Question: if the pay was such that you weren't taking a pay cut, would that have made you stay longer? What would the conditions have to be like for someone who's a senior engineer to even consider making "a career change" into teaching swe for the next 10 years of their career, rather than a 2 year moonlighting stint? (Wondering what the setup had to be too make this sustainable)
I don't know about the original poster, but I'd have stayed teaching full time if I could have afforded it. But I was literally making half of what my students were making after a couple of years in industry.
Another thing to think about is this: Just cos you know SWE really well doesn't mean you have the ability to teach it to others. Not everyone "gets" things quickly, or will understand your explanations on the first attempt, so you must be patient. Not everyone learns the same way, nor do they have the same educational experiences, so you must be kind. And not everyone has a great home life, and has a ton of distractions that prevent them from learning, so you must be empathetic. Finally, not everyone loves to code - they just want the dollars that come from a job and will do whatever it takes to get there, including lie, cheat, and do the bare minimum, so you must be firm and strong to avoid burning out and thinking they're all terrible lazy students.
There are people who can do this. But they're rare. And even rarer when they see the low paychecks offered.
It is too bad that these bootcamps can't find a way to invest real money in excellent teachers. A few of these teachers are great. The teachers are the core of the business, just like they are in a university. We all know what has happened to salaries there. I think if bootcamps and colleges keep paying teachers like they are worth less than one of the jillion dollar Vitra sofas these schools are furnished with, they deserve to fail hard. (nice sofas though) Perhaps this is one of the key areas of failure in the model? Just a suggestion. Most of these teachers really stink. These bootcamps value youth or a let's call it a"certain look" over teaching experience and teaching innovation and creative teaching techniques. They also hire a lot of sadly unqualified grads of their programs who are confused when current students submit apps that are slightly more complicated than what they are used to seeing. They have no idea how to reach out to a diverse array (no pun intended) of students, because they are usually the "tell me what to do - I just follow orders" type of student/employee themselves who are all too keen to buy into the positivity consensus so enthusiastically promoted by these bootcamps. I hope you can teach where you are appreciated one day.
Well, market-rate pay would be a good starter. TIY was really close. It was almost a horizontal move for me.
But there are a few other things that these kinds of institutions need to solve:
- How to keep your staff from burning out
- How to keep your staff up to speed
Both are hard problems. TIY (at the time that I taught there, anyway) was staffed by people who had 10-15 years (and more in some cases) of industry experience in a broad range of fields. If I spent the next 10 years of my career teaching, I suspect my value proposition would go down over time, as I began to have less and less relevant industry experience.
One thought was that schools of this nature should be a two-sided business. Instructors would teach for a cohort (or two) and then flip over into the consultancy side of the business for some time doing real-world industrial work.
Consulting exposes you to problems in the field; teaching is where you tell others about problems you're familiar with. If you don't have an input of new problems, you're eventually just recycling the same material...
But then the great teaching would have to be informed by coding's great problems. Your average consultant doesn't encounter "the great coding problems" on a daily or even yearly basis. This is why it might be better for teachers to devote themselves to seeking and researching these challenges and problems as a part of their teaching like all great teachers of any lifelong pursuit have done. If these bootcamp teachers did that, the level of teaching would rise very high. It might finally be worth its price tag, even if students didn't get jobs. I guess that is why the pro-level musicians pay so much for a summer spent with master teachers with no promise of work at the end-- it is because those teachers actually teach them something of great value at the craft that pays for itself and helps the student become an artist at what they do. And for the most part, unfortunately, software engineers are not treated by their companies as artists of value either, like these classical musicians were, at least for many years before that began to decline sharply. There is so much precedent about where this bootcamp model and this "dearth of technical talent" will lead- and these places are not good. They lead to the worker getting paid very little and there being very few low-paying jobs in the end. But this is tech, so it will happen at speed and scale like never before. I've already watched tech do everything in classical music from 1950-1990 in about five years (including the sexism and its accompanying legal battles and outcries). Well, everything except great teaching at the "camp" level.
That is a good idea. Even though the code that students get into in these bootcamps is the industry equivalent of "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star", and people keep saying that in various ways here to speak on why these junior devs can't get work, that doesn't mean that it will always be that way, nor does it mean that having industry experience would not be really helpful. More than that though, is that good teaching is lacking in most of these bootcamp teachers and in most bootcamp curricula. The writing of many of these lessons in general reflects our nation's years-long trend away from cultural literacy and the value of style and communication. These teachers at bootcamps need to be so stellar at their teaching jobs that they become famous for it. And then, they need to be paid well for bringing that level of expertise. The coding bootcamp industry seems to forget that there have been many very early predecessors in this space. Take classical music, for example. A college level classical musician at a conservatory is already a professional level musician. The teachers at conservatories must be true masters in their areas of expertise. Sure, it would be great if they had up-to-date industry experience, but it is generally understood that it is so difficult to be technically great as a teacher that no one really gives a hoot about "industry experience" per se. That is considered the student's job to keep up with. It isn't a perfect model, but somehow these conservatories get people to pay mountains of money to study with these incredible teachers. And you know what? They have stopped paying these incredible teachers what they used to as well, because there is an abundance of great music talent and a dearth of music work at this point. This was not always the case, but after many years of great teaching and lower and lower pay to musicians, this is now the case. Software engineering could learn from studying the failures of this very old model, because at least its teachers had these coding schools beat from the beginning.
How to keep our staff from burning out is an easy one. Give them real breaks and often, and pay them enough to have time to do their own projects on a sabbatical year every two years. At great pay with these things in place, you can ask them to get and keep themselves up to speed. Basically, treat the teachers like they have real value and you will get real value and real competition for those positions. Or, just make the corporations pay for the labor training they say there is such a huge need for?
and I get down voted for this? why? because you doubt that this has been the model in classical music? I know. I was there in conservatory myself. or is it that you doubt that the bootcamps could learn from this model? Offer something constructive to this discussion regarding the fact that these students are not getting work. Because I can tell you for a fact that every single graduate of the Juilliard School can sit in the New York Philharmonic and sound absolutely fantastic at it, and they could do that at age 18, on day one of their freshman year. At some point, as this field progresses, lots more 18 year olds will be skilled in software just like Juilliard pianists are at age 18- or rather just like many who don't even get into Juilliard are as well. Do we have to wait until then for the bootcamps to get hip about what great teaching is? I guess that is what I'm asking. It just seems like an obvious first pass solution for right now. Stop with the "industry experience" stuff, because your students aren't even skilled enough to play the equivalent of the Mozart-Kreisler Rondo. Not yet. Hopefully, with better teaching at all levels, they will be. Know what I mean? It just seems that many founders don't want to hear the truth about what isn't working. I know this because I have spoken with them. I get it. They are (not all, but many) young. They think hey- this is technology! It is all new! Everything is different! But still Stanford and MIT lead the way. Nothing new about excellence. Excellence will always win. Well, that and truly valuing great teaching (and knowing what that looks like to begin with). But most of them seem bent on finding students who would do well with or without their help. Do you think Dijkstra would be able to churn out junior devs who could get work? I sure do. And I'd pay him well for it.
And I might as well add that I've been studying this space, let's call it the "bootcamp space" since it began because of its potential similarity to places like Medowmount, Marlboro Music Festival, and Tanglewood. I've been to a (tier one! tippy top! woo hooo- I was "good enough" ha ha to "get in"- please, I should hope so- I'm breathing aren't I?) bootcamp myself to learn about the teaching there, and have also experienced the online learning modules offered at these places. I'm sorry but they are so far behind their analogues in other advanced fields of study that don't even use technology. I've known a few incredible teachers these schools regularly pass on who are considered too "old" to get a job in software engineering. (yeah, it's illegal to discriminate, but it happens all the time based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and even more instensely- strangely in this field on age ?!) or who are turned down for reasons like "not enough industry experience" as an excuse to turn down an "older" worker (read: over 30) when their current slate of teachers have only had the experience of working on various incarnations of omni-auth at a durian delivery service for six months out of Toledo. But yeah, Durain.ly. Industry experience. Ok. Let's please make these coding schools get real, shall we? I would have LOVED to have worked with some of the folks I've met with zero up-to-date industry experience over some of the hip, younger "teachers" (former graduates of said programs) I was paying to "learn" from.
I think you got downvoted because you criticized bootcamps and basically claimed that they produce beginners. I dunno why, but people in these discussions tend to talk about skills in black and white - you are either awesome nearly genius or bad. Rarely somewhere in between and never on pro missing learning path. No one ever says that he is in the learning process now.
Interpreted from this point of view, you had put into camp of elitists who will write off any theoretically cheaper entry path to industry.
Well, thank you, and let me clarify then. I absolutely think there should be a shorter cheaper path to entry. I just think it requires great teaching and some critical analysis that is honest about what it is getting wrong. I'm sick of the "be positive" model that is designed to keep people quiet while they are paying for stuff that won't really help them and they know it mid-class. And also-isn't 12 weeks of software development really just the beginning? If it isn't then why do so many senior devs with years under their belts know so much more than junior devs with 12 weeks under theirs? Nothing against beginning, in my view, we should all always be learning, and that definitely includes these camps.
I agree with you. I think everyone would be better off if we admitted that all of of were beginners and learned things gradually at some point. No one got born knowing javascript syntax. No senior knows everything now.
Simultaneously, plenty of positions are ok for beginners and it is good idea to hire people who are still learning basics for them.
see, the culture of positivity I spoke of exemplified right here on this forum- downvoting legit critiques while not engaging in any productive discussion about them. I could name names and bootcamps and specific examples, but I really don't think anyone wants me to do that. I think they all know exactly who they are, are hoping I do not, and I'm in turn hoping they will reflect on their choices. I'm also very much on the side of these students, all students of any ability, especially students saddled with debt without many financial options, and I'd prefer not to devalue any one's paid-for bootcamp before they secure the all-elusive junior dev role. I'm a student advocate. I believe in low barriers, shorter education, on-the-job-paid-training, corporate responsibility, and I believe in helping people get jobs, especially those in underserved groups.
