Two things I think boot camps should try that they haven't yet (or at least I don't think they have).
1. Why not poach from high school graduates who would likely go to college? Except instead of college, you advertise to them a Bootcamp. Screen them via SAT or ACT if need be. A small market since you'd need parents that can co-sign or pa…
Two things I think boot camps should try that they haven't yet (or at least I don't think they have).
1. Why not poach from high school graduates who would likely go to college? Except instead of college, you advertise to them a Bootcamp. Screen them via SAT or ACT if need be. A small market since you'd need parents that can co-sign or pay, but certainly large enough to make some money off of.
2. 6-month boot camps that teach twice as much and make people more likely to get a FANNG job or something.
The issue with #1 is that signaling still matters. GA's genius was that we would have students who had the traditional signal of graduating from a traditional school - they were just missing the skills. We gave them the skills. Skills alone are still a tough sell.
On #2, there were students that took multiple courses, but the ROI decreased. The cost for a second 3-months would be the same as the first, but unclear that it would get you a job 2x as good. We also thought about "level 2" courses, but there was not enough demand. One thing I thought would work, but we never prioritized high enough was the "triple threat" or something along those lines - basically someone who has taken web development, UX design AND Data Science with us. You could do all three within 9 months, and you would have a really powerful and versatile skill set. Add in part time product management and digital marketing for an "easy" fourth semester and you have a really powerful full year program.
(I only know 2 people in my life that are skilled across all five subjects and both are very senior in very large organizations)
Two things I think boot camps should try that they haven't yet (or at least I don't think they have).
1. Why not poach from high school graduates who would likely go to college? Except instead of college, you advertise to them a Bootcamp. Screen them via SAT or ACT if need be. A small market since you'd need parents that can co-sign or pay, but certainly large enough to make some money off of.
2. 6-month boot camps that teach twice as much and make people more likely to get a FANNG job or something.
I looked into both of these.
The issue with #1 is that signaling still matters. GA's genius was that we would have students who had the traditional signal of graduating from a traditional school - they were just missing the skills. We gave them the skills. Skills alone are still a tough sell.
On #2, there were students that took multiple courses, but the ROI decreased. The cost for a second 3-months would be the same as the first, but unclear that it would get you a job 2x as good. We also thought about "level 2" courses, but there was not enough demand. One thing I thought would work, but we never prioritized high enough was the "triple threat" or something along those lines - basically someone who has taken web development, UX design AND Data Science with us. You could do all three within 9 months, and you would have a really powerful and versatile skill set. Add in part time product management and digital marketing for an "easy" fourth semester and you have a really powerful full year program.
(I only know 2 people in my life that are skilled across all five subjects and both are very senior in very large organizations)