Boot Camp: A Business Saga
betonit.substack.com
betonit.substack.com
Specific to web development, I found you should really only consider a bootcamp graduate as a self-taught front-end developer. The bad news is they'll usually have a very limited experience with a small number of technologies and probably a very limited understanding of them, like most self-taught developers.
The biggest benefit I saw to bootcamp grads was their previous experience and the barrier to entry in taking the course:
It's not easy to find a junior web developer who has experience in the industry, speaks the executive's language, has an eye for design, etc.
It's also difficult to take some courses (tuition, not working during the course, entry tests). Of course this depends on the school, but this would _usually_ mean only people with the desire, aptitude, and financial means (like from a previous successful career) would be able to join the course.
I have no experience with design, security, data science, and other courses. To be honest, I pushed back on offering those since I didn't see companies hiring essentially self-taught juniors (except maybe design?).
One other point I'd make is we had a surprising number of CS degree holders in our programs. If you aren't picked up on a career day or internship (or your school doesn't have any/many) it seems like alot of students get lost.
First, you have to be able to differentiate. There are many different programs out there and each come with their own level of quality - in terms of what is the prerequisite skill level, teaching methodology, technologies covered, quality expectations (in part, a side-effect of the candidates accepted and bar of entry), etc.. You would not equate all colleges because they run 4 years and provide the same general service.
Second, for me personally, it was well worth the cost of admission. The amount of material I learned in the last 10 weeks (6 days a week of 60+ dedicated/focused hours, the forced projects and assignments for reps, the teaching that illuminates the gaps (something that novices of any craft would waste countless hours on), an environment filled with other curious/driven SWEs to sharpen iron alongside....basically, don't underestimate what can be done in a short amount of time when one is focused and of decent competency.
There seems to be a consensus that mastery takes a long time to develop. That is true, however most people at their jobs are nowhere close to masters. Most individuals get to a period of "good" at best....and you can quickly get to "good".
It seems a lot of bootcamps teach with rote, rather than by looking at the underlying concepts. My favorite example is git. I've seen bootcamp grads claim they can use git, but what it really meant is that they memorized a few git commands and as long as they don't stray too far from those, they can sort of work using git. But cherry-picking, rebase, proper branching forget it.
I'm extremely skeptical of bootcamps, especially after learning that some of the TA's at Lambda (the most famous one) are hired to help with teaching as little as two months into the program as students[0]. I guess that counts toward their "placement" stats!
Not only that, but Lambda seems so desperate that they will offer a fresh grad at no cost to any company for a 4 weeks trial period. [1]. And that's, sadly, the most high profile one out there.
I don't think I've seen a single hire out of a bootcamp work out in the end. Except a few cases where the person actually came from a STEM degree from a good school (and more crucially, already had some exposure to programming during the degree) but it's unclear to me that they actually needed the bootcamp and not just a good primer on modern software development and something like the Missing Semester [2] or a few classes at their school covering software engineering.
Notice there's no "Law Bootcamp" out there.
[0] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/lambda-schools-job-p...
That's... what a boot camp is? It's been 5-6 years since I was involved with one and the marketing has always promised a lot more than anyone could deliver, but the best ones were always basically that.
2-3 months is enough time for a motivated person to get the basics of a framework, and enough of the abstract mechanics of modern web development that they can implement solutions that are adequately described to them.
Yes that's very "junior" and yes they will have huge gaps in their understanding of software "under the hood." But honestly a lot of modern web development benefits from but does not require that knowledge at the beginning. They will fill those in an astonishing amount over the first year working if supported properly.
I know that hurts to hear because we know our work is complex and difficult. But not all of it is, and it's not necessary that you master the hard parts before beginning the work at all. That practical insight is still valuable and one we should take to heart.
I always seek out code school grads when hiring because honestly they tend to be pretty interesting confident people who know how to take calculated risks and work as part of a team. They almost all had other careers first and bring surprising and valuable experiences and skills.
Hiring someone fresh out a code school is a responsibility for sure, they truly do need more and different kinds of support for their first six months or so. But one like 2+ years into their career? Not all great programmers are great developers you know? but code school grads tend to overperform their technical ability in my experience.
We spend a bunch of time mentoring though.
I haven't met someone I can't mentor and have solid within a few months
> user: butbutbut123456
> created: 56 minutes ago
> karma: 1
Weird how every time some bootcamps are mentioned there are brand new accounts posting about how great their grads are. [0]
Mentoring newbs is easy. Do it and you'll get good results.
Or don't. I have nothing to do with bootcamps.
In the early days of programming, typically math or engineering skills were sought out. By the 70s nobody knew what would be appropriate, so a philosophy or English degree was considered fine. Or nothing: even in the early 80s, self-taught people like John Gilmore (first non-founder employee at sun) or Burrell Smith (former tech support staffer turned macintosh designer) didn’t need college at all.
But now nobody has the patience for that, and conversely very few businesses depend on extraordinary people. So almost everyone feels they need credentialism either to stand out or, on the other side, to hire someone when you don’t have the skill to judge directly.
In other words, this situation is the consequence of its own success.
It could provide a lot of hands-on/industry context that might actually be pretty motivating prior to going deeper into the more rigorous math/CS (i.e. O(n), proofs, data structures, compilers).
Maybe things have changed but back in my day - interestingly a lot of undergrad CS coursework did not cover practical stuff until much later (i.e. which made you clueless for freshman and sophomore summer internships) or you picked it up outside of the curriculum.