But why let the definition of the term "10x" be hijacked by the kind of people you describe? We still need a way to succinctly describe engineers who are an order of magnitude more effective than average. Can't we let "10x" continue to mean what it's always meant, and agree on a new term for toxic team members?
I'm not sure that we do need such a term. Ability is a continuous function, and there's nothing magic that happens once you reach 10 times the average[1] that justifies such fixation. I never hear anyone talk about recruiting 5x engineers, even though it would be more viable as a business strategy. Besides, we can't even measure engineering ability to the precision at which specifying "10x" even makes much sense. When would "10x" actually be a more useful descriptor than "very good"? Also, where are all the "10x artists" or "10x mechanics"?
[1] Although I read here just a few days ago that a 10x engineer is only ten times as good as a bad engineer, not 10 times the average. So maybe it hasn't always meant the same thing?
"So I'm going to be sitting in class for 40 hours a week?"
"No. That would be terribly boring and ineffective. You will spend a little time every day learning through curated tutorials and books, and a lot of the time practicing what you learn. You'll work in pairs and small groups on an exciting integrated curriculum. Your brain will be buzzing as you solve problems, tackle challenges, and build applications until you're confident in your mastery of the skills. If you have an idea for a web app you want to build, then definitely bring it. Also it's important to note that even though class is 40 hours per week, you'll be working more like 70-100 hours per week!"
P.S.- I also attended Dev Bootcamp (with feministy, as it happens). I'd say 70-100 hours per week was accurate for my cohort, although this varies significantly depending on a student's programming background.
