Your website, September 2019: https://web.archive.org/web/20190930144525/https://lambdasch...
"86% of Lambda School graduates are hired within 6 months and make over $50k a year."
Let's run the math on current outcomes, which I believe you've called, "the best they've ever been." 994 students graduated and 453 got a job making $50k or more. We're already at 45%, and that's before narrowing it down to, "within six months."
You may try to argue, "Not all of those 994 students count as 'job seeking,'" as if it's totally normal that 32% of graduates give up looking for jobs. That's moot. There was no fine print.
Would you mind sharing whether or not your outcomes report includes the upset students you pressured into signing NDAs?
> There was never any attempt to flaunt or "dodge" regulators, and this never affected the experience any student had in any way.
They told you to cease operation. You didn't. After the BPPE news came to light, you told students that no school has ever been shut down for continuing to operate.
One point of the lawsuits are the students who felt they should have been told about the whole BPPE situation before signing up. I get why you didn't want them to know, because according to the law, the ISAs issued before you were in compliance are invalid. Yet you're still trying to collect, which I'd say very much impacts students.
> Again, not true. We launched a program called "fellows" where companies didn't pay, but we paid the students, and if the company afterwards hired the student they would pay us back. It was successful and operates to this day.
When you unveiled the program, it was unpaid. It was right there in the FAQ: "This program is part of Lambda School for the Fellow and as such, is not paid." https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1329116385629245440
Within hours of the tech community calling you out on this, you apologized. Then you deleted the apology. I find it amazing that your strategy is to just pretend none of that happened.
> We had some language in the ISA to try to describe that mechanism as not requiring bankruptcy, but the DFPI in California said we should remove that clause.
Your contract said: "this extension of credit is a qualified educational loan and is subject to the limitations on dischargeability in bankruptcy contained in Section 523(a)(8) of the United States Bankruptcy Code."
It was not a qualified educational loan. Section 523(a)(8) is all about how student loans are not dischargeable.
https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/337/2021/04/CFP...
After you tried to spin that settlement, the DFPI called out your blog post as deceptive.
https://dfpi.ca.gov/2021/04/26/lambda-school-reaches-settlem...