In that time, graduates should have learned everything they need to know in order to land their dream software engineering job, at least as a junior engineer.
I think this sentence perfectly sums up the problem, and I'm afraid at the same time it explains why there's little incentive to solve it.
Bootcamps do not optimize for a long, successful career. They optimize for starting your career. They help you to get your foot in, and once you're there, you have to figure out the rest. Bootcamp's goal, from the commercial perspective, is to help its clients to land the first job in the domain the bootcamp teaches.
How do you land a job? In 3 steps:
you get an interview
you pass the interview
you pass your probation period (and on the way learn enough not to get fired later)
Bootcamps address, at least partially, all these 3 steps:
you do a few projects to put in your portfolio (1st step)
you learn a few technologies to add to your resume (1st step)
you learn how to build end-to-end apps (2nd and 3rd step)
you learn a bit in-depth about selected techologies (2nd and 3rd step)
The part where fundamentals are useful in the interview process is a more theoretical interview - that's where a lot of bootcamp graduates fail the interviews. The problem is that in order to introduce more basics in the curriculum, you have to either cut the practical part (so you still risk failing the interview) or extend the course (and increase the price).
I think if companies started checking more theoretical knowledge during interviews, that would force bootcamps to adjust. It's a challenging trade-off though, because what really are "the basics"? Is understanding the lexical scope in JS basic, or is it something advanced that you can learn later? What about writing a simple graph search algorithm? What about understanding difference between a list and an array etc? Again - challenging problem.
Funnily, I used to write professionally in JS for quite a while, and if you asked me to explain what bind does, I might have failed the interview 😅
I'd argue, the war's already lost when "Javascript", or really any language, becomes tacked to the top of the target skills list. It doesn't matter what language is used to teach programming, but programming should not be tied to a language. Algorithms, data structures, patterns, essentials of computer engineering...these are things that one must master at some point to advance from "the guy who writes the Javascript we tell him we need" to "senior developer" (in a broader sense). Whether you learn them in a classroom, from a book, via course, or through self-study and experimentation doesn't matter. But it would seem to me, that is precisely what Bootcamps are failing to provide.
But it would seem to me, that is precisely what Bootcamps are failing to provide.
Something that just came to my mind: maybe this is where we, the tech leaders, are failing?
In the end it's us who put languages or even frameworks on top of list of requirements in job descriptions. And then we expect people to build an app in that framework during interview. And eventually when we hire bootcamp graduates we fail to provide them the kind of support they need (which is different from support that CS graduates need).
I'm not saying bootcamps are innocent here, they do a lot of shady and misleading stuff.
What I mean is that we know what bootcamps are - they are a response to sudden surge in demand for software developers (and as that demand plateaus, most of them will disappear and only the best will remain), they are X-weeks courses for people who can't or don't want to do longer courses or CS degrees.
They can do much better, and so do we.
I do agree. I don't set strict technology requirements on any job I post, and I know of a few other employers who don't either. It's something we definitely need to push more for in the industry, but that would require companies having technically-minded people writing the job descriptions and posts, rather than entrusting that to HR.
Commenting as a recent bootcamp graduate (Flatiron in NYC), so take everything with a grain of salt!
Bootcamps do not optimize for a long, successful career. They optimize for starting your career. They help you to get your foot in, and once you're there, you have to figure out the rest.
I think this excerpt hits the nail on the head. Some bootcamps will do this better than others, of course. In my experience, there's a lot of supplemental work you have to do - but in return, the program was <20 weeks, which is much less time than a four year degree or even an associate's. Landing your dream job and working towards the outcome of a successful career is a viable result from a bootcamp; there are enough success stories. Coming out unprepared for an entry-level software engineer job is also a viable result, and there are enough failures to support that as well.
I think a lot of bootcamps should be more up-front about this. On one hand, you could argue that it's on the responsibility of the attendee to do their research, get advice, and be realistic about the amount of learning and preparation they truly need to do to land a job. However, bootcamps certainly market themselves as being all you need by touting their best success stories and not being transparent about their service they are truly offering. Even in the best cases, employment report outcomes are windowed in their favor, often omitting those who fail to gain employment because of fine lines that comply with the requirements that define a "qualifying student." I'm also under the impression that having little to no foundation in programming (e.g. "Writing my first line of code at bootcamp") is a bit of an unfair sell - it's a lot harder for students to grasp abstract concepts quickly, like the bootcamp demands, when they're still learning the basics.
So, I think there are valid criticisms from several angles, but I surely wouldn't discount all bootcamps as scams or failures. They do offer some worthy skills and credentials, which can be very valuable if you have none. But they don't offer everything you'll need to land a job; even a junior position. I think that's near impossible to do for a most engineering/-adjacent careers in only 15 or so weeks.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think this sentence perfectly sums up the problem, and I'm afraid at the same time it explains why there's little incentive to solve it.
Bootcamps do not optimize for a long, successful career. They optimize for starting your career. They help you to get your foot in, and once you're there, you have to figure out the rest. Bootcamp's goal, from the commercial perspective, is to help its clients to land the first job in the domain the bootcamp teaches.
How do you land a job? In 3 steps:
Bootcamps address, at least partially, all these 3 steps:
The part where fundamentals are useful in the interview process is a more theoretical interview - that's where a lot of bootcamp graduates fail the interviews. The problem is that in order to introduce more basics in the curriculum, you have to either cut the practical part (so you still risk failing the interview) or extend the course (and increase the price).
I think if companies started checking more theoretical knowledge during interviews, that would force bootcamps to adjust. It's a challenging trade-off though, because what really are "the basics"? Is understanding the lexical scope in JS basic, or is it something advanced that you can learn later? What about writing a simple graph search algorithm? What about understanding difference between a list and an array etc? Again - challenging problem.
Funnily, I used to write professionally in JS for quite a while, and if you asked me to explain what
binddoes, I might have failed the interview 😅I'd argue, the war's already lost when "Javascript", or really any language, becomes tacked to the top of the target skills list. It doesn't matter what language is used to teach programming, but programming should not be tied to a language. Algorithms, data structures, patterns, essentials of computer engineering...these are things that one must master at some point to advance from "the guy who writes the Javascript we tell him we need" to "senior developer" (in a broader sense). Whether you learn them in a classroom, from a book, via course, or through self-study and experimentation doesn't matter. But it would seem to me, that is precisely what Bootcamps are failing to provide.
Very good point!
Something that just came to my mind: maybe this is where we, the tech leaders, are failing?
In the end it's us who put languages or even frameworks on top of list of requirements in job descriptions. And then we expect people to build an app in that framework during interview. And eventually when we hire bootcamp graduates we fail to provide them the kind of support they need (which is different from support that CS graduates need).
I'm not saying bootcamps are innocent here, they do a lot of shady and misleading stuff.
What I mean is that we know what bootcamps are - they are a response to sudden surge in demand for software developers (and as that demand plateaus, most of them will disappear and only the best will remain), they are X-weeks courses for people who can't or don't want to do longer courses or CS degrees.
They can do much better, and so do we.
I do agree. I don't set strict technology requirements on any job I post, and I know of a few other employers who don't either. It's something we definitely need to push more for in the industry, but that would require companies having technically-minded people writing the job descriptions and posts, rather than entrusting that to HR.
Commenting as a recent bootcamp graduate (Flatiron in NYC), so take everything with a grain of salt!
I think this excerpt hits the nail on the head. Some bootcamps will do this better than others, of course. In my experience, there's a lot of supplemental work you have to do - but in return, the program was <20 weeks, which is much less time than a four year degree or even an associate's. Landing your dream job and working towards the outcome of a successful career is a viable result from a bootcamp; there are enough success stories. Coming out unprepared for an entry-level software engineer job is also a viable result, and there are enough failures to support that as well.
I think a lot of bootcamps should be more up-front about this. On one hand, you could argue that it's on the responsibility of the attendee to do their research, get advice, and be realistic about the amount of learning and preparation they truly need to do to land a job. However, bootcamps certainly market themselves as being all you need by touting their best success stories and not being transparent about their service they are truly offering. Even in the best cases, employment report outcomes are windowed in their favor, often omitting those who fail to gain employment because of fine lines that comply with the requirements that define a "qualifying student." I'm also under the impression that having little to no foundation in programming (e.g. "Writing my first line of code at bootcamp") is a bit of an unfair sell - it's a lot harder for students to grasp abstract concepts quickly, like the bootcamp demands, when they're still learning the basics.
So, I think there are valid criticisms from several angles, but I surely wouldn't discount all bootcamps as scams or failures. They do offer some worthy skills and credentials, which can be very valuable if you have none. But they don't offer everything you'll need to land a job; even a junior position. I think that's near impossible to do for a most engineering/-adjacent careers in only 15 or so weeks.