![]() The saying "don't talk past the sale" I think starts coming into play, and unless there is a burgeoning conspiracy that the CIRR results Codesmith publishes are materially misleading or untrue, I don't think there's going to be much demand for further transparency.Īlso, your last sentence about encouraging alumni to talk about instruction quality/project quality/community - all valid concerns, but to play devil's advocate again, let's say I describe 'Bootcamp A' as having bad instructors, terrible projects and a non-existent community.but somehow 90% of people complete the program and 90% of those people make $120k.Īnd then you have 'Bootcamp B' with great instructors, fantastic projects and a thriving community.but only 30% of people get employed after completion. Sure, Codesmith could publish more verbose data, but if the competition isn't even close to meeting Codesmith in terms of audited results and outcomes, then what's the incentive? In a sense, any extra data they publish can only be used against them. To play a bit of devil's advocate, if I'm president of Codesmith, my thinking would be that Codesmith has already gone far and above what the vast majority of bootcamps are willing to publish. Talk about instruction quality, project quality, community, etc.! If I was Codesmith, I might also do this strategy, but Codesmith students, alumni, prospective students, place use critical thinking and talk about why Codesmith is good day to day, rather than touting only their CIRR results. Instead they are leveraging CIRR because their CIRR outcomes are so strong they make all the other bootcamps look terrible. If Codesmith wanted to accurately communicate their outcomes, they would make a new, audited, standard that addresses equity and bonuses, and the background of people before starting. and it's effective at influencing people to join. Yet they continue to market their CIRR results (which explicitly only include base salary and exclude stock and bonuses) solely as a marketing strategy to make a claim they are better than other bootcamps. These are smart people, who want six figures jobs levering their problem solving and critical thinking abilities and regurgitating marketing without thinking critically about it is not demonstrating that ability.Ĭodesmith directly comments about how important equity and bonuses are in compensation. I don't have a problem with Codesmith's position on CIRR, but what I have a problem with is people blindly supporting Codesmith as the "best bootcamp" because of their CIRR outcomes and regurgitating their marketing as unwavering fact. I also appreciate the blog post explaining how Codesmith supports CIRR. On Reddit, and off Reddit, people related to Codesmith have criticized me personally for my opinion that CIRR data has pros and cons and shouldn't be looked at as the only source of truth and I think Codesmith joining the board without any announcement while people related have been defaming me for criticizing CIRR is something I want to look into more.ĭoes anyone have any more information about why Codesmith joined the board and why those four other people left?ĬIRR is not very transparent about their board, their governance structure, and operating guidelines, so I don't see any explanation but maybe you all know stuff!Ĭc u/InTheDarkDancing, I commented on this today elsewhere and adding here for consistency. Jamaica Bryant, Director of Content & Community, Codesmith. ![]() Sharon Wienbar, Independent Director, former coding bootcamp CEOĪnd the following board members were added:.Lesia Harhaj, Director of Career Success, Fullstack Academy.Joseph Kozusko, Chief Growth Officer, Ascent Funding. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |