u/frenchydev1 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
I had to google what Codesmith was, sounds like everyone one here is making up a whole narrative about the entire industry, each to match their own agenda. 1. Nothing's a given, but with an interest rate that's not going to satisfy investors for ever fund LP's are going to have
u/michaelnovati replied · ★ FEATURED
1. Yeah we'll see, I hope that's what happens too and it's what's broadly expected. A number of bootcamps that are not doing so well though are banking on this happening to avoid further layoffs or shutdowns. If I'm planning ahead for multiple outcomes I would bias towards your view here, but I wouldn't bank the survival of my company on it.
2. Agree to disagree, I don't think my view is the only view here and it does depend on a bunch of personal factors. Agree there are startups that can be fantastic to go to as well.
3. Yeah it's old and it's Galvanize so I assume it's bias. I have a bunch of friends leaving Climate Tech to go to AI companies, so my personal view is bias and I tried to find other resources and couldn't find any showing that Climate Tech will dominate hiring this year.
RE: CODESMITH - long story. But the triggering point is that they are an advanced bootcamp that tries to get people into solid six figure jobs who almost all have no prior SWE experience. They tend to push people to mid level jobs at non-tech companies, like Mavis Tire, or software agencies, that are a step beyond entry level and pay low six figures.
And from number 2, I feel really strongly these people would be better off in entry level roles (unless they did have prior SWE experience) and that going into the roles they are is harmful to many people's 5 year trajectory.
I'm constantly battling people on here because alumni are fervant supporters and claim to have amazing trajectories and the company itself publishes a lot of anecdotal stories about this too and I stand firmly by my argument. They have a high bar and select for incredible individuals and give them good trajectories, when those individuals might have incredible trajectories following a better career rampup path.
A good example is someone who lied on their resume to get a more senior first role at non-tech but good company, and recently switched to FAANG after about 2 years into a mid level role. The person had a rough time in a that first job. They might have been able to have a better trajectory where those first two years had more mentorship and support in a more appropriate role that set the person up for more success in this second transition.
Everyone is unique, but I'm talking about systematically reproducible advice that I would give someone by default and I stand by.