Do you put your bootcamp in your 'experience' for CVs?

It depends on what kinds of jobs and how you are framing your resume. I've seen LinkedIn after LinkedIn full if extreme exaggerations and it might not even matter what you say about your bootcamp :( Example: There is a Codesmith grad that has the following LinkedIn (I'm not disclosing it for DOXing reasons but I'm characterizing it 100% accurately): Jan 2024-Present: Senior Software Developer: - Large Fashion Company Jul 2023-Dec 2023: Software Engineer, Contract - Small Company ->\[NOTE: Undisclosed subsidiary of the bootcamp itself\] Jan 2023-Dec 2023: Software Engineer - Small Company ->\[NOTE: Undisclosed bootcamp side project framed as a company\] Jan 2022-Jan 2023: Software Engineer - Small Company ->\[NOTE: Undisclosed 4 week long bootcamp group project framed as a company with no mention of the bootcamp\] 2016-2022: Full Stack Web Developer - Self Employer -> \[NOTE: Could not verify via portfolio or website the extent of this work\] **NOTE: NONE OF THESE BOOTCAMP AFFILIATED ENTITIES SHOW ANY SIGNS OF CONNECTION TO THE BOOTCAMP OR TO EACH OTHER** So you can see how this person appeared to have **SEVEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE** but really they possibly as little as 5 months of contract work with an undisclosed subsidiary of the bootcamp, and a lot of projects framed as work experience. This is who you are competing with if you want to get a legit SWE job out of a bootcamp.

The resume itself would get through to an interview, and a recruiter or hiring manager at a big tech company would definitely figure it out during the interview. I think this is why Codesmith grads who do this approach specifically typically end up at smaller companies. By the time they get the interview, if they do well, the companies is more open to taking a chance at that point... and like you said, they don't always do or care about background checks. At Meta, the hiring committees will grill your resume too and it's just not possible to get through without having several errors take place. It's why if you look carefully at the Codesmith alumni at Meta, most were TEMPORARY CONTRACTORS FOR A CONTRACTING COMPANY!! and didn't work there, one or two were in non-SWE roles, and almost all of them are no longer there. So short answer - it works at smaller companies and that's why Codesmith outcomes are really high. It doesn't work at the top tech companies and it's why only dozens of people or so have gone to canonical FAANG companies in legit SWE roles right out of Codesmith out of thousands of people.

The voting trends on this are whack... I guess if there is no legit response, downvoting is what's left...

1. "I know people from Codesmith"... yes but if you look at all the Codesmith students you see that it is a very small number of people compared to the "3500+" alumni. Outside of Capital One, Amazon is a highest with a couple dozen, Apple, Google, Intuit, Square are single digit-ish special cases.... out of 3500 people. I'm not making any comments about Codesmith here, like if it can get 5 out of 100 people amazing outcomes then that's notable, but anyone who portrays that as the norm is misleading people as to how Codesmith works - that's my point. If I think you have a very strong chance of being one of those people, I will 100%, no strings attached, recommend you go to Codesmith, and I actively try to do that. 2. 100% agree Codesmith does NOT encourage any lying. It's almost awkward how they tell you so upfront "don't lie". But I thoroughly agree with this. That said, I cought the Director of Outcomes in a hard place... she said that they use LinkedIn profiles to verify outcomes for CIRR purposes if someone doesn't reply to surveys. If you verify LinkedIn profiles then you will see people who are exaggerating.... as I'm sure as an alumni you have seen, or you might not even be aware of what "exaggerating" means because it's such a norm there, and there's a hard question. If someone lied on their LinkedIn like the one I shared, that would be a placement under CIRR. So either the Director is aware people do this, and has made workaround to exclude them from CIRR data OR these people are being included in CIRR data unwittingly. Regardless of that, most people exaggerate their LinkedIns, in my professional opinion of what I think exaggeration means. 3. 100% agree with the Codesmith application method. I think it's much better than applying online. 4. I have a copy of a signed letter from a Codesmith leader for a background check that in my opinion is lying about the person's background. I also have a recording of a Codesmith employee saying that they sign off on letters of reference for people's OSPs covering their entire time at Codesmith. I won't back down from this because I personally believe this is ethically wrong. Codesmith convinces you that your entire time spent on at Codesmith was contributing to your OSP so it's fine to back that up, but I disagree and it's a difference of opinion. 5. I've seen all of the methods Codesmith uses for people to document their journeys and they are very ad hoc, not mandatory, and not able to prove, in my opinion, anything. Asking people to track things in spreadsheets doesn't mean anything. 6. I agree, it's one of the top 3 bootcamps and I always mention that and recommend people look into it. Why do pick on them? I'm holding them to the bar they market themselves at! Plain and simple and one sentence. If they call themselves comparable to an elite grad school then I will evaluate them with those standards. If they didn't, I wouldn't.