Also, it looks like you get out of Lambda School debts via bankruptcy, which you don't with regular college, so that's... an improvement?
There are options other than being weirdly positive and ranting. They could not say anything at all. They could give one of several varieties of mea culpa. They could simply state their intentions going forward.
Apologize.
> Also, it looks like you get out of Lambda School debts via bankruptcy, which you don't with regular college, so that's... an improvement?
"You can't discharge student debt," is actually a myth. I have two relatives that discharged their loans due to financial hardship. It isn't trivial, but there's a process.
The issue with ISAs, in their current form, is the lack of legal framework. Short of bankruptcy, the best you can do is lawyer up. Lambda School targets people who can't afford lawyers.
What specific issues do you have with the ISA?
That was always the case, Lambda School just communicated otherwise to students.
But if you lie about it, then...
During the middle of my enrollment at the program (Sept 2020), the school suddenly dropped all notion of grading, code review, and attendance, let alone the length of the program. It remained this way for 3 months, 50% of the length of the program.
This is a broad description of the changes, but I want to emphasize that the changes were terrible, _many_ students complained, and the school essentially whistled with fingers in their ears.
In the meantime I have a part time job and working through the MIT Computer Science OCW
That said, I’ve read through your profile and you’re a heck of a good writer. You likely don’t need any help and you’re going to do very well for yourself!! :)
Previously -> if you go bankrupt you still owe us.
Now -> if you go bankrupt you don't owe us.
On the face of it this seems like it would make Lambda school _more_ attractive than less.
Note, the clause in question is "qualified educational loan…subject to the limitations on dischargeability contained in…the United States Bankruptcy Code."
The ISAs are, as far as I know, capped at 30k, and only apply if you're making 50k/yr. I can't imagine a situation where someone's decision of whether or not to declare bankrupcy comes down to the 30k-max ISA; either it's the majority of your debt, and you're making >50k/yr, or it's a small amount relative to your other debt, in which case you should proceed anyways.
One of the biggest reasons student loans can't be forgiven in bankruptcy is because, after school, chances are the graduate has zero assets and can go bankrupt with the only downside being destroying their credit for 7 years. Whether or not you think this is justified or fair is up to you, but the situation before this ruling simply [de-]elevated Lambda School to the same playing field as other educational institutions - the only difference being that those institutions don't offer student loans themselves.
It’s exactly this. Lambda School customers tend to be young and financially ignorant, with very few resources. If a graduate is in a position where, say, they can’t find a software job, they could be functionally bankrupt, and their dwindling income/savings will still be going towards outstanding Lambda School payments.
From this perspective, it’s extremely shitty for LS to deceive students that they would have to make the payments, with no legal options, even if they were stressed about rent and groceries.
Technically sure. On the face it tells me something about their branding - that their offering may be more deceptive than I might realize. Especially since its a new economic model for education, the customer probably hasn't thought through everything, so trust is important here.
It in no way resembles the college financing model, and in fact the purpose was to succeed in precisely the way it does not.
He might not be entirely wrong. They're still not going to sell any to the general public, though, especially if it is carcinogenic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave#Health_effects:~:tex...
I've flagged comments on both sides of this flamewar. If I haven't gone further, that's because I don't want to give rise to howls of protest about moderating HN to somehow benefit YC companies. Moderating less in such cases is literally the first thing pg taught me about moderating HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
I understand what it feels like to be an embattled minority in a forum thread, but if you represent your community the way you've been doing here, you're actually hurting it, which is a bad trade to make for the momentary relief of venting frustration. I don't disagree with you about the underlying points. But as I tell startups all the time (YC and others) the important thing is always the silent audience. To the extent that there are undecided readers weighing arguments, you're giving them additional reasons to disagree with your position, which (again) doesn't help. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Edit: nevermind, they did Google him.
Like does Lambda not have access to Wilson Sonsini lawyers like the rest of their cohort? Or more plausibly, are they just willfully ignorant towards wanting to make sure they play by every rule (e.g. hire lawyers) that comes into their chosen market? Move fast and break things am I right?
I don't describe myself as a "growth hacker" anywhere that I'm aware of.
> don't be surprised when a bunch of aspiring hackers/techies get annoyed when they see people who do bend the rules to their gain (financial or otherwise) despite having access to the worlds most prominent investors (read -> resources) and seemingly don't do their homework.
Not everything is so black and white. What is more likely is that some lawyer gave an opinion that Lambda School's offering could be interpreted as an educational loan and qualify as such (pretty clearly actually, given that the contract was written by a lawyer), and maybe even said that if they got sued here the remedy would likely be to just clarify the definition.
> Like does Lambda not have access to Wilson Sonsini lawyers like the rest of their cohort?
YC has in-house legal counsel now, and Lambda is an old enough company to have their own counsel. In any case, obviously a lawyer wrote the contract and gave an opinion that doesn't agree with your own expert legal opinion.
> Move fast and break things am I right?
Hopefully! We need a lot more of that in the world. More Zuckerbergs, more Travis Kalaniks. The more the better.
Sorry, growth consultant. Maybe it's fair to say the two are interchangeable, maybe not. I'd at least assume the same when someone uses the word growth instead of revenue/sales/marketing. Might help to not pontificate about what the term "growth hacking" is if you don't want to be associated with it: https://jamiequint.substack.com/p/growth-hacking-a-primer
> In any case, obviously a lawyer wrote the contract and gave an opinion that doesn't agree with your own expert legal opinion.
Where did I give my legal opinion? The fact is they had to settle to "undergo a review of its marketing materials to ensure that the information is accurate". This case wasn't about some doubt about legalese, but rather about how they presented themselves, hence the word "deception". It doesn't take a lawyer to know what that word means.
> More Zuckerbergs, more Travis Kalaniks. The more the better.
I think you'll understand why people are being critical of you now.
> Lambda's model that they're understandably excited about here
You seemingly imply their bizarre positivity to being forced to stop their deceptive practices is a merely a result of them being excited about their model.
How does that track at all? What does one have to do with the other?
And on top of all that, you started by calling a critical response to their extreme positivity in the face of regulation for deceptive business practices "bizarre grumpishness."