It's interesting that you wish California would move faster and be more innovative regarding various tech-related occupations, but also support regulation of a sector that IS moving faster and being innovative.

Mind-numbing, soul-destroying, California-style bureaucracy is not the answer here.

Instead, I support self-regulation. Other industries have done it. I'd rather see prominent tech academies come together and form their own standards body.

Look, I'm fully aware what I'm asking for WRT California is a pipe dream. I just worry about the profit motive and price of the bootcamps. The jury is still out on their effectiveness and the price is out of reach for many of the people who could/should benefit from such programs. Even if they get to a point of qualifying for financial aid, are they any better than U. of Phoenix and Kaplan?

I attended and worked at a CA community college. It's an amazing and affordable public resource for low-income people, single parents, veterans, people who need to retrain, etc.

If they got creative, I'm sure they could do some great things. For example, get talented hackers to volunteer as professors in exchange for tax credits or forgiveness of student loans (I'd do that in heartbeat).

What's the difference between self regulation and collusion?

Higher education in the US is largely self-regulated via the accreditation process. The government has minimal oversight of that self-regulation, mostly through the GI bill. Self-regulation doesn't mean they collude in a bad way (though there are suspicions that the rising cost of tuition is a collusion problem). Self-regulation is a form of collusion that, when done right, is good for producers and consumers - LEED or certain organic food certifications or academic accreditation are easy ways for consumers to know what they are getting and for producers to limit the negative price and quality pressure of "lemons" (bad products) on the marketplace. And it achieves this effect without heavy handed bans that limit consumer choice.

whether the regulator has been paid off or not. seriously though,

barriers to entry, the number of competing firms, anti competitive behavior etc.

Low barriers to entry mean that if existing firms collude to artificially raise prices a new competitor may easily enter the market to undercut them.

A larger number of firms makes collusion less likely (see OPEC for example). Their attempts to collude are often met with one member state undercutting the agreed upon price and getting most of the business.

Other factors are also in play such as whether the industry is most efficiently served by a single entity as in a "natural monopoly"

"I am from government and I am here to help" I shudder every time I hear those words.

As long as people have a choice between to attend or not to attend a bootcamp I dont see how government can step in.

As long as people have a choice between to invest or not invest in Madoff's pink sheets I don't see how government can step in.

That would not be my first choice for an example of successful government regulation...

Successful, not really (though Madoff is in jail and some billions of investor money recovered), but a pretty good example of a place where regulation is necessary. Maybe a better one for this particular issue would be University of Phoenix and other for-profit colleges. I think there's been some success with these bootcamps, but what if that dries up... what then is the difference? Good intentions?

Edit: not trying to be overly harsh on the bootcamps... I think they're pretty neat and a good idea on the whole. I also don't think they should escape the protections government regulation, done properly, can provide.

I don't know, would the Madoff situation have been as bad if those hapless investors had not been able to think to themselves: "Well if this is not on the level, then why have they been operating for decades now without apparent interference or objection from government regulators?"

When government regulation is incompetent or malicious but has a positive reputation nevertheless, it can amplify harm.

investing is gambling. If the investors didn't know what they were buying they shouldn't have bought it. If they were being lied to then it's a case of fraud.

I don't see anyone who wants to bail out people who bet on losing horses in the kentucky derby.

I don't see what any of that has to do with my point.

To reiterate, the Madoff scandal was a decades-long failure of government regulation. Regulation eventually prevailed, but only after thousands of investors were defrauded. The fact that Madoff was ostensibly regulated lowered the perceived risk of investment, thereby increasing the harm that was ultimately done.

Had the SEC not been in essence vouching for Madoff, many of his victims may have been more cautious and therefore avoided becoming his victims.

It was a fraud, and the comparison with gambling is a strawman. It's not a matter of bailing people out if they take one of these crash courses and don't profit from it, it's a matter of preventing the courses from defrauding people and holding them responsible if they do.

it would have been an excellent example for self regulation if we had let the banks fail. then go into bankruptcy, the surviving banks could then purchase the assets at reduced costs, if not enough banks survived to aquire the assets we could have helped the surviving banks purchase the assets via loans to them. instead we just bailed out the shitty banks and the good banks were penalized for their shrewd investing.

Another precondition: Consumers should know what they are buying and not merely rely on what the seller is telling them. In case of investments it takes years for consumers to actually realize that they have been duped. That is why effect government regulation in banking and various other sectors matters.

In case of bootcamps it hardly takes any time to understand if you are being duped or not getting money's worth. I honestly do not see much case for government regulation in this case.

For a 12-week boot camp, it is going to take attendees a fair bit longer than 12 weeks to learn that they've been duped. A school, by definition, takes in people who don't know what they're doing.

Sure, most HNers could tell in a day that they're being duped. But most HNers don't need the boot camps in the first place to get a tech-sector job.

What is difficult for ordinary people is difficult for government too. How can government figure out the usefulness (which is a not so tangible thing) of a bootcamp ?

If government stays out of this it is likely that the bootcamps will end up giving "free one week course" etc. This is very common in India where non regulated coaching and training centers tend to give a free one day to one week course which the pupil may convert into a paid one.

Exactly, now some poor chump who finishes this bootcamp in 4 weeks thinks he is some kind of code-wizzard just because he can draw a stickman using javascript. Bootcams are modern versions of "Learn {php/c++/etc..} in 24 hours" books.

AFAIK those things are a complete waste of money.

I have read a couple of those books and liked them for learn the syntax of a language.

You miss the point.

Sure, when you have years of programming experience you can just pick up syntax and start coding. How about when you have zero experience? Not so much helpful now.

The hypothetical poor chump came out of it knowing how to draw a stickman in javascript, right? Can't be that bad then.

If "coding bootcamps" are really the new "Learn [whatever] in [X] Days", then does that imply that those book are currently regulated, or should be regulated? Should the State of California protect poor chumps from books that might artificially raise their egos?

If they buy one of those books and work through it but don't get a job, they're out of some time and maybe $30, but they have some skills now. If they go to one of those boot camps thinking they're going to get the same job as someone who did a 4 year degree at an elite school and did a ton of side projects, they're probably now out of >$10k with arguably less skill than the person who went through the books.

I'm all for the government preventing fraudulent advertising. That's one of the things they're there for.

What is the bar here?

If I sell a self-help book for many thousands of dollars and people mistakenly ascribe undeserved value to my books, is California going to attempt to step in to protect the poor chumps?

I suspect not.

There's always more to focus on than can be focused on, but if you're doing a lot of damage to people via fraudulent claims, I would hope that regulators would come down on you hard.

yep then what about 4 year factor,s they just pose a threat to degree mill,s who do the same thing the fact is you can learn to code in12 weeks to some degree i am teaching my 4 year old to code ror and he is getting it

it did c++ in 24 hours and now i am doing my own startup it got enoght c++ to hire other c++ guys to go get my money really no bs it is all about the concept

>As much as I'd like for every bootcamp to have altruistic motives, some seem like a money-grab to me.

Regulation should not ALWAYS assume a stupid citizen. Just like total surveillance might make us somewhat safer, total regulation might make things somewhat less fraudulent. But do the benefits justify the costs: bureaucracy, cementing a fast-paced industry in the molasses of government? Creating a new set of taxes, fees, and public employees?

I went to a California community college as well as a California state college.

The problem with what you are proposing is that they are already so low on classes, they can't cover the basic comp sci curriculum. This means that you are asking to add courses, which will replace what they currently have available. It is not uncommon to cancel classes with low enrollment.

The level of quality in state colleges in California is frighteningly low. I had comp engineering students ask me what constructors were in a data structures course. There is no way to make California schools teach more useful technology stacks if they cannot cover the basics.

Another thing that really annoys me in the California state college level is the apathy of the professors. You have professors who do no research that have watered down the material to an extreme degree. That same person who asked me what a class constructor was graduated with me.

It may be a great way of getting very low level programmers or even people who are looking to change professions, but you would be ruining what little comp sci core material that they still teach.

I attended an iOS bootcamp a while back. I found it to be educational, however, the amount of time you spend on coding is so low, I can't imagine anyone but a seasoned programmer benefiting from the experience.

> Personally, I wish California's community college system would learn to move a little faster, spend $ to hire some talented instructors, and add modern certificate programs in programming/iOS/Rails/Android/UX/DevOps/etc. It's a big system (100+) schools, extremely affordable ($46/unit + lots of financial aid

To expand (rather than contracting) programs, California's Community Colleges would either need to get more support from tax revenue or become less "extremely affordable".

I gather you're asking for a law to protect students from being overcharged relative to the services they're provided. But this regulation isn't intended for that, as far as I can see: http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsregs/ppe_act.shtml

Are there any statistics on how long it takes people to land jobs after they graduate from the larger programs?

I know a couple people who've been through them and it seems to have tapered off a bit - at least with respect to RoR bootcamps. If the students stick with it most of them can get jobs within 6 months of starting one of the programs but it seems to be a limited number who get jobs immediately after finishing.

I dont think anything has happened yet to trigger a bootcamp incident of people getting beat out of their life savings to learn how to code FORTRAN for CGI apps on gopher where anything needs to be regulated.

Point me to some of these scams, I'd say yes - it's gone the way of Devry Institute - although like anything a fool and his money is soon parted and if you really want to learn, you'll do it at a bootcamp, and a bad college or on your own impetus regardless of cash outlay.