Hacker News Reader

> one single thing that makes traditional university education succesful is aptitude and drive.

I think it's more accurate to say that high ranked universities try to pick people who will succeed. That can be through intelligence and drive but it can also be through the backing of an ultra-rich relative (if someone will buy the school a building to get you into your college of choice you're probably going to do fine professionally).

That aside, I think your point is largely correct. I know someone founded one of the older bootcamps and in the early days it was fairly easy to choose only smart people, often with degrees from top schools ironically. Paired with the dearth of junior candidates job placement was 99% and pretty easy.

Acceptance standards have had to drop dramatically as the number of bootcamps has increased and the backlog of smart people who'd always wanted to get into tech has been wiped out.

> To get accepted and graduate from a reputable university you have to get good results in standardized tests and work your self through multiple courses for at least 3 years. That by itself doesn't mean anything but there's a level of rigor and self-drive required to succesfully traverse this experience.

It's worth noting that Lamda school actually does use an industry-standard "IQ test" [0], although it seems the cutoff is quite low (23 out of 50 whereas the median score according to Criteria Corp is 24).

[0] https://lambdaschool.com/the-commons/how-to-ace-the-criteria...

> (if someone will buy the school a building to get you into your college of choice).

If this was really widespread surely the campuses would have (literally) thousands of donated buildings?

Bootcamp grads (every one I've ever met) are often highly motivated and good autodidacts. Perhaps the incentive structure of something like Galvanize (née Hack Reactor) are better for weeding out the low performers -- you don't make it through those programs by not working 12h days/6.5 days/week.

I can't speak to the quality of the people who are attending these bootcamp programs (I wouldn't at all be surprised that most of them aren't "successful" for a variety of reasons) but as far as traditional university education being "successful", there are tons of university graduates who have little to show for it except a piece of paper and a load of student debt. A lot of kids today go to university because they're told it's what they're supposed to do, and coming out of it with a degree doesn't require nearly as much as it used to.

I agree with what you're saying. Traditional education is ripe for disruption, but this is clearly not the model that will do that. I imagine that there are high quality students that come out of this bootcamps but how consistently can they produce a good outcome for both the students and the prospective employers?

I think the tech industry needs to realize that their talent needs can't be solved this way. We need a more proactive and consistent system to identify potential and educate students. I think VC money creates incentives that impact quality, so for starters we should be thinking of these businesses as real non-profit organizations. Not wannabe mega tech corps.

> one single thing that makes traditional university education succesful is aptitude and drive.

Networking, connections, and (external) credentialism?

I honestly think these things are somewhat overrated. If you want to work at Google right out of school, maybe they matter more (particularly credentialism.) But I got my first three tech jobs simply by applying on the website, including one at a well-regarded startup. I don't have a CS degree, didn't have connections, and have never networked in my life.

I think what actually mattered was laddering up from a sorta-crappy place to a less-crappy place to an actually-good place, and consciously filling in gaps in my skills, especially those relevant for interviewing. When I interviewed at the well-regarded startup, for some reason someone asked me to implement merge sort (lol!) Well, fortunately I had skimmed the algorithm on the plane over, on the off chance someone asked me.

I could definitely get an interview at a FAANG at this point, because their recruiters reach out to me. As to whether I could get the job, I think it would mostly depend on my luck, skills, and preparation.

yeah but you found your way out via tech, which is a very exceptional case (I did the same thing, after spending almost two decades not-in-tech). And anyways GP said:

> one single thing that makes traditional university education successful

Probably is "external credentialism", if there were a single thing. Think of the largest employer in the US (federal government). Credentials are CRAZY important for positions in that org.

Networking and connections get university students good jobs. Aptitude and drive are what makes them good at those jobs.

I think the post you responded to was talking about the latter type of “success” at universities, but both are valid metrics of success.

I believe you are talking about excellence which is correlated to, but not necessarily concommitant with success.