I actually don't hire junior/entry-level devs, but I do get flooded with their resumes even though I'm very explicit that I'm looking for experienced devs.
If I were considering entry-level hires, I wouldn't hire bootcamp grads if their only experience were at the bootcamp. If someone has been coding for less than 4 months, I'm going to spend most of my time teaching them how to code. That kind of employment provides more value to the employee than the employer. That might work for some big companies, but I can't do it in a small company.
> There may be less variance between them from a purely technical standpoint but their backgrounds are far more diverse than what you'd get out college.
I agree with you, but it doesn't make it any easier to hire them. I have no idea if I'd rather have an ex-ballerina or an ex-salesman as my employee. Neither of those careers give you training as a developer.
So if I'm just trying to decide if someone can do the job, seeing 20 people with 12-16 weeks of experience isn't helpful. And, as someone who has been writing code for 20 years and still has a lot to learn, it's insulting to suggest someone can become competent in that short a time. I know for a fact that they can't. It sometimes takes that long for an experienced dev to learn a new stack, and bootcamps are claiming to teach people a huge array of technologies.
> A good hiring manager ought to take the time to treat a candidate respectfully, but I know this behavior is rare.
I treat candidates with respect. I think (most) bootcamps should treat their customers with more respect and stop promising to teach them to code. Bootcamps are mostly "teaching to the test" in my experience -- they teach you how to get hired. That's valuable, but it's a totally different thing.
How about a math major from a top ivy? Physics grad student? Consultant? Chem-E engineer? Founder of a successful startup? Product managers? We had all those and more at my bootcamp cohort.
Look, you do what you want with your hiring. But don't just make the blanket claim that bootcamp grads aren't competent. People in my cohort were contributing right away. Looking at people few years above me, they're launching successful open source projects, becoming team leaders, giving talks at conferences, etc. If you're insulted by their success, maybe that's on you.
> Physics grad student? Consultant? Chem-E engineer? Founder of a successful startup? Product managers?
Those would be the same in that they don't have coding experience. Those people might be great hires, but they're not going to be great coders after a few short months trying to learn HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and possibly a backend language.
I didn't say that they're stupid or anything. I mentioned that even a highly experienced coder wouldn't be competent with a new stack in that amount of time.
> People in my cohort were contributing right away.
Contributions aren't the same as good contributions. Bad contributions are much worse and more expensive than no contribution at all.
> launching successful open source projects, becoming team leaders, giving talks at conferences, etc.
Again, none of these things indicate competence necessarily, and they certainly don't indicate that someone is a great hire. Coding is not just knowing facts and writing code. It's having the experience to know how to structure things, what tradeoffs to make, etc.
> If you're insulted by their success, maybe that's on you.
I'm not insulted by their success, but I am concerned that bootcamps are taking lots of money from people and not delivering what they say they're delivering.
Edit: If you look at other comments in this thread, I think many bootcamp grads agree.
There's also going to be some survivorship bias here: you succeeded due to your bootcamp, but does that mean it works for everyone? Would you have been able to do it on your own? Are you smarter than the average person who would be interested in a bootcamp?
What basis do you have for asserting that their contributions are bad? That their open source projects and promotions to team leadership aren't signs of competence? Look, you can go on believing whatever you want to believe about bootcamp grads - no one's forcing you to hire them. But it is interesting to me that my cohort mates keep getting hired by everyone from small startups to Google, and they keep progressing in their careers. That tells me the bootcamps have done a good job of prepping them to begin their coding careers.
And wait, who said bootcamps is for everyone? My bootcamp never made that claim - they specifically said that it's hard, they're selective about who they let in, and that they kick out people who aren't cutting it. And who cares whether I (or anyone else) could have done it on my own? Could you have learned to code without taking comp sci classes? Probably, right? Does that mean your college was pointless/useless/fraudulent? Of course not.
Bootcamps showed that entry level developer jobs at most web startups don't require four years of studying computer science. It's a craft that many people can pick up without formal education in the subject matter. And if you ever want or need to learn about 'deeper' subjects? We can just pick up a book and learn it. This isn't rocket science.
> What basis do you have for asserting that their contributions are bad? That their open source projects and promotions to team leadership aren't signs of competence?
I didn't assert that. I asserted only that "contributions" are not evidence of competence. Competence isn't even always sufficient to make someone a good hire.
> That tells me the bootcamps have done a good job of prepping them to begin their coding careers.
I agree and said this in my original comment. I said that bootcamps are "teaching to the test" and prepping people to get past the hiring process.
> And who cares whether I (or anyone else) could have done it on my own?
The people who pay for a bootcamp and don't get their money's worth. It's not easy to part with $10k+ for most people. The top comment on this post is someone who felt that way.
> Could you have learned to code without taking comp sci classes? Probably, right?
Yes, and I did. I'm self-taught. But it didn't take me 16 weeks. I still look back on my skills a year ago and think, "Wow, I sucked a year ago." And I've been programming for 20 years.
> Bootcamps showed that entry level developer jobs at most web startups don't require four years of studying computer science.
They certainly don't necessarily show that. If you hire someone who needs months of training to be a productive, independent employee, that's not a success. That's evidence of a shortage of entry-level coders. I think that shortage is starting to wane.
> This isn't rocket science.
It's not rocket science, but besides being something that requires understanding the way computers work, it also requires learning and understand a staggering number of technologies. I regularly use CSS, and I can't even keep up with just CSS. There's too much to know.
There are also many layers to being a great programmer that people rarely get early on. Many people don't realize that readability/maintainability are the most important qualities of (most) code. Even if they do, they don't necessarily know how to achieve those things.
You seem to be suggesting that web programming is unique among professions in that experience is mostly unimportant and someone can figure it all out in a few months. Would you argue the same about plumbing, repairing air conditioners, accounting, or sales?
None of these things are rocket science, but they are things you can't just think your way through and understand how to be good at. It takes time and practice, like everything.
It's interesting that people who come on these threads to argue that bootcamps aren't effective, scams, etc. say, 16 weeks aren't enough to teach you everything about programming and that programming correctly requires constant practice and learn new things. Well, duh. That's true even if you spend four years majoring in CS, self-studied for a year, or got an associate degree in programming.
And yeah, that's because there's too much to know, especially in web dev where the frameworks and standards are changing all the time. And yeah, I think that a 12-16 intensive program backed by 3-6 months of pre-study (which was what my bootcamp was) is definitely sufficient to produce competent junior web devs. How do I know that? Because, again, I see people from my cohort and prior cohorts succeeding at their jobs.
You can keep saying, but! but! they need tons of support and hand-holding! They can't possibly know how to write clean code! (Because of course, new college grads are writing Code Clean-approved code from day one) They need months of training before they can fix a CSS issue!
C'mon. Yeah, if you hire a recent bootcamp grad and tell him to rewrite the whole backend, you're setting him up to fail. But if you hire him as a junior software engineer and give him tasks that are appropriate for that role? And what new hire doesn't require training? You think brand-new plumbers, air conditioning repairmen, accountants, salesmen etc. don't require training and mentorship?
Yeah, bootcamp isn't a magical potion that turns everyday joes into Linus Torvalds. But so what? It's an innovative program that's produced thousands of successful engineers in the Bay Area and beyond. The sauce isn't for everyone, but it's been a great way for many people to prep for a new career.
Edit: And what's even more amazing to me about the anti-bootcamp screeds is that this is an industry that celebrates self-learned programmers! Very often I see posts that say, bootcamps are scams, don't do it, you can't be competent coming out of it, just go study on your own for a while. Okay. So studying and making stuff on your own can make you a competent programmer, but intensively programming for 12-16 weeks with other people who share your passion while under expert guidance, is somehow not good enough? Never understood that one.
If I were considering entry-level hires, I wouldn't hire bootcamp grads if their only experience were at the bootcamp. If someone has been coding for less than 4 months, I'm going to spend most of my time teaching them how to code. That kind of employment provides more value to the employee than the employer. That might work for some big companies, but I can't do it in a small company.
> There may be less variance between them from a purely technical standpoint but their backgrounds are far more diverse than what you'd get out college.
I agree with you, but it doesn't make it any easier to hire them. I have no idea if I'd rather have an ex-ballerina or an ex-salesman as my employee. Neither of those careers give you training as a developer.
So if I'm just trying to decide if someone can do the job, seeing 20 people with 12-16 weeks of experience isn't helpful. And, as someone who has been writing code for 20 years and still has a lot to learn, it's insulting to suggest someone can become competent in that short a time. I know for a fact that they can't. It sometimes takes that long for an experienced dev to learn a new stack, and bootcamps are claiming to teach people a huge array of technologies.
> A good hiring manager ought to take the time to treat a candidate respectfully, but I know this behavior is rare.
I treat candidates with respect. I think (most) bootcamps should treat their customers with more respect and stop promising to teach them to code. Bootcamps are mostly "teaching to the test" in my experience -- they teach you how to get hired. That's valuable, but it's a totally different thing.