We actually have a lot of transfers from community colleges, and they're eligible to graduate faster / reduce their tuition burden.

I fully agree that the 2 years of community college + 2 years of UC is one of the most cost effective ways to earn your degree. Though given that 2 years of UCLA (where I went to school) would cost ~$30k in tuition and that you have 2 more years of salary if you graduate from Make School, it ends up being comparable on an ROI basis.

These types of educational programs seem just as a way to tap into Americans' propensity for acquiring debt now with the hopes of a financial payout later. It still seems like the much better deal is with a traditional university, particularly in California where you're talking about the UC and CSU systems.

I'm from the very same demographic, to a T, you claim to be targeting. I've been working long enough in tech that, looking back, there's no way I -- in good conscience -- recommend your program over a traditional university's to others who come from a similar background.

But if you don't make the financial payout, you don't pay for your education or hold obligation to pay or take a hit to your credit. With our tuition model, downside protection is baked into the contract, unlike at the UC system.

I understand your gut reaction, most new colleges have not optimized for student welfare. But it's not fair to bucket us into those when the whole point of creating this college was to build a systemic solutions to exactly those problems.

For the same level of quality and hands-on-ness? Even at more expensive places the quality and one-to-one with professors/teachers is not what it could be. I only assume at places with less at risk the drive to excel (and for teachers to be very one-on-one) is rare

I would argue that someone who would sufficiently take advantage of the "hands-on-ness" of Make School would do well enough in community college to transfer into a much better school, e.g. Berkeley or UCLA. Though, I would argue that education is more about what you take out of it than what is given, but that's another discussion.

The whole point of Make School is to skip the absurdity of a 4-year institution, rerouting that 4 years might be more affordable, but that's like getting a Toyota instead of a Tesla, no? Even a Berkeley PhD doesn't guarantee you a good paying job, whereas Make School only takes a cut when you get decently paid.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It seems like you're saying you don't like a 4-year program. If that's the case, why even go with Make School? There are boot-camps that are 1 year. Heck, you could just use MIT OpenCourseware and teach yourself everything in 6 months and get a job hypothetically speaking.

In any case, you can get an associates much faster than 2 years if desired - you can do it in 1 year if you take courses during the winter and summer semesters. Then if you transfer to a school that's willing to accept your extra credits you can get a bachelors in the same amount of time as Make School.

An associates degree doesn't offer the same level of education as what Make School offers.

Make School has a fully accredited bachelor's degree, through a collaboration with Dominican college, and it does it in 2-2.5 years.

> you can get a bachelors in the same amount of time as Make School.

But make school is also a bachelors degree...