In-person Coding Bootcamps are Terrible Business Models

I worked for Michael Dearing at Harrison Metal in 2013 when he asked me to advise the founders of Bloc, the world’s first and largest online coding and design bootcamp. About a year later I joined the company as COO, and last year became the CEO, so I’ve studied the coding bootcamp space closely for the last 4 years. It wasn’t long until I concluded that the in-person (or “on-premise”) coding bootcamp model is a terrible business. There are several reasons:

1. No barriers to entry. Any developer with a few desks and a powerpoint presentation can start an in-person coding bootcamp. Since Dev Bootcamp (RIP) pioneered the model in 2012, ~300 coding bootcamps have come into existence. Grand Rapids, Michigan has one, and Omaha, Nebraska, my hometown, has two! Competition is fierce as more plunge into the industry, which means they often resort to:
2. Discounting and bogus claims to attract students. I’ve seen claims of job placement rates so disingenuous they’d be comical if they weren’t so predatory and rampant. Competitive pressure is intense: if one in-person coding bootcamp offers a 95% placement rate in 12 weeks for $14,000, the new one across the street may promise a 96% placement rate in 10 weeks for $13,000. Prospective students often want to believe they can get value by spending less time and money, so that’s too often what they are promised. Not only is there flagrant dishonesty abound, but:
3. The unit economics are terrible. In-person coding bootcamps have tremendous financial pressure to fill every cohort with as many students as they can. Just like a restaurateur must turn a certain number of tables each week, an in-person coding bootcamp must play the same revenue per square foot game, with fixed operating costs (like rent, insurance, utilities, connectivity, teacher time, etc.) incurred whether there are 5 students or 50 in a given cohort. No barriers to entry = excess supply = downward price pressure, which leads to less qualified teachers who will work for peanuts, unfavorable teacher:student ratios, and slim margins to fund growth or product development.
4. Inherent pressure to behave at odds with student’s best interests. Coding is hard, and students require varying levels of time and intensity in their study to demonstrate job-ready proficiency. But with a classroom model, the cohort’s march through the curriculum must be completed in 10 weeks (or whatever) because the next cohort is waiting — on to the next! This requires “teaching to the middle” or “one pace fits all”, wherein many students need to go slower while others are being held back by the pace, so the school aims for the middle and shores up the laggards on the margins if they can. Not a great experience if you’re outside the hump in the distribution. Worse, because student dropouts carry a steep opportunity cost (can’t back-fill with another student mid-cohort), many in-person coding bootcamps often beg and cajole poor performers to “keep at it”, when they should invite the student to consider if it’s the best use of their time and money to continue. These issues are inherent to an on-premise model with a 1:many teacher/student ratio, and amplified by financial pressure.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say starting an in-person coding bootcamp does not sound like a good idea to me. If I were a prospective student who felt that I must be physically present in a classroom with an instructor to enforce my focus, I’d ask a heavy battery of questions before investing the required time and tuition, and foregoing income while in the program and job-searching thereafter. The most credible bricks-and-mortar bootcamps worthy of respect are few and far between, and are likely not financially lucrative or fast-growing (which is fine!). To find efficacy and financial sustainability, look to an entirely different model(s).