If I were considering entry-level hires, I wouldn't hire bootcamp grads if their only experience were at the bootcamp. If someone has been coding for less than 4 months, I'm going to spend most of my time teaching them how to code. That kind of employment provides more value to the employee than the employer. That might work for some big companies, but I can't do it in a small company.

> There may be less variance between them from a purely technical standpoint but their backgrounds are far more diverse than what you'd get out college.

I agree with you, but it doesn't make it any easier to hire them. I have no idea if I'd rather have an ex-ballerina or an ex-salesman as my employee. Neither of those careers give you training as a developer.

So if I'm just trying to decide if someone can do the job, seeing 20 people with 12-16 weeks of experience isn't helpful. And, as someone who has been writing code for 20 years and still has a lot to learn, it's insulting to suggest someone can become competent in that short a time. I know for a fact that they can't. It sometimes takes that long for an experienced dev to learn a new stack, and bootcamps are claiming to teach people a huge array of technologies.

> A good hiring manager ought to take the time to treat a candidate respectfully, but I know this behavior is rare.

I treat candidates with respect. I think (most) bootcamps should treat their customers with more respect and stop promising to teach them to code. Bootcamps are mostly "teaching to the test" in my experience -- they teach you how to get hired. That's valuable, but it's a totally different thing.