> because we have aligned incentives [with our students] - we only make money if they do. If you sign up all students and do nothing further, you still get your 7%. That is not aligned. To align incentives you would have to align the students payments with how much you improved their outcomes - much harder to do of course. I think your model has the same risks as real estate commissions where the selling agent is hig…
I'd love to see a concept like this work but it is very difficult to truly align the incentives between recruiters and candidates or companies. Like you said it's just like real estate, a turnover game where the broker doesn't really care about optimal outcomes for the transacting parties.
That said this could still add a lot of value for students - I certainly had no clue about career paths when I was in school. So I hope they figure out a way to make it work for everyone.