Ruby Developers Offended by $2,800 Ruby Class(betabeat.com)
betabeat.com
Ruby Developers Offended by $2,800 Ruby Class
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/27/ruby-developers-offended-by-2800-ruby-class/
16 comments
I find the comments given as examples of the "blowback" against the post very typical of programmers and fairly revealing.
Note that a couple commenters also pointed out that the class is now sold out.
What this reveals is that only a tiny tiny tiny subset of programmers is bitchy about prices, but that the vast majority recognize a good deal when they see one.
Many of the students in my make-and-sell-your-first-product class come into my class with the misapprehension that "developers don't buy." Because of crap like this. But devs absolutely buy. Many, many, many companies make a great living off selling to developers (including my husband & me).
It's just that the loud minority is very, very loud, and the buying majority is dependable… and quiet.
My personal theory as to why the angry minority is so angry: they are so afraid of being manipulated or "ripped off" (because that would pierce their self-image of super intelligent, uber-rationality), that they react like rabid dogs to anything with a price tag.
This loudly, vehemently expressed attitude also has a chilling effect on buyers who might spread the word in public, because if they say "Oh I bought xyz and it was great, you might want to try it," the angry minority will attack. So the lack of discussion may lead to people assuming, again, that developers don't buy, because most of the posts are anti-buying.
But, like I said, lots and lots of companies make a great living off selling to devs. Devs absolutely do buy. They can be great customers, too.
So I hope nobody will read this and be put off starting a real business aimed at devs.
FTR, $2800 for a 6-week course sounds like a great deal to me. When my husband & I teach our JS workshop, it's $500 for a day.
Note that a couple commenters also pointed out that the class is now sold out.
What this reveals is that only a tiny tiny tiny subset of programmers is bitchy about prices, but that the vast majority recognize a good deal when they see one.
Many of the students in my make-and-sell-your-first-product class come into my class with the misapprehension that "developers don't buy." Because of crap like this. But devs absolutely buy. Many, many, many companies make a great living off selling to developers (including my husband & me).
It's just that the loud minority is very, very loud, and the buying majority is dependable… and quiet.
My personal theory as to why the angry minority is so angry: they are so afraid of being manipulated or "ripped off" (because that would pierce their self-image of super intelligent, uber-rationality), that they react like rabid dogs to anything with a price tag.
This loudly, vehemently expressed attitude also has a chilling effect on buyers who might spread the word in public, because if they say "Oh I bought xyz and it was great, you might want to try it," the angry minority will attack. So the lack of discussion may lead to people assuming, again, that developers don't buy, because most of the posts are anti-buying.
But, like I said, lots and lots of companies make a great living off selling to devs. Devs absolutely do buy. They can be great customers, too.
So I hope nobody will read this and be put off starting a real business aimed at devs.
FTR, $2800 for a 6-week course sounds like a great deal to me. When my husband & I teach our JS workshop, it's $500 for a day.
[deleted]
I've been teaching programming classes (mostly Ruby, Python, and PostgreSQL -- and for a long time, Perl) for more than 10 years. People ask me to come to their companies and teach these technologies to them, and they're willing to pay me for it.
How many such courses have I ever taken? None. And I can't imagine ever taking one.
Like many others on HN, I've got a CS degree, and an ability (and interest) in teaching myself new languages, techniques, and tools. I also have the advantage of being self-employed, which means that I can (and do) take the time to learn new things, even if they're not directly related to the work that I do for clients.
So if I want to learn a new language, I'll get some books on the subject, read a bunch of blog postings, try out a lot of things... and then make mistakes, and learn from those.
Is this a great way to learn? I certainly think so. But it's not the only way, and I recognize that:
- Some people prefer the structure of a course, laying out the concepts in an organized way
- Some people don't have the time to experiment, and need the compressed time of a course, even if it means that they learn things less deeply
- Companies sometimes need to get a lot of people up to speed on a technology quickly, and a course can reduce that time somewhat, by having everyone at the same level
- Some people cannot learn without a teacher or guide.
I'll add that one of the advantages that my students get is lots of advice based on experience. It's not unusual for me to introduce a concept, or show them that something is possible, or answer a question -- and then say, "Please don't do this in your code, for your own sake and for the sake of anyone who will have to maintain it after you." Sure, people might learn this on their own, but I can give them a jump-start, based on my own trials and errors.
Now, is $2800 a lot to pay to learn Ruby? I don't think so, but it depends on all sorts of factors. I can assure you that for every day of a course that I teach, I've put in at least one day of preparation, and often much more than that. There are many courses out there, in many different shapes, forms, and price levels, that I don't think it's fair to bad-mouth someone who tries to charge that much. Believe me, if they're charging too much, the market will make it clear to them very quickly.
But if they're giving a good course, then it'll quickly be oversubscribed at that price (or beyond) -- and furthermore, participants will feel like they've gotten a good deal for their money.
How many such courses have I ever taken? None. And I can't imagine ever taking one.
Like many others on HN, I've got a CS degree, and an ability (and interest) in teaching myself new languages, techniques, and tools. I also have the advantage of being self-employed, which means that I can (and do) take the time to learn new things, even if they're not directly related to the work that I do for clients.
So if I want to learn a new language, I'll get some books on the subject, read a bunch of blog postings, try out a lot of things... and then make mistakes, and learn from those.
Is this a great way to learn? I certainly think so. But it's not the only way, and I recognize that:
- Some people prefer the structure of a course, laying out the concepts in an organized way
- Some people don't have the time to experiment, and need the compressed time of a course, even if it means that they learn things less deeply
- Companies sometimes need to get a lot of people up to speed on a technology quickly, and a course can reduce that time somewhat, by having everyone at the same level
- Some people cannot learn without a teacher or guide.
I'll add that one of the advantages that my students get is lots of advice based on experience. It's not unusual for me to introduce a concept, or show them that something is possible, or answer a question -- and then say, "Please don't do this in your code, for your own sake and for the sake of anyone who will have to maintain it after you." Sure, people might learn this on their own, but I can give them a jump-start, based on my own trials and errors.
Now, is $2800 a lot to pay to learn Ruby? I don't think so, but it depends on all sorts of factors. I can assure you that for every day of a course that I teach, I've put in at least one day of preparation, and often much more than that. There are many courses out there, in many different shapes, forms, and price levels, that I don't think it's fair to bad-mouth someone who tries to charge that much. Believe me, if they're charging too much, the market will make it clear to them very quickly.
But if they're giving a good course, then it'll quickly be oversubscribed at that price (or beyond) -- and furthermore, participants will feel like they've gotten a good deal for their money.
It's so disappointing when people get up in arms over things like this. So someone decides to put on a class for $2,800? If you wouldn't pay that, don't go. If you don't think it's a good value, you should be free to voice your opinion: "I don't think this is a good value because of X, Y, and Z." There's no sense in getting worked up over it.
What a strange community. Who cares if a class is $2800? $2800 is only a few days of a programmer's time, and if he can learn faster in the format of a class, then it's money well spent. If you can learn from some docs and playing around, that's good too (but beware: you might be doing things horribly wrong and you won't know until long after the bad habits have solidified).
Disclaimer: I've taught programming classes like this (but only charged a few hundred dollars for 3 days).
Disclaimer: I've taught programming classes like this (but only charged a few hundred dollars for 3 days).
>Art.sy’s Daniel Doubrovkine and Pivotal Labs’s Dimitri Roche are teaching a six-week class on Ruby on Rails at General Assembly for $2,800. When Mr. Doubrovkine took to the NYC-rb mailing list to advertise, he was surprised by the pushback. “I don’t want to put you down or sound like a jerk but any programmer should be able to learn Rails without paying $2,800,” wrote Rubyist Kfir Shay. “Documentation is excellent, free online resources are plenty, community is strong etc.”
I bet that a better investment with that cash, would be to get a decent Ruby library.
I bet that a better investment with that cash, would be to get a decent Ruby library.
Different people learn in different ways. Some people do very well by reading material and applying it. Some really cannot and need it in a visual manner or in a typical lecture / exercise environment.
I have friends who went to Big Nerd Ranch who were book learners, but the teaching staff, presentation methods, and setup made it very worthwhile to them. I would imagine something like this would fit for a lot people.
I have friends who went to Big Nerd Ranch who were book learners, but the teaching staff, presentation methods, and setup made it very worthwhile to them. I would imagine something like this would fit for a lot people.
The sort of people who are motivated enough to buy a book or download a tutorial, read it, and build something aren't the audience for this class. These simply are two different groups of people.
You see this in the gym: there are two groups of people that see trainers. The first are highly motivated people who go occasionally because they want a technique touch up or training tips or to discuss their routine with someone more knowledgeable. The second are people who go three times a week because they need motivation and affirmation. These classes are the same.
Hell, you could probably hire zed shaw or someone similar for $200 per half hour to give you hands on tutoring for any sticky spots and come out way ahead.
You see this in the gym: there are two groups of people that see trainers. The first are highly motivated people who go occasionally because they want a technique touch up or training tips or to discuss their routine with someone more knowledgeable. The second are people who go three times a week because they need motivation and affirmation. These classes are the same.
Hell, you could probably hire zed shaw or someone similar for $200 per half hour to give you hands on tutoring for any sticky spots and come out way ahead.
$2,000 Macbook, $800 chair, no one bats an eyelash.
$2,800 to learn the skills that justify the Macbook and chair, and it's offensive.
$2,800 to learn the skills that justify the Macbook and chair, and it's offensive.
Personally, I find the $2,000 Macbook and $800 chair offensive. I just know well enough to keep my opinions on what people ought to spend their money on to myself (most of the time).
can't get the Macbook for free, can't get the $800-level chair for free, etc. CAN learn those skills for free. Again, assuming you have the basics down, natural talent, willpower, focus, etc.
I (and many others) spent many times this amount at college to learn "heavier" (yet much less valuable in my opinion) languages like C, Java, Lisp and Smalltalk.
I taught myself the languages I write today and turned out fine. But for many of the people in the classes around me? This would have been an awesome value.
I taught myself the languages I write today and turned out fine. But for many of the people in the classes around me? This would have been an awesome value.
I dunno. Yeah, there are reams of documentation and tutorials available online for Rails... but loads of it is crap, or it takes a "and now magic happens! * poof * your site can now accept credit cards!" approach that's a massive barrier to really understanding how the framework works.
This isn't really excessive for a 6 week course, especially if it's well-done. College costs more. As a concrete example, though likely on the expensive end, here's one example for a 2 week course over the summer: $3,500 http://www.internaldrive.com/idga/courses/teen-game-developm...
This isn't really excessive for a 6 week course, especially if it's well-done. College costs more. As a concrete example, though likely on the expensive end, here's one example for a 2 week course over the summer: $3,500 http://www.internaldrive.com/idga/courses/teen-game-developm...
Here's a 10 session Rails class at NYU for $1300: http://www.scps.nyu.edu/course-detail/INFO1-CE9970/20121/rub...
There are more examples of expensive classes in this followup story on Betabeat: "In fact, there’s plenty of demand for pricey Ruby classes. A ten-session intro class at NYU is $1,295. Ruby classes can run upwards of $2,000 for a three-day course. New Yorkers can get five days of Ruby and Rails training at the for-profit training center Marakana for $2,150. Codeacademy offers 12-week courses for $6,000."
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/28/that-2800-ruby-class-that...
http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/28/that-2800-ruby-class-that...
As long as potential customers aren't offended, this is an odd complaint, but the psychology is predictable. Indeed, part of the reason I made a free online version of the Rails Tutorial (the PDF book mentioned in the article) was to insulate myself against the criticism that I was gouging my customers. I figured that if people complained about the price of the PDF and screencasts, I could say "Look, there's a 500-page book available for free online—what more do you want from me?" This strategy has worked, with basically no complaints about cost. In fact, most feedback had been along the lines of "This is a great value. I hope it's making a lot of money!" It is, and finding a business model that makes money while giving away a lot of value has been very gratifying.
In the case of the Rails course mentioned in the OP, maybe they can record it and make the videos available for free, à la MIT OpenCourseWare. That wouldn't silence all the critics, but it might shut some of them up. And I bet it would boost sales to boot.
In the case of the Rails course mentioned in the OP, maybe they can record it and make the videos available for free, à la MIT OpenCourseWare. That wouldn't silence all the critics, but it might shut some of them up. And I bet it would boost sales to boot.
I'm not a Rubyist, but the price tag isn't really the offensive part. 2,800 is fine for 12 2 hour classes. If you include grading and one on one help, it is a potential bargain.
Here is the offensive part (to me, anyway):
Students who successfully complete the six-week program will be certified by General Assembly in Ruby on Rails. Certification is a way for General Assembly to let our partner organizations, start-ups, and others know that a student successfully completed the course.
I know that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, but how long before this type of thing becomes the equivalent of a Microsoft certification and is a check-box that HR departments look for when hiring Rails developers?
Now I've got to spend nearly 3k dollars every couple of years to maintain my 'Rails certification', which I don't really need because I learned Rails on my own in a weekend and the point of Rails is that it makes things easy (reasonable defaults and all of that). If you need a certification to learn Rails, something has gone seriously wrong!
If the community legitimizes efforts like this (by not laughing at them and running them out of town on a rail)... There is a possibility that they will give some clout to certification organizations, which could lead to above (fairly unlikely, but plausible) slippery slope situation where you need certs to program Rails.
Here is the offensive part (to me, anyway):
Students who successfully complete the six-week program will be certified by General Assembly in Ruby on Rails. Certification is a way for General Assembly to let our partner organizations, start-ups, and others know that a student successfully completed the course.
I know that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, but how long before this type of thing becomes the equivalent of a Microsoft certification and is a check-box that HR departments look for when hiring Rails developers?
Now I've got to spend nearly 3k dollars every couple of years to maintain my 'Rails certification', which I don't really need because I learned Rails on my own in a weekend and the point of Rails is that it makes things easy (reasonable defaults and all of that). If you need a certification to learn Rails, something has gone seriously wrong!
If the community legitimizes efforts like this (by not laughing at them and running them out of town on a rail)... There is a possibility that they will give some clout to certification organizations, which could lead to above (fairly unlikely, but plausible) slippery slope situation where you need certs to program Rails.
Don't take offense, but if you learned Rails in a weekend then you didn't spend enough time to really learn all of it.
I don't see this type of certification being bad for people trying to break into development. Anyone with real world experience will still be able to use that experience on a resume or whatever. People relying on certifications to get a job after a few years in the industry are doing things wrong in my opinion.
I don't see this type of certification being bad for people trying to break into development. Anyone with real world experience will still be able to use that experience on a resume or whatever. People relying on certifications to get a job after a few years in the industry are doing things wrong in my opinion.
The demand for Ruby developers is so much higher than the supply enough that employers won't demand certifications... at least for now.
I can definitely see the value in having a classroom setting learning environment. Sure some people can learn on their own, but there's quite a bit of noise out there in all the tutorials and how-tos.
If a $2800 course could filter all the crap out, teach the basics and get a beginner up to the level where a beginner can start teaching themselves then the $2800 is well spent.
Of course if the class doesn't follow through then it's just like most of the actual college courses I took - a waste of time.
If a $2800 course could filter all the crap out, teach the basics and get a beginner up to the level where a beginner can start teaching themselves then the $2800 is well spent.
Of course if the class doesn't follow through then it's just like most of the actual college courses I took - a waste of time.
How many of these offended developers paid 30k for a C.S. degree?
It is likely that many of those developers paid $0 for a degree, and yet still can write good software and solve hairy technical problems. Skills, intelligence, talent, study, patience and much trial-and-error needed to work in this field, but not, strictly speaking, a degree of any kind.
A little off topic, but this stood out:
> One user, Dave Newton, wrote: “In any case, I’m done–nyc.rb is pretty much ruined for me, before my first in-person meetup, before I had a chance to contribute back.”
Overreaction and hyperbole like this reeks of childishness and it's pretty sad that something like this even made the article.
> One user, Dave Newton, wrote: “In any case, I’m done–nyc.rb is pretty much ruined for me, before my first in-person meetup, before I had a chance to contribute back.”
Overreaction and hyperbole like this reeks of childishness and it's pretty sad that something like this even made the article.
[deleted]
I take mild offence to "...learning lightweight languages like Ruby and Javascript"
That was betabeat, not the people behind the course.
I think it's a bit silly to gripe about a course being available. Just don't take the course! I understand proposing better alternatives on the list but I don't understand saying that the course shouldn't exist. Maybe the alternatives are better for most people, but for a few people the course is better!
I think it's a bit silly to gripe about a course being available. Just don't take the course! I understand proposing better alternatives on the list but I don't understand saying that the course shouldn't exist. Maybe the alternatives are better for most people, but for a few people the course is better!
I was specifically referring to the use of the word "lightweight". I have no strong feelings either way about the course, expensive or not..
Seconded. Ruby has tons of syntax and is a much more complicated language to learn than Javascript.
Also Rails is non-trivial these days. I picked up rails back in pre-1.0, and followed it closely until around 2.3. It's way more nuanced than it used to be, and I'd imagine someone could find it very difficult to "pick up."
Also Rails is non-trivial these days. I picked up rails back in pre-1.0, and followed it closely until around 2.3. It's way more nuanced than it used to be, and I'd imagine someone could find it very difficult to "pick up."
let the customer's decide
I've paid far more for far less training in certain areas.
People who do ruby professionally have a culture problem.
People who do ruby professionally have a culture problem.
A bigger problem is making broad generalizations based on the bickering of a subset of members on a small, unimportant mailing list or, worse, taking what single ex-members of a community say at face value.
First, does anyone doubt the value of learning Ruby is much greater than $2,800? I imagine the course is targeted at someone without any programming experience[1], which only increases its value.
Second, not everyone can teach themselves to code. It's an easy trap for us programmers to fall into, since we can often pick material up on our own. But we do call it "code" for a reason -- this is difficult stuff!
Third, many objections focus on the high price of the course. That's absurd -- it only establishes a higher value on the skillset those programmers already possess! We clamor for managers and sales people to just learn to program a little bit -- one way of conveying that value is to capture more of it in the training programs.
Fourth, these courses are just an option. Their existence doesn't threaten all the awesome free Rails courses out there.
It strikes me as a little bit of trademen unions. As if we want new programmers to pass the "self taught" trial by fire initiation ritual.
[1]I also understand the objection to the forum in which this course was offered; however, the primary objections in the article seemed to be focused on the cost of the course, rather than the manner in which it was advertised.
(edit, formatting)