4 ms·

The most obvious way to unify your experience with the details in the original thread is that they have gone down in quality over the past 5 years. Given the ma

The most obvious way to unify your experience with the details in the original thread is that they have gone down in quality over the past 5 years. Given the massive number of new bootcamps that have launched (and shut down) it seems natural that not all of them would be up to the quality standard you enjoyed at the time.

pmiller2 7y ago
That would suggest that choosing a bootcamp that was around 5 years ago would be a far better choice than one started more recently.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Alternatively you could look at quality directly instead of using a proxy. At least use a better proxy, like length of program.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    And when do you look at quality directly (from the outside, as an applicant), given the way some programs misleadingly report their placement numbers?
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      You look at audited placement numbers, consistently measured across multiple boot camps. https://cirr.org/ https://cirr.org/ > CIRR standards are transparent. We've fixed the problem of schools manipulating or hiding their outcome data, by requiring that for CIRR members, the outcomes of every enrolled student must be reported in a single, simple, clear report. How many graduated on time? How many accepted a full-time job in the field for which they trained within six months? How many secured part-time jobs? Did the school itself hire any graduates? How many students jobs are in fields outside of what they studied for? What are the salaries of grads who started jobs in their field of study? In addition, schools must annually have their numbers – and the records they keep to prove them – verified by an independent auditor.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        Seems reasonable, although that would limit you to just the handful of programs that report to CIRR. What about the rest of them?
DataWorker 7y ago
Or that the demand has changed, perhaps in accord with macroeconomic factors related to debt. Consider the ipo’s last year.

pmiller2 7y ago

That would suggest that choosing a bootcamp that was around 5 years ago would be a far better choice than one started more recently.

barry-cotter 7y ago
Alternatively you could look at quality directly instead of using a proxy. At least use a better proxy, like length of program.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  And when do you look at quality directly (from the outside, as an applicant), given the way some programs misleadingly report their placement numbers?
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    You look at audited placement numbers, consistently measured across multiple boot camps. https://cirr.org/ https://cirr.org/ > CIRR standards are transparent. We've fixed the problem of schools manipulating or hiding their outcome data, by requiring that for CIRR members, the outcomes of every enrolled student must be reported in a single, simple, clear report. How many graduated on time? How many accepted a full-time job in the field for which they trained within six months? How many secured part-time jobs? Did the school itself hire any graduates? How many students jobs are in fields outside of what they studied for? What are the salaries of grads who started jobs in their field of study? In addition, schools must annually have their numbers – and the records they keep to prove them – verified by an independent auditor.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Seems reasonable, although that would limit you to just the handful of programs that report to CIRR. What about the rest of them?

DataWorker 7y ago

Or that the demand has changed, perhaps in accord with macroeconomic factors related to debt. Consider the ipo’s last year.