141–150 of 306 posts
The language violates the new California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), which took effect this year At the risk of being misconstrued as defending predatory practices, it sounds like they quickly reached an agreement to comply with legal stuff that probably didn't exist when they wrote the language that's being updated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH this article makes me more confident that Lambda is overall Good. They found a single program that was substantially deficient, some disorganized operations, and some exaggerated marketing claims. It's starting a new form of education! There are going to be operational headaches and a few misses! While the referenced cases aren't good, we can assess Lambda on their overall contribution, not their mistakes alone.
> While the referenced cases aren't good, not their mistakes alone Check notes: "notify students that the bankruptcy dischargeability provision language is not accurate" Just to be clear this isn't a "mistake" this is fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your bizarre cheeriness in the face of "Agreeing to End Deceptive Educational Financing Practices" is offputting, especially when coupled with the way college financing has led to generational deadweight, anxiety, and hopelessness.
What's he supposed to do? Rant about the government? Making the best of it and moving on is probably the best move, since it doesn't sound like a big hit to their business. 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?
But if you lie about it, then...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a bizarre response. Really, its standard corporate spin when accepting a settlement, “We’re super happy to work with regulators to make things better.” When, of course, if the company had any interest in making things better the regulator would never have needed to get involved in the first place. Obviously, its deceptive, but its not bizarre, its just making PR lemonade out of PR lemons.
You can't seriously believe that regulators have completely clean motives and actions. I'm still getting up to date on what happened here, but corporate malfeasance isn't incompatible with aggressive and even corrupt regulation. In fact my starting place is that both are likely. What I reject is the claim that the State only steps in and takes action if the party they're investigating has done something wrong. That's…
Since nothing in the comment you are responding to implies, or even has anything to do with, that, I’m not sure, other than love of pure non-sequitur, you would post that.
Reading this, I'm actually not sure if Lambda implied the tuition wasn't dischargeable in bankruptcy when it actually is, or the other way around. If you sign up for Lambda and then go bankrupt, do you still have to pay them back?
They implied it couldn't be discharged. It can apparently.
> ...a qualified educational loan…subject to the limitations on dischargeability contained in…the United States Bankruptcy Code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH this article makes me more confident that Lambda is overall Good. They found a single program that was substantially deficient, some disorganized operations, and some exaggerated marketing claims. It's starting a new form of education! There are going to be operational headaches and a few misses! While the referenced cases aren't good, we can assess Lambda on their overall contribution, not their mistakes alone.
> While the referenced cases aren't good, not their mistakes alone Check notes: "notify students that the bankruptcy dischargeability provision language is not accurate" Just to be clear this isn't a "mistake" this is fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about being attractive, it's about ex-students not declaring bankruptcy because they think it won't remove their lambda school loans. Thus lambda school keeps getting money from them instead of getting nothing after they decide to declare bankruptcy. That clause was, in my eyes, clearly designed to discourage students from exercising their ability to clear debts via bankruptcy.
I've seen this point made elsewhere too, but I'm not sure I understand it. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the law not obvious? There are a handful of things that are exempt from bankruptcy, "income sharing" isn't one of those things. Going through the list of exempted items, I can't find a single one where I go "oh, yes that sort of applies". http://www.californiabankruptcy.info/exemptions.html
Well, student loans _are_ one of those things. ISAs seem a lot closer to "student loans" than, like, a new boat. I don't think this is totally unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They implied it couldn't be discharged. It can apparently.
They did more than imply that it was protected from bankruptcy; they made the claim directly in their contract with students: > ...a qualified educational loan…subject to the limitations on dischargeability contained in…the United States Bankruptcy Code.