0 0 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

I think the assumption I can't do math is insulting. But let's run with it. Here, in the same form, is your theory of value delivery.

  2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0 62.5 65.0 67.5 70.0 72.5 75.0 77.5 80.0 82.5 85.0 87.5 90.0 92.5 95.0 97.5 100.0

That's your theory, of course. You can see how cost is not proportional to value delivery. But from what people have been saying about your program, it sounds like actual value delivery is more like

  0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0

So in that case, charging 100% when they're only 25% of the way through a program that's delivering 20% of what it should is even more obviously bad.

The pushback here is that this isn't proportional to the duration of the program. While you're right that this is proportional for 10 weeks, it's not proportional to program duration. If your position is that it's fair to charge 100% tuition for a 40 week program after 10 weeks, make that argument. Don't try to argue that 10% per week for 10 weeks is somehow proportional to 40 weeks.

I'm a big fan of Lambda and am a pretty vocal defender, but this is simply misleading.

We're clearly talking past each other.

Yes, I think it's fair to owe full tuition once you're past 10 weeks in Lambda School, especially given a generous 4-week dropout period during which you owe nothing.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take and is more generous than the alternative (as someone who dropped out of a degree program, I can attest that I wasn't able to return any of my student loans 6 weeks into the semester. I checked).

I wasn't trying to talk past you. My original comment was that a specific complaint about the amount owed being 40% after 4 weeks, despite 4 weeks not representing 40% of the program, could be addressed by tying payment directly to portion of curriculum covered. You responded that this is how it works, but you redefined the denominator in the proportion from the original complaint.

I don't think you're doing this in bad faith, I'm legitimately just trying to point out a response something that is clearly a frustration isn't translating how you intended.

The other point being glossed over here is that higher education tuition is typically applied per term, not for an entire program. You don't get billed for four years tuition when you leave after one year - you have drop-out windows every term, and only pay for terms in which you attended.

So if LS has organized their cirriculum into "sprints", and wants to follow the standard in higher education, there would be a brief dropout window at the start of each sprint, with no ISA applied for sprints that were never started.

Exactly. If you quit a CS program 50% of the way through, you only pay 50% of the cost. And just as important, you get credit for that 50%, and can go somewhere else. At Lambda School, quitting at 50% because of a bad education means you pay 100% of the cost and get 0 in credits.