Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Edit: I've been informed on a side channel that non-disparagement clauses can no longer be enforced. IANAL--can someone elaborate?) As someone who was a low-ranking insider at Lambda some years back, it was my perception that the people calling Lambda out presented a mixed bag in terms of veracity. Someone here commenting on this story said that Lambda counted their student TAs in their employment stats, for example…
> Someone here commenting on this story said that Lambda counted their student TAs in their employment stats, for example, but to the best of my knowledge this never happened. There were a handful (like three or four that I know of) that we did hire as full-time staff doing real jobs, and I'm pretty sure we counted them as employed, but not the student TAs. That's true. A source of confusion is that the school did hi…
But to be clear, that's not where they said they got the $4000 number. It would be one of those things that'd be nice to correctly know. Do ISAs come with a hidden $4000 fee? The answer: no. Did they have to pay $4000 more because of additional training? No. Did the ISAs last 8 years? No. (At least not for any of the years I was there.)
> Given the ISAs disappeared from the marketplaces that resold them to hedge funds, that sounds like exactly what happened.
I have no knowledge of their final disposition, whether or not the purchasers realized gains on the ISAs.
I know other companies like App Academy and Launch School have had successes with ISAs. For me, this is the real pisser of all this. I think done right it's a workable, useful model, but it got dragged through the mud here, and now we're left with the same old bullshit loans that are fucking the country over. I don't care about Lambda, but I really wish ISAs had been worked on to greater effect globally and hadn't gotten this tarnished image.
> A few people on the internet getting the details wrong doesn't invalidate that.
Of course not. But it also doesn't make the wrong details right, or something you should believe, which is what this subthread is all about.
How can we be expected to make any learned decisions about these sorts of financing instruments if we're throwing bad information in with the good?