I taught at a traditional institution and had the same experiences you did. Although I had to leave because I lost confidence in the institution. I think you'd find the same challenges in a slower-paced program, to be honest - there's plenty to do. While I only spent 4 hours a day in the classroom, I spent the rest of it either grading, revising lessons to keep things fresh, or grading assessments. The most time consuming part was providing meaningful feedback. Sure I could've phoned it in, but nobody likes getting a grade without feedback. And nobody learns from it either.

Despite the hours, it was worth it tho. I love hearing from my former students. There are times when I wish I was still doing it.

When you care like you and I do, you put your whole self into helping people make a better life for themselves learning to do what you already love to do, you'll take the low pay and the stress because it outweighs the negative.

The sad thing is that people who run a lot of these places know that, so they can get away with paying you a lot less than you'd make if you stayed in dev.

Thanks for that perspective. I wonder if there's a better way to go about teaching? It sounds like the current model for both code-schools and universities is pretty crappy for the teachers. What can be done to improve this, do you think?

I have many many thoughts on what model would work. Sorry if this gets ranty...

I believe that the models that will be successful are models where there is curriculum designed to be done asynchronously, with ample time for practice and repetition to build skills, followed by assessment and feedback.

You do not need a classroom for this. A wise man once told me that a good teacher is not the sage on the stage, they are the guide on the side. And that's what adults need. They don't need to all sit in a room together being held back cos one person doesn't understand it. Lecture and talking and demos can all be done online on Youtube.

Or you make a web site, write some content and make some videos, give some practice problems with unit tests that tell the student if they got them right. Easy peasy. Nobody's time is wasted.

The third part is the part that doesn't scale - you need people to provide coaching and feedback. And you need one on one time to discuss feedback, options, choices, etc.\

Think about this:

If I tell you to make me a five page web site with a contact form, appropriate color scheme, valid semantic markup, clean CSS, appropriate color scheme, and content, then I have to do the following:

1. Develop lessons to give you the information on how to do these things 2. Give you ample opportunities and time to practice and excel at these things individually 3. Give you detailed feedback on your practice so you can practice more 4. Give you the time to do the assessment well 5. Review your work and give you detailed feedback on it so you learn.

Notice that I start with an end in mind, then work it out to get you to be successful - I don't just start teaching you a bunch of stuff and then make up some test... it's all planned out.

So the curriculum design takes time and planning. It's an art and science of its own and we learn new things about how people learn all the time. But a small group of folks can take the time to put curriculum together. There are people who study this for a living. They're not subject matter experts though, so you kinda do need both.

But notice all the places where there's review and feedback. That's the part that doesn't scale. That takes time. It takes a LONG time to give good, detailed feedback to a learner so they can improve. Your job isn't to fail them - it's to make sure they're successful - if they do their part and you do yours, they will be. (Obviously if you only put an hour into this final project there won't be much for me to give feedback on, so the learner has to put in the effort too) But you are their guide on the side, not the keeper of all knowledge that they must appease.

So to find people who are caring individuals who can be these instructors, who can help people understand the curriculum, who can coach them through the process, who can meet with them... that doesn't scale. People will need to be compensated for this. With benefits so they don't have to worry about their own well-being as well as their students'. But if you can figure out a way to scale this and finance it, it would work well. I interviewed for and was offered a position at a bootcamp that had a model very similar to this, but they were doing a commission-based salary based on number of students that chose you as their coach, so it was too risky for me. I hear they changed their model tho and are doing well. Hopefully more places will catch on.

Bottom line - good curriculum designed with outcomes in mind from the start, with everything aligned, is a good start. But learning happens through practice and feedback - I don't care how many times you read the book or watch the Pluralsight videos - you won't learn it till you practice it, do challenges someone else offers you, and internalize the feedback they give you once you're done.

Ah well... this got super ranty and I'm tired. I hope it makes sense. You can email me if you want to chat about this more. I'd be happy to do that.

Thanks for the rant! Enjoyed it.

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.

I have a genuine question: What's different about doing consultancy that allows one to keep up to date? (As opposed to teaching)

My confusion comes from thinking of them both as full time jobs (so therefore where would you get the time to do extra study on the side).

Would the consultancy allow you to 'learn by doing' (i.e., you pick a new technology to use and figure it out as you build and deploy it)?

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.

absolutely. could not agree with you more there.

Thank you for teaching. I'm a Dev Bootcamp grad from 2014; people like you, who took on that challenge, completely changed my life for the better.

> A few students had pretty bad experiences, I think. It was a very demanding program. Several times, I had full-grown adults break down and cry during our 1:1s.

I think we could all learn a lot from their failures. Is there anything about their experience that could help you predict who would make an ill-suited applicant? Or some helpful advice on how folks should be prepared to approach the program ("you should expect to put in X hrs per day over the next 180 days if you want to be successful")?

Is the issue the applicants? With all due respect, in terms of effective practice, the sheer number of hours put in has nothing, well not "nothing", but a lot less to do with it than the quality and type of hours spent. One needs a lot of the effective type of hour. It is about what one practices, the repetition, the evaluation of one's mistakes, and the fixing of these mistakes. And then the doing it correctly at least 22 more times. In a row. But mainly, it is the doing, with very short bursts of targeted critique at regular and frequent intervals delivered by a master who can help you learn to spot these pitfalls sooner than you would yourself. Respectfully, a lot of time can be wasted in a shortened educational model like a bootcamp for code with extraneous stuff as a part of the "firehose" method of teaching, which has become a beloved buzzword in the industry. The science on effective practice for efficient skill acquisition is not new. http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti... That isn't to say that students should not prepare to put in hours. But schools should prepare to make the very most of a few hours. I don't know about TIY or Dev Mountain, but I do know that several of the schools in NYC have not yet revised their curricula to optimize the hours spent. Getting better students doesn't help ineffective curricula. The school's job is to teach those who are willing to set aside time and money. When one wrangles ineffective curricula or online teaching materials that behave wonkily and waste one's time because they malfunction constantly, those are precious minutes one could have spent in effective practice. The students also need teachers and advocates who blame themselves first if effective learning isn't occurring. They need schools who blame themselves first if they aren't getting work. As a student, I'd be reluctant to spend money at a school that didn't blame itself for its own outcomes failures.

The thing is, students can't hear about the outcomes failures as much as they should because no one on the student side (the non-moneymaking side of it) can afford to be honest; they are the victims of this, especially once they have spent money. This is why I'm trying to help with that here. "Review sites" (not to name any names) are often just glorified advertising services. (literally handled by the marketing departments of these coding schools) I know this because I have been on both sides of this- inside the school and out. But since we are talking about failures that cause closings of schools here, and since so many will be seeing this page, I think it is time we talk about these issues honestly. The victors will be the schools who take responsibility for their own failures. They will be those who are brave enough to invite anonymous critique they can't control. (not "independently verified" claims of their success metrics they can control by virtue of what they measure and who is doing the verifying, and how much detail they go into in these metrics, and how much they get to leave out of that whole story- which is a lot, by the way.)

Hey Chris, give me a call, this is your mother.

Ok not really your mother, since I doubt your mother's beard is as luxurious as my own, but we need a call to catch up.