[hashkb]

Also, shoveling bootcampers into the industry is bad for real engineers and the quality of their software. Management everywhere is lowering the bar so they can hit their hiring goals and pretending the consequences are natural.

[sotojuan]

It really hurts new CS grads too. They usually go for similar jobs as Bootcamp grads, but may get rejected because they don't have the "practical" experience (i.e. latest frameworks) Bootcamps grads may have. So instead of grooming and training students with a four year foundation in Computer Science, they go for the cheap route and hire someone who just knows APIs.

I admit my post has a lot of generalizations and I know Bootcamp people that are great engineers and CS grads that are not, but I think you get my point. I see a lot of frustration over this in /r/cscareerquestions.

[dudul]

I would argue that CS grads who do not spend some time learning practical skills on the side are idiots and completely misunderstand the industry they are trying to enter.

Bootcamps claim that they can help people who lack the proper foundations or the discipline to learn on their own, these are assets that CS students should have, they should therefore apply their knowledge and training to learn on their own the tools that are used in the industry.

[sotojuan]

> I would argue that CS grads who do not spend some time learning practical skills on the side are idiots and completely misunderstand the industry they are trying to enter.

I agree, but then I realize I live in a bubble.

Here and in /r/cscareerquestions, everyone knows to do side projects. In my school, most people don't. Neither do my friends in other schools. They may get one internship but that's the only "practical" thing they do (usually good enough to get a job though). A lot of my friends are much busier than me and don't have time to teach themselves stuff on top of school and life, at least not well enough to get a job.

Perhaps we need to stress a bit more practicality in CS curriculum?

[dagw]

Perhaps we need to stress a bit more practicality in CS curriculum?

No, we need to stop telling people who want a career in web development to get a degree in Computer Science. And universities should stop convincing people who really want to be software engineers to study computer science. If you want to work as a structural engineer you'll probably get a degree in structural or mechanical engineering. You don't get a degree in theoretical physics and complain that since structural engineering is just a practical application of theoretical physics your physics curriculum really should be more focused on practical engineering.

[mywittyname]

> You don't get a degree in theoretical physics and complain that since structural engineering is just a practical application of theoretical physics your physics curriculum really should be more focused on practical engineering.

I sometimes feel like we should just call Computer Science what it really is, Applied Computational Mathematics. Because, you're exactly right, there is a disconnect between the teachings and expectations of most CS programs.

Then again, my CS program offered lots of 'practical' courses, like iOS and web development. They even created a BA program that removed most of the math requirements and replaced them with those vocationally related classes.

[dagw]

Then again, my CS program offered lots of 'practical' courses, like iOS and web development. They even created a BA program that removed most of the math requirements and replaced them with those vocationally related classes.

That sounds like great programs that all universities should offer. They just shouldn't call it a CS program.

[sotojuan]

> No, we need to stop telling people who want a career in web development to get a degree in Computer Science.

Also agree, but we tell people to do it because employers ask for it. I guess it's a cycle, but someone's gotta stop it one day.

[dagw]

I think that the Universities could and should be ones to solve this problem. They first of all need to start offering 2 year largely vocation degrees for people who just want to learn the basics of getting a programming job and in addition offer 4 year Software Design/Development/Engineering degrees in addition to Computer Science degrees and really differentiate between the two. Make it clear to the students (and by extension employers) that if you go for a software degree you'll mainly learn X but not so much Y and if you go for a CS degree you'll mainly learn Y but not so much X. Most people currently getting CS degrees should probably be getting a Software Design/Development/Engineering degree.

[sklogic]

> more practicality in CS curriculum

Rename it to SE first and stop pretending it's a "science". Or, alternatively, accept that it's really a science and stop moaning about the careers in the industry. There'll be a lot to moan around the grants, post-doc positions, publish or perish and all the other funny parts of an academic career.

[okaramian]

I feel like this should be true, but in my experience it hasn't been. We've hired interns who become full-time at some point, both CS grads and bootcampers.

As a note, the bootcampers we've hired have been people with a little bit of programming experience (not a ton, generally they did it as part of a previous job) that wanted to switch careers. The ones we've hired have been around 24/25, with about a year of experience in a different field like chemistry or geology.

The CS interns were college kids, so it could just be a function of maturity. I think of the ones we've brought in for internships, 2 were hirable (we've brought in maybe a dozen or so over the last couple of years). One of the 2 hirables is someone who I think will have a great career over the long run.

The bootcampers we've hired (thus far two) have been a measure above the CS kids. The CS kids have had a level of entitlement that I think is hindering them. It feels like because they've gotten a job they're set and they don't really need to learn more, when they have a long road to go down. This has been a pretty typical pattern and it didn't feel like they had the will to push themselves despite the fact that many seemed like they were very intelligent.

The bootcampers were older so they seemed to have that will and curiosity, none of them took the job for granted. One of them seemed to be falling behind, he was told that, and spent a lot of time outside of work learning the things he didn't know and has been great.

I understand anecdotes can only be taken so far, but just a couple of observations I felt like sharing.

[learc83]

>The CS interns were college kids, so it could just be a function of maturity.

I'd wager that almost every difference you've noticed is down to maturity.

The average 25 year old who's been working for several years is a light years ahead of the average 20 year old college kid when it comes to attitude.

If you were hiring 25 year old CS grads, they'd likely have the same work ethic, and an understanding of the formal methods underpinning their experience.

[duiker101]

I agree. Which is what could be happening with companies like zenfit. http://uk.businessinsider.com/zenefits-ceo-refutes-the-naysa...

I can't possibly believe that with so many new hires the quality doesn't go down. And with the quality of the hires, also the product quality will inevitably go down.

[sbov]

Is it bad? Should we have "real" engineers working on software that a bootcamper could do? It seems like a waste of resources. Some problems only need a solution that your nephew can hack together in a week.

That said, the problem is that many people looking to get software built can't properly identify what should actually be engineered. In the physical world it's a bit more obvious.

[learc83]

>Some problems only need a solution that your nephew can hack together in a week.

There's also huge subset of problems that look like something your nephew can hack together, until he does and there's a huge security flaw that leaks all your customer data.

[draw_down]

This "learn to code" stuff is about labor costs, not employing people. Developers are expensive, having more of them lowers the cost per.