29 ms·

They executed badly on, what was perhaps, the easiest part of this whole project - creating an airtight six month bootcamp curriculum. This just involved paying

They executed badly on, what was perhaps, the easiest part of this whole project - creating an airtight six month bootcamp curriculum. This just involved paying a bunch of professors (with good teaching record) and industry professional to sit down for a few months and figure it out. Instead, they launched way too early and produced, by all accounts, mismanaged courses, with constantly changing content. If they can't get that right, would you really expect them to get the other stuff right?

thenerdhead 4y ago
The model they use is similar to other bootcamps. You pay people who are already well known for teaching the technology to develop a base curriculum and then you "hire" people from the first cohort to replace them and then continue that cycle with each new cohort. It's like a ponzi scheme/MLM in a sense because the cohorts who learn the material don't really know "why" they are teaching it. It's like having professors teach theory and then TAs taking over while the professors move on with life. Is that the right way to do education? To learn from someone who is one cohort ahead of you? Then they pad resumes and LinkedIn endorsements with everyone in the cohorts, not actual professional work. I saw this happen at places like DevMountain (Utah) where I think the cofounders picked it up. It made for very confused students who couldn't get answers to basic questions about iOS controls. I saw a lot of this type of activity in the Utah tech scene. I don't know how to feel about it.