Running a coding bootcamp
for non-engineers
Code Camp is an internal bootcamp taught by engineers and open to non-technical employees. Over three years, the role expanded from running individual cohorts to restructuring the entire program and building a Teaching Assistant framework from scratch.
Started as a program coordinator running end-to-end operations across three time zones. Left as the person who restructured how it ran, grew applications by nearly half, and created a Teaching Assistant role that didn't exist before — turning one immersive experience into an ongoing development opportunity for graduates. The changes weren't made by intuition. They were made by going directly to the people the program was supposed to serve and asking what wasn't working.
What I brought to this
What I learned
We had spent months in meetings trying to figure out why the program wasn't working the way we wanted. Too many seats in one location, not enough in another, scheduling that didn't fit people's lives. Everyone had opinions. I suggested we just ask. The pulse survey came back with clear, actionable data that cut through all of it. Sometimes the most strategic thing you can do is stop guessing and go directly to the people most affected.
When each cohort was managed by a different person in a different location, participants had meaningfully different experiences: different selection criteria, different feedback processes, different Hack Week support. Moving to role-based admin wasn't just more efficient. It made the program more equitable.
Code Camp was one immersive experience. But once it was over, how could we continue to give graduates the opportunity to use what they learned? Training in retail taught me that classroom learning is only one part. The best way to grasp a concept is to help teach it. The Teaching Assistant role was built on that principle: an opportunity to return post-graduation and offer support. The 70:20:10 learning model — which frames most development as happening on the job and through others rather than in a classroom — shaped every tool I built around this program. Formalizing the structure changed what it could offer beyond the classroom.
Three years, three phases
Each year brought a different challenge and a different scope of work: from running cohorts to rebuilding the infrastructure to creating a role that didn't exist before.
Managed the full application process, selection committee, ERG outreach, participant communications, Hack Week coordination, and the all-hands presentation where alumni shared their projects.
A 2023 retrospective surfaced three structural problems: documentation gaps, inconsistent cross-cohort experience, and a scheduling model that didn't reflect actual demand. The 2024 work was about fixing all three.
No formal TA role had existed before. The opportunity: leverage alumni knowledge as a structured support layer between participants who needed help and instructors who couldn't always be available in real time.
What changed
Applications nearly doubled after the restructure. The program expanded to include participants from Australia for the first time. Graduates now have a structured path back in through the TA role. And the pre-curriculum means new participants arrive more prepared, which raises the quality of the classroom experience for everyone. Every change was grounded in data and in listening — not in assumptions about what people needed.