[GuiA]

> While the goal of Code 7370 is laudable, faced with competition from younger programmers, many of whom have handled computers since they were toddlers, will it make any meaningful difference for inmates? For now, it's too soon to tell.

Of course it will make a meaningful difference for inmates (if only because in terms of all things one could do in jail, this is probably in the top 1% in terms of intellectual stimulation), and of course they could become high quality professionals after this. Especially given the fact that the training seems more intense to me than any of the bootcamps from which a lot of today's web devs come from ("four-day-per-week, eight-hour-per-day, six-month course" - most bootcamps are a few weeks, or a few months at the maximum).

This sort of line of thought is so harmful. There's nothing magical about programming that makes it different from any other industry. You don't need to have been immersed in it your whole life to be an outstanding professional. It's not the case for chemical engineering, it's not the case for mechanical engineering, it's not the case for electrical engineering, why would it be true for computer engineering?

Especially given the fact that of all the subfields in computer engineering, there's nothing deeply complex about HTML/CSS/JS because it relies on so few prerequisites (if you're writing low level assembly, it requires a deep understanding of the machine's architecture; if you're writing graphics code, it requires a solid knowledge of linear algebra. But there are no such foundations for web development).

[hardwaresofton]

There are tons of college grads that either didn't study computer science at all, or studied computer science and didn't do very well (and don't like it enough to do it outside of school) that are getting high-paying jobs (relative to general populace) at lots of big tech companies.

The tech industry fancies itself a meritocracy/progressive -- programs like this will show just how much of that perception is real.

[duaneb]

> There are tons of college grads that either didn't study computer science at all, or studied computer science and didn't do very well (and don't like it enough to do it outside of school) that are getting high-paying jobs (relative to general populace) at lots of big tech companies.

This also flips the other way: I've interviewed PhDs with little ability to operate in an engineering environment. The industry is definitely more meritocratic than, say, the banking, consulting, and business world.

[Iftheshoefits]

I've not seen any evidence that this industry is more or less meritocratic (in the positive sense meant here, that is, based on ability to perform programming tasks) than any other--including academia (whence I come, but from a science background, not CS/math).

On the other hand I've seen plenty of evidence that in certain geographic regions there is a particularly heavy (and, in my opinion, amusingly misplaced) emphasis on categorical errors, equivocation, and conflation of purely academic CS knowledge with practical ability (as you yourself allude to). These are all the CS-world equivalent of the supposedly very un-meritocratic things many who've never been outside of CS (professionally) assume occur in, oh, "banking, consulting, and [the] business world" as a matter of daily routine.

[duaneb]

The difference with academia is that what qualifies as 'meritorious' is far less pragmatic. Many people get PhDs based on work that will never see engineering use. In this sense, they're very qualified at producing interesting, useless observations. The tech industry is less inclined towards this.

However, we are more inclined towards hype investing, leading to useless companies (snapchat) getting insane valuations, and people utterly without merit becoming rich overnight.

[hardwaresofton]

Agree, but then again, isn't there some psych theory that explains that (figures, since the PhDs probably formulated them) -- that once you get so fixated/advanced on a certain object, you lose the ability to do the super basic stuff (or are at least bad at it since you haven't done it in so long?) -- but maybe that's just apologism.

And definitely, tech is arguably the most meritocratic high-paying field out there. Just the ability to build something on your own with your skills without anyone's permissions is not common (i.e. you can't just open a bank).

[CoreSet]

I'd also like to add that even if you're not a professional webdev (which I'm not), coding can be an immensely rewarding hobby and recreational pursuit, in addition to providing you with greater general insight into how a lot of everyday technology works.

[masklinn]

And either way, a deeper understanding of computers and the ability to script your way out of problem is a useful tool no matter what job you end up doing.

[rhc2104]

Are there any coding bootcamps that are only a few weeks? 9 weeks seem to be the minimum, and the shorter classes demand more than 40/hours a week.

The curriculum is created by Hack Reactor, which is a 13 week, 66 hour/week curriculum. So the time commitment is the same, and it seems to go less in depth than the standard Hack Reactor program.

This is according to http://www.meetup.com/hackreactorx/events/218681201/ , where it says "Hack Reactor is TLM's primary partner in this endeavor, and will be creating the curriculum (basic front-end web developer skills, so a bit of a shift from HR's curriculum)"

That said, I am a big proponent to giving job training to those in prison, and am hopeful for the results!

[azernik]

I'd put it even more strongly. Even if programmers who have been at it since childhood have an advantage, I think the job prospects of a decent-but-not-great programmer are still at least on a par with other careers that inmates could be training for in jail. Just look at those same bootcamp programs you mentioned - their graduates may (or may not, actually, now that I look at the stats) have a lower employment rate than coders from a good university, but the job prospects are still by today's standards very good, and when they do get jobs they're still pulling down comfortably upper-middle-class incomes.

Convicted felons would probably find it harder to find a job just because they have to put that fact on their job applications, but they have to deal with that whatever line of work they go into.

[joe_the_user]

"This sort of line of thought is so harmful."

Even if the argument you mention is wrong, it's only harmful in a sort of fluffy world where good things die when looked at critically.

There's nothing magical about programming that makes it different from any other industry.

These days there's immense competition in every industry. If anything, your argument seems to be that programming is different from other industries and that just skills can get you anywhere even if there appear to be many others who also have skills and better looking resumes. I hope that's true but let's at least look critically.

[unclebucknasty]

That population is probably like any other: either programming concepts click for them or they don't.

I saw this in freshman year. People either struggled mightily, or nearly not at all. Hence, the huge weed-out factor for the major.

All these folks need is exposure.

[derekp7]

It isn't so much of it clicking, it is the willingness to put through the effort until it does click. But that willingness comes easier for some people, since they are wired to enjoy it. Others don't enjoy the process of trying something, seeing it fail, trying again, repeat for several hours/days/weeks, then finally getting it to work. It's like some like tomatoes, others don't. If you don't, it is hard to be a food critic of tomato-based dishes.

[unclebucknasty]

Well, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It's certainly not binary. That is, some just require more effort.

OTOH, as a tutor back in my CS days, I witnessed the difference between those who just needed an occasional nudge and those who really just constantly beat their heads against the wall. It really wasn't that they were unwilling to try. It was more that their minds weren't wired to conceptualize and approach CS-style problem-solving. Sure, I could walk them through a problem, but next time around it was like starting over.

It reminds me of geometry proofs. Some could learn to stumble their way through, while others just glided through almost effortlessly.

So, the stick-to-itness attitude that you mentioned is certainly a requirement that all of us have had to wield at times, but I'm speaking more of the ability to make progress while wielding that attitude.

And, it's not necessarily a matter of intelligence as much as thinking styles. That's the "click" I'm talking about. So, this is not some superiority trip.

In fact, in the context of this discussion, I was actually being optimistic. Some were suggesting that the prisoners couldn't learn to be viable if they were so far behind those who had been doing it since childhood. My take is that if a person has aptitude for it, they can make up a lot of lost ground. Simple exposure might activate them in ways that others who work for years in the field might never achieve.