Comment by sciguy77 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sciguy77 | Hacker News Reader

I'm a CS major, and have worked a few years as a programmer in embedded systems. For a number of reasons I'm making the switch to Ruby, and am attending Dev Bootcamp to accelerate that process. I find the practical-centered bootcamp makes a nice compliment to the theory-heavy computer science taught in college. I haven't attended the camp yet, but I've worked with a few students on projects so far (there's a lot of pre-work involved). I have to say, I've been impressed. My group has a Stanford grad or two, plus a decent number of Ivy Leaguers. Of course, my sample size is very small, I can't speak for everyone.

The good thing about DBC is its intensity. We're asked to work upwards of 100 hours a week.* I'm dubious as to exactly where that number comes from and how accurate it is, however it is clear that students work long hours and almost always stay late. I'm told at least a few drop out each term. At least to me, this indicates that the students who complete the program are motivated.

I think the problem is when applicants rely entirely on a three month program to get work. I'm attending DBC not so I can put it on my CV and hop straight into a startup job, but because I genuinely want to add Ruby to my toolbox.

IMO bootcamps shouldn't be taken just to have another line on a resume. They should be a stepping stone, giving the student the tools to contribute to real projects that will give them real experience. I think these contributions that the bootcamp experience allows are where the real value comes from. I apologize if I've been rambling, my point is that bootcamps work best as a part of a bigger and longer story that shows a dedication to the craft of programming.

*Someone mentioned this isn't the case. I'll see if I can dig up where I read this.

"We're asked to work upwards of 100 hours a week."

It doesn't seem like one could learn effectively while fighting physical and mental exhaustion.

Asking people to work 100 hours a week sounds more like an indoctrination program to make them believe that the long work hours they're likely to find in startups are "normal". Or maybe a way for the bootcamp to market their grads to startups: "Our graduates survived 100-hour weeks, so if you're looking for people who are willing to put up with abuse, we have lots of those right here."

That's an interesting way to look at it. I see it more as a placeholder for "we expect a lot from you, and expect you to work hard." I think any CS major can attest that there are periods in college that call for similarly excessive time investment. Perhaps it's less insidious, a way to give themselves some validity and show that students are covering a lot in those three months. Again, I am biased, so who knows.

It's driven by the amount of material that students need to ingest over a 3 month period. As sciguy noted, this is totally normal in academic settings as well. For instance, OS (15-410) at CMU requires 70+ hours a week. That's a single class.

These are of course completely different animals, but the scale of learning is similar. Getting a solid intuition for not only web applications but programming fundamentals when starting with neither requires serious effort and is a challenge of breadth. 3 months worth of 40 hour weeks will probably not cut it.

Just because CMU does it too doesn't mean that it's reasonable. Students who are stressed out and sleep-deprived aren't going to be learning effectively - there's lots of research that indicates that sleep is necessary for forming long-term memories.[1] Better to split the course into two semesters.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_and_Memory

You've touched on an important point. Namely, that bootcamps actually can't very feasibly split or extend their curriculum. It's not a coincidence that most of these schools offer 10-12 week sessions. Moving past that and the logistics of relocation, tuition, expenses & health care become much more difficult to manage.

"We're asked to work upwards of 100 hours a week."

No you're not. I went to Dev Bootcamp. You're required to be present 40 hours a week, any additional hours are because you choose to do so.

Hmm. Let me try and figure out where I heard this.

Perhaps it's just what you heard people tend to do. I also attended DBC and the "general" hours were very cohort specific; even within each cohort there's a huge variation. However, everyone I met during the bootcamp really enjoyed what we were learning, so naturally that led to long hours if there weren't outside responsibilities.

Here you go:

http://devbootcamp.com/faq/

"So I'm going to be sitting in class for 40 hours a week?"

"No. That would be terribly boring and ineffective. You will spend a little time every day learning through curated tutorials and books, and a lot of the time practicing what you learn. You'll work in pairs and small groups on an exciting integrated curriculum. Your brain will be buzzing as you solve problems, tackle challenges, and build applications until you're confident in your mastery of the skills. If you have an idea for a web app you want to build, then definitely bring it. Also it's important to note that even though class is 40 hours per week, you'll be working more like 70-100 hours per week!"

P.S.- I also attended Dev Bootcamp (with feministy, as it happens). I'd say 70-100 hours per week was accurate for my cohort, although this varies significantly depending on a student's programming background.

Just curious here..If you are already a programmer, why do you need a bootcamp to learn ruby? It seems to me you should be able to spend $40 on a book, and be up and running within a few weeks. Then try to implement some of the stuff you have done in other languages in ruby.

I can't speak for the parent, but most programmers and CS grads that attend bootcamps aren't so much interested in learning Ruby as developing a better intuition for web application architecture.

This, I'm sure you'll agree, makes much more sense than simply learning another Algol-based language. To turn this on its head, I can write C & C++ passably but that doesn't mean I'd feel qualified applying for a job as an embedded systems or game developer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com