Anyone who has worked in the industry knows that most software projects fail for human reasons, not technical ones.
Like, who was going to be opening up Photoshop or In Design or Figma or whatever? Who was going to be slicing designs into HTML/CSS? Who was going to be implementing interactive prototypes and putting them in front of users? Who was responsible for ensuring that communication between the UX side and the technical side was happening effectively?
Who were the product and project managers (in title or de facto) and were they clear that this was their job?
In your interview with Vincent Woo, you said that "reviews were fine" for the UX cohort and then they suddenly fell off the cliff once labs began. This story more or less explains why: the students were strung along (intentionally or not) with the promise that it was labs that matters.
Once in labs, they find out: https://twitter.com/watsonwaswrite/status/123090468067232154...
If that was the promise, why wouldn't LS move heaven and Earth to make sure that labs was a home run? Why wouldn't LS ensure every student in the group project was crystal clear on expectations? Why wouldn't LS do a dry run version of the capstone project across cohorts to control for unanticipated group dynamics? Ensure that everyone in the web and UX cohorts has worked with at least 5-10 different people cross-functionally before capstone time?
And fine, maybe you "call an audible" — lord knows we had to do that at DBC. But why then wouldn't you then bring in 5-10 experienced project managers to facilitate things, communicate everything to everyone, and explain that this is what needs to happen to make the capstone a success for everyone?
Shouldn't asking and answering these questions before admitting a single student be table stakes?
The whole project seems half-baked from start to finish and this outcome 100% predictable.