Big thread in CSC sub with range of opinions on framing your bootcamp as "experience" on resumes. CSC is a lot angrier than this sub in tone, but I think it's good to read all sides of this. (Link in body)
Big thread in CSC sub with range of opinions on framing your bootcamp as "experience" on resumes. CSC is a lot angrier than this sub in tone, but I think it's good to read all sides of this. (Link in body)
While this calls out Codesmith, this discussion is more broadly about people's views on what "lying" means on your resume, as well as comparing CS degrees to bootcamp grads. I think it will shed some light from people in industry on why it's so hard for some bootcamp grads to even get interviews.
Just try to be patient with the tone, some people have pretty aggressive statements on both sides.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/y1klt4/experience/](https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/y1klt4/experience/)
u/Typical-Barracuda437 wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Codesmith graduates are very cringe. They unironically believe they come out of the program as mid to senior level developers
The extent they go to to lie about their experience is very amusing. If you look into some of the “companies ” they have worked for. They are all just bo
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
Every Codesmith alumni I've worked with at Formation (15+) has been a really fantastic person. Hard working, professional, well rounded, collaborative.
I've spoken to a lot of people and only a handful of loud people on here believe the mid-level senior level thing. They all understand that there is a difference between like mid-level Google vs mid-level Capital One (I think a senior at Capital One is an entry level at Google, and a "Master Engineer" is senior at Google).
They are running through a playbook of "how you create an OSP project", which templates you use for Medium, website, slack posts... everyone knows the "Sponsored talks from Single Sprout" are kind of a joke, but they do what they are supposed to do because they see it work for previous alumni.
Some of the loud people on here are actually just trolls or employees, there are also a small number of people with multiple accounts... super different tone and messaging than all the Codesmith people I've worked with. There are also a bunch of super reasonable Codesmith alumni on here that sometimes I agree with and sometimes disagree with and we get along just fine and have good conversations.... anyways, it's why I'm transparent and only post from this account.
u/Efficiu wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
[ Removed by Reddit ]
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited★ FEATURED
I already offered to do a call with you, and suggested you do real research about Formation before defaming me and the company. Instead you are making up things you believe to be true with no evidence whatsoever and yelling more and more loudly about them to make them feel more and more true. Just like this subreddit is a bubble around bootcamps, thought bubbles exist and no one is immune, not me, not you.
What evidence do you have the user was banned from Reddit?
I have a spreadsheet and documentation of 200 alumns and it's pretty clear. Whether they are told to lie or not is seperate, but the raw data is clear. I suggest you do the same exercise before refuting this point.
RE: FAANG I agree there is a problem with inclusivity and that's why Formation's mission is to fix that. FAANG prioritize consistency and calibration. So they are pattern matching you against others to make sure you are setup for success in your role by putting you at the same level with people similar to you. If it was a mistake, you will quickly be promoted! But just because you think you have experience you don't. I work with people that get like 10 offers and some are mid level and some are staff level AT FAANG... its the companies job to level you with whatever system they use to level people and we have to hope they can to that well.
A college physics professor should probably be entry level at Facebook and Google as SWEs. As a physicist with a PhD for a physics role, likely mid level.
u/Efficiu wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
You can click on the original OP’s name and see he is suspended site wide.
I asked previously if your company had any outcomes data at all after 3 years of existence and you have none. How can you purport to be a platform growing FAANG engineers when you can’t scrounge together
u/michaelnovatireplied·
We are not a bootcamp or school and we have ZERO reviews on any bootcamp and school website, correct. Course Report and Switchup are for-profit companies and you have to build a relationship with them to be included. Buildschool - Sophie's former free bootcamp that was a bootcamp is on Course Report, but no longer exists.
We have averages on our website, not-audited. We are at capacity right now and we need to prioritize our time, if not having more thorough outcomes reports is an issue, we will prioritize it. Startups have to prioritize!
An account can be suspended for: "My account was suspended for violating Reddit’s Content Policy" or for "My account was suspended or locked due to suspicious activity"
At Facebook, people try to log in and hack people's accounts when they don't like them. Someone could have tried logging into this person's account like 100 times in a way that caused it to be suspended too. I think it's more likely that it was suspended for something the person said, but you just immediately jumped to that as if it was fact and then amped it up with judging what they did - when it's Reddit content moderators jobs to review the activity and judge what they did.
u/cghfdfvhgg wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
lol i just hate this site so i make random accounts with random passwords so i lose access as soon as i logout. If you think i'm michael then sure.
u/michaelnovatireplied·★ FEATURED
This is not me \^\^. I only post from my real account with my name on it. I have access to Formation's account for ads, and I have one throwaway account to follow people who troll me and then block me (hence I can't see their posts) so I can identify patterns in their posts but I don't post from it. I've also said this many times and if you were around here for long enough you would believe me.
I've seen at Facebook what happens when people jump to conclusions and yell loudly about their unsubstantiated beliefs as if they are facts and it was not great around the last elections and with COVID misinformation (which was after I left but was the same patterns).
We need a world where people give sources, evidence, and actual examples so that other people can then discuss the interpretation of the sources if they disagree with the statements, instead of pointless back and forth yelling personal attacks.
For example, it's a good point that Formation doesn't have audited reports of outcomes. And I gave a good answer for the reason why. People reading can then decide what they want to decide based on that and their perception of the world and that's great. It doesn't mean one side is right and the other is wrong.
u/BootcampBen wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
I think you're mostly spot on in the things you say about Codesmith.
On the other hand in that thread I saw you said:
>There is or was someone at Codemsith at a very high level that doesbackground check calls to back up people's experience and a process fordoing these checks.
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited★ FEATURED
Good question, this is what I'm talking about discussing sources and quality of information in questioning conclusions so that the overall body of knowledge gets better and better.
I can't give more info about the sources without DOXing (which as someone pointed out, is against Reddit ToS and also against my personal ethics), which limits the credibility... like an article based on off-the-record sources only.
The information provided was that at some point in time Phil did/does reference calls for people and confirms the information you provide him when giving a heads up that you need a reference call (there is a process for requesting a reference call that I also don't want to go into in case it would DOX people involved). What I don't know is if anyone checks that self-provided information's accuracy or not.
I don't have any idea whatsoever what the people say on these calls, and I highly doubt someone would knowingly lie on the calls about employing people when they didn't, and I highly doubt they would say they employed the person even if that's what the student stated in their request. The vast majority of resumes have fine print that these "companies" are incubated by "open source labs" so I highly doubt anyone claims they worked there as employment for a background check (which is different than a resume/linkedin)
If anyone at Codesmith wants to add more first-hand information to fill in gaps, that would be great.
u/BootcampBen wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
Thanks for responding. So the thought is that he provides just like a general reference? Like a friend would? Do jobs even ask for that?
Or is he a reference for a person who can speak to what you did in Codesmith? That seems pretty reasonable, honestly, I know that he has data
u/michaelnovatireplied·· edited★ FEATURED
Yeah so my understanding is that Phil confirms the information you provide him about the specifics of what you told the company, and doesn't openly add additional context about Codesmith and what it is etc... or correct the dates/role you claimed.
When I do reference calls for Fellows, which is rare, I always explain what Formation is and people find a lot of value in me comparing someone to the hundreds and thousands of people I've worked with across my career and they don't care at all if the person has a specific number of years of work experience.
Like if a Formation Fellow was like "Michael, I told ABC that I did this OSP for 3 months from Jan to March and I was the lead", and the person worked on this OSP for 6 weeks but I confirmed that... it would be unethical to me and I would never do that. Even if the information was correct, I would feel a duty to check the information first and not confirm it otherwise.
So I might be overly judging the ethicalness of that and others might judge it differently.