Comment by KirinDave | Hacker News Reader

Comment by KirinDave | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Does LambdaSchool think the thing holding back their developers is that companies cannot onboard new developers?

While many small companies do not pay much attention to onboarding, I'm not sure that this is the actual stumbling block.

I think the bigger problem LambaSchool graduates who've talked to me say is that LambdaSchool's poor reputation and haphazard leadership have left the value of their schooling in question, and that puts them at a material disadvantage compared to people with a traditional college degree. This is a variant of the problem that Udacity and co face: companies recruiting have reservations about that type of education and view it as a risky hire.

AFAIK (it predates my time with Udacity substantially) Udacity discontinued their active placement programs, and generally when they do that (again, I have no special knowledge) it happens because it was neither working nor cost effective.

I think LambdaSchool would be better served using its resources to improve the reputation of its graduates by actually highlighting their work and functioning like a more traditional university; sponsoring open source work and research and showing their graduates and produce such work. Universities get famous and reputable off the back of work like this.

They might also consider not being such shady actors, with a long history of tax disputes and illegal operation. It doesn't matter if state and federal rules are unjust; what matters here is that companies (especially smaller ones) need to maintain the appearance of managing risk. An association with LambdaSchool damages that.

Full disclosure: I don't like the leadership of LS at all. But I have a lot of compassion and respect for the individuals that have taken their destiny into their own hands and learned the trade through any means necessary. I think folks that emerge from these processes are often better members of the workforce than traditionally educated people; because of the tight selection filter (only very talented and motivated people can pass through these processes and succeed, therefore you're selecting from an inherently more dedicated and energetic candidate pool).

> (only very talented and motivated people can pass through these processes and succeed, therefore you're selecting from an inherently more dedicated and energetic candidate pool)

Unfortunately having interviewed a bunch of folks from these programs, I find that to be false the vast majority of the time, from this program especially. I've interviewed probably 5-6 LS folks and over 10 folks from a large program in NYC (you can guess which one) and every time the program has given them an incredibly oversold sense of skill level. They were unequivocally not prepared for the job they were interviewing for but were adamant that they were. I'm guessing they're given interview coaching where they're coached to guide the interviewer towards things that are positive for them (projects they did in the program for example) and away from things that they're not prepared for (such as questions actually relevant to the position). I had one candidate straight up tell me that they were more senior than our senior developers because they spent a year or whatever "living and breathing this stuff everyday, all day" whereas our senior devs wasted their time at college and probably have the same amount of "real practical experience" as this program grad did even though they'd been working there for 3-5 years. Maybe that's gotten better over the past couple of years since I've interviewed regularly, but for a while it was a huge problem where they were ill prepared and then had this massive entitlement about it. I'm guessing that's how the programs were sold to them: finish it and you'll waltz into a six figure job.

That's not universal in these bootcamps/programs, though. I've interviewed a few Turing School folks that are awesome. I've interviewed folks from several smaller programs from all over whose names escape me (a Seattle-based one, one in the midwest...can't remember others) that have been fantastic.

I just _wish_ all of these programs were great at preparing folks and self-filtering on the backside, but unfortunately, I think many of them take their money (or hold out their hand when/if they get hired), pass the people through no matter what, and fill their heads with the idea that they're now prepared and deserve a job.

You're coached to be confident through interviewing. Advice like "apply for anything saying up to five years of experience required". Combine that with a lot of grads who aren't experienced in interviewing can lead to that sort of issue. The biggest thing I'd look for is side projects. The people doing side projects were generally the one who were keeping up, and actually had an interest.

I think Lambda was also a lot more selective towards the beginning (when there were like 12 people in a class) vs now where I think the class size is in the lower three figure range?

> I had one candidate straight up tell me that they were more senior than our senior developers because they spent a year or whatever "living and breathing this stuff everyday, all day" whereas our senior devs wasted their time at college and probably have the same amount of "real practical experience" as this program grad did even though they'd been working there for 3-5 years.

Unbelievable

Reply on news.ycombinator.com