1. The total cost (5k direct[1], 9k ISA) is significantly cheaper than Lambda: do you see that as a reflection on the cost sensitivity of the European market or is there a reason your model allows for lower-cost execution?
2. The ISA model gives the school a vested interest in the career outcomes of students, but Lambda has highlighted that ISAs can become a debt product that is resold: do you see that model (of reselling ISAs) as part of Turing College's future?
3. Lambda has had problems with new courses being unable to deliver on the promised quality: how do you see the next few years of growth for Turing, do you expect to introduce new courses based on demand or do you expect to build out new curriculums (and test with whole cohorts) before introducing them?
4. What's the relationship between supervisors and Turing? The team page notes that these people are part-time with Turing: how do you ensure that they're able to deliver the valuable mentorship required by students? Are they volunteering? Paid per hour? How does their mentorship accommodate students that require more support than average? Does their commitment to Turing come before their work, with their employers supporting?
Very promising proposition, team etc: very interested to hear answers to the above to better understand how you are approaching the more challenging aspects.
[1] I'm an employed Software Engineer but at that price it's very tempting to enroll to build out my data science skills.