> being very good at turning a "no" into a "oh, ok, let's talk more."

Honestly wish there was a 3 month bootcamp for this.

Be a recruiter for a bit :P or any sales job, really.

Best advice I can give is treat every "no" like a probe from the other side to learn more. They're not saying no, they're saying "I don't know enough about this to want it." Obviously use common sense to avoid harassing someone, and don't waste your time where no opportunity exists (Mark Cuban reacted to the infamous "sell me your pen question" with "Do you need a pen? No? Ok, have a nice day.")

So every "no" has a response -

1. "No, you don't have enough experience."

Response: "I understand that this role requires the right experience. I applied to the job because I'm confident I have the experience you need. What about my background makes you feel otherwise? Do you have a coding challenge I can complete to demonstrate my ability?"

2. "No, we've had issues with bootcamp grads in the past. "

Response: "Hm, I can understand why having an experience like that would make you wary about bootcamp graduates. Was there something specific about why that grad didn't deliver? (choose response based on further information gathered, then: ) Hm, that does sound challenging. I think that my x y or z demonstrates why that issue wouldn't arise with me / I would love to demonstrate via a code challenge why I wouldn't x y z / If you go to myproject.calebjay.com you can see that I have quite a bit of hands-on experience with x y or z, so I'm confident that a b c wouldn't be an issue.

I'm remembering now an old sales training "no" breakdown:

1. Acknowledge the concern. Make the client feel that their concerns are valid, do not challenge or attack them, but at the same time avoid perfectly validating their belief that this is a harbringer that all similar solutions warrant "nos." So: "Yea, it is quite frustrating when recruiters send candidates that aren't even close to a good fit. You should see some of the resumes we people send to us when we open a job!" === good. "Oh man recruiters are so annoying, yea I would definitely never use them" === bad (when you're a recruiter trying to sell your services. Also, "psh, recruiters never act that way, you must have done something to annoy them" === bad.

2. Information gather. Always good all the time anyway. Usually the first "no" gives very little information and you could make some bad assumptions. "We've had bad experience with recruiters in the past" tells you literally nothing. The answer they give you can lead you straight into one of the fifty sells your company has drilled into your head. "What happened with the previous agencies?" "Well, they were sending bad resumes." --> "Oh, we get some hilariously off resumes. We like to think of ourselves as a filter for our clients, so we get maybe fifty resumes for a posting which allows us to hand-pick the best 3 for our clients." "Well, they would have three or four recruiters constantly calling us." "That is frustrating, we decided two years ago to only allow a single recruiter point of contact for our company because of that exact feedback from our clients." Etc.

3. Close. Of course.

> Honestly wish there was a 3 month bootcamp for this.

Please, no.

I'll take someone without a CS degree and an intense rabid desire to solve problems way beyond their current capabilities any day over a pedantic PhD who can't be bothered to even put together Ikea furniture. Yes, I know a couple. They are useless.

Attitude and approach is far more important than knowledge. The latter can be gained in many ways. The former comes from childhood and, generally speaking, is hard to reprogram.

What you're describing is an engineering mindset, or engineering talent. That translates into value in many different domains of knowledge.

Maybe I'm a lazy asshole, but I how can anyone cram-learn like that? 8am-9p everyday? Come on?! I applaud your effort. I really do. As long as your employer, and you, have the proper expectations about your skill set then I guess it's the perfect match.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it for all sorts of learning. It worked for me because I had literally gambled everything on it - if I dropped out or got kicked out, I'd be 17k in debt living in the most expensive city in america with almost no savings. Failure wasn't an option. Furthermore, my fallback options were shitty. 40k/year doing sales or recruitment, busting my ass to reach 6 figures, being stepped on the whole way up the ladder. Maybe teaching english abroad, end up being that 40 year old white dude trapped in Taiwan, stuck every night in the foreigner bar and droning about what could have been. Nope no no thank you.

> Maybe teaching english abroad, end up being that 40 year old white dude trapped in Taiwan, stuck every night in the foreigner bar and droning about what could have been.

At 5 years short of 40, doesn't sound half-bad if you cut out both the teaching and the bars =) there's gotta be worse "traps" than Taiwan, it's a comely-enough place, and one of the few capital cities in the region where cycling is as conveniently practical as it is in Western capitals

There's probably not too many "poor kids" in Taiwan.. as for the 20-something "English teachers" roaming the likes of Cambodia, Laos etc, unless actual NGO workers they're overwhelmingly teaching the better-off locals' offspring for comparatively slim pay --- more than accounted for by incredibly low and highly tweakable cost-of-living, lots of public holidays, low-to-zero minimum standards (other than "a proper attire" ie dress shirt, and saving everyone's faces at all times) --- which when motivated gives them great freedom to evolve their own didactic approaches and when not (such things ebb & flow after all) easily let's them approach the task at hand in a very laidback, relaxed, low-effort manner.

Not saying it's the best model for all societies, but it's assuredly not without it's charms for all parties involved. Different flow.

> The fact that you can make more money making webpages than teaching some poor kid english is mostly sad.

You're right in a sense; things that matter the most seem to pay the least. Teachers shape our kids tremendously and yet it's common they need donations just to buy simple school supplies.

Now I'm not sure it's fair to necessarily compare the two but it is still sad.

Yes, it's not fair: I made the comparison because the parent painted the picture of teaching English abroad as a "loser" job.

And that's ok, and you don't need to do that, but please do not assume that people who actually do such things do them out of desperation for money.

At least though it's not without merit that this glaring gap between what people claim to value "most" and where funding flows the most remains as visible as it is. Reality is the best reality-check for most of us. ;)

Well, I won't disparage those that are actually teaching poor kids, but in Taiwan I was teaching the top 25%, aka those that can afford to attend a cram school. I was making 2x the monthly salary working 20 hours a week that your average college educated Taiwanese grad was making working 60-70hrs a week.