6 ms·

> I did not receive much support either from the HN crowd I think there's a reason for that, and you touched on some of them. There's undoubtedly an ageism to

> I did not receive much support either from the HN crowd I think there's a reason for that, and you touched on some of them. There's undoubtedly an ageism to the tech industry, and being an older junior developer is likely to be a huge uphill climb. There's also skepticism around the coding bootcamp industry for the same reason that there's skepticism around University of Phoenix: The certification isn't really useful or impressive, and the kind of person who benefits highly from a program like that would likely learn just as much through self-study at a severely reduced cost (or free). Compounding that, there's a glut right now of alternative software development education. It's hard to imagine a future where being a software developer isn't significantly less prestigious in the future, except for software development in highly specialized areas (e.g. machine learning). Not that prestige is so important, but the reasons for the loss of that prestige will likely cause salaries to plummet significantly. It's entirely possible (and some would say likely) that most web development will become analogous to traditional trade professions like plumbers in the future, with: * Significantly less initial investment: There's no standard or certification for being a web developer) * Significantly larger pool of competition: Your web developer doesn't need to physically be located near you, unlike your plumber. If you're fine with all of these things, then that's great! Be a software developer. Just be aware that it's likely to experience significant changes in the coming decades, not many of which are likely to be beneficial. You might very well do better for yourself and your family to actually just become a plumber instead.

aetherson 10y ago
I don't know if it makes sense for the OP, but I'll stick up for coding bootcamps as a general concept. I don't agree that most people can just self-study in the same time period and get as effective an education, and I do think that the credential is important. A friend of mine just did a bootcamp -- from a stalled career as a lab technician in which she was making something around $60k/year (in the Bay Area) -- and sure enough, three months later she got a job at $110k coding the consumer website for a bank. Now. Is that the quintessential job that everyone on HN longs for? CLEARLY NOT. But is it pretty impressive to jump your salary up two really solid tiers in three months and at least be in a place where you might see another $50k/year over the next 5-10 years? From where she was? Hell yes. Some people who are amazing autodidacts don't need a bootcamp for the skills, and lots of people who aren't amazing autodidacts could get the skills in other ways (but slower, and almost certainly cheaper). The credentialism is going to be a problem, though -- Google isn't going to hire a bootcamp grad, but they also almost certainly won't hire an autodidact. A big boring enterprisey place apparently will hire a bootcamp grad, and almost certainly wouldn't hire an autodidact. Startups, well, who knows, but they're a crap-shoot.
- CarpetBench 10y ago
  > I'll stick up for coding bootcamps as a general concept Sure, and similarly there isn't anything inherently wrong with for-profit universities: You can certainly find people who excelled in an environment like DeVry and don't regret their decision to attend. Over time one can expect that the "cream will rise to the top" and good bootcamps will have a certain reputation associated with them. Similar to for-profit universities. Still, I hope it goes without saying that many of the same concerns about for-profit universities also apply to coding bootcamps. > I do think that the credential is important. Why? What does the credential prove in this case? > sure enough, three months later she got a job at $110k coding the consumer website for a bank. That's great! I'm happy for her. Still, I hope that sentence gives you (and her) some pause for concern. If three months is enough time to train someone for a $110k job, I would suggest that job is unlikely to remain paying $110k in the foreseeable future. It's hard to think of other professions that pay so well for so little investment. The supply can (and will) increase precipitously to match the demand, and salaries will drop precipitously. For a recent example, see the recent glut of law students and freshly-minted lawyers making a pittance. There are quite a few parallels between that scenario and the current one facing software developers, except that law school is even more of an investment than coding bootcamps. > at least be in a place where you might see another $50k/year over the next 5-10 years That's my point though: I don't think that's likely. Maybe over 5, but it seems unlikely that 10 years from now she'll be making $160k. I'm suggesting that those kinds of salaries will be reserved for people working in specialized fields, not people doing basic web development. For a more realistic future salary, I'd say look at developer salaries in places like Canada, or much of western Europe (where $60k/year a year is probably much more realistic than $110k). > Google isn't going to hire a bootcamp grad, but they also almost certainly won't hire an autodidact Google absolutely hires autodidacts. I know a few of them. Clichés about "non-Stanford students need not apply" aside, Google just hires smart people. Smart people don't always have degrees or certificates.
  - theparanoid 10y ago
    >>If three months is enough time to train someone for a $110k job Most fail the training, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition.
soneca 10y ago
Well, I happen to completely disagree with your vision that software development will be so commoditized in 10 years. Software impact on every career path have just started the way I see it. I'm smart enough to know that I will have to keep learning and not be stuck in 2026 with the JS I learned in 2016. Yes, the pool of available software developers will grow, but I believe the applications of software development will grow even more. Even if it takes to invent my own application of it and sell it. I still have the sincere impression that software developers in this early ages feel they are rather special and regret that more "common" people are trying to become one. Like a hipster syndrome of a kind.

aetherson 10y ago

I don't know if it makes sense for the OP, but I'll stick up for coding bootcamps as a general concept. I don't agree that most people can just self-study in the same time period and get as effective an education, and I do think that the credential is important. A friend of mine just did a bootcamp -- from a stalled career as a lab technician in which she was making something around $60k/year (in the Bay Area) -- and sure enough, three months later she got a job at $110k coding the consumer website for a bank. Now. Is that the quintessential job that everyone on HN longs for? CLEARLY NOT. But is it pretty impressive to jump your salary up two really solid tiers in three months and at least be in a place where you might see another $50k/year over the next 5-10 years? From where she was? Hell yes. Some people who are amazing autodidacts don't need a bootcamp for the skills, and lots of people who aren't amazing autodidacts could get the skills in other ways (but slower, and almost certainly cheaper). The credentialism is going to be a problem, though -- Google isn't going to hire a bootcamp grad, but they also almost certainly won't hire an autodidact. A big boring enterprisey place apparently will hire a bootcamp grad, and almost certainly wouldn't hire an autodidact. Startups, well, who knows, but they're a crap-shoot.

CarpetBench 10y ago
> I'll stick up for coding bootcamps as a general concept Sure, and similarly there isn't anything inherently wrong with for-profit universities: You can certainly find people who excelled in an environment like DeVry and don't regret their decision to attend. Over time one can expect that the "cream will rise to the top" and good bootcamps will have a certain reputation associated with them. Similar to for-profit universities. Still, I hope it goes without saying that many of the same concerns about for-profit universities also apply to coding bootcamps. > I do think that the credential is important. Why? What does the credential prove in this case? > sure enough, three months later she got a job at $110k coding the consumer website for a bank. That's great! I'm happy for her. Still, I hope that sentence gives you (and her) some pause for concern. If three months is enough time to train someone for a $110k job, I would suggest that job is unlikely to remain paying $110k in the foreseeable future. It's hard to think of other professions that pay so well for so little investment. The supply can (and will) increase precipitously to match the demand, and salaries will drop precipitously. For a recent example, see the recent glut of law students and freshly-minted lawyers making a pittance. There are quite a few parallels between that scenario and the current one facing software developers, except that law school is even more of an investment than coding bootcamps. > at least be in a place where you might see another $50k/year over the next 5-10 years That's my point though: I don't think that's likely. Maybe over 5, but it seems unlikely that 10 years from now she'll be making $160k. I'm suggesting that those kinds of salaries will be reserved for people working in specialized fields, not people doing basic web development. For a more realistic future salary, I'd say look at developer salaries in places like Canada, or much of western Europe (where $60k/year a year is probably much more realistic than $110k). > Google isn't going to hire a bootcamp grad, but they also almost certainly won't hire an autodidact Google absolutely hires autodidacts. I know a few of them. Clichés about "non-Stanford students need not apply" aside, Google just hires smart people. Smart people don't always have degrees or certificates.
- theparanoid 10y ago
  >>If three months is enough time to train someone for a $110k job Most fail the training, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition.

soneca 10y ago

Well, I happen to completely disagree with your vision that software development will be so commoditized in 10 years. Software impact on every career path have just started the way I see it. I'm smart enough to know that I will have to keep learning and not be stuck in 2026 with the JS I learned in 2016. Yes, the pool of available software developers will grow, but I believe the applications of software development will grow even more. Even if it takes to invent my own application of it and sell it. I still have the sincere impression that software developers in this early ages feel they are rather special and regret that more "common" people are trying to become one. Like a hipster syndrome of a kind.