It was a 'team' effort. So, when you go look at the git history of the 'project', you can see who in the team actually contributed. Usually, it wasn't the person looking for a job. Then you wonder, ok, maybe shared computer... which makes it even harder to figure out. How is that a win for people who are paying tons of money to get an 'education'?
I believe strongly that software engineering is an art form that requires tons of practice to get good at. As such, you wouldn't expect a designer or artist to show up at an interview and not be able to show examples of their work. Just like a software engineer should be able to show something as well. Of course, the counter argument to that is maybe they didn't have time to work on something extra curricular. Except for the fact that the people who did the extra curricular work in high school, got into better colleges. Go figure.
Even worse is that I did try to interview some of these people and it became clear that the bootcamps were about training for the minimal viable education. Leaving a lot of basic fundamentals out. I'd ask what idempotency is and get blank stares. So sad.
Yes, you have to start somewhere, but that doesn't mean you are immediately prepared to get a job as soon as you graduate. That is part of the broken promise of these bootcamps.
Idempotency is a good example of a trivia term that would be unreasonable to expect most recent CS graduates to know. Not to say that it's not a valuable property for a service or library or whatever to have under certain circumstances-- but it's not a reasonable way to decide whether a candidate for a junior position is a good fit.
Huh, I did a diploma in computing (UK) in my spare time about 12-16 years ago and remember covering it in a databases module (and possibly when doing OOP with Smalltalk?) - I'd go with "it's about repeatability, knowing that sending the same request, eg SQL query, will return the same results".
That's a little off the mark, as I've checked, but I'd think a full-time CS (as opposed to programming or computing or IT) student would be able to define it very readily ...?
If they submit projects they did not contribute to then that is an issue. Your other points however, I disagree with.
- all code I write commercially will have dozens of contributors. It's a team sport and you need to be able to play well with others to succeed.
- the best place to get experience is in the works place. That is why folks hire juniors. They will have massive gaps in their knowledge, but they will also be keen and in learning mode. Help them improve and become great developers. They will do much better in a commercial environment with good guidance than struggling at home alone
I wasn't arguing against working with other people. LOL.
What I'm saying is that you should have clearly identifiable portions that you can point at as something you did. I also think that it takes extra curricular activity to truly master a subject. You can't just rely on others to show you everything. You have to experiment and learn on your own too.
I believe strongly that software engineering is an art form that requires tons of practice to get good at. As such, you wouldn't expect a designer or artist to show up at an interview and not be able to show examples of their work. Just like a software engineer should be able to show something as well. Of course, the counter argument to that is maybe they didn't have time to work on something extra curricular. Except for the fact that the people who did the extra curricular work in high school, got into better colleges. Go figure.
Even worse is that I did try to interview some of these people and it became clear that the bootcamps were about training for the minimal viable education. Leaving a lot of basic fundamentals out. I'd ask what idempotency is and get blank stares. So sad.
Yes, you have to start somewhere, but that doesn't mean you are immediately prepared to get a job as soon as you graduate. That is part of the broken promise of these bootcamps.