Bootcamp Regulations

DevBootCamp is just one of many boot camps that is seeking to help people transition from their former careers into computer programmers. Each bootcamp is its own de-facto schooling system. Should they, however, be regulated just like schools?

That is the argument that the California’s Bureau for Private Post-Secondary Education (BPPE) made when they sent letters out to seven boot camps (including our very own DevBootCamp). Pointing out that these boot camps are schools teaching a valuable “trade” (computer programming) to the general population, that they should follow trade school regulations. They should, for example, not exaggerate their job placement rates, and be clear about exactly what skills are being taught by publishing documents such as course catalogs. If the boot camps don’t follow these regulations, then they must pay a $10,000 fine.

California’s BPPE is very accommodating towards the boot camps in question, and will not levy the fine if there is progress towards following the regulations. However, there is skepticism within the tech community towards government regulations. Complying with regulations cost money (money that would be better spent improving the boot camps). Innovation would be stifled by paperwork.

But the boot camps really do not have a choice. Either they comply or they get shut down. So all seven boot camps have agreed to comply with the new regulations and follow the BBPE’s advice.

According to Christina Valdiva, the “BBPE’s information officer, the reason they are cracking down on boot camps is to reduce fraud. “Part of the reason [the boot camps] have to do these performance fact sheets is to make sure they’re telling the truth that their claims are accurate” (Source).

Without government regulations, a lot of fraudulent boot camps would likely appear, and defraud students while teaching them worthless skills. Even if the boot camps do teach valuable skills, they could still mislead students about the future prospects of their career. And there is an incentive for some of these bootcamps to do just that, as boot camps currently make money from fees, and only have to worry about their reputation if their education turns out to be faulty. (So what if their former students hate them? The fake boot camps still got their money.)

So I am supportive of “trade school” regulations being applied to boot camps. The need to reduce fraud and ensure that students acquire accurate knowledge about the boot camps should outweigh any fear of reduced innovation. After all, paperwork only slows down progress. It does not halt it in its track. At the same time though, convincing boot camps that the regulations are necessary can be difficult, and I can sympathize with the desire to avoid bureaucratic waste. But fraud prevention must come first.

And in some ways, government regulations may also serve the interests of the boot camps well. If these boot camps are regulated as “trade schools”, then they will receive permission to offer and receive financial aid from California. While boot camps are cheaper than a traditional 4-year degree, financial aid can lower the costs even further. This will lead to more customers, and ultimately, more innovation by the new blood.