[eagsalazar2]

Things have changed over the last few years and what was true in 2013 is no longer true.

In 2013, the few bootcamps that existed and the fewer cohorts they each had were much more selective and they were producing in total many fewer candidates. The result is that bootcamp grads were very high quality (albeit very junior) and they got snapped up quickly.

In 2017 there are bootcampers everywhere flooding the market.

So I'm not sure they are outright lying but maybe they are using data to market their programs that is out of date.

[Hydraulix989]

The first two CS courses at my top university are enough to be qualified for your entry-level junior engineer: the intro course "Programming with Java" (recently changed to Python now), followed by the second course, Data "Structures & Algorithms."

All the bootcamp would have to do is be similarly very selective and do the same exact curriculum, and the people who "survive" these two weed-out courses (you needed to score higher than half your classmates in each course to receive a passing grade, otherwise you had to keep re-taking it) would be the ones able to get hired with nearly 100% placement.

[MegaButts]

> you needed to score higher than half your classmates in each course to receive a passing grade

Was this actually the rule dictated by the professor/curriculum or just a rule of thumb?

[purple-again]

This is common in highly ranked programs in the United States. We had the exact same system in my accounting program which was ranked 11th in the nation at the time.

[klinskyc]

On the flipside, there are more total people who want to do bootcamps. So there's definitely more noise, but also more good signal as well