There's a question that interests me. Employers are vocal about needing good employees. They are willing to spend on their recruiting. Some are apparently hap

There's a question that interests me. Employers are vocal about needing good employees. They are willing to spend on their recruiting. Some are apparently happy with the results of these bootcamps (for entry level coders, I imagine). The schools’ revenue models differ substantially. App Academy, in San Francisco and New York, charges no tuition, but takes 18 percent of graduates’ first-year salaries Why don't big employers hire & train, evening if they outsource the actual teaching to bootcamps? That way they will be able to dictate the toolset and the standards can be whatever they want. The costs are similar to recruiting costs anyway. Shorter average tenures don't sound like the whole story behind the lack of employer funded training. How can they be willing to spend $15k on recruiting but not on training. It doesn't make sense. Big Banks once had very successful intense training courses lasting 2-6 months frothier traders. These contributed to their culture, built loyalty, actively assisted in recruiting, and culled the bottom of each cycle. The training programs were an asset. If these schools can get someone to a solid starting point in 3 months, that sounds like a perfect fit for employer training. It takes a lot of risk off the table for students. Why not? Is there some inherent advantage these schools have that facebook don't?