According to who? For those that have successfully retrained from school teachers and shop technicians and into software devs, more than doubling their pay, I think they would consider it quite good. That they're working in the industry, despite whatever aspersions get cast their way, they're still working there and bringing home the bacon. The monetary specifics of the deal may be sour to some, even the successful ones, as the linked article talks about ($40k is a lot of money, even if you're making $100k!), but $100k is nothing to sneeze at if you were making $50k before.
> more than doubling their pay
What percentage of the attendants are able to do so?
This is highly unlikely in today's environment, if it was even possible before: The jobs that paid 100k to retrained school teachers and shop technicians are gone and not coming back.
I think his point is that an ISA prevents you from owing money if the program didn’t benefit you. Traditional tuition must be paid whether or not you use the education in a new job. So for a person who isn’t confident they’ll get a better job, owing traditional tuition can be risky.
I’m just explaining, not advocating for the point of view.
When you say “is not typically considered something good” are you making an appeal to bourgeois norms or is there some other interpretation that isn’t about looking down on the kind of people who don’t go to university?
Well I recently read about this so-called „Lambda School“ which was kinda fraud(ish), apparently? But I guess truth is a liberal, sorry: bourgeois, concept.
How is truth a bourgeois concept? I can see how sneering at the kind of people who go to either a military or a software development boot camp is bourgeois; there’s the fear of being confused with people of adjacent but inferior class position. I don’t see how truth is bourgeois. Could you explain?
The point is you injected a loaded political term into a thread that is literally about boot camps having little value.