u/dak78 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
I don't generally trust anyone on here affiliated with bootcamps/schools/education platforms tbh. ​ Codesmith's blogpost as you've linked seems transparent that they don't consider bootcamp employment --- their 3 month temporary fellowship --- employment in field. &#x
u/michaelnovati replied · ★ FEATURED
/u/InTheDarkDancing you are a by the books and audit-appreciating person who disagrees a ton with me about most things, so what are your thoughts on this?
Am I wrong in asking this "violation" (i.e. inconsistency with CIRR standards) be disclosed by the auditors in the report because it's not for Codesmith to decide what rules they choose to follow and not disclose in the official paperwork, or do you think this rule breaking is so obviously okay that we shouldn't question it?
I'm fine either way as long as it's consistent. Like we all follow the rules and disclose meticulously when we don't and feel justified, or we get aways with fudging the rules when we feel like it and hope that everyone agrees but it should discredit the trustworthiness (just a little bit.... not entirely obviously) of the outcomes.
The voting on these comments suggests people are in a different camp: 'Whatever makes Codesmith looks good is right as long as it sounds reasonable to people'
RE: 'catch22', it's not a Catch 22, CIRR has rules, of all the loopholes in CIRR, this one is not ambiguous, no one is forcing Codesmith to hire it's graduates, whether it's to be nice and supportive or it's to get cheap labor, it's completely irrelevant, and the rules are the rules and they are clear.
They are on the board of CIRR, if the rules make them look worse and they feel the rules aren't fair, they can try to change the rules... that's how CIRR was made. Companies PAY A MEMBERSHIP FEE TO BE IN IT and they get to make their own rules.