Of course, not everyone is equipped to become a chef de cuisine. But not every cook needs to become that to make a living from their profession, just like not every coder/developer/programmer needs to know high end computer science concepts or how to work with the latest framework.
In the same way most chefs don't work at Michelin star restaurants, most developers don't work at FAANG companies like Google. They work at other types of companies, whether those are large company in house development teams, small agencies, outsourcing companies, government agencies or as freelancers.
And in those locations, you don't really need to be some super smart genius to get the job done. Coding themes and plugins for systems like WordPress doesn't require a computer science background or an analytical mindset. Building a percectly usable site or app for a local business doesn't require that either. Enterprise or government work often doesn't require it either.
So there are plenty of jobs available for people who know only a bit of code, or who struggle with the theory side of things. They're just not jobs making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in Silicon Valley.
The disconnect here, I suspect, is that bootcamps tend to promise that their grads will become the rockstars making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in Silicon Valley. Not that they'll be able to set up WordPress or do reporting with SQL queries. Some make this very, very explicit - I've seen ads that literally read "GET A SIX FIGURE JOB".
I've worked as a freelancer. I've worked at big-name tech. I've worked on in-house development teams and outsourcing companies. In every one of those scenarios, I had to understand the fundamentals of how computers work and apply analytical abilities to be effective. So I could deliver features on time, on budget, and as specified. I'm not going to claim to be some super smart genius, but I often found myself dealing with shrapnel from colleagues who possessed wonderful opportunities to improve their grasp of fundamentals.
It's not that there aren't jobs for line cooks or people turning out cookie-cutter blog sites. But when you run a training program promising everyone who signs up that they'll be a chef de cuisine while knowing that you're just training line cooks...
> The theme in this comment thread seems to be something like, "Only rockstars should learn to code, it's pointless for normal people".
Perhaps it could be read slightly more charitably? Anyone can learn to code. At the same time, most people should not assume this will automatically lead them into a lucrative career in software engineering.
As you say, it's by no means pointless for normal people to learn. A great many people derive much value and satisfaction from homecooked meals and Excel macros. However, just as basic competency in a home kitchen does not automatically qualify one for a career as a chef, neither does basic competency with a programming language automatically qualify one for a career as a highly compensated software engineer.
I don't think the "chefs" at Mcdonalds, burger king, subway and the like need to know how to be a career chef. That's the point of these coding bootcamps; Management wants coding to be as cheap, easy, and replaceable as any other production line job.
Yeah. but you should be honest about your skills and not bullcrap your way into being the chef in charge of preparing the pufferfish main course. That is a very deadly disaster.
By all means learn to code and make programs for yourself. No issue in occasionally helping other projects or programs or doing some small scale work. But don't try to directly jump into big things before getting trained correctly.
>At the same time, just because not everyone is chef de cuisine material, doesn't mean there's no point in their learning to cook.
Cooking and coding aren't amalgamous. Cooking is necessary life skill, unless your only sources of sustenance are prepackaged foods or food from restaurants (which would include fast food).
The same cannot be said for coding. You needn't know or even understand technology or software to use a cell phone or browse the internet or what-have-you.
A more apt comparison would've probably been driving but even that is limited in scope, dependent on the public services available (which is, in and of itself, a byproduct of urban life versus rural life - at least in the states).
Also, I think Hanlon's Razor applies here.
The idea that everyone can make a stellar income from being a developer is oft touted as one of the points of these boot-camps. In other words, the argument is that those people can do it, it's just that they've never been afforded the opportunity.
Whilst this might be true for a small percentage of the group, as a whole, it isn't - implicitly - true that all of them will find jobs being programmers the day after they graduate these camps.
So, it isn't pointless for them to learn it, by far (and I'm only speaking for me, here), but it shouldn't be touted as the get-rich-quick-scheme that it's being pushed as because, then, yes, it's pointless for people to think it's possible to become a rockstar overnight; which I would like to point out is precisely what this business has capitalised on...
To continue with the analogy of music, even rockstars had to play gigs and sell records/tapes as up & comers (negating the pop genre) before they became big. People only hear the songs on the radio, they don't want to hear about the years it took before those stars were even given spins on the radio (see: Jewel living out of her van).
Good analogy. But to extend it, part of the disconnect is that management/business side wants a lot of coders that are the equivalent of line cooks at a chain restaurant: just competent enough, with someone more educated/competent overseeing, and most importantly: easily replaceable.
A better question, perhaps, is why this is assumed to equate to coding-based jobs.
Anyone can learn to cook. This shouldn't be equated to everyone being equipped to become a chef de cuisine.