The experience we've had with hiring people from these bootcamps has been about 50/50. 50% of the people are completely unable to engineer and instead just know a language. 50% of them are hard workers and eventually learn how to be an engineer. 100% of them ask for outrageous salaries for not actually having any professional experience. I think the bootcamps spend a decent amount of their time setting high expectations and how to ask for a large amount of money.
It's the "get high-paying jobs on graduation" aspect of these programs that's never quite gelled for me. I can think of very few jobs I'd be solidly qualified for after a few months of training, no matter how intense the training. Engineering seems no different, and maybe even harder than most. People should be enrolling in bootcamps to learn the basics, not to get some sort of shortcut to a theoretically sexy job -- the true sexiness of which is entirely unknown unless and until they've actually tried it.
If these programs were/are feeding internships, awesome. That's a different story. And on that note, I see no reason why big tech companies can't create their own coding academies, or partner with bootcamps on more structured working internships and externships. The bootcamp --> full-time job connection doesn't make a ton of sense. But bootcamp --> internship --> job makes more sense.
There are a lot of smart, hard-working people out there who, for one reason or another, just never got a deep exposure to computers in childhood, high school, or college. (Reliable childhood access to a decent-quality computer, much less programming resources, is not as common as we might expect.) Giving them a shot at learning is a noble and justifiable endeavor. Not all of them will enjoy it, and not all of them will make it through. But a lot of them might. They need to be going into it with the right expectations, though.
> 100% of them ask for outrageous salaries for not actually having any professional experience. I think the bootcamps spend a decent amount of their time setting high expectations and how to ask for a large amount of money.
Yep. That's a higher percentage than what I'd expect, but it still seems pretty natural. Bootcamps literally sell the idea.
This, incidentally, is part of the reason why there's regulation.
The field of programming might evolve similarly to the the field of law as time goes on.
A lawyer friend told me his field used to be more accessible to everyday people. Anyone could study cases and even learn enough to represent themselves and members of their communities.
Law schools and licensing boards were developed to protect the lawyers' wages and prestige, and to insulate them from outside competition.
The regulatory hoops did increase lawyers' salaries, but they also made it impossible for most people to afford legal services. Costly law school requirements prohibited women and ethnic minorities (e.g. Irish people) from entering the field.
Programming is a young field. If the history of similar industries is any indication, it won't stay this open and loosely regulated forever. And incidents like the one in California demonstrate that the tides are changing...
As a developer, this sounds to me like a nightmare scenario. There is nothing more meritocratic than software development. It's the results that count. Once we start allowing regulation and systematic barriers to entry, it will be bad for everyone. I personally do not see the law as a model to aspire to along any number of dimensions.
As a self taught developer, I love how open programming is.
Also, I don't see how licensing could keep anyone from being a (successful) self taught programmer. Would they outlaw text editors for all but the accredited?
Don't forget, you can still represent yourself in court.
Maybe. You've never heard of a practicing lawyer who never went to law school. But you have heard of talented engineers who never went to college.
The difference with software is that your work will always stand for itself, because the barrier to creating anything is so low. Unless you have to be credentialed to access an IDE and compiler, you'll always be able to learn and improve.
And look at how many douchebags became lawyers. If we develop further into a technocratic society than we already are we will see people like Schmidt and suck dictating how our lives, rights and privacy evolves for their ability to make a profit.... Oh, wait....
It seems like it's basically a whole lot of bureaucracy the schools would need to go through to ensure that they're not selling snake oil, haven't been involved in felonies, etc. Nothing too absurd, but an unnecessary hassle.
Perhaps I'm too much of a free-market loving, meritocratic startup junkie, but all of this seems completely unnecessary. If "colleges" like University of Phoenix et. al can make it through this process, it isn't really going to rule anything out. It introduces a lot of record keeping, forces some self-regulatory procedures, and implements other things that will only slow down the classes.
Are coding bootcamps perfect? By no means. Trying to pack a basic understanding of programming into a three-month course is by no means an easy task (and debatably an impossible one). That having been said, it gets the fundamentals in place so that someone can start to learn on the job, and the demand so highly outweighs the supply that I've seen recruiters and startup founders literally lining up to talk to people who have been coding for three months. It says something when the people that annoy programmers the most are recruiters - people trying to give them a job. You don't see recruiters being hated by people with English degrees.
Sure, a coding bootcamp is no CS degree from Stanford; I don't think anyone would pretend like it is. But it gets you into the coding world as quickly as you can, and the more programmers the better. The people I've seen go through bootcamps would not claim to be the best programmers in the world, but they get their foot in the door and start getting paid to learn. The companies hopefully realize that's who they're hiring, and make their hiring decisions accordingly. I can't see any need for this type of regulation whatsoever.
There's a need (or at least a market), people are willing to pay, they seem to be able to find jobs, and employers are becoming smart with regard to how to properly find/hire/train programmers coming out of bootcamps. Regulation like this, while possibly well-meaning, will only slow things down.
Yeah, I have two basic takeaways from all of this:
1) These bootcamps are complaining about basically nothing. As you said, even the 'University of Phoenix' is able to operate...
2) The people making points about how these programs are predatory and need to be regulated are really not going to get what they want from this regulation. As you said, even the 'University of Phoenix' is able to operate...
Ah, yes, teaching coding without a licence can lead to some unprecedented consequences. Like what if some crypto-anarchist after learning how to code invents a decentralized currency and undermines the banking system. This shall not happen, we must regulate things, or innocent people will get hurt.
Speaking seriously, here's how regulation works in a nutshell. A company that wants to prevent/eliminate competition approaches a legislator (through lobbyist, of course) and offers a bribe, say $100k. That legislator then passes a regulatory law that requires around $1m of taxpayers money to be spent on regulation. The company then makes $10m thanks to that new law. The legislator made money, the company made money, the public thinks it is protected. A perfect crime.
I don't think the actual anarchists, crypto- or otherwise, have been hassled (at least, not for this reason). There are free coding clinics at a number of anarchist infoshops and anarchist-inflected hackerspaces, and afaik none has received a complaint.
Is this a rhetorical question or do you actually want to know? The way you've phrased the question makes it seem like you've already decided what your opinion is.
BPPE requires programs like these to assess $0.50 per $1,000 charged to students who are California residents. These assessments go into a state-wide "Student Tuition Recovery Fund," which is used to mitigate economic harm to the student in a variety of situations where the school might refuse or be unable to, e.g., the school closes mid-class. See http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsregs/regs.shtml#76020 for the full list.
Programs like this charge students $10k-$20k, so we're talking $5-$10 assessed per student. This is like a very lightweight version of a surety bond.
There are other fixed and variable costs related to complying, but (AFAIK) this is the only money that flows into the state's pockets.
I meet university graduates on a regular basis that have come through regulated programmes of education and paid plenty of money -- no, sorry, borrowed plenty of money -- to gain an accredited degree.
I wholly believe in the quality of the subject matter in the books they read and written on the board in the lectures they maybe attended.
Whether it absorbed, was digested and can now be readily applied is a different matter entirely. Regulation is not a guarantee of quality and if people want to sign up for code schools then good luck to them - they're the buyer so "caveat emptor" and let them assess whether the code school is providing what it has promised.
Bright people are who I would hire. And bright people don't need state regulation.
The state is not even notionally regulating for the benefit of tech companies, but for the benefit of consumers, so raising the fact that tech companies will do evaluations is a complete non sequitur.
There was another article about this posted a couple days ago. Essentially the reasons the law exists in CA is because there were recent high profile civil judgments in the state against similar schools targeting other fields. Suing someone is a major PITA and takes a year or more really not practical in a lot of situations.
Of course you can, I suspect that in this case it comes down to specific claims the academies are making in their marketing, and/or perhaps benefits they are claiming, which put them under the purview of these regulations.
Bootcamps remind me an awful lot of the certification mills of 15 years ago. It's the same 2 months or so and $10K or so with the suggestion that a well-paying job is waiting on the other side, just swap out MCSE / CCNA for Ruby / CSS.
I'm sure the cert mills launched some great admins, but I know from experience that they shoveled through plenty of people who had no real aptitude or enthusiasm diluting the field and completely devaluing those skills.
It took years and surely a number of painful interviews for those people to filter back out.
It's hard not to expect that bootcamps will play out the same way.
This is too bad. As a graduate of a similar bootcamp program who is currently working as a Jr. Developer it makes me really sad to see this kind of interference from the Government. As with everything else in life, situations that sound "too good to be true" usually are, and consumers need to exercise due diligence before giving people money they aren't comfortable losing.
I hope the schools are able to work this out because my Bootcamp absolutely changed my life.
Oh, no! Not a $50,000 fine! It's not like they are raking in $400k every 3-4 months. If they want to really hurt them they should fine the school $50k every time they use the word "cohort."
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, it seems like a Randian dystopia, with the government stepping in to prevent you from telling somebody else how to do something. Want to tutor your cousin? Fill out 80 pages of paperwork, register as a school, submit to time-consuming performance reviews and curriculum evaluations.
On the other hand, the law is addressing a real problem, and as the article points out, these schools are charging top dollar, and making some very big promises. If nobody is calling them on it, or if somebody is, but they wield no authority, then we have a problem. I'm not a libertarian, and I have no problem addressing these things on a case-by-case basis.
The problem I see is that the law seems to be very broad, and could be applied arbitrarily to private study sessions just as well as the diploma-mill-minus-the-diploma situation we're seeing here. I think the law needs to be more targeted towards the problematic aspects of these schools, like grandiose claims in their advertising.
If the standard truth-in-advertising laws are too toothless to apply here, then inspections are in order. But they should only apply to schools that make the kinds of claims that triggered the crackdown in the first place.
How much of the short duration of these bootcamps is teaching to the test that is the modern software developer interview? I have a really hard time imagining that somebody coming out of a 8-12 week program, even with some prior experience, properly understands the depth and breadth of material that should be necessary to get through a technical interview. It seems like most of them are focused on hacking applications, and not necessarily the fundamentals of data structures, algorithms, software architecture and design, working in a team, etc.
I think it's great that these bootcamps are options, but have long been suspicious that the statistics they like to share are only indicative of either who they decide to admit, or who they decide to let graduate. For instance, how many people who make it through these bootcamps have a strong technical background, perhaps even a computer science degree, and only need the short time to dive deeply into modern web application design and implementation?
I don't know what your business is, but I doubt you are charging as much as these hack camps or claiming that your students will get huge salaries after they are done with your service. You should be fine.
My wife applied to one of those "Coding Academies" to learn basic web development. They had a phone screening interview and they asked my wife to write HTML and CSS code!
Then later they replied that she is no qualified for the course. While their website had no indication that you need to know any programming language or specific computer related background, they rejected my wife.
I was suspicious that this might be a racist discrimination so I look around to see who regulates them. Guess who? No one!
I'm glad that they are facing mandatory regulation. Also I think the way they try to teach computer science is wrong. You can't be a good Rails developer in 6 months if you don't know basic computer science.
My wife no is going to San Jose state university and leaning boring Operation System basics and Assembly. But that's the right way of starting you career in computer science world.
> "They had a phone screening interview and they asked my wife to write HTML and CSS code! Then later they replied that she is no qualified for the course. While their website had no indication that you need to know any programming language or specific computer related background, they rejected my wife. I was suspicious that this might be a racist discrimination so I look around to see who regulates them. Guess who? No one!"
Barely more charitable explanation: rejecting people who are not already familiar with the subject matter might be how they 'manage' such high success rates.
Also I think the way they try to teach computer science is wrong. You can't be a good Rails developer in 6 months if you don't know basic computer science.
So...you're suggesting they should pre-screen people, say, on the phone, to make sure they know the basics of computer science?
I'm sorry that your wife had a bad experience, but your statement "that's the right way of starting [your] career in computer science" is ridiculous. There are many paths my friend.
I highly doubt that it's racial discrimination, but I'm not going to back that sentiment with 100% certainty, because you never know. However, the whole concept of a "coding bootcamp", literally they're bootcamps that can be mentally exhausting. They're going to try to expose you to an intense array of information in a short period of time, from the basics (HTML/CSS, JS) to intermediate/advanced subjects/languages (Ruby, Python, PHP, etc.). So it's not farfetched for them to reject applicants who would struggle to keep up if they don't know the basics.
And another thing, they're not trying to teach CS. CS is a discipline all its own. Code bootcamps focus on web development, so you can have the practical knowledge and skill for entry level web development positions.
> My wife no is going to San Jose state university and leaning boring Operation System basics and Assembly. But that's the right way of starting you career in computer science world.
Disagree. Without proper context, low level system implementation details are pretty dry and uninteresting.
There's certainly a level of abstraction that's too high for beginners (rails, I'm looking at you). However, there's also a level of abstraction that is far too low.
[+] [-] eekfuh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnathanson|12 years ago|reply
If these programs were/are feeding internships, awesome. That's a different story. And on that note, I see no reason why big tech companies can't create their own coding academies, or partner with bootcamps on more structured working internships and externships. The bootcamp --> full-time job connection doesn't make a ton of sense. But bootcamp --> internship --> job makes more sense.
There are a lot of smart, hard-working people out there who, for one reason or another, just never got a deep exposure to computers in childhood, high school, or college. (Reliable childhood access to a decent-quality computer, much less programming resources, is not as common as we might expect.) Giving them a shot at learning is a noble and justifiable endeavor. Not all of them will enjoy it, and not all of them will make it through. But a lot of them might. They need to be going into it with the right expectations, though.
[+] [-] wwweston|12 years ago|reply
Yep. That's a higher percentage than what I'd expect, but it still seems pretty natural. Bootcamps literally sell the idea.
This, incidentally, is part of the reason why there's regulation.
[+] [-] sillysaurus2|12 years ago|reply
So what's an outrageous salary for a new programmer these days? (Also, what area are you in?)
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hawkharris|12 years ago|reply
A lawyer friend told me his field used to be more accessible to everyday people. Anyone could study cases and even learn enough to represent themselves and members of their communities.
Law schools and licensing boards were developed to protect the lawyers' wages and prestige, and to insulate them from outside competition.
The regulatory hoops did increase lawyers' salaries, but they also made it impossible for most people to afford legal services. Costly law school requirements prohibited women and ethnic minorities (e.g. Irish people) from entering the field.
Programming is a young field. If the history of similar industries is any indication, it won't stay this open and loosely regulated forever. And incidents like the one in California demonstrate that the tides are changing...
[+] [-] allochthon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adregan|12 years ago|reply
Also, I don't see how licensing could keep anyone from being a (successful) self taught programmer. Would they outlaw text editors for all but the accredited?
Don't forget, you can still represent yourself in court.
[+] [-] snitko|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coralreef|12 years ago|reply
The difference with software is that your work will always stand for itself, because the barrier to creating anything is so low. Unless you have to be credentialed to access an IDE and compiler, you'll always be able to learn and improve.
[+] [-] samstave|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] starxidas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] austenallred|12 years ago|reply
It seems like it's basically a whole lot of bureaucracy the schools would need to go through to ensure that they're not selling snake oil, haven't been involved in felonies, etc. Nothing too absurd, but an unnecessary hassle.
Perhaps I'm too much of a free-market loving, meritocratic startup junkie, but all of this seems completely unnecessary. If "colleges" like University of Phoenix et. al can make it through this process, it isn't really going to rule anything out. It introduces a lot of record keeping, forces some self-regulatory procedures, and implements other things that will only slow down the classes.
Are coding bootcamps perfect? By no means. Trying to pack a basic understanding of programming into a three-month course is by no means an easy task (and debatably an impossible one). That having been said, it gets the fundamentals in place so that someone can start to learn on the job, and the demand so highly outweighs the supply that I've seen recruiters and startup founders literally lining up to talk to people who have been coding for three months. It says something when the people that annoy programmers the most are recruiters - people trying to give them a job. You don't see recruiters being hated by people with English degrees.
Sure, a coding bootcamp is no CS degree from Stanford; I don't think anyone would pretend like it is. But it gets you into the coding world as quickly as you can, and the more programmers the better. The people I've seen go through bootcamps would not claim to be the best programmers in the world, but they get their foot in the door and start getting paid to learn. The companies hopefully realize that's who they're hiring, and make their hiring decisions accordingly. I can't see any need for this type of regulation whatsoever.
There's a need (or at least a market), people are willing to pay, they seem to be able to find jobs, and employers are becoming smart with regard to how to properly find/hire/train programmers coming out of bootcamps. Regulation like this, while possibly well-meaning, will only slow things down.
[+] [-] Crito|12 years ago|reply
1) These bootcamps are complaining about basically nothing. As you said, even the 'University of Phoenix' is able to operate...
2) The people making points about how these programs are predatory and need to be regulated are really not going to get what they want from this regulation. As you said, even the 'University of Phoenix' is able to operate...
[+] [-] snitko|12 years ago|reply
Speaking seriously, here's how regulation works in a nutshell. A company that wants to prevent/eliminate competition approaches a legislator (through lobbyist, of course) and offers a bribe, say $100k. That legislator then passes a regulatory law that requires around $1m of taxpayers money to be spent on regulation. The company then makes $10m thanks to that new law. The legislator made money, the company made money, the public thinks it is protected. A perfect crime.
[+] [-] _delirium|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanhandley|12 years ago|reply
Any tech company worth its salt will do technical evaluations of candidates, regardless of their education.
So what advantage does state regulation give, besides putting money in officials' pockets?
[+] [-] sethish|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfarmer|12 years ago|reply
BPPE requires programs like these to assess $0.50 per $1,000 charged to students who are California residents. These assessments go into a state-wide "Student Tuition Recovery Fund," which is used to mitigate economic harm to the student in a variety of situations where the school might refuse or be unable to, e.g., the school closes mid-class. See http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsregs/regs.shtml#76020 for the full list.
Programs like this charge students $10k-$20k, so we're talking $5-$10 assessed per student. This is like a very lightweight version of a surety bond.
There are other fixed and variable costs related to complying, but (AFAIK) this is the only money that flows into the state's pockets.
[+] [-] seanhandley|12 years ago|reply
I wholly believe in the quality of the subject matter in the books they read and written on the board in the lectures they maybe attended.
Whether it absorbed, was digested and can now be readily applied is a different matter entirely. Regulation is not a guarantee of quality and if people want to sign up for code schools then good luck to them - they're the buyer so "caveat emptor" and let them assess whether the code school is providing what it has promised.
Bright people are who I would hire. And bright people don't need state regulation.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nullc|12 years ago|reply
0_o
Why doesn't civil law provide adequate protection for people against sham schools? Has anyone complained about these organizations?
[+] [-] pmorici|12 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7147664
[+] [-] chc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaroth|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] incision|12 years ago|reply
Bootcamps remind me an awful lot of the certification mills of 15 years ago. It's the same 2 months or so and $10K or so with the suggestion that a well-paying job is waiting on the other side, just swap out MCSE / CCNA for Ruby / CSS.
I'm sure the cert mills launched some great admins, but I know from experience that they shoveled through plenty of people who had no real aptitude or enthusiasm diluting the field and completely devaluing those skills.
It took years and surely a number of painful interviews for those people to filter back out.
It's hard not to expect that bootcamps will play out the same way.
[+] [-] pmorici|12 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7147664
[+] [-] jfarmer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rholdy|12 years ago|reply
I hope the schools are able to work this out because my Bootcamp absolutely changed my life.
[+] [-] rubiquity|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omgitstom|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sirmarksalot|12 years ago|reply
On the other hand, the law is addressing a real problem, and as the article points out, these schools are charging top dollar, and making some very big promises. If nobody is calling them on it, or if somebody is, but they wield no authority, then we have a problem. I'm not a libertarian, and I have no problem addressing these things on a case-by-case basis.
The problem I see is that the law seems to be very broad, and could be applied arbitrarily to private study sessions just as well as the diploma-mill-minus-the-diploma situation we're seeing here. I think the law needs to be more targeted towards the problematic aspects of these schools, like grandiose claims in their advertising.
If the standard truth-in-advertising laws are too toothless to apply here, then inspections are in order. But they should only apply to schools that make the kinds of claims that triggered the crackdown in the first place.
[+] [-] dmunoz|12 years ago|reply
I think it's great that these bootcamps are options, but have long been suspicious that the statistics they like to share are only indicative of either who they decide to admit, or who they decide to let graduate. For instance, how many people who make it through these bootcamps have a strong technical background, perhaps even a computer science degree, and only need the short time to dive deeply into modern web application design and implementation?
[+] [-] tarr11|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ssully|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aiiane|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazy1van|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elgabogringo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msoad|12 years ago|reply
I'm glad that they are facing mandatory regulation. Also I think the way they try to teach computer science is wrong. You can't be a good Rails developer in 6 months if you don't know basic computer science.
My wife no is going to San Jose state university and leaning boring Operation System basics and Assembly. But that's the right way of starting you career in computer science world.
[+] [-] Crito|12 years ago|reply
Barely more charitable explanation: rejecting people who are not already familiar with the subject matter might be how they 'manage' such high success rates.
[+] [-] mynameishere|12 years ago|reply
So...you're suggesting they should pre-screen people, say, on the phone, to make sure they know the basics of computer science?
[+] [-] rholdy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peetahb|12 years ago|reply
And another thing, they're not trying to teach CS. CS is a discipline all its own. Code bootcamps focus on web development, so you can have the practical knowledge and skill for entry level web development positions.
[+] [-] doktrin|12 years ago|reply
Disagree. Without proper context, low level system implementation details are pretty dry and uninteresting.
There's certainly a level of abstraction that's too high for beginners (rails, I'm looking at you). However, there's also a level of abstraction that is far too low.
[+] [-] jdreaver|12 years ago|reply