to think your alternatives are. Debt collection is slow and risky at best, and these exploitative programs are run by slimeballs, so fuck 'em and play hardball.
I doubt I would’ve ever taken a deal like this, but I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to have to eat some shit for a year or two in order to break into what you want to do. If your choice is between earning $8/hr working retail, and earning $8/hr as an engineer, the latter is the way to go. Maybe also judge it against going to grad school where you’re not just not making money, but you’re actually going into tens of thousands of dollars of debt.
Umm, people are paying $35k for an opportunity to break into the lucrative tech job market. Which indicates that the wages must be fairly enticing.
Lots of lucrative employment markets cost money to break into. One can't become a doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc without paying for an expensive specialty school.
I find it interesting to compare getting hired at these places to the big tech firms. I've applied to places with collectively thousands of open engineer roles. But they all have a process to find a reason not to hire you. Like one place I did well on 3/4 coding challenges and kind of bombed the system design interview. None of these companies will look at that and say, well this person has potential let's give them a chance. They all will say, well they don't raise the bar so let's just keep our dozens of needed roles unfilled.
The few that were good, got swept away when the company cancelled the entire contract. Those folks had to move to middle-of-nowhere America to work on projects that are unlikely to advance their skills much. They couldn’t afford to quit.
This experience mirrors my experience with software devs on H1B’s— these firms wield too much control over people.
I'm sure these companies do. When I'm interviewing, potential is what I weight most in a candidate.
Not to be an ass, but are you sure you are showing the potential you think you are?
Amazon has the most well known example:
>When Amazon launched the hiring plan for tech job candidates in 1999, it was called the ‘barkeeper programme’. But that name implied maintaining a hiring standard, when actually the programme is about raising the standard with each hire. Every person hired should be better than 50 percent of those currently in similar roles.
https://blog.aboutamazon.eu/working-at-amazon/what-is-a-bar-...
But that's pretty standard across the FANGs and trickles down into other tech companies. They're not interested in the 20% performer that might turn into a 50%+ one. They expect you to go work somewhere else, develop into that 50%+ programmer, and try again.
>Not to be an ass, but are you sure you are showing the potential you think you are?
Yes, I'm sure because I received positive feedback on a couple rounds before bombing out. I (according to them) did well on 3/4 coding challenges, terribly on the 4th, and bombed the system design. They chose to give more weight to that 4th test and the system design than the 3 good performances. And they're sitting on 200 open engineering roles for a not that big company.
Would you really think someone with a mediocre audition fits the bill? Probably not. A potentially great guitarist will have already achieved certain milestones when you audition them. They will play all the songs you ask them to very well, but they will also show you something that really demonstrates their talent.
You might think 3/4 is pretty good. And maybe it is. But candidates with high potential probably ace them, and have other qualities that aren't asked about in the interview. For example, the greatest intern I ever hired had no practical experience in our field, but developed a very successful game mod. Achievements like that are the mark of potential.
A bad engineering hire can result in worse outcomes than leaving a role unfilled because developers exert so much leverage through software. The risk when hiring developers is that they will create highly-leveraged negative value.
Taking your system design example, a poorly-designed system can:
- cost millions of dollars directly by failing its functional requirements
- cost millions more indirectly by being inefficient
- divert energy from other initiatives to fix
- dissuade other engineers from working at the company in the future
By this, I don't mean to say that we should demand interviewing perfection, or that the industry's interviewing process can't be improved. But it's important to recognize that "having potential" includes the potential for both good, and dramatically bad, outcomes.
Sure, but I had 0 system design experience applying for a role with 0 system design responsibilities. No reason to expect I could design a system like that or that I would need to be able to for that role.
I'm not saying that they're wrong necessarily. It's more a commentary on how there's a huge swath of companies with basically no entry level. You're expected to know CS fundamentals, a bunch of algorithms, and be able to design a highly scalable system.
I owe my soul to the company store."
-- Sixteen Tons by Merle Travis, performed by Tennessee Ernie Ford
-- Michael ScottA "quitting fee" is generally illegal throughout the U.S...which is why Revature has the boot camp. Instead of being a quitting fee for leaving the job, the "quitting fee" is characterized legally as reimbursing Revature for the tuition costs of the bootcamp.
So my experience with Revature, I am not sure if I even applied to them or if they scraped my CV off of Indeed at the time. The "job interview" was a 20 minute phone call. It included a painfully easy trivia type quiz with 5-10 basic programming questions "What is the differences betwee == vs === in Javascript" level questions. The recruiter said "Wow great, we would like to hire you". The contract was for $50k a year, and with $25k quit clause if I left the company for any reason before 2 years for anyone but one of their clients, AND this was in DC so a painfully low salary. So basically I they put you through a short training program, find you a job as a contractor, they make >$50k a year selling you as a contractor, if you leave before your slavery is over they get even more money, if you leave for the company you are working they probably get even more money. I told them no, they tried to hard sell me telling me it was normal, I told them to fuck themselves and to not call me again.
I could see how someone desparate for a job might fall into this. Total Scam and those companies should be forcibly shut down by the government.
Entry level programmers are told that there is a huge demand. There is a huge demand, but everyone wants at least some experience. Some will do personal projects, maybe work at a chop shop for a few months and work their way in. Others won't or never get past the project phase. Coding bootcamps come in and claim to bridge that gap for an exorbitant price. The attitude is so often "just pay for this piece of paper and get a job." Students pay up front and are left out on their ass when they realize it was a scam.
Unfortunately by the time I see people get desperate enough to buy a piece of paper from a bootcamp I think they should either work on their soft skills or reconsider this industry altogether. I personally know a few people who either have gone or are considering such programs and they all lack passion. They only want to program because they see it as a stable line of employment. Hiring managers can see this from a mile away and lose interest. If it's just a lack of soft skills then learn how to sell yourself and communicate your interest. But if you don't really want this and can't bridge the gap then I'd find something else to do.
The signal to noise ratio was just not worth it. Not a single hire.
50K Javascript jobs advertised at bus stops with a coding bootcamp URL.
We're already there.
> There is a huge demand, but everyone wants at least some experience.
Any job add with less than 5 years of experience is entry-level. Apply even with 0 years of experience.
How does this happen? I know it's nearly impossible to find people to fill open positions.
You should have learned all of that in school. If you have a 4 year CS degree and can't do those simple things, then you didn't actually pay enough attention in class and are, in fact, a bad candidate.
I went to a state school for 6 years and my total (living + textbooks + food + tuition) cost is nowhere near that number.
I think it'd be 876,000 (36.5K * 6 * 4), but that's beside the point.
Basically, sarcasm rarely seems to work on this site, and I am ambivalent about whether this is a good thing.
Your college owns you for 2-3 years after graduation and can hire you out and decide where you live and work and at what rate?
Sounds a lot like indentured servitude.
AND...a large chunk of those folks walk away with unmarketable skills.
AND...you can't declare bankruptcy to get out from under student loans.
...which IMO sounds kinda worse than indentured servitude in that, while you do still have to pay, the mechanism for payment is neither provided in the construct nor is it made possible by the training received.
Compare that to this case where you basically commit 2 years of time and emerge debt free, and presumably with real work experience.
I’m not advocating for this sort of system, it creeps me out.
What I am saying though, is that college can be a dicey value if you can’t figure out how to translate it to the job market, if that’s your objective.
We would probably be better off if there was a really good system for apprenticeships that was a win win for employers and employees.
Most grads basically have to be mentored for years to be effective, in my experience. It makes it hard on companies looking to hire, because they have to invest so much in someone who can just leave. And hard for the job-seeker, as they are in a difficult position because they may not be able to offer a lot of value, so may not be able to get a job.
For people with top tier degrees, or who are very motivated self starters, none of this matters. But what about everyone else?