On what Lambda School is and is not | Hacker News Reader

On what Lambda School is and is not

twitter.com

19 pointsaresant5 comments

I don't think it really "debunks" the criticism, but this Twitter thread is a valid perspective, written cogently by a very motivated student, without procrastrination tendencies (four kids to feed!).

That last part probably is a big part why Lambda School is working for him.

I think it at least debunks the claim that "Lambda School was a scam". It may have a lot of faults, and it may not be the best way to get training, but it's not a scam.

If your definition of scam excludes those with at least one successful investor (of time, money, etc), then virtually all Ponzi schemes aren't scams. The early investors win, the later ones lose.

It seems with Lambda school there do in fact exist successful candidates. But for a school advertising for everyone, and advertising a particular way of financing education, a majority are left holding the bag with a substandard education. And the school isn't even keeping its skin in the game by securitizing the loans and selling them off at 50%.

You decide if that's scam worthy.

There is a difference between a "scam" business and a "failed" business. The scam business never had any intent on doing what they promised. The failed business planned on doing something, but for whatever reason, was not able to do it successfully.

It is not realistic to have a 100% graduation rate. Obviously, some people will fail/not complete any training. A lot of that has to do with the expectations and commitment of the students.

Lambda is not a "scam". They have every intention of actually teaching and training people to become successful Engineers. They might be making numerous mistakes. They might even be doing a poor job. But they are not a "scam". People are successfully learning and getting jobs. Even if the real rate is closer to 50% instead of 80%.

If being manipulative in marketing makes the company a scam, then pretty much every company is a scam.

I think it is completely fair to critique Lambda and to point out deceptive promises. However, when you go overboard and try to characterize the whole business as a "scam", I think you are going too far. When you go overboard like that, you actually hurt your own argument.

I agree with your overall point here, but I just wanted to throw it out there that initially Charles Ponzi did intend to do what he set out to do in the original Ponzi Scheme, so I'm not sure if that is a useful metric. It seems like plenty of scams start off with good intentions, decide to fake it until they make it, but never end up making it. See also: the whole Theranos debacle.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi#Origin_of_the_te...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos

Reply on news.ycombinator.com