Regard notions of "senior" in the tech world as you would "vice president" in banking.
In my experience many of these folks are rails, js, or purely frontend devs. These circles seem to have a lower entry to those titles, for whatever reason.
I feel comfortable in saying, if I spent 2-3 years just on js or rails - I would have a higher title than if I stuck with what I am doing currently.
However, I'm not convinced on the whole that I'd be as competent in general engineering terms compared to if I just stuck with what I'm doing now. This is not to say some js or rails devs aren't quite brilliant - it's just a trend I have noticed.
This is from my experience interviewing rails and js devs, and also keeping in contact with fellow bootcamp grads that are currently js or rails devs. I am not suggesting this is a universal truth, it's just an observation
And to your point about fresh bootcamp grads being very green/not impressive. Unless you're interviewing the cream of the crop from the top camps (which usually have prior exposure to the field in some way) - you'll likely not run into any rockstars, or even anyone that impressive.
I'd be interested to know what your experience interviewing fresh college graduates is in comparison.
Its not the bootcamp alone which is responsible for any person's success or advance, its a combination of factors, just like it would be if you replace "bootcamp" with "university degree".
Can you explain how being a CPA would help give you seniority in a software engineer role at a Fin Tech company or how nursing experience would help give you seniority as a software engineer at a health based tech company?
Isn't being "senior" in this context of software engineering specific to your role and not the industry as a whole? I guess I'm failing to see the transitive relationship. If I previously worked as taxi driver would that help me as an SWE at Uber? Or if I worked in retail would that best me as as an SWE at Amazon?
Both get hired at a FinTech company. Is software developer A or B more likely to rise to the level of "senior" in the next 5 years? I'd say B... Already has tons of domain specific knowledge that will help him focus solely on the technical issues at hand (instead of trying to understand how Balance Sheets work or something), has 7 years experience as a working professional and all the soft skills associated with this, and has experience as a manager.
IMO, too many SWEs think that the technical stuff is the only aspect to their job. Often (depending on company size, etc) there are many, many other skills required to be a successful employee.
Also, depending on the workplace you may be undervaluing domain experience. Yeah, of course, a taxi driver isn't going to ascend at Uber because of Taxi driver skills. But a high-skilled experienced CPA with a knack for software development could do really well against 20-something SWE's at a fintech company.
Now your shifting the discussion a bit with the concept of title inflation. I think the intention of "Senior" is very clear with respect to junior and mid-level career stages. It is not a "doo-dad" in the same way that something like "Customer Success Associate" is.
But looking across companies... Nope. A "junior" could easily change jobs/employers and land on a "senior" title or vice-versa.
I don't doubt the value complimentary skills at all but 3 years of actual software engineering experience and exposure and say 7+ years are very different things. I don't think there's any substitute for "rubber on the road."
The former usually have previous experience in the workforce and put in the required effort to really get the most out of a bootcamp to accelerate their career. It does not surprise me at all when I see them in senior roles a few years later. The latter rarely graduate on time and struggle to show any skill growth. They wash out of their new jobs within a few months.
Obviously when categorizing people's behaviors there are a million grey areas in between the black and white, but it has been my experience that these two different groups stand out in interviews. People in the first category would likely succeed no matter what they tried to switch into, they just chose coding bootcamps.
I think it helps I routinely push for that promised, mythical senior developer and instead they give more more classes, pair programming with senior devs of my choosing, etc. Perhaps my complete (justified) awareness I am way over my head is the prerequisite fire to keep me always drinking from the fire hose of knowledge. Who knows.
I will say that it seems baby startups who have to choose between cheap(er) bootcamp grads who know how to get a beta out quickly, cheap(er) fresh CS grads who often don't know how to get a beta out quickly, and more expensive experienced people often chose the bootcamp grad.
I said in my interview they should get a senior dev. They said they couldn't afford one. And here we are 3.5 years later.
My "maybe" here is literal, not a snarky euphemism. It is a possibility you might want to check. Maybe you are right and that "not sure yet" feeling may be that lack of passion to learn that almost all of successful cases here mention about other not successful bootcamp colleagues.
My first reaction here is that there's a ton of variance in bootcamps. That's obviously true of colleges and even past employers, too, but the recent boom in bootcamps means there are a lot of them without a well known reputation.
Presumably the best and worst bootcamps differ somewhat like the best and worst colleges, ranging from "top notch" to "literally just a scam". So I suspect any article on the outcome of 'bootcamps' is a bit misleading.
I've worked for startups early in my career where I was the "Lead" guy primarily because I was the only guy in the company with that job, and was thus forced to do run things.
Thankfully I'd already made and released well over a dozen apps and games I made on my own time for various platforms before then, so it wasn't like I had no idea what I was doing.
My best guess is that bootcamps aren't a bad deal for smart motivated people.
Bootcamps aren't learning institutions - they're fundamentally recruitment agencies. They connect companies with smart, motivated people who can learn things on the fly.
This is why there's such a massive variance between bootcamps. The best bootcamps have the luxury of screening for the best people.
I had been coding in relative obscurity and isolation for some years, and (1 I wanted to pick up Ruby, which I'd read 5-7 books about but not really done much with, and (2 I had no social connections and no idea of my relative skill level. I'm still not entirely clear on that score but my teachers were pretty insistent that I knew more than them about the course material; I ended up dropping the program.
Either way, I spent a lot of time getting to know people there, of widely disparate backgrounds, who were mostly learning to code for the first time. After several months in company, I could probably pick out one or two out of the cohorts who I would feel confident in saying, "this person is going to be a 'Real Programmer' some day". And to me the difference was not necessarily about native ability; I think that there are quite a lot of people, perhaps even the majority, who can learn to code at a high level eventually. However, it also became clear that people had very different styles and rates of learning, and they had very different goals and reasons for being there.
I think it's probably possible to master all aspects of programming in a decade or two. I'm pretty sure that mastering all aspects of programming isn't even the goal of most programmers, and most people will never get there. That's not a bad thing in any sense; it's possible to have an excellent career as a programmer and never e.g. write a compiler from scratch.
So with the overall idea that people are on different paths, starting from different points, and progressing at different rates, I would probably say that [1] anyone who is three years out of a coding bootcamp with no prior coding experience should not be in a senior dev position, and [2] you may or may not be doing the bootcamp grads a disservice.
I was immensely impressed by the rate at which people were able to go from zero programming knowledge to being able to solve problems in whichever framework happened to be thrown at them in a given week. What is taught in bootcamps is not how to be a programmer -- no months-long course of study could do that -- but how to learn how to learn programming. The bootcamp grad is not a finished product, they're a work in progress. That may or may not be useful to you, but I would argue the merits of bootcamp grads as junior developers over the majority of CS graduates -- at least if this post were not already too long. Of course, if your position is simply that you do not hire junior developers, then that's a separate issue.
All said and done, I'd try to keep an open mind about bootcamp grads. They're not going to be well-rounded developers, but completing a bootcamp tends to mean learning a lot of different skills very quickly. I don't think I saw anyone at my school of which I thought, "this person really ought not to be here," or "they're never going to make it in the real world". If you saw a lot of bootcamp grads and passed on all of them, I'd say odds are you missed out on at least a few pretty talented people.
I remember interviewing a ton of bootcamp grads from a couple of schools in Austin, TX and being largely unimpressed. You know that feeling after you interview someone where you're just _not sure yet_? Maybe you liked talking to the person; Maybe they did great on the coding exercises, but you're just not sure. I've since learned that when I'm not sure, that means no.