Codesmith Full-Time Remote H1 2022 CIRR report is out

I'm working on a big write up. Some numbers to look at here and more than meets the eye. Will post in about an hour or so, I'm on an airplane with wonky wifi Re: job market, agree through April 2022 it was 🔥, Then from may to October it was 👍, and then from Nov to Feb it was 🤮, Now it's 🥴

Here is my detailed analysis, neutral look at the data (some points might seem boring, but just writing it up thoroughly). I tried to put the more controversial points first as I doubt people will read all of this. # SUMMARY: Not much change from H2 2021, slight downshift in salary buckets, but overall very similar numbers. # 1. Median salaries continue to be super misleading because of multiple cutoff points (a CIRR issue I describe often is pronounced here) So the part time program exemplifies these the best, explaining via example. 37 people included in report. 10% of people were excluded because they said they weren't job hunting when starting Codesmith. Now 31 people were placed. 21 people salaries, and 3 people did not report salaries. So of the **\~40 people who started, 21 people reported salaries and the median of those was $137K**. For the full time program, 301 people included (\~323 started based on graduation rate), 252 placed, 237 reporting salaries with a median of $128K. **So this means of the \~323 people who started the median salary of 237 people was $128K and the other 86 people are either not reported, weren't looking for a job, or $0.** **TO BE TOTALLY FAIR: MANY BOOTCAMPS DO THIS KIND OF THING**, which is why it's so hard to understand the numbers and CIRR lets you figure these things out, but it's a false statement to say "the median Codesmith grad makes $128K" or "I have a 50% chance of making $128K or more" # 2. They combined all their programs into one report They are no longer reporting by program location. I think this a good thing to make analyzing the programs easier and with such a remote demographic makes a ton more sense. 301 were included in the full time vs 263 in H2 2021. 37 part time vs 40 in H2 2021. So we continue to see an emphasis on full time and really only 1 cohort + stragglers in the part time. # 3. Median reported salaries are down a bit, but generally flat. ~5% drop in number of people making over $140K, slight increase in number of people making under $120K. Not much else here. The part time program results are extremely high with 41% making over $140K, but it's a tiny sample. # 4. Graduation rates remained consistent, as did percentage of people excluded from the report, not looking for a job. Nothing more to add. # 5. Placement rates remained the same. I originally expected drops here when TechElevator initially reported. But after they corrected their outcomes, showing no drop from H2 2021, this is pretty reasonable for H1 2022. I still expect H2 2022 to be around 50% on paper, which is much lower when you factor in the discounts.

See below, not much change from H2 2021, similar to TechElevator. I commented on problems with talking about the median outcomes as I normally do with detailed calculations of why they are not really the median outcomes :D

This is another problem with CIRR, it's not crystal clear on layoffs, promotions, job changes, etc... that could happen in the six months. It assumes people just get one job and they don't specify any requirements on how salaries are collected. So if I was Codemsith I would 1. Include anyone who got a job, regardless of layoffs 2. If people got multiple jobs or promotions, use the highest salary within the six month period.

Yeah I think Codesmith for the most part treats the fellow job reasonably with CIRR, but the loophole to watch out for is that they can "delay the clock indefinitely" by 1) extending contracts, and 2) hiring more Fellows. e.g. hiring 20% of a cohort back (7 people) is a MASSING clock delaying event for CIRR results. It pushes back 20% of people who might have otherwise not gotten a job, into the next report. Thanks for sharing details as well, I suspect many programs have similar results and it's expected, but it should help people in navigating the tough market! Again, I think they handle this reasonably, but they should disclose in a footnote on their reports how many people are fellows in each cohort as it manipulates the data.