I’d be surprised if code remains inscrutable, or requires years to learn, over the coming decade. Finding more accessible methods is essential to filling the growing number of positions for programmers; it is in companies’ interests, (otherwise, hiring becomes prohibitively expensive, or relies upon the work done by programmers in countries with a lower standard of living) and in the interests of the average person (who then has the ability to engage with computers in ways that were previously beyond reach). To insist that programming remain a chore is a plea for inefficiency and obfuscation.
As a result, the first group to overcome the user experience problem has a distinct advantage, either as a pull-factor to enrollment (schools), a budget-saving training program for their employees (companies), or a way for their citizens to out-pace the global market (governments).
Your argument that I am asking to be coddled is false. Amish could make the same argument as you, stating that you are asking to be coddled, by not growing your own food, or building your own house, or using a horse to get to work. Progress happens when barriers are lowered, not justified by “how many years of experience these people have, tilling soil with a wooden plow.”
When an educator ignores the diversity of styles among their students, it speaks to the poor quality of the educator, not the difficulty of the topic. As Holberton itself advises: if you explain something to a peer, and they don’t understand, it is your explanation that is wrong for them, not them being wrong for not understanding. I see Holberton as a toddler among institutions of learning — in a positive way: it is still growing, learning, and can make radical changes that its elders were to ossified and pompous to make on their own. If you hoped Holberton would be an “established” way of learning, why didn’t you go to one of the esteemed and accrediting establishments, instead?