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.
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.