It's charging those who are less risk accepting more money, but risk aversion is a reasonable thing to pay a premium for. Its perfectly reasonable to view $48,000 if it gets me a job paying $60,000 a year for four years as being a better deal than $10,000 unconditionally.
OTOH, a high ISA multiplier should be a sign of a low expected successful placement rate.
True, but I doubt you could find hiring data that supports a 4x higher employment rate among ISA cohorts.
If bootcamps wanted to publish they're employment rate and average salary for both cohorts so students could do the math that would be better.
My guess is employment and salary are much more tied to ability and location than thyey are to wether you opt in to an ISA.
Sure, but the disutility of a $12,000 bill for four years when making $60,000 may be much less than five times a single $10,000 bill when making whatever you’d make if the bootcamp didn't payoff. The impact of $1 isn't equivalent across different income circumstances. You have to account for both success rate and declining marginal utility of income with greater income.