General Assembly

After takeing two courses through General Assembly I would highly recomend PASSING onto another university! They are very quick to get you enrolled and will contact you within the same day HOWEVER, they will not refund you your money after you withdrawl during the course. Bootcamps are marketed as a "One and Done" type of course ensuring you will leave with a portfolio presentable for the career of your choosing. What they do NOT INFORM you of, is that you will NOT BE READY to enter the career field of your choosing after ONE bootcamp. Once heavily through the course "professors" will change their language from, "This is what you will need and have ready for your portfolio." To "This is just one small component that you can use TOWARDS your portfolio." Save your money and choose another Bootcamp! 

I took the Data Science Immersive Program in Boston and I'm very happy with the experience. I made the career switch after being in my previous career for more than 10 years and was also 5-8 months pregnant while taking the program.

My greatest advice to others taking the program: manage your time well the whole time and work hard. It's a short 3 months compared to going back to graduate school/college, so grit your teeth and just push through. The program was well worth it as the curriculum covers a wide breadth of topics that expose you to much of the Data Science field. Time management and focus should also be given your Outcomes work (job search portion of program) during and after the program. The Outcomes team allows you to be accountable in your job search in addition to providing support (from network connections to advice on cover letters and resume).

The whole program is project-based. You have two lectures a day and the rest of the day is time for you to work on projects (you'll definitely need all of the time given on top of nights and weekends). Through the project-based approach, you're able to truly test concepts and gain a better understanding of all topics taught in class.

Since you spend so much time in class for 3 months, you get to know your fellow students extremely well. Learn (if you're not already great at it) to work in a team towards deadlines, as team projects teach you how Data Scientists really work together.

In summary, worth the time and hard work. I'd recommend (and already have so far) to others.

Understand that this program is only 10 weeks. A lot is crammed into the curriculum, and a lot is left out of it as well.  Understand that you need to put in 100% to get out 100%, inside and outside of the program. If you're not ready for that, you will struggle.

If you're ready, read on.

My background is in visual design and management. Those skills flow very nicely into UX. If you have a similar background, you will have an advantage. If you don't, you just have to work a little harder. I loved the program. It is structured so that you learn to apply the whole UX process of research, synthesis, wireframing, prototyping and usability testing to 5 projects. The first 4 projects prepares you for the 5th, your capstone. I the program prepared me very well for a career in UX, but I recognize that if you don't have a design background, then YMMV.

The most important part of this curriculum, is actually what you do outside of class. It's easy to show up and follow instructions everyday. You have to network (they teach you, it's easy). You have to read, listen to podcasts, talk to other designers. You have to learn new software. You have to put yourself out there. That is how you will be successful in this program. (GA will teach you how to do all of this, and very well)

The Outcomes team (career coaches) are fantastic. They give you all the resources, tools, advice, and time with them as you need to help you find a job. They do not find one for you. Same advice goes as above. You have to put in a lot of work, supplemented by the Outcomes team.

GA has great alumni resources who stay in the community, participate in GA events, and give great advice. A lot has given their time to me to help me, and I will undoubtedly pay if forward.

Extra things I'd recommend if you enroll in this program:

1) Learn how to write/tell a good story. GA teaches you how to write a case study, but it's only effective if it tells an interesting story people want to hear.

2) Learn how to work with engineers. The program does not involve any coding or working with engineers. Seek out opportunities where you can learn how the dynamics work.

3) Understand what UX means in relations to the business/company you want to work for. This is how you speak the language of decision makers.

This bootcamp has serious limitations. Unless you have a  background in design, graphic design and/or have previously started working on a portfolio you might probably be better off investing in a different bootcamp that is serious about the quality of its teachers. There is some learning, but it is important for a  prospective student to seriously ponder if such learning justify $14,000, and forgoing at least 3 months of salary.

The bootcamp is designed for the student to deliver fast in a high pressure environment but without adequate knowledge transmission and feedback, students are left on their own. We were aware, from week 1, of the lack of quality of the lectures and teacher support. However, few people will speak up about the program limitations and demand for improved curricula and better teaching quality.

Unfortunately, it seems that such limitations are caused by GA corporate modus operandi. Its focus on making short term profits and to be competitive drives them to hire poor quality assistant teachers and to fail in providing an adequate training and support for teachers. There are standards for teaching adults in a bootcamp setting, it seems that corporate GA is not aware of such standards and as a result the teachers consistently failed to give clear adequate guidance and to communicate knowledge effectively. Teachers spent valuable time an energy of students discussing irrelevant anecdotes about their professional lives, reading from slides without providing any valuable insights and/or correcting concepts conveyed wrongly the first time. On top of that, none of them were available outside class hours and their feedback about our projects was consistently delayed. We were required to ask our questions to the assistant teacher before asking a question to the teacher. Which wouldn’t be a problem if the assistant teacher were slightly competent at his job. He was close to student level knowledge and his feedback was most of the time irrelevant. Most of us would ask feedback to a teacher from a different class.

While the main teacher was clearly competent at his craft, had numerous industry connections and sound professional judgement he lacked teacher training background. Although he was very open to feedback he carried all the weight of the class and of organizing class related activities that limited the time he could connect with students. Instead of helping him, the assistant teacher was a liability to the whole class.

The assistant teacher was a GA graduated with no professional experience and no disposition to help students. Even when he wanted to help he had no insight. He would repeat what the teacher said and most of the time had to idea of what he was saying. He will read slides and will find about the content of such slides at the time he was lecturing. He never prepared before the class and wouldn’t know about class concepts even though he was a student like us just 6 months prior. When asked for help "he would respond ask your classmates". He will sit in the back of the class and play video games, do shopping or fall sleep. He had no work ethic, no self awareness and no-one that would held him accountable. Most of us were frustrated and voiced our concerns about it but nothing was done.

The Bootcamp format is demanding and it has the potential to be rewarding but most of the success depends on the quality of the teachers. We did not have an assistant teacher and our teacher, in spite of his best intentions was overwhelmed by the amount of work he carried on his own. It was unacceptable for GA to provide such quality of support to the students given the high stress that the Bootcamp model was already causing to us. More than Ginger.io memberships we deserved and needed decent quality academic experience.

We learned from this bootcamp, we had to, after all the time we invested. Was it worth the investment? This is something that each of my classmates might answer differently. It depends on the quality of your academic experience at other institutions and it certainly depends how much you put into. Without going too far, I had much more rewarding experiences at Community College classes. The Bootcamp format worked for me, I put a lot of energy and time and I got what I put into in spite of the quality of this institution. Most people would want to convince themselves that the investment was worth to avoid the depressing thought that the class was not worth more than half the price. I won’t do it again or recommend it to anyone whether anyone has the money and resources or not. This course is an overpriced introduction to UX. There were so many concepts not explained or explained wrongly in the class. Our portfolios are competing with other portfolios elaborated with much more technical knowledge and honed by much more rigorous critique process. If you don’t have a background in UX, design, graphic design or something similar this course is not a good investment. There are much better introductory classes and other online bootcamps where you can develop a portfolio with mentorship. This course won’t make you a UX designer. Learning in a Bootcamp setting can be very valuable and now there are other options in Seattle. You owe yourself to do your due diligence and invest your money wisely before you put yourself on the hands of GA or any institution without academic competency to deliver.

I took the Web Development Immersive in Providence which is supported by the Boston GA office. The immersive was everything I wanted it to be. Expectations for course content were very clear and there was support at every step from instructors and outcomes staff. 

Taking a bootcamp feels like a big risk and I looked into a few different options before choosing GA. I chose this bootcamp because it had positive reviews, friendly and informative staff, relevant programming langauages, and some convenience factors including cost and location. The full-time immersive curriculum is very challenging and definitely requires full commitment. 

When you finish the program there is still so much opportunity to stay connected with classmates and instructors. The job support staff hold ongoing weekly workshops and regularly check in about the job search. They are also available for one on ones to talk through any challenges and offer input on job offers. After two months of rigorous job search after completing the course I accepted a position as a software engineer and the GA reputation really helped get my foot in the door. The possibilities after GA are endless and you will walk away with a solid understanding of full-stack development and object oriented programming. You will also walk away with a sense of community. 

The course content was nothing more than could be obtained for a fraction of the price on various sites: exclusively lectures that provided a very broad overview of JS and various flavors (jQuery, APIs, React, etc.) but never got into depth with any of them. The scope would have been excusable, but there was none of the interaction/cooperation with peers or the instructor that I expected from an in-person class. Additionally, the little homework that was assigned was barely graded and the only “project” was something that the instructor loosely defined as “anything that can prove you learned something from this class.”

Short version: look elsewhere for a cheaper introduction to JS.

Here is a honnest summary of my experience at GA:

The instructor was often disrespectful and would make fun of foreign student accents, show lack of patience or inappriopriate humour.

During projects, he would just go out to the hairdresser or disappear, and sigh when we ask questions.

The content of the curriculum was ok, but would not be explained in details. If you want to learn to code, then learn it beforehand...

At times, the teacher was showing a clear lack of mastery of the languages he was supposed to teach, being corrected by students on several occasions. Courses were lacking a clear structure.

They would spend more time telling you off if you run 2' late rather than making sure you understand it all...

Also, there is a pressure as they pretend they are supposed to be your future reference for employer which adds some tension.

If you say you don't understand, they will get rid of you and just say "You will understand later and this is absolutely normal".

Don’t expect any support from the Program Team either who will reply that this formula has worked perfectly for the previous cohorts.

Finally, the outcome team would stress you out so much about job search and provide minimum support, spending time correcting insipid details from your CV and expecting you to standardize your portfolio to fit the mold.