I love Hacker School (the entity, not the name) but Recurse Center is a strange choice. "Recurse" does not bring to mind the word "recursion" by itself, and while "School" is a meaningful word, "Center" isn't. It has no umph as a phrase. The reason for the change is completely sound, but the new name is just a little strange to me.
We were mainly torn between choosing a name that was completely meaningless and one that was mostly meaningless, but which had some connotations to programming. We opted to do the latter. All the meaningful, descriptive names we could come up with -- like "Programming Retreat" -- are too generic and/or have the same problems as "Hacker School." (We also wanted to make sure we could get the .com, and we wanted to avoid making up completely new words.)
That is to say: We expect that for almost everyone hearing it for the first time, "the Recurse Center" will be meaningless. That sounds like a bad place to be in, however, it's a much better than where we were before. Almost everyone who heard "Hacker School" for the first time had to be convinced that one or both of the words didn't mean what they thought it did in this context.
Today is day 0. Our job now is to take these largely empty words (Recurse Center) and imbue them with our values and purpose.
Glad to hear you like who we are/what we do, regardless :)
I agree that meaningless phrases are good for brands, and much better than ones with baggage (as you say, in that regard Hacker School can't get much worse). And I believe that you will be able to properly add meaning to "Recurse Center."
My point with my "umph" comment was that "School" refers to an object/category, while "Center" refers to a blank entity, it's kind of a dead word (it also has a bit of a connotation of something formal and boring, like a business office center). I believe we like references to objects, not placeholders - "Sears Tower" and "Nokia Theatre" both sound better than "Staples Center." But I'm not offering advice, I'm just curious about your process. Did y'all consider things other than "Center"?
Yes, we considered a few others. For instance, we thought about "retreat" but decided against it because it felt too limited, and we considered "institute" but worried it would come off as pretentious.
Center is definitely kind of a "dead" word, but we'd rather err on the side of too little meaning rather than too much given our past mistakes :) (We also like the acronym "RC" more than "RR" or "RI.")
I first saw Hacker School name-dropped on a blog. It was such an intriguing name I Googled it and read up. Sounds fantastic, like something I would really like to do some day. Seeing a reference to Recurse Center on a blog would not have the same effect on me. It would have gone uninvestigated.
"Center" sounds officious, beauracratic, stuffy, and boring to my ears. Exactly the kind of place I would like to avoid and would not bother to investigate. I second "Institute" as being better; it summons to mind the Instute for Advanced Study and other think-tank, idea-cauldron kind of places.
And the verb recurse is used in the name as an adjective when we already have a perfectly good adjectival form of the word—recursive—that is also more immediately familiar. People who consider recurse an ugly back-formation (preferring to recur) will wince, cringe, and decry the gramatical turpitude all at once.
But enough criticism—here's an attempt at something constructive: How about "Recursity"? The .com address is unregistered, and you can pretend it's a portmanteau of recursion and university suggested by a high-dollar naming consultant.
The Recursity is a free, self-directed educational retreat ...
Hmm. Maybe a mashup with the word sabattical could work.
Sounds like they're trying to stick to a name with more lasting weight and a sense of authority. A name like Recursity may be trendy (a portmanteau ending in the letter 'y'), but I suspect ten years from now it will look very tacky.
Flickr launched in 2004 and, at 11 years old, doesn't look very tacky (Yahoo's meddling aside). It also seems like a good problem to have - it needs to last ten years first. If the name's a problem then, the option to rebrand is still there.
"Recur" means something different, regardless of the origins of the word "recursion." By the logic that we should never have two words with the same etymology, we should merge "chief" and "chef" (or "recourse" and "recursion," for that matter). And I don't know why it's an adjective; if it were the "Bill J. Simpson" Center we wouldn't decide "Bill J. Simpson" were an adjective.
Apologise I too really agree with the need to change name but don't really like the new name. With the illiterate 'curse' and 'center' it sounds like possible some health care center.
How about taking on a longer more officious sounding name 'the center for higher studies in code' or suchlike. That's possible more border friendly and I'm sure there's a bunch of options in that space.
While catchy, “Hacker School” has always been an actively bad name for us. Both words are problematic and misleading. “Hacker” is bad because so much of the world thinks of hackers as computer criminals and not clever programmers, which is the meaning we intended. And even for many people familiar with our use of the word, “hacker” can feel exclusionary. (“Hacker” was also not exactly helpful to the roughly 30% of each batch who cross the U.S. border to get here.)
I present this as Exhibit A in the reason why words are important. Think about this the next time you give someone ad-populum crap for correcting someone that misuses "hacker".
It is worth stepping back once in a while and thinking about how things appear to non-technical people. The FBI was suspicious of Serge Aleynikov in part due to his use of a "subversion repository" [0]. "Git" isn't all that appealing to non-technical British audiences, either.
Also present this as Exhibit A for how much of a knuckle dragger most border agents are. You really do have to pick your words carefully with them as most of their job is "gut instinct" and most aren't really that well educated or informed (even as much as knowing all of the countries).
I certainly can't speak for everyone's experience with the border officials, however I'm sure that their jargon might create some difficulties for you.
As far as "knowing all the countries," I've been across some borders where I've had to explain their own visas to them. For example, the type of visa and residence permit I had while I lived in China (specifically relating to multi-entry vs. single entry.) I've been held up at the border crossing leaving Korea for Japan because they assumed I needed a "release letter," which in fact wasn't the case; discovered only after 2 hours of being detained while they contacted my former employer. Crossing into Mexico, specifically at the inland military checkpoints, I've also have had occasional difficulties, resulting in a required "donation" to prevent my fully loaded car from being searched down to the axles. (I have family in Guadalajara and Texas, so I've made that drive frequently.)
I don't care if a border official knows Zaire from Angola -- just as long as they know the rules and regulations and apply them systematically to visitors.
Never a problem when I've gone to Serbia, but given their problems with cybercriminals, if I told the border guard that I was there to hang out with computer hackers, I suspect I'd have a rough time.
My point is that this knee-jerk insulting of US border agents is childish. You don't know "most" of them, so you have no basis for your statement. As far not being well educated, a bachelors degree in law enforcement, criminal justice, political science or accounting is generally required for UCIS agents, among other things. The fact is that you just don't like them for whatever reason, an opinion to which you are entitled, but don't mistake your bias for actual fact.
Spend some time crossing borders around the world, especially in former Soviet countries, East Asia, Latin America, then come back and make the claim that US border agents are somehow less intelligent than you would like. Try border crossings in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia. Cross the border from Serbia into Kosovo as a non-Serbian/Kosovar citizen. The Chinese border can be loads of fun, especially at a land crossing. The UK can be especially rough depending on your nationality, though admittedly, I've always just sailed through the line.
As far as the school's name change, the comment about 30% of their attendees cross the border to go there. Is there any data or facts regarding the "hard time" those people had? Just saying it was "difficult" doesn't really explain how it was difficult. Where entries denied based exclusively that they were attending Hacker School? I'm not sure what the "difficulty" actually was. And since Hacker School isn't an actual SEVP educational institution that can sponsor student visas, then that would mean they have students studying as part of their organization on tourist visas, which is against the rules of the tourist visa. It also is against the rules of the Visa Waiver Program to enroll in any kind of educational institution -- degree granting or not.
So that begs the question: where the problems with immigration because visitors where entering the country with a purpose inconsistent with their visa? I think that explains more than the institutions name. However, if Hacker School is representing itself as a self-improvement center, then of course a tourist visa would work, however that wouldn't explain the border problems since a tourist visa does not require a declared itinerary -- so Hacker School would never be a required part of the border entry formalities.
I'm wondering what legal basis is being used for the attendee's visas. If it's a job training program, then that is considered "vocational" training and that requires an "M" visa. Short "recreational" study is permitted under a B (tourist) visa, however Hacker School isn't recreational. Their compensation is from recruiting employees, which puts it into a different category than taking a yoga class.
I personally think what HS does is great and I support them, but I do think that international attendees ought to be very, very careful when it comes to the visas. Misrepresenting or having a stay inconsistent with your visa status can result in a permanent entry ban if caught. The smart move for Hacker School is to get certified by Homeland Security, then they'll be able to sponsor student visas. If anyone's interested in what schools are legal, here's a link: http://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/school-search?field_school_n...
We have consulted with immigration lawyers and confirmed that people can legally do our retreat on a visitor visa.
We've had very few people have their visas rejected, and none as far as I know have been rejected at the border. The difficulty crossing the border I noted in the blog post was about the amount of hassle people face before being allowed into the country. That has ranged from none at all to being questioned for hours and having their email searched (but ultimately being let into the country).
I agree with you, I don't feel that US border agents are uneducated or stupid. But in my experience, they are often rude/unpleasant/hostile. I've traveled to and transited via Japan, Canada and several European countries and never faced anything like it.
> tourist visa does not require a declared itinerary
FWIW, I've recently applied for a visitor visa (B1/B2) and was asked for an itinerary:
"Your travel itinerary and/or other explanation about your planned trip."
And you need to get interviewed at the consulate. Now that I have a multi-entry visa I might be able to enter with less hassle, but I could still be asked for such details at the border.
To clarify, I believe you could still present an itinerary (cities, hotels, etc) without volunteering that you're attending something that looks like classes at some place that sounds like a school.
As an American who lives abroad and visits many countries, the only scrutiny I get at the border besides the US is...Japan. China they never even say "hi" (at the airport anyways), Indonesia someone is usually asking for a bribe for quick access through immigration, Philippines, Thailand, India, Europe, all very similar silence (as an American, I guess that is to be expected).
Frankly, I'm still confused about what "recurse center" means even though I know what recursion is. I wonder what it will first mean to people outside of industry. I also can't unsee the substring "curse center". :/
Slightly off-topic: How would someone structure a study to predict the effectiveness of a rebranding?
- a minimal room made of concrete walls, having one door and one window
- a recurse center, plus the opening of one more window
- the union of two recurse centres horizontally, by a tight wall-wall juxtaposition of the two of them, with the removal of one of their walls, and the opening of a door in the remaining one, if necessary
- a similar vertical union, with the addition of a stairwell
- the union of two recurse centres by the addition of an
external hallway, and the necessary doors.
- a few additional cases that can be neglected for the purposes of this paper
Unfortunately one problem with the recurse center's concrete rooms is that they were only architected to be able to handle immutable people, looking outside is strictly forbidden, and when you leave a room, it collapses.
It doesn't collapse in any way that you care about, though.
What is interesting is the possibility of tail recursing, but over a regular stack that is continuously abandoned. So the foundation and lower floors disappear, yet the recurse centre grows ever higher into the sky.
In my technical writing class in college, the professor made the point that "recursion" is based on the verb "to recur", and that "to recurse" means "to curse again".
Yes, though it's a bit of an odd situation: we have two noun/adjective pairs, recursion/recursive and recurrence/recurrent, which don't mean exactly the same thing though they're related (see for example [0]), and which all come from a single verb. It makes some sense to create a second verb by back-formation to reflect the two meanings.
Quick anecdote: A close friend of mine had recently graduated college and after a series of interviews got in Hacker School. When he went for the visa interview (in India), the officer got really wary of him on learning that he's going to US, right after graduating of college, with no job to a place called "Hacker School". He had open the website and spend a long time in explaining him in what HS is about. Quite expectedly, he was denied the visa.
I had very similar experience, but was able to convince the immigration officer that Hacker School has nothing to do with Hackers nor Schools (which require F1 visas). That was a fun experience and added to the charm of the original name :)
Actually, Hacker School is vocational and requires an "M" visa. But, Hacker School isn't a Student and Exchange Visitor Program certified school. So they can't sponsor visas. Which would explain exactly why denials would be happening. The purpose of the stay is "study" but the visa type is "tourist." That's the reason for rejections. It isn't the school name that creates the problem, it's the mismatched purpose of trip/visa type.
I'm not sure why you'd be convincing the Immigration Officer of anything, assuming you were at the port of entry with a valid visa. If you were trying to get the visa, then that would be a Consular Officer. There's a lot more that goes into visa issuance than the name "Hacker School." One of the big things would be proof of adequate funds plus a compelling reason to return home. Essentially, you have to convince the consular officer that you don't intend to violate your visa.
"Actually, Hacker School is vocational and requires an "M" visa."
This is not true. See my response elsewhere on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9265755), but the tl;dr is: We've confirmed with immigration lawyers that it's perfectly legitimate for people to come on visitor visas. A couple of people have had their visa requests denied (not because of anything specific to us but because of concerns that they would stay beyond 90 days), but no one has been rejected at the border, though some people have had a long and hard time explaining what "hacker" means to the border guards.
> I'm not sure why you'd be convincing the Immigration Officer of anything, assuming you were at the port of entry with a valid visa.
Because immigration officers can and will deny a person entry if it is believed they will violate the terms of their visa. Even if the consulate and USCIS has approved you in good faith, an immigration officer has the right to reject you for any reason.
I've had trick questions asked of me upon entry. I've had to make awkward small talk about key topics. They look for red flags and inconsistencies.
I've also had officers essentially just wave me through.
Skin color has nothing to do with visa rejections. There are thousands of visas issued each day in all sorts of "dark skinned" countries. The issue is if the person is likely to overstay their visa. Do they have a job? A family? A bank account? Own property? Have other compelling reasons to return to their home country. If they are young, unemployed and single without many other resources; a denial is likely, for obvious reasons.
That's a very hard allegation to prove. For example, nearly 100% of Indian visa applicants are brown skinned. Nearly 100% of African applicants have dark skin. The skin color isn't the reason for denials, it's the country of origin, the propensity for people of those countries to overstay along with the personal resources of the applicant. A visa applicant from Bangladesh is going to be denied much more frequently than a visa applicant from Serbia. Not because Serbians are lighter skinned, but because statistically, Bangladeshis are more likely to overstay. There's not much personal appearance bias in the consular equations. Also, visa approvals and denials are reviewed by a supervisor -- the State Department is among the most excessively politically correct agencies around. They go out of their way to ensure fairness. I don't agree with all of their decisions of course, but race has minimal if any influence.
If you want to see some "proof" of this, look at the rate of visa denials for Albania (mostly white skinned people) -- 42% denied. Compared to Zimbabwe with only a 22% denial.
The "white skins get denied less because of racism" meme is not based on any sort of data, facts or anything resembling a statistically valid statement. It's just typical nonsense.
Of course, that's baked into the system, since most European countries are part of the visa waiver program and citizens don't require a visa to enter the US.
He wasn't denied because of "Hacker School." He was likely denied because the odds where (in the opinion of the consular officer,) that the no-job, fresh graduate would have attempted to get a job in the United States. Especially since Hacker School themselves say that they are funded from job placements.
This saddens me because it seemed like a good opportunity for the mainstream media to reacquire the good definition of "hacker". I had started to see newspaper articles that used the good meaning.
Cultural inertia on terminology can change, and in the hacker case, I think it should. We certainly rarely say "negro" nowadays in the US except in historical contexts. I'm saddened that Hacker School gave up on the language.
A for-profit company's name isn't really the right venue for that. No matter how successful Hacker School is, it's unlikely that a significant enough fraction of the population will have positive personal associations with it to alter their emotional perception. Newspaper articles don't count, generally; they reflect the popular mood more than they influence it.
The way to reclaim "hacker" is to use it and adopt it, personally, in 1-on-1 social conversation. Preferably with non-techies who you are close to. That way people's positives associations with you rub off on the terms that you use to describe yourself. We don't use "negro" these days because most of us know and have positive associations with black people in social contexts; that makes its old connotation of inferiority incongruent with our personal experience. Similarly, the LGTBQA movement is succeeding because a large number of people now realize they have friends and neighbors who are gay, and it's much harder to cast that as deviant behavior when you personally know good people who self-identify as gay.
What I don't understand is who are they targeting this towards? Hacker School might have started as a place to teach the general public to code, but the only people who seem to get into that place now are already in the industry, or were already looking to join the industry in which case they should understand the term hacker. It's not like my mother will suddenly sign up because they changed the name.
My brain jumped to "curse" and "legal recourse," not "recursion." And I'm a software developer. Hacker School seems fine. I think you guys are over thinking it.
The students were creating their own problem. A tourist visa doesn't require an itinerary. Hacker School isn't eligible to sponsor student visas. So, I wonder, what was the problem?
Yes, I had the same reaction in terms of "curse" and "recourse". I think this is a very strange name. And I don't find it particularly nice to say even, due to the double "ess" sound in the middle.
While the word "school" makes me shiver, "hacker" exactly cancels it. And I read it as "school, made by/for hackers". So pretty much self-explanatory; at least for potential applicants and mentors.
(Speaking as a foreigner) I do understand that immigration office will be suspicious (as it sounds for them as a "terrorist camp"), but well, it can be done on tourist visa AND its official name can different (e.g. "programmer school"... or even "recurse center").
"Recurse center" sounds totally generic and vague ("curse center"? "recluse center"? is it some sort of holidays or rehab?).
Of course, everything can be rebranded, but I wouldn't call an instant rapport "the biggest mistake".
I like the new name! another reason that I would consider: try to explain to the immigration office that you are going to "Hacker School" first of all, they will freak out and then ask for your student visa.
1) consular offices start with the assumption that you're going to overstay and can deny you a visa for no particular, objective reason,
2) similarly, immigration officers can deny you entry even if you have a valid visa,
3) you're not technically doing anything illegal by attending Hacker School on a tourist visa (as opposed to, say, working or attending a university).
I'm surprised that applicants volunteer such information.
Why not just say you're visiting NYC as a tourist?
From the site: "The Recurse Center is a free, self-directed, educational retreat for people who want to get better at programming, whether they’ve been coding for three decades or three months. ... The lower bound for experience for people who have successfully done a batch at the Recurse Center seems to be about two months." So, OK, it's not a "boot camp". It's more like Advanced Infantry Training. You go there and program for three months.
The site is all about "Apply Now", before they tell you anything, even the fact that it's in New York City. The FAQ doesn't tell you much about what they actually do once you get there. The Manual is a little more helpful.
In Silicon Valley, we have Hacker Dojo, which is more about talks and classes on advanced topics. (It's really mostly a co-working space for app developers now.)
Does our about page (https://www.recurse.com/about) make it more clear? If so, which info do you wish we had on our home page (beyond that we're in NY)?
"We were able to get recurse.com, which is short, pronounceable, and easy to spell."
And so many businesses end up with names because of this. I feel them on this. Everyone sitting around, throwing out their ideas for names, someone at their laptop checking domain registrations at the same time till something sticks.
.edu is reserved for postsecondary institutions that are institutionally accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies.
It's interesting how a term like "hacker" can both be considered too exclusionary and too inclusionary, depending on who you ask and what their expectations are.
Ack, yes, thanks for pointing that out! Fixing now.
(This is the problem with carefully grep'ing your code base and then completely forgetting about some of the parts of your site stored in the database :\)
I noticed the testimonials on the front page [0] have all be modified to say "Recurse Center" even though some are years old. A quick Internet Archive check [1] confirms they originally read "Hacker School". I'm not sure if this is completely ethical; granted, it's just a name change, but they are presented as being direct quotes, while clearly they no longer are.
I'm Oskar on that testimonials page. Nick asked me (and the other people there) before updating the string "Hacker School" with "the Recurse Center". It's a direct quote with a minor approved edit.
The name sounds more like a rehabilitation centre than a school. I think the average person is going to mistake it for 'Recourse Centre' (which probably is a rehabilitation centre somewhere).
Not trying to be pedantic, I just want to know if recurse is now an accepted word. Any thoughts? Sources seem to vary, and I know as a young field CS forms new words fairly often still, but it is clear historically that the verb base of "recursion" is "recur". Has recurse become the accepted form for discussion relating to algorithms, though?
While "recur" also has, among its meanings, the same meaning, "recurse" seems vastly more likely to be used when the particular computing-specific meaning is intended.
Though I don't think any general-purpose professionally-edited dictionaries I've seen reflect this usage yet.
Problem: Chosen name was generic and had bad connotations. ( apparently both "hacker" and "school" are considered bad currently )
Solution: Choose random geeky name where you can acquire the domain name.
There is still a negative connotation to the name for anyone who understands what recursion is, and also perhaps for people who assume it is something similar to "repeat". The name has the feeling that you will be repeating stuff over and over there.
While "Recurse Center" is certainly a step up from "Hacker School" in terms of branding, names generally are meaningless and are given meaning by using them. A person's name could have been used to similar effect.
Props for improving the name, but I'm failing to see how so much text was needed to say "The name was generic and had bad connotations so we chose a better one."
Stating that you actually chose a name because you could buy the domain name will just make you look bad.
> “School” is bad for us because it implies the trappings of traditional schools – teachers, classes, and curricula – instead of simply a place where people learn, which is all we intended by it.
This is a perfect example of focusing only on the negative aspects of something. Furthermore, I find it at odds with the goals of Bootcamps such as this (and yes, this is a bootcamp, no matter how they choose to label themselves). Are there not instructors? Is there not some form of curriculum? Are members not evaluated in some way?
